Youth_Analysis_for_Strategic_Planning_-_FINAL_REPORT_(PUBLIC).pdf

Youth Analysis for Strategic Planning

28 November 2017

DISCLAIMER

The author’ views expressed in this draft do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States

Agency for International Development or the United States Government.

Acknowledgments

This report was written by Félix Maradiaga, from Instituto de Estudios Estratégicos y Políticas

Públicas (Institute for Strategic Planning and Public Policy, IEEPP).

The author wishes to recognize the contributions made by Elvira Cuadra, Donald Muñoz, Adelmo Sandino, Augusto Will, Benjamin García and USAID/Nicaragua staff to the initial workshop and the additional working sessions. The views expressed in this Youth Analysis are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or policies of the U.S.

Government.

About IEEPP

The Institute for Strategic Studies and Public Policy (Instituto de Estudios Estratégicos y

Políticas Públicas, IEEPP) is an independent “think-and-do tank” based in Nicaragua with a regional focus on Central America. Since its inception in 2003, IEEPP has been dedicated to supporting and improving citizen participation in public affairs, while providing conceptual and methodological support to citizens, decision-makers and NGOs with an interest in social inclusion and public policies for good governance.

IEEPP places a strong emphasis on the analysis of national and Central American issues that contribute to more democratic inclusive societies and transparent governments. Our research topics include transparency, good governance, social inclusion, human rights, violence prevention, and human security.

In terms of our work with civil society, we provide training, advice and evidence-based reform proposals to civil society leaders and transparency activists to make their work more effective.

Our methodologies are designed to go beyond traditional academic research methods to produce knowledge that is evidence-based and has practical value for advocacy groups and policy makers within state institutions, regional bodies, international cooperation agencies and academia.

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

Executive Summary

Section 1: Overview

Introduction

Macro Context

Socio-demographic Characteristics

Demographic Transition in Nicaragua

Policy Environment and Governmental Youth Development Programs

Public Expenditure in Youth Programs

Section 2: Strategic Priorities for the Mission and Associated Youth Challenges and

Opportunities

USAID’s Strategic Priorities for the Sector

Issues for Positive Youth Development from the Youth Perspective

Perceptions of Highly Skilled Youth, Civic Activists and Young Leaders in the Private

Sector

Areas of Interest for Young People in Nicaragua

Other Youth Constraints, Disparities and Opportunities

Youth Underemployment: a Major Bottleneck for Poverty Reduction

Entrepreneurship as an Opportunity

Low Quality Education: a Major Challenge Ahead

Adolescent-Girl Pregnancy (AGP)

Section 3: Cross-cutting issues

Civic and Political Engagement

The Perceptions of Sandinista Youth

Social Norms

Recommendations

Annexes

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This forward-looking document, commissioned by USAID/Nicaragua, applies the concept of positive youth development (PYD) to socio-economic, demographic, and digital behavior analysis. The analysis is aligned with the scope and aims of the anticipated Development

Objectives (DOs) that the Mission plans to include in its strategy to guide its work during the next five years. The Youth Analysis considers USAID/Nicaragua’s current areas of focus and the

Agency’s Youth in Development Policy objectives at the sectoral level which are to: 1)

Strengthen youth programming, participation, and partnership in support of Agency development objectives; and 2) Mainstream and integrate youth issues, and engage young people across

Agency initiatives and operations.

The results of this paper are based on three research methodologies: desk research, extensive field-research and data analysis using social media analytics. The study includes a set of specific recommendations for the ongoing Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS).

Consistent with the USAID youth development policy, this report focuses on the demographic cohort between the ages of 10 and 29.

The paper first presents a broad overview of the significant youth demographic characteristics and issues for Nicaragua at a macro level. The information in the Overview Section is based on desk research of the most relevant literature publicly available on Nicaraguan Youth published between 2000 and 2016 . Information was also compiled from 21 in-depth interviews

, eight focus groups with diverse stakeholders, and a “Public Policy Youth Camp” made up of 28 youth leaders. The focus groups included 87 young participants (54% women and 46% men) ages 14 to

30, and from diverse backgrounds and locations. In-depth interviews included young local leaders, managers of youth-led organizations, leaders of political organizations, NGO officials, community organizers, academics, researchers and online activists. The youth camp was designed to encourage brainstorming activities, foster innovative ideas, and generate public policies and development interventions that participants believe are essential to their development. It included youth leaders from 12 municipalities in Nicaragua, including Bilwi and

Bluefields.

The field-research and social media analytics research was conducted between April 24 and

September 23, 2017. The following tools were used to conduct the social media analytics research:

For a detailed description of the reviewed literature, see bibliography.

See Appendix A for a full list of interviewees

The Public Policy Youth Camp took place in Masaya, on August 26 and 27. IEEPP, The Carter Center and Global

Communities organized it. Although it was not part of the Work Plan, it provided valuable insights on the perspectives of youth leaders regarding youth-centric policies.

● An online survey of 830 young Nicaraguan individuals ages 16 to 30.

● Big data analytics from major social media platforms used by young people, using advanced analytics tools such as Google Analytics, Socialbakers Suite, Trendsmap, and Klout.

The Overview section also includes a brief description of the policy environment, as well as the national and subnational capacity to address youth inclusion and empowerment gaps. This includes whether the government has relevant action plans in place, varying commitment levels to different international agreements, and a snapshot of civil society’s efforts to engage and promote youth. Additionally, it includes a brief synopsis of initiatives relating to youth issues that donors are actively engaging in at a national level.

The second section—Mission’s Strategic Priorities and Associated Youth Challenges and

Opportunities—focuses on the analysis of existing challenges and opportunities for young people and identifies potential strategies for youth development. The three most pressing issues for youth development—as identified by youth themselves—are access to quality education, lack of quality employment opportunities, and the high rate of adolescent pregnancy (AGP). These three issues are not only consistently identified by specialized literature on youth in Nicaragua but are also the same key issues identified by interviewees and participants in the focus groups.

There is a prominent level of agreement on these issues with some varying perspectives. For example, youth from low-income communities and from the Caribbean Coast consider that lack of employment is the most significant bottleneck for their development. As income rises and the youth profile becomes more urban, the perspective on this same issue leans closer towards concerns about low-wages and underemployment (rather than unemployment per se) and lack of opportunities for entrepreneurs. Concerns on the quality of education are more pressing as income rises.

The interviews and survey results clearly state that training and the promotion of entrepreneurship rank highly in topics of interest for urban youth in Nicaragua. In contrast, some experts believe that it may be a “fad” triggered by several donor programs. Other experts and youth-led organizations believe that this is becoming an authentic movement due to the appeal of entrepreneurship as an empowering and “cool” activity among youth, as well as its potential to generate employment.

AGP tends to be more clearly identified as a problem by youth leaders, activists and volunteers but is not immediately identified as such by average youth. Other topics such as political participation, violence, and drugs, were surprisingly ranked as issues of low concern by most youth, particularly in the Pacific. Youth from Bluefields, Bilwi, Rivas, Jinotega, Matagalpa, and

Granada tend to identify sexual abuse as a more pressing issue in comparison to youth from other parts of the country. Topics such as access to the arts, recreation and technology were ranked as second-tier concerns by most youth.

Please notice that this sample is not entirely representative of Nicaraguan youth in the sense that it over-represents the view of university students, which are not the majority of youth in Nicaragua. 62.1% of respondents have a university degree or are in the process of completing an undergraduate education.

Specific sub-groups of youth such as youth from ethnic minorities and LGBTQ face risks that must be analyzed from a human rights approach, as well as from demographic and development perspectives. For example, for interviewees from the Caribbean Coast regions, drugs were considered one of the top challenges for youth.

LGBTQ youth from across the country reported elevated levels of harassment and discrimination.

The Cross-Cutting Issues section covers issues not identified in the specific sector analysis above that may warrant attention, such as political participation and social norms. The report also concludes that most young people in Nicaragua—despite the lack of interest in political activities—express interest in altruistic initiatives, volunteering to help their local communities and issues of social justice.

Many of the participants expressed their desire to improve the state of their immediate communities through social work and volunteering. These responses confirm our assumptions from the data analytics process and focus groups, which indicates that during adolescence, people do indeed become more altruistic towards those in their immediate social network

(family, school, community, neighbors, etc.), but find it difficult to connect with “national” or

“international causes”. In that regard, adolescents (age 10 to 19) and young adults (20 to 23) are significantly more parochial and less generous towards “outsiders.”

Older participants (between the ages of 25-30 years of age) are more interested in long-term volunteer activities with CSOs and are more willing to participate in social and political causes beyond local charities. They are also more inclined to defend women’s rights, express tolerance towards ethnic and sexual minorities, and also support the human rights of these minorities.

Younger participants below the age of 25 prefer volunteer initiatives that are more immediate to them, such as social good campaigns and promoting sports events.

The Recommendations section proposes a set of actionable objectives with their respective results and indicators. These suggested objectives can serve as inputs for the strategic planning process towards USAID’s next CDCS. The concluding section summarizes the most important findings of the study.

This is consistent with the findings of the “Final Baseline Report on Citizen Security in the Northern

Caribbean Coast in Nicaragua and Targeted Municipalities of the Northern and Southern Borders” (March 2016), prepared for USAID by as part of the Latin American Public Opinion Project (LAPOP).

Section 1: OVERVIEW

a) Introduction

The world is home to almost 2 billion young people between the ages of 10 and 29, the largest youth population in human history. By 2030, the number of youth is projected to grow by 7%.

Low-income countries have relatively high youth populations and are often unprepared to respond to their specific needs, challenges, and expectations for the future — let alone capitalize on their potential. In addition, the rate of youth population growth is faster in these countries.

There are approximately 156 million young people between the ages of 15 and 29 in Latin

America and the Caribbean, which is about 25% of the region’s total population (the highest level since the 1980s).

Latin American “youth populations have stabilized in size and are projected to change little over the coming decades” (figure 1)

Figure 1: Youth aged 15-24 years, by region, 1950 – 2060

Nicaragua, one of the poorest nations in Latin America, is among the fastest-growing and youngest populations in the hemisphere. Over 67% of the Nicaraguan population is under 30.

This demographic reality results in enormous challenges for both national policies and for development interventions from the donor community. Regarding poverty reduction measured by the availability of income, Nicaragua has evolved positively over the last two decades

However, poverty and extreme poverty continue to be disproportionately concentrated among rural children and youth, individuals from ethnic minorities—particularly in the Caribbean

Coast—and youth with some form of disability.

United Nations Youth. Regional Overview for Latin America. New York, 2013. Available at:

http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/documents/youth/fact-sheets/youth-regional-eclac.pdf United Nations’ Department of Economic and Social Affairs (Populations Division). “Populations Facts.” March

2015. Available at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/documents/youth/fact-sheets/YouthPOP.pdf Nicaragua’s most recent official poverty estimates are from 2005 and lacks precise estimates on poverty reduction.

For a detailed analysis of the correlation between poverty and age, see Felix Maradiaga Blandon et. al. (IEEPP, UNICEF and INIDE) “Infancia y Pobreza en Nicaragua: Contexto, Retos y Perspectivas”, included as a chapter of

Young people in Nicaragua are particularly vulnerable to exclusion from several resources essential to their full human development. In addition, girls and young women, particularly those from low-income households, rural communities, and ethnic minorities, must grapple with many serious social, economic and environmental challenges. Youth that fall in the aforementioned categories are generally excluded from policy decisions. One of the major focus group findings is that the public narrative of youth participation in politics and national decision-making contrasts with the fact that youth perspectives are absent in most national strategies for poverty reduction and sustainable development in Nicaragua.

Despite the fact that youth in Nicaragua confront a series of challenges, the current demographic profile represents a window of opportunity for the country. By optimizing their young population’s energy, creativity, and potential for social innovation, the country can prepare itself to reduce poverty and improve social inclusion.

Nicaragua also shows very positive results in security for children and youth. According to official statistics, homicide rates are 7 per 100,000, which are among the lowest in the hemisphere and radically different when compared to neighboring countries such as Honduras and El Salvador, which have some of highest homicide rates in the world.

The country is also recognized for the absence of the “Mara Salvatrucha” or MS-13 gang phenomena which is a serious threat to other countries in Central America’s “northern triangle” (Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala). Similarly, gun violence is among the lowest in the Americas, although many dispute the official statistics.

Despite this comparatively positive landscape, youth in Nicaragua face other types of security challenges. In Section 2—Mission’s Strategic Priorities and Associated Youth Challenges and

Opportunities—we will present the contrasting reality of Pacific inland youth versus Caribbean coast youth. Sexual abuse, which will be discussed in a later section, is perceived by youth to be a prominent and growing issue. In an annex, we will also present a summary of IEEPP’s survey results from the Encuesta de Percepción Ciudadana sobre la Seguridad (Citizen’s Perception on

Security Survey), specifically showing the perceptions of young people ages 16 to 29 on several security issues. It is worth mentioning that theft, domestic violence and illegal drug are perceived as severe problems by youth, particularly by individuals from the coastal regions.

The country also performs poorly in several other areas that are essential to youth development.

Youth employment, education, and adolescent-girl pregnancy (AGP) are areas of great concern.

Furthermore, opportunities for young people’s political participation and youth engagement are seriously, and sometimes violently curtailed. These specific constraints and disparities will also be further discussed in Section 2.

Nicaragua Bienestar y Equidad en la Infancia Estudio sobre Pobreza Infantil y Disparidades (UNICEF, Managua

2009); available at: https://www.unicef.org/socialpolicy/files/Nicaragua_Spanish.pdf

In 2015 and 2016, El Salvador reported most homicides in Latin America. The National Civil Police registered

5,278 murders in 2016 for a homicide rate of 81.2 per 100,000, down from the 104 per 100,000 recorded in 2015.

Honduras has seen homicides fall since reaching a peak of 86.5 per 100,000 in 2011 but continues to have some of the highest homicide rates in the Americas (59 per 100,000).

b) Macro Context

Socio-demographic characteristics

There are various limitations that prevent a thorough demographic analysis of youth in

Nicaragua. For example, the lack of a recent census and insufficient data disaggregated by age or ethnic groups made the analysis of youth unemployment and ethnic minorities particularly challenging. Also, when referring to “youth,” national statistics or government programs may arbitrarily use different definitions. For example, Law 287 or “Código de la Niñez y la

Adolescencia de Nicaragua defines “adolescents” as individuals between the ages of 13 to 18 and Law 287 (Ley de Promoción del Desarrollo Integral de la Juventud) defines youth as an individual between the ages of 18 to 30.

According to the last official census conducted in 2005, there were 623,000 adolescents (men and women ages 13 to 17), and 1.18 million young people (ages 18 to 29) which represented

35% of the total population. Over the last two decades, the country transitioned demographically from high birth and death rates to low birth and low death rates. The Nicaraguan infant population below 15 years of age has steadily decreased at an annual rate of -0.19%. At the same time, the fertility rate for women has almost halved and the working-age population rose from

51% to 58%.

Nicaragua now has the largest working-age population in its entire history. This phenomenon places youth at the forefront of development opportunities for the country over the next two decades.

As per population projections by the Economic Commission for Latin America and the

Caribbean (ECLAC) for 2015, young people between the ages of 10 and 29 represent 38.8% of the total population estimated at 6,085,528 million people. The widest segment of the population is located between 15 and 34 years of age; these are adolescents and young adults who possess full productive capacity. As illustrated in Table 1, each age group represents almost 10% of the total population.

Table 1: Distribution and percentage of the population according to age ranges.

Total population 6.085,528

Age ranges Total Percentage

10-14 604,065 9.92

15-19 603,286 9.90

20-24 591,141 9.71

25-29 564,768 9.28

Percentage 38.81

Op/ Cit. Bienestar y Equidad en la Infancia Estudio sobre Pobreza Infantil y Disparidades (UNICEF, INIDE, IEEPP)

Managua, 2009. Page 8.

Source: CELADE/ECLAC (2015).

With a median age of 22, Nicaragua possesses one of the youngest populations in Latin America.

Demographically, youth in Nicaragua constitute the largest population group as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Distribution of the population in Nicaragua by sex and age. 2015

Source: CEPALSTAT. National Socio-demographic profile.

The Caribbean Coast: socio-demographic characteristics, indigenous communities and afro-descendants

It was not possible to obtain recent official data on the socio-demographic characteristics of youth in the autonomous regions of the Caribbean Coast. The most recent data available was from a census conducted in 2005 but it was not as comprehensive for this region as it was for the rest of the country.

The only reliable data was limited to the Autonomous Region of the

Southern Caribbean Coast (RACCS), but no disaggregated data from INIDE could be collected for the Autonomous Region of the Northern Caribbean Coast (RACCN).

However, there are several informative independent assessments available from the

Development Model for At-risk Youth project implemented by the Foundation for the Autonomy and Development of Nicaragua’s Atlantic Caribbean Coast (Fundación para la Autonomía y el

Desarrollo de la Costa Atlántica de Nicaragua, FADCANIC). They focus on the municipalities of Bluefields, Kukra Hill, Corn Island, Laguna de Perlas, and Desembocadura del Rio Grande but also offer valuable insights into the socio-demographic characteristics of youth in the wider

Caribbean Coast.

The research team also reviewed the “Vigencia de la Autonomía en la Costa Caribe Sur” survey, Authorities such as INIDE use estimates and projections based on the 2005 Census. However, most statistics experts consulted agreed that the information on ethnic minorities, particularly in the Northern Region, is not reliable. It is possible that some ethnic minority groups are underrepresented.

commissioned by USAID/Nicaragua and prepared by the American Institutes for Research

(AIR), which also focuses on the aforementioned municipalities, as well as the UNDP’s Informe de Desarrollo Humano 2011 “Las Juventudes Construyendo Nicaragua.” The UNDP Human

Development Report used data from the 2005 census to draw important inferences on the demographic distributions of indigenous communities in both RACCS and RACCN.

Based on the available data, the RACCN has the highest population percentage below the age of

15 (49.6%) in Nicaragua. By 2020, it is expected that the two autonomous regions of the

Caribbean Coast—together with Jinotega and Río San Juan—will have the largest youth populations below the age 29 in Nicaragua. The RACCN also has the greatest proportion of youth who identify as indigenous or afro descendant (57.5%), followed by the RACCS with 25%

(see Figure 3).

This presents a very diverse population when compared to the entire country where only 8.4% of the total youth self-identify as either indigenous or afro-descendant.

Figure 3: Youth self-identification as indigenous or afro-descendant (UNDP, 2011)

Table 2: RACCS population distribution by age Age range Population) %

10 – 14 48,350 12.7

15 – 19 44,731 11.7

20 – 24 41,155 10.8

25 – 29 33,681 8.8

Total 380,121 --

Source: BICU-UNFPA, 2015.

Table 3: RACCS ethnic makeup

Ethnic identity %

Rama 0.7

Garífuna 1.7

Ulwa 1.1

Miskito 11.0

Creole (Kriol) 30.0

Caribbean Coast Mestizo 54.6

Others 0.2

Source: Universidad de la Regiones Autónomas de la Costa Caribe de Nicaragua, URACCAN, 1997. Various sources show different ethnic populations makeup for the region.

UNDP. Las Juventudes Construyendo Nicaragua. Informe Nacional Sobre Desarrollo Humano. Managua, 2011.

Pages 55-57.

One out of every five (20%) young Nicaraguans ages 14 to 29 that self-identifies as “indigenous” is a Caribbean Mestizo. Out of this self-identified group, 56% lives in the RACCN and 41% in the RACCS. In terms of size, the Miskitu youth population is larger than the mestizo youth population in the Caribbean Coast. However, mestizo communities, both adults and youth, have considerably higher rates of human development (UNDP, 2011), specifically with access to health, education and employment. The Miskitu, Mayagna-Sumu, Rama and Garifuna communities are among the sub-groups with the highest levels of social exclusion as identified by previous assessments conducted by IEEPP and LAPOP:

“Creoles, Miskitos, and Ulwas mainly feel discriminated against by Mestizos, but

Miskitos and Ulwas also feel discriminated against by Creoles. Moreover, Ulwas feel discriminated against by Miskitos. It appears that the smaller the minority group, the more they feel discriminated against by larger ethnic groups (…) In Nicaragua, less than

5% of indigenous people from rural areas, ages 20 to 29, have thirteen or more years of education. (ECLAC, 2014 cited by IEEPP 2017)”

The results from the desk research and the field research reveal macro-level differences in between youth experiences in the autonomous regions of the Caribbean and youth experiences in the Pacific inlands and mountainous regions of Nicaragua. These differences require the development of context specific youth policies for a variety of reasons. For example, focus groups participants from the RACCS and the RACCN highlighted the following items:

● Perceptions of unemployment rates are much higher when compared to their peers in the

Pacific. The youth in RAACS and RACCN also see fewer opportunities in the private sector and have access to a much smaller youth civil society ecosystem.

● Higher sense of insecurity than youth from focus groups in the Pacific regions, as well as stronger negative perceptions of police authorities and the military.

● Drug trafficking—particularly in coastal communities—is often referred to as an economic activity that has some degree of “legitimacy”. Based on the interviews, young people consider it within their employment opportunities due to the lack of alternatives.

● Youth from RACCS and RACCN tend to have stronger positive perceptions of local churches as key institutions that mentor and support youth.

● Migration patterns:

o National studies on migration indicate that Nicaraguans ages 16 to 25 have the highest propensity to migrate

. About 20% of Nicaraguan nationals live abroad.

Nicaraguan youth from the Caribbean Coast have a higher propensity to migrate than youth from the Pacific inlands.

o Youth from RACCS and RACCN tended to express a higher propensity to migrate than youth from the Pacific inlands. For example, youth from Bluefields with higher than average education levels overwhelmingly tend to migrate to

Managua in search of jobs at “call centers” or other economic opportunities.

There are also temporary migration patterns unique to the Caribbean, such as

“shipping out” (working with ships for several months) and the fishing season.

See Pellegrín, Emma. “Estudio sobre la migración en comunidades vulnerables al cambio climático en

Nicaragua” for example. Servicio Jesuita para Migrantes. Managua. September 2015.

o Historically, Nicaragua has had a significant brain drain

— the emigration of highly trained people from a particular country—but this trend is considerably higher among educated youth from the Caribbean.

● Ethnic dynamics in RACCS and RACCN are complex in both: attitudes of minorities toward mestizos and attitudes within minority groups themselves. These complexities transcend the scope of this report but are widely addressed in the available literature.

Youth programs in the autonomous regions need to be strongly aware of these local sensitivities.

Demographic Transition in Nicaragua

Nicaragua is at a stage commonly referred to as a “demographic dividend”, a transition process where a significant population increase takes place, followed by a significant decline in birth and death rates. This demographic phase—if addressed correctly—offers a unique opportunity for poverty reduction. When a high percentage of the total population is working, more people have the potential to be productive and contribute to the economic growth.

According to the fifth State of the Region report, the demographic dividend in Nicaragua will last until 2035, implying that the window of opportunity extends a few years beyond 2040

However, according to the same report, Nicaragua has not made sufficient efforts to fully leverage this opportunity. The most relevant factors relate to increased food demand, expansion of coverage for education and health services, increased job creation and more access to quality employment opportunities. However, there are other challenges that relate to supporting youth in strengthening their civic participation at a national level and acquiring the skills to participate in an increasingly integrated regional economy.

The demographic dividend is also an opportunity to reduce poverty, and to build a vibrant middle class and a peaceful society for the next generations of Nicaraguans. In terms of the macro-context, the country-specific development hypothesis of this report is that USAID can add significant value to help Nicaragua capitalize on this favorable population trend by focusing on key areas as described in Section 2.

Our demographic transition analysis would be incomplete without mentioning migration. This study has identified noteworthy trends and findings when compared to other migration studies conducted in the past. Although our population sample was not statistically significant, the following results should be taken into account:

- One of out every three young Nicaraguans would like to leave the country permanently in search of better opportunities.

- Seven out of every ten young Nicaraguans would like to leave the country temporarily to study abroad or in search of international job experience.

See: Zuniga, Leonor. Estudio Migratorio de Nicaragua. INCEDES & Sin Fronteras.

Alberto Mora Román, et. al., Quinto Informe del Estado de la Región (2016), Programa Estado de la Región. Page

88.

- 25% of the interviewees have a family member living abroad.

- Approximately 10% of the interviewees mentioned they have received some type of remittance from a family member living abroad, and 7% receives them on a regular basis

(at least 3 times per year). These funds are primarily used to fund “academic studies.”

- The preferred destinations for young people to study broad or gain work experience include: the U.S. (30%), Spain (20%), Germany (15%), Costa Rica (15%), Panama

(10%), and other countries (10%) including Mexico, Chile, Brazil, and Taiwan.

In addition to the information mentioned above, we noticed – based on qualitative information, not empirical – that the groups with the highest probability of traveling abroad include young people that:

- Have finished secondary school, no longer study, don’t work, and are between the ages of

20 and 23.

- Have completed their university studies and have completed post-graduate studies, and are between the ages of 25 and 30.

Based on the aforementioned trends, we can infer that Nicaraguan migration patterns tend to negatively impact the middle class by hindering or reducing growth. The highest population of potential migrants is not found in groups that experience extreme poverty or that possess low education levels. To the contrary, young people with the highest levels of education and that have difficulties entering the job market have the highest probability of migrating out of the country. Our assumption is that under circumstances of lower migration, these individuals would be new middle class constituents.

Although the population sample was small, these findings are comparable to other research studies conducted in the past including “Nicaragua Migration Profile” (Perfil Migratorio de

Nicaragua) completed by the Europeans Union in 2013. This study estimated that approximately

139,000 university educated Nicaraguans have left the country in the past four decades. 7% of

Nicaraguans that possess university degrees live outside of Nicaragua. The study states that

“Nicaragua is the Central American country with the highest “brain drain” (19.4%), followed by

El Salvador (18%) and Honduras (15%).”

Policy Environment and Governmental Youth Development Programs

Since 2001, Nicaragua has made considerable progress in developing youth policies and laws relevant to youth rights. For example, in May 2001, after a nationwide dialogue process

Deutsche Welle. “Unos 40.000 nicaragüenses emigran cada año.” Organización Internacional para las

Migraciones (OIM), Fundación Internacional para Iberoamérica de Administración y Políticas Públicas (FIIAPP) and European Union. August 2013. Available at: http://www.dw.com/es/estudio-unos-40000-nicarag%C3%BCenses-emigran-cada-a%C3%B1o/a-17052696 Retrieved October 30, 2017 http://www.dw.com/es/estudio-unos-40000-nicarag%C3%BCenses-emigran-cada-a%C3%B1o/a-17052696 http://www.dw.com/es/estudio-unos-40000-nicarag%C3%BCenses-emigran-cada-a%C3%B1o/a-17052696 coordinated by the National Youth Council—at the time, a national umbrella organization for youth-led CSOs—Nicaragua’s legislative branch approved the “law for the promotion of the integral development of youth”. In 2002, the country adopted its first National Youth Policy

(Política para el Desarrollo Integral de la Juventud), and in 2005 the “Action Plan for Youth” was approved.

Over the past decade, Nicaragua has also developed public policies in a range of areas such as education and training, gender, disability, and sexual and reproductive health. In 2006, the

Frente Sandinista de Liberación Nacional (FSLN) won the country's presidential election and took office in January 2007. Despite government changes in 2007, the National Youth Policy was among the few national policies that did not suffer formal changes.

Nicaragua has continued to adopt a number of national and international frameworks—including a Caribbean Coast youth policy in 2011—and worked with international organizations to develop programs that seek to improve the lives of young people. In 2013, the Government of Nicaragua

(GON) created the “Ministerio de la Juventud” (Ministry of Youth), which rebranded the

“Instituto de la Juventud” (Institute for Youth) created under the National Youth Policy of 2002.

With the new ministry, the GON consolidated several youth programs from other public entities and placed them under the umbrella of the new ministry. The Ministry of Youth budget increased from US$870,000 in 2013 to US$3,127,000 in 2016. However, this increase was mostly due to the redistribution of programs from other ministries into the new Ministry of Youth. Aggregated expenditures in youth-specific development programs—not included in the Ministries of

Education and Health expenditures—are approximately US$3,700,000 a year.

Public expenditure in Youth Programs

In terms of budgeting, we can infer that most public expenditures devoted to youth development in Nicaragua are composed of various fund allocations made to the functional area known as the

“social expenditure.” Social expenditure is divided into various categories including education, health, social services, housing, and “recreational, cultural and religious services,” However, as it relates to program analysis, such expenditures are not disaggregated with sufficient levels of detail such as target population ages.

Nicaragua’s total national budget for 2017 is approximately US$2.663 billion

. The total social expenditure budget is approximately US$1.480 billion, which is 54.3% of the total national budget and 10.6% of their GDP. Education and health are key ministerial categories, jointly representing 43% of all social expenditure. The Nicaraguan budget system does provide information about public expenditure on children but does not allow tracking and monitoring of public expenditures on adolescents and youth due to the lack of disaggregated information by age. For example, studies such as “Infancia y Pobreza en Nicaragua: Contexto, Retos y

Perspectivas” (IEEPP – INIDE, 2009) or more recently CODENI

’s “Inversión en Niñez y

This does not include US$319.6 set apart to cover payments of public debt.

Op. Cit. “Infancia y Pobreza en Nicaragua: Contexto, Retos y Perspectivas” (IEEPP, INIDE). Managua, 2009

CODENI: Coordinating Federation of Non-Profit Organizations Working with Children and Adolescents

(Federación Coordinadora Nicaragüense de ONG que trabajan con la Niñez y la Adolescencia, CODENI)

Adolescencia (2017)” highlight significant information about public programs aimed at populations with ages 0 to 12. However, there is almost no information available relating to programs aimed at target groups ages 13 to 19.

The fact that there is limited public information does not mean that the GON is not making important investments in youth. In addition to investment in education and health which targets adolescents and youth, there are other programs that although not specifically labeled as youth programs, are clearly designed to serve youth. These programs are incorporated as the part of the

Sports Institute (Instituto de Deporte) budget and the municipalities which make important infrastructure investments in recreational parks. Money allocated to juvenile courts in Nicaragua may also be considered as public expenditures in youth programs. Nonetheless, these programs do not offer age-disaggregated data.

However, As shown in Table 4, the only youth-specific programs available in the budget are:

INATEC’s “Strengthening of Employment Capabilities for youth in the Northern, Southern and

Western regions” with an allocated budget of US$557,862; as well as five programs under the

Ministry of Youth: 1) Youth Training, 2) Training in Small Business, 3) International Training,

4) Small Business Strengthening and 5) Administrative Services for the Ministry. The assigned budget for the Ministry of Youth is 0.14% of the total national budget or 0.25% of the total social expenditure for each year.

Table 4: Public expenditure in youth-specific programs

US$ per year (2016)

Youth Programs in the National Budget (Not including Ministry of Education

Technological National Institute (INATEC)

Fortalecimiento para el Desarrollo de Competencias para la Empleabilidad de Jóvenes de las Regiones Norte, Sur y Occidente de Nicaragua

$557,862

Ministry of Youth

Brindar Capacitación a Juventudes $33,806

Capacitar a Jóvenes para la Constitución de Pequeños Negocios $40,110

Formación a Jóvenes a Nivel Nacional e Internacional $3,380

Fortalecer a Pequeños Negocios Constituidos $95,790

Miniterio de la Juventud (administración) $2,954,481

Total budget expenditure in youth issues $3,685,429 Source: Prepared by IEEPP with data from “Presupuesto General de la República” (2016) In addition to Law 392 (Youth Law) there are other policy instruments that are relevant to youth development. These are the National Human Development Plan 2012 - 2016 (GRUN, 2012), the

National Plan of Employment and Suitable and Decent Work for the Youth of Nicaragua 2012 -

2016 (GRUN, 2012), and the Development Strategy for Caribbean Coast and High Wangky

CODENI, Inversión en Niñez y Adolescencia y su vincula con los ODS”; edited by García Marvin. Managua, 2017.

Bocay, 2012 - 2016 (Caribbean Coast Development Council, 2012). In addition, the National

Youth Commission was created in 2013, and it consisted of 12 public institutions related to youth policies and five members of the Nicaraguan Youth Council. Following 2007, it became a semi-partisan organization linked to the FSLN.

There is a discrepancy between the normative legal framework and the existing institutional capacities relating to young people. In addition, there is a large gap between normative policies and the actual implementation of youth programs. Other initiatives, such as the legal initiative

(not yet approved) First Youth Employment, have stagnated in the legislative pipeline for many years.

As it relates to international cooperation, many donor initiatives relating to youth issues have been reduced or have disappeared because of the substantial reduction in foreign aid experienced in Nicaragua since 2009. For example, major youth-specific programs previously sponsored under UNDP and the cooperation of Scandinavian and Nordic countries no longer exist.

However, there are some programs that have strong relevance for youth development but do not define themselves as youth programs and they include: the European Union programs (“lots”) on education, democracy and human rights, and Switzerland’s (COSUDE) local initiatives that support civil society and prevent violence. Other official donor programs targeting youth are mainly focused on international scholarships (See Annex).

In addition to official donors—such as USAID and the European Union—there are also many large influential international non-governmental organizations that have driven youth initiatives for at least a decade, most noteworthy: Save the Children, Plan International, Oxfam, Hivos, Christian Aid, ICCOS, Friedrich Eber Foundation, Konrad Adenauer Foundation, Friedrich

Naumann Foundation, Seattle International Foundation, among others. There are also smaller organizations which are mentioned in the Annex “International Organizations and NGOs targeting youth in Nicaragua”.

Section 2: Strategic Priorities of the Mission and Associated Youth Challenges and

Opportunities

This objective of this section is two-fold. First it focuses specifically on the sectors that the

Mission expects to include in the DOs. Secondly, based on the findings from the desk research, field study research and data analysis of social media analytics, this section presents more detail on specific youth development constraints, as well as opportunities that relate to

USAID/Nicaragua’s priorities.

It is essential for USAID/Nicaragua to properly assess youth realities so that programmatic interventions are likely to achieve their desired objectives at a reasonable cost. Keeping this in mind, section one has presented youth demographic characteristics and issues for Nicaragua at a macro level. We focused our analysis on the premise that effective interventions to bolster youth development in Nicaragua not only require youth-centric public policies from the government, See Tórrez and Lau, 2016.

but also the commitment of donors to help the country realize its demographic dividend through continued investment in strategic areas.

Based on our assessment, there are seven (7) strategic areas in which USAID/Nicaragua should focus. Each of these areas offers challenges as well as opportunities for positive youth development:

1. Supporting strategies to tackle youth underemployment and unemployment.

2. Supporting the educational system in its efforts to improve the quality of education and create inclusive opportunities.

3. Promoting health knowledge and behavioral changes (particularly in relation to early stage pregnancy).

4. Supporting democratic youth leadership, civic engagement, and conflict prevention.

5. Promoting gender equality and the prevention of violence against women.

6. Supporting underrepresented youth that suffer significantly higher levels of social exclusion, such as ethnic minorities in the Caribbean Coast and LGBTQ groups.

7. Helping youth tap into their creativity by embracing science, technology, the arts, and innovative solutions for social and economic challenges.

This section also provides more detail on specific youth constraints and disparities, as well as opportunities as they relate to the strategic priorities mentioned above. As per USAID methodology, the identification of constraints and opportunities is both the result of the team’s assessment—desk research and data analytics—as well as the reflections of the perspectives of young individuals that participated in the focus groups, interviews and the online survey.

USAID’s strategic priorities for the sector

USAID has decades of valuable experience in leading efforts with young people and communities to enable safe and productive transitions from youth to adulthood. As described in

“Youth in Development Policy: Realizing the Demographic Opportunity”

, the goal of the

Youth in Development policy is “to improve the capacities and enable the aspirations of young people so that they contribute to and benefit from more stable, democratic, and prosperous communities and nations.”

In support of this goal, USAID works towards two objectives:

1. Strengthen youth programming, participation, and partnership in support of Agency development objectives.

2. Mainstream and integrate youth issues and engage young people across Agency initiatives and operations.

Ensuring youth participation at all levels of strategic planning is key. As suggested in USAID’s

“Guide to Cross-Sectoral Youth Assessments,” youth focus groups have proven to be a very effective methodology for engaging youth as active participants in planning and assessment activities.

USAID Youth Policy, Washington DC, October 2012.

USIAD Youth Policy, Op. Cit. Page 9.

“Focus group results provide an effective entry point to the development of quantitative survey or questionnaire tools that can be used to test the generalizability of focus group findings to a broader sample of youth. Such quantitative tools can be used to test alternative scenarios or specific program ideas that arose from the focus groups. They can also be used to compare and contrast focus group responses with those from a wider range of youth cohorts who completed the questionnaire or survey”.

Table 5: Participants (focus groups, in-depths interviews and survey)

Issues for positive youth development from a youth perspective

Based on this study, the five most pressing issues for youth development as perceived by youth are access to quality jobs, access to quality education, insufficient civic and political inclusion, high rates of adolescent-girl pregnancy (AGP) and violence (particularly gender-based). These three issues are not only consistently identified by the specialized literature on youth in

Nicaragua but are also the same key issues identified by interviewees and participants in the focus groups.

Table 6: Issues and challenges as perceived by participants

USAID’s Guide to Cross-Sectoral Youth Assessments. Page 37.

The field research question used in this section was: ¿Cuáles son los temas que, en tu opinión, más preocupan o afectan a la juventud? The question focuses on finding “concerns and challenges” that negatively affect young people. This should not be confused with inquiries relating to issues that “attract” or mobilize youth, which is—as explained later- aseparate research question.

The following table summarizes the perceptions on citizen security based on an IEEPP’s survey;

conducted between December 2016 and April 2017.

Table 7: Perception of youth about their security environment

There is a prominent level of agreement on these issues with some differences in perspective. For example, youth from low-income communities and from the Caribbean Coast consider that lack of employment is the most significant bottleneck for their development. As income rises and youth profile becomes more urban, the perspective on this same issue leans closer towards concerns about low-wages and underemployment (rather than unemployment), lack of opportunities for entrepreneurs, and quality of education.

AGP tends to be more clearly identified as a problem by urban young women, youth leaders, activists, and volunteers but is not immediately identified as such by average youth across the country. Other topics such as participation in political parties

, violence, and drugs, were surprisingly ranked as issues of low concern by most youth from the Pacific. Youth from

Bluefields, Bilwi, Rivas, Jinotega, Matagalpa, and Granada tend to identify sexual abuse as more

Question: Which is the security problem that most affects you at your local community? (¿Cuál es el problema inmediato de seguridad que más te afecta a vos en tu barrio o comunidad?) Source: Online IEEPP survey; conducted between December 2016 and April 2017.

This issue has been addressed in detail in the Sector-based Political Economic Analysis. The research team found low levels of interest in “political participation,” defined as participating in political parties or engaging in electoral processes. However, interest in political and civic engagement outside of political parties is quite significant.

of a pressing problem when compared to youth from other parts of the country. Topics such as access to the arts, recreation, and technology were ranked as second-tier concerns by most youth.

Specific youth sub-groups such as ethnic minorities and/or those that identify as LGBTQ face risks that must be analyzed from both a human rights approach and a development perspective.

For example, interviewees from the Caribbean Coast regions, considered drugs as one of the top challenges for young people. In contrast, LGBTQ youth from across the country reported that elevated levels of harassment and discrimination were one of their top challenges.

In addition to the sample of 115 people interviewed (95% below 30 years of age), IEEPP conducted an online survey with 830 participants. The survey confirms that—besides education, employment, health, etc.— challenges in other sectors such as housing, migration, citizen participation, and human rights, among others, affect youth in very different ways that cannot be analyzed under the same parameters as the general population. Youth are an important sub-population and they experience life quite differently from other demographic categories. Their unique circumstances also influence the kinds of programming required to serve them.

LGBT youth, ethnic minority youth, girls and young women face specific challenges. In this regard, it is important to highlight that some issues such as gender-based violence and sexual abuse when measured in quantitative terms—e.g. number of responses—may not be identified as dominant concerns among the general population of Nicaraguans ages 10 to 29.

However, in-depth interviews—particularly those with young women and…