Youth_Needs_Assessment_Author_EDC.pdf

Engaging and Preparing Youth for Work, Civil Society, and Family Life

FINAL REPORT

Submitted in response to:

Request for Application No. 517-10-002 for Associate Award under

LWA NO. GDG-A-00-03-00010-00 Equip 3:

Conducting a Cross-Sectoral At-Risk Youth Assessment in the Dominican Republic for USAID/Dominican Republic

Submitted by:

Education Development Center, Inc. (EDC)

August, 2010

USAID/Dominican Republic Cross-Sectoral At-Risk

Youth Assessment

Education Development Center, Inc. • 55 Chapel Street, Newton, MA 02458

USAID/Dominican Republic

CrossSectoral AtRisk

Youth Assessment

DR CSY Assessment Acronyms

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

II. INTRODUCTION

Purpose & Methodology

III. CURRENT STATE OF YOUTH

Policies Directed Toward Youth

Demographic, Geographic and Economic Overview Context and Characteristics of At‐Risk Youth

Programming for Youth

IV. EDUCATION

The Education System and Education Policies

Education Indicators and Perceptions of Education

Key Education Programs for At‐Risk Youth

Conclusions / Gaps between Supply and Demand in Education

V. YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

Youth Employment Policies

Youth Employment Indicators

Key Employment Programs for At‐Risk Youth

Conclusions/ Gaps in Supply & Demand of Youth Employment

VI. HEALTH

Health System and Policies

Youth Health Statistics and Perceptions

Key At‐Risk Youth Health Programs

Conclusions/ Gaps in Supply & Demand of Youth Health

VII. CIVIC PARTICIPATION

Youth Civic Participation Policies

Youth Civic Participation Indicators

Youth Civic Participation Programs

Gaps between Supply and Demand in Civic Participation

VIII. HAITIAN YOUTH DISPLACED AFTER THE EARTHQUAKE

Policies Directed at Haitian Youth in the DR as a Result of the Earthquake

Characteristics of Haitian Youth in the DR as a Result of the Earthquake

Programs Serving Haitian Youth

Gaps between Supply and Demand among Haitian Youth

IX. GAPS AND KEY SUCCESS FACTORS

Gaps between Supply and Demand

Key Success Factors for Future Programming

X. RECOMMENDATIONS

Target Population and Localities

USAID/DR Program Strategies

Program Design

Institutional Models and Capacity

Institutional Linkages

Private Sector Engagement Strategy

ANNEXES

1. Methodology

1.1 Work Plan

1.2 Research Questions

1.3 Interview Organization List

1.4 Key Informant Interview Protocols

1.4.1 Youth‐Serving Organizations

1.4.2 Donor Organizations

1.4.3 Other Stakeholders

1.5 Youth Focus Group Distribution Table

1.6 Focus Group Protocol

1.7 Focus Group Demographic Survey

2. Youth Policy Framework

3. Education Programs

4. Youth Employment Programs

5. Youth Employment by Activity, Age, Geography, and Gender

6. Youth and Employment Program

7. Youth Health Programs

8. Youth Civic Participation Programs

9. Bibliography

TABLES

Table 1 National and Youth Population, with Gender and Geography Breakdown (millions), 2008

Table 2 Structure of Dominican Education System by Intended Ages Table 3 Number of Illiterate Youth, Gender and Geography Breakdown, by

Age, 2008 Table 4 Number of Out‐of‐School and Unemployed Youth, Gender and

Geography Breakdown, by Age, 2008 Table 5 Youth Employment Characteristics, 2008 Table 6 Youth Employment by Activity, Ages 10‐24, 2008 Table 7 Youth Ages 15‐24 Who Have Used Drugs in 3 Months Prior to Survey, Table 8 Age of First Sexual Relation

Table 9 Comprehensive Knowledge of HIV/AIDS among 15‐24 y/o males and females, CESDEM 2007

Table 10 Percentage Reporting Violence by Spouse/Partner After Marriage by Type and Age Group

Table 11 Possession of Birth Certificates in the Dominican Republic, percentage, 2002 and 2007

Table 12 Possession of Identity Cards in the Dominican Republic, percentage

FIGURES

Figure 1 Youth Employment (Ages 15‐24) by Occupational Category, 2006

Figure 2 Percentage of Pregnant Teenagers by Education and

Socioeconomic Levels, 2007

Figure 4 Percentage of Population Who are Victims of Corruption, by Age

Figure 5 Trends in Juvenile Arrest in the Dominican Republic

DR CSY Assessment Acronyms

AECID (Spanish Agency for International Development Cooperation)

AED (Academy for Educational Development)

Alianza ONG (Non‐Governmental Organization Alliance)

CASCO (Coordinator of Socio‐Cultural Animation)

CBSI (Caribbean Basin Security Initiative)

CEAPA (Aquelarre Support Center)

CEGES (Center for Governance and Social Management of INTEC)

CESDEM (Center for Social and Demographic Studies)

CIMPA (Research Center for the Improvement of Animal Production)

COIN (Center for Integrated Orientation and Research)

CONANI (National Council for Children and Adolescents)

Consorcio NINA (Consortium for Children and Adolescents)

COPRESIDA (Presidential Council on AIDS)

CRS (Catholic Relief Services)

CV (Curriculum Vitae)

DR (Dominican Republic)

DREAM Project (Dominican Republic Education and Mentoring Project)

DSTA Dominican Sustainable Tourism Alliance

EAP (Economically Active Population)

EBA (Adult Basic Education)

ECLAC (Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean)

EDC (Educational Development Center)

EDUCA (Action for Basic Education)

ENDESA (National Demographic and Health Survey)

ENCOVI (Survey on Living Conditions)

ENHOGAR (National Multi‐Purpose Household Survey)

ENFT (National Labor Force Survey)

EPC (Spaces for Growth)

EPE (Spaces for Entrepreneurship)

FEDOMU (Dominican Federation of Municipalities)

FINJUS (Foundation for Institutionalization and Justice)

FORJA (Training of Youth Agriculturalists at University ISA)

GDP (Gross Domestic Product)

GTZ (German Technical Cooperation)

IDB (Inter‐American Development Bank)

IDCP (Dermatological Institute for Skin Surgery)

IDDI (Instituto Dominicano de Desarrollo Integral)

INFOTEP (Instituto Nacional de Formación Técnica Profesional)

INTEC (Technological Institute of Santo Domingo)

ILO (International Labor Organization)

IOM (International Organization for Migration)

JADOM (Junior Achievement Dominicana)

JICA (Japan International Cooperation Agency)

LAPOP (Latin American Public Opinion Project)

LLECE (Latin America Laboratory for Assessment of the Quality of Education)

MDB (Young Men and Women with Don Bosco)

MIF (Multilateral Investment Fund)

MLB‐DDA (Major League Baseball Dominican Development Alliance)

MUDE (Women in Development)

NGO (non‐governmental organization)

OAS (Organization of American States)

OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development)

OIJ (Ibero‐American Youth Organization)

OMS (World Health Organization)

PAHO (Pan‐American Health Organization)

PANCAP (Partnership against HIV/AIDS)

PJE (Youth and Employment Program)

PREJAL (Promotion of Youth Employment in Latin America)

PREPARA (Adult Secondary Education)

PRONAISA (National Program of Integrated (Health) Attention to Youth)

PSI (Population Services International)

PUCMM (Pontificia Universidad Católica Madre y Maestra)

QL (Quantum Learning)

SEE (Ministry of Education)

SEM (Ministry of Women)

SENAE (National Employment Service)

SESPAS (Ministry of Public Health and Social Assistance)

SET (Ministry of Labor)

STI (sexually transmitted illness)

UNAIDS (Joint United Nations Program on AIDS)

UNAP (Primary Care Unit)

UNDP (United Nations Development Program)

UNICEF (United Nations Children’s Fund)

UNIBE (Iberoamerican University)

Universidad ISA (Universidad Instituto Superior de Agricultura)

USAID/DR (United States Agency for International Development/Dominican Republic)

USAID RED (United States Agency for International Development Rural Economic

Diversification)

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Education Development Center, Inc. (EDC) is pleased to transmit the attached Cross‐Sectoral At‐Risk Youth Assessment to USAID/Dominican Republic. Our Report responds to the scope of work contained in the USAID January 11th program description for this activity, and has been implemented as an Associate Award under the USAID EQUIP 3 Leader with Associate Award (LWA) Program (GDG‐A‐00‐03‐00010‐00). The EDC Assessment Team was led by Amy Walter (Team Leader and Education Sector Specialist), Sheila Maak (Deputy Team Leader and Economic Growth Specialist), Jenniffer Perdomo Suero and Flor Melendez (Health Specialists), Wellington Martinez Inoa (Civic Participation Specialist), and Sarah Nogueira Sanca (Home Office Manager). Focus groups were conducted by a team of Youth Facilitators.

The Report (a) analyzes the structure and characteristics of the youth cohort in the Dominican Republic (DR); (b) reviews the issues facing youth and the resources available to address them in four sectors – education, economic growth, health, and democracy and governance; (c) presents the results of 40 youth focus groups that were implemented by the assessment team as a way of articulating what youth themselves see as their needs, aspirations and challenges; (d) reviews a first generation of 9 youth projects that have been funded by USAID/DR; and (e) provides recommendations for a new generation of USAID/DR sponsored youth programming.

Youth ages 10‐24 constitute just over 30 percent of the roughly ten million people who live in the Dominican Republic.1 Important stakeholders with whom the EDC assessment team met (youth themselves, the staffs of youth‐serving organizations, policy‐makers and community leaders across the country) agreed that a sizable percentage of Dominican youth are highly vulnerable and lack access to needed resources.

In the education sector, such vulnerability is most acute in the 22,000 youth ages 10‐14 who are out of school, and the 25,000 youth ages 15‐19 and 44,000 youth ages 20‐24 who characterize themselves as being unable to read and write.2 Those who are in school participate in an educational system characterized by poor learning outcomes and high rates of repetition.

In the economic growth sector, in 2008 youth ages 10‐24 represented a quarter of the total labor force in the DR and 43 percent of the total unemployed population. 3 Job creation for young people primarily takes place in the informal sector where wages are reported to be 44 percent lower than in the formal economy.4 Those youth seeking to start their own enterprises are faced with challenges in obtaining access to credit and micro‐finance. The vast majority of Dominican young people do not own assets and financial systems rarely make loans without collateral.

1 Central Bank, National Labor Force Survey database, 2nd Semester 2008 2 Central Bank. 2010. National Labor Force Survey database, 2nd semester 2008 data 3 Central Bank. 2010. National Labor Force Survey database, 2nd semester 2008 data 4 PREJAL, 2009. Informe Trabajo Decente y Juventud: Propuesta de Lineamientos para el Plan de Acción Empleo Juvenil en República Dominicana, versión de borrador 28 septiembre 2009.

Final Report: DR Cross‐Sectoral Youth Assessment Page 1

In the health sector, reproductive and sexual health are the two priority issues for young people. Risky behaviors, such as multiple sex partners, unsafe sexual practices, and/or the use of drugs and alcohol play a significant role in the health profile of Dominican youth.

There is a high incidence of teen pregnancy (26% in rural areas and 18% in urban areas), and a negative relationship has been observed between teenage pregnancy and education and socio‐economic status.5 Health service programs tend to be costly, not focused on the needs of young people, and located in areas that are not always easily accessible to youth.

In the area of civic participation, youth face numerous challenges to participating fully and positively in society. At a fundamental level, many youth lack birth certificates or identity cards, often for reasons of poverty or their own parents’ lack of documentation. Not only do youth consequently lack official recognition as individuals, but they also are impeded in their access to services. This lack of connectivity to society may help to explain the growing participation of Dominican youth in gang related activity.

Despite the formidable challenges facing youth in the DR the assessment team identified a variety of policies and programs that are making a difference in youths’ lives. The EDC team made a special effort to assess USAID/DR‐funded youth projects, interviewing staff and visiting field sites of programs such as the DREAM Project, Hay Poder en Aprender, Consorcio NINA and Aprendiendo Juntos, the La Romana—Bayahibe Tourism and Youth Training Project, Reinserción Escolar y Fomento a la Incorporación Productiva, the Habilidades para la Vida (Life Skills) Project, the Young Political Leaders Training Program, the Civic Action for Justice and Transparency, and the Batey Community Development Project. In addition, the EDC Team conducted a comprehensive review of the youth policies and programs of government, NGOs, and other donor agencies in each of the four sectors targeted by the assessment.

Recommendations for future USAID/DR youth programming are provided at the conclusion of this Report. It is recommended that USAID/DR establish a single youth program that provides a social safety net for vulnerable out‐of‐school youth within targeted geographic areas. The core target population for this program would be youth ages 10‐13 who are out of school and youth 14‐17 who are out of school and unemployed. USAID/DR funding would help enable a single institution or a network of institutions to provide services that enable targeted youth to return to school, connect with economic opportunities, improve their health and well‐being, and engage more fully with their communities.

Our rationale for making this recommendation is based on the following: (a) While many activities exist to serve at‐risk youth in the DR, fewer programs are available to address the multiple complex needs of highly vulnerable youth, particularly in the holistic way that is needed; (b) The government has established a policy framework to serve highly vulnerable youth. However it has yet to translate its policies into practice in a coordinated, effective manner, which presents an opportunity for a donor organization, such as USAID, to play a supporting role; (c) USAID/DR has gained important experience through its Out‐Of‐School and At‐Risk Youth Programs. The new program would seek to build upon the experience

5 ENDESA 2007

Final Report: DR Cross‐Sectoral Youth Assessment Page 2 base of USAID/DR and its implementing organizations; (d) Among the aims of the program would be to provide positive opportunities for youth already engaged in gangs and/or criminal activity, thus fulfilling a core purpose of the USAID Caribbean Basin Security Initiative, a potential funding stream for the program.

II.

INTRODUCTION

Purpose & Methodology

This Dominican Republic Cross‐Sectoral Youth Assessment aims to provide the necessary information for USAID/Dominican Republic to move forward in working with youth in a holistic and effective manner. In pursuit of this objective, the assessment team conducted field work from May 21st to June 14th in the locations of USAID‐funded youth projects and related programming, with special emphasis on Santo Domingo, Santiago, and Puerto Plata.

Final Report: DR Cross‐Sectoral Youth Assessment Page 3

For each sector – education, economic growth, health and democracy & governance – the research consisted of three primary dimensions:

USAIDsponsored programs that were interviewed include: 1. the policies articulating the rights of children and youth and addressing their needs;

Education:

2. the characteristics and needs demonstrated by Catholic Relief Services, Aprendiendo youth; Juntos Project (five implementing subs;

3. a review of existing service providers and other conducted focus groups with Acción institutions in relevant sectors that may address Callejera and Caminante*) the stated needs of youth. The DREAM Project* Instituto Dominicano de Desarrollo Integral (IDDI), Esperanza International, The characteristics and needs of youth comprise the Hay Poder en Aprender (implemented by “demand side” of the equation in youth policy and Hay Poder en Aprender under auspices programming. The existing providers and other of Major League Baseball Dominican institutions comprise the “supply side,” providing Development Alliance (MLB‐DDA))* programming to implement or complement the policies Employment:intended to meet the needs of youth, given the context IDDI, Youth School Reentry and and market realities in which they operate. A key Workforce Development Program* objective of this research was to identify the gaps Counterpart International, Tourism and between supply and demand. Annex 1 presents the Youth Training Project methodology for this research, including the work plan Health: in Annex 1.1.

Academy for Educational Development, Life Skills Program

In order to guide its field work and synthesis of findings, the team identified key research questions for the Democracy and Governance:

evaluation as a whole and for each sector, building upon Participación Ciudanana / Center for recommended questions provided by USAID/DR. (See Governance and Social Management at

Annex 1.2) To provide a foundation for understanding INTEC / Center for Research and Social Studies of UNIBE, Young Political youths’ characteristics and needs, the assessment team Leaders Training Program* used quantitative data to develop demographic profiles Participación Ciudanana / INTEC / for the youth cohort. Furthermore, during the field work UNIBE / Foundation for phase of the assessment, the team illuminated both sides Institutionalization and Justice, Civic of the supply and demand equation through qualitative Action for Justice and Transparency research including key informant interviews, youth CrossSectoral: focus groups, and observational visits. The team is Save the Children / MUDE, Batey deeply grateful to the interviewees and youth who Community Development Project* shared their time and perspectives for this report. The primary assessment methods are identified below: * In addition to interviews, Youth Focus

Groups were conducted with youth affiliated with these programs.

Document Research: The team identified and conducted background research on scope, reach and effectiveness of the main policies and programs relevant to Dominican youth across and within sectors. The review included government programs, policies, and legislation; institutional and individual research and analyses; and NGO program descriptions and evaluations.

Final Report: DR Cross‐Sectoral Youth Assessment Page 4

Documents presenting international best practice and global experience with youth programming were also reviewed, as were news and economic reports. See the bibliography for a full listing of documents and web sites reviewed.

Key Informant Interviews: During the field work phase of the assessment, the team conducted informant interviews with:

USAID/DR mission personnel on youth and related programming;

Leadership and staff of USAID/DR youth‐serving and related projects;

Staff charged with youth matters in government ministries;

Representatives of other donor agencies investing in youth;

Other stakeholders such as representatives of the private sector and religious groups.

A complete listing of the interviews conducted can be found in Annex 1.3, and the interview protocols used can be found in Annex 1.4.

Youth Focus Groups. A team of youth facilitators conducted a total of 40 focus groups to yield insight into the perspective of at‐risk youth. The following three types of youth were targeted:

1. Dominican youth served by USAID/DR projects or other youth‐serving organizations;

2. Dominican youth not currently served by any organization;

3. Haitian youth living in the Dominican Republic as a result of the 2010 earthquake.

Within these groups, youth were further segmented by age: 10‐13, 14‐17, and 18‐24, with male and female youth participating together. Focus groups were divided among Santo Domingo, Santiago, and Puerto Plata, as well as bateys and Cotui, where USAID/DR projects are located. The distribution of focus groups across type, age group, and geography is presented in Annex 1.5, and the protocol used to guide the groups can be found in Annex

1.6. In addition, a demographic questionnaire was used at the end of each session to contextualize the findings (see Annex 1.7).

The team employed the following approach to recruit youth not participating in programs and Haitian youth. With regard to the former, youth coordinators leveraged connections with community organizations in the participating communities to identify and recruit participants. Potential participants completed a recruitment form to confirm that they met the profile. The team included a Haitian youth facilitator with experience working at the Jesuit Service for Refugees and Migrants of the Centro Bonó and knowledge of communities that had experienced an influx of Haitian immigrants due to the earthquake. Through this facilitator and in coordination with Haitian educators living in bateys and connected with NGOs, the team identified new Haitian arrivals who had been displaced due to the earthquake.

Final Report: DR Cross‐Sectoral Youth Assessment Page 5

Research Limitations. While the assessment team did have access to many individuals, organizations and target youth cohorts for information gathering, there were limitations to the research. These included:

Lack of impact data for programs interviewed/observed;

Limited data at the municipal level;

Heavy reliance on survey method – mostly self‐reporting for organizations and youth;

Short timeframe for fieldwork, most of which took place over a three‐week period.

Structure of the Report. There are two key sections of this report which lead to a set of recommendations for holistic youth programming.

The first and most extensive section (Parts III‐VIII) provides an overview and a sector‐by‐ sector view of the current status of youth, examining youth‐related policies, indicators that identify youth needs and risks, programs in place to support youth, and identification of any gaps between what exists and what is needed. Also included in this section is a targeted look at the situation of Haitian youth displaced in the Dominican Republic as a result of the 2010 Haiti earthquake.

The second section (Part IX) provides a transition, summarizing the gaps between the supply and demand sides for youth across sectors, as well as highlighting best practices and key elements of holistic youth programming that should be incorporated into future efforts.

The resulting recommendations (Part X) are presented by identifying target youth cohorts and a holistic approach to programming which can be augmented and scaled depending on the level of funding available. An attempt was made to provide both broad conceptual recommendations as well as sector‐specific ideas.

In order to keep the report as a digestible document and focus on findings and recommendations, much of the detail on methodology and focus groups, as well as more in‐ depth information about existing youth programs, was included in the Annex. These documents augment what is included in the report and provide the reader with a deeper understanding of the approach and findings.

Final Report: DR Cross‐Sectoral Youth Assessment Page 6

Final Report: DR Cross‐Sectoral Youth Assessment Page 7

III. CURRENT STATE OF YOUTH

While youth ages 10–24 form a significant part of the population of the Dominican Republic (just over 30%), the research, interviews and focus groups conducted for this assessment indicate that a sizable proportion of this group are vulnerable and underserved. These at‐ risk youth face multiple, interrelated complex challenges. While the country has instituted a number of policies pertaining to youth, and myriad programs exist in an effort to meet their needs, this research demonstrates that the demand for such services exceeds the supply and that the supply should be better coordinated and in some cases adapted to meet these needs, especially among the most vulnerable populations.

Policies Directed Toward Youth

The Dominican Republic has instituted a range of policies pertaining to the rights and wellbeing of youth and promoting their ability to participate fully as citizens and community members. Over the past two decades, the country has more fully developed its body of laws pertaining to education, employment, and health and in many cases has specified the treatment of youth in these areas. It has also recognized that issues affecting youth cut across sectors and call for coordination across government and other actors.

Major cross‐sectoral policies are discussed below, while sector‐specific policies are described in subsequent sections. In addition, an overall list of policies pertaining to youth is presented in Annex 2.

Established in 2003, the Code for the System of Protection and the Fundamental Rights of Children and Adolescents (136‐03) defines and provides comprehensive protection of the rights of children and youth from birth to age 18. It assigns responsibility for coordination and oversight to the government entity, the National Council for Children and Adolescents (CONANI, for its Spanish acronym). In order to facilitate the implementation of this law with regard to youth living and working in the street, CONANI established the Policy Guidelines for Integral Protection of Street Children and Youth (2007‐2012). An interview with CONANI indicated that the entity sought to operationalize this law by establishing an integrated network of protection that articulated different actors, which may include the development of a drug rehabilitation center for youth.

Passed in 2000, the General Youth Law (49‐00) establishes the legal, political and institutional framework to guide the government and society in defining and implementing policies to meet the needs and expectations of youth more broadly and to promote their effective participation in decision‐making. It focuses on six areas: 1) education, 2) health,

3) culture, 4) sports and recreation, 5) civic participation, and 6) employment and job training. Furthermore, it created the Ministry of Youth as the governing entity responsible for overseeing implementation of the law, while also establishing mechanisms for youth participation in policy‐making at the national and local levels. (These are described further under Civic Participation.) In order to support the implementation of this law, the National Public Policy for the Development of Dominican Youth 2008‐2015 was developed through

Final Report: DR Cross‐Sectoral Youth Assessment Page 8 a participatory process and outlines objectives and goals for each of the six areas outlined above.

While not directly targeted toward youth, policies aimed at poverty reduction and welfare promotion, particularly those targeted toward families, can benefit youth directly or indirectly. The government has taken important steps to strengthen its social safety net over the past decade, with significant support from the World Bank and Inter‐American Development Bank. As a key example, its conditional cash transfer program, Solidaridad, which includes an education benefit conditional on children ages 6‐16 attending school, covered two million people in extreme poverty as of 2009.7

Interviewees indicated that while the goals of this body of policies are worthy and well articulated, implementation is highly variable. Government and other actors often fail to coordinate implementation efforts, or linkages may be informal rather than formalized. In cases such as education and youth civic participation, the government has not assigned the level of funding required by the law to the sector. Interviewees cite the need for stakeholders to work in concert to achieve policy goals for youth, as well as to engage in advocacy to encourage the government to assume greater responsibility.

Demographic, Geographic and Economic Overview

The population of the Dominican Republic has nearly tripled in size and become dramatically more urban over the last fifty years. In 1960, the population was 3.3 million, with more than two thirds living in rural areas.8 By 2008, the population was 9.5 million, and geographic patterns had reversed, with roughly two thirds living in urban areas.10

Youth ages 10‐24 comprise a significant proportion of this growing population, estimated at 2.94 million, or 31 percent of the population, in 2008.11 Youth ages 10‐14 and 15‐19 each numbered more than one million, while youth ages 20‐24 were fewer than 900,000.12 The lower number of older youth residing in the Dominican Republic suggests that a significant portion may be emigrating in search of economic and academic opportunities.

Like the general population, roughly two thirds of youth live in urban areas (see Table 1).

The numbers of rural males and urban females are somewhat lower among those ages 15‐ 19 than those ages 10‐14, and sharply lower among those ages 20‐24. While it is difficult to account for these differences, both internal migration and out‐migration may be at play.

7 World Bank, 2007. Project Appraisal Document on Proposed Loan for Social Protection Investment Project; 2009.

Project Paper on Proposed Additional Financing for Social Protection Investment Project 8 World Bank, 2010. “World Development Indicators” 10 Central Bank, 2010. National Labor Force Survey database, 2nd semester 2008 data 11 Central Bank, 2010. National Labor Force Survey database, 2nd Semester 2008 data 12 Central Bank, 2010. National Labor Force Survey database, 2nd Semester 2008 data

Final Report: DR Cross‐Sectoral Youth Assessment Page 9 http:900,000.12 http:areas.10

Table 1 National and Youth Population, with Gender and Geography Breakdown (millions), 2008

1014 1519 2024 Total Population All Ages

Total 1.041 1.032 .867 9.537 Male .530 (51%) .521 (50%) .412 (47%) 4.737 (50%) Female .512 (49%) .512 (50%) .455 (53%) 4.800 (50%) Urban .691 (66%) .687 (67%) .619 (71%) 6.420 (67%) Urban, Male .344 (50%) .345 (50%) .340 (55%) 3.116 (49%) Urban, Female .347 (50%) .342 (50%) .279 (45%) 3.305 (51%) Rural .350 (34%) .346 (33%) .248 (29%) 3.117 (33%) Rural, Male .186 (53%) .176 (51%) .072 (29%) 1.622 (52%) Rural, Female .164 (47%) .170 (49%) .176 (71%) 1.495 (48%)

Source: Central Bank. National Labor Force Survey database, 2nd Semester 2008 Note: Rounding error accounts for disaggregated numbers that do not sum to totals.

Despite high economic growth over much of the past decade, a significant portion of the country remains in poverty, including a large percentage of youth. In 2007, the national poverty rate stood at 48.5 percent.13 Rural poverty, at 54 percent, was higher than the urban poverty rate of 45 percent.14 More than 41 percent of young adults ages 15‐29 live in poverty, and 17 percent live in extreme poverty.15

Context and Characteristics of At‐Risk Youth

The assessment identified a range of inter‐related factors that pose risks to youths’ prospects for well‐being and success in life. Specifically, this report examined individual, family, school and community risk factors associated with dropping out of school, being unemployed or working in dangerous conditions, or becoming involved with drugs and crime. These factors are described below and in the sector‐specific sections of the report.

In focus groups, youth expressed their aspirations to enter university‐level professions, music and professional sports, to undertake technical careers, and to have families. While many youth expressed interest in becoming professionals such as doctors or lawyers, or famous rappers or baseball players, at‐risk youth do not necessarily have the knowledge or means to realize these goals. As one interviewee pointed out, youth aspire to careers in which they can make a lot of money, regardless of their own abilities or training. Youths’ aspirations are also shaped by what they see in their communities. In some cases, focus group participants cited technical professions such as plumbing or beauty salons. They also noted that some youth in their communities aspire to sell a lot of drugs, since they perceive that those in their neighborhoods who have made a lot of money have done so through drug‐dealing.

13 World Bank, 2010. “World Development Indicators” 14 World Bank, 2010. “World Development Indicators” 15 ECLAC, OIJ, October 2008. Youth and Social Cohesion in Ibero‐America, a Model in the Making.

Final Report: DR Cross‐Sectoral Youth Assessment Page 10 http:poverty.15 http:percent.14 http:percent.13

Despite the importance that interviewees and focus group participants alike ascribed to education for realizing youths’ aspirations, at‐risk youth are often significantly unprepared for higher‐level education and employment. Interviewees noted that youth have very low skill levels, including in foundational skills such as literacy. Focus group participants agreed with this perception, noting that even youth who are in school are sometimes unable to read or write. Youth perceived the quality of the education they receive as low and saw a great need to improve schools and teachers. Among interviewees and focus group participants, low skill levels were also cited as a barrier to obtaining employment.

At‐risk youth also lack positive role models and supervision. Interviewees noted youth are put at risk by coming from “broken homes,” including single‐ or no‐parent households and homes marked by physical or sexual abuse. As noted by one interviewee, youth in single‐ mother households lacked father figures and sometimes were left unsupervised, which left them more vulnerable. Focus group participants noted that youth also follow the examples of their parents, who often have low educational attainment themselves. As a result, youth lack adult models who have completed their studies, and the adults in their lives are less able to support

“...“... ThereThere areare pepeoopplele whowho youth with school.

wantwant toto bebe somethingsomething inin lifelife andand havehave nono econeconoommicic ststatatus.us. Poverty and the lack of resources pervade the lives AndAnd ththereere areare manymany peoplepeople of at‐risk youth and limit their ability to satisfy their whowho tramtrampleple themthem,, tellingtelling basic needs and foster their own development. In focus groups, participants indicate that there arethemthem youyou dodo notnot havehave thisthis oror youth in their communities who do not have enough that,that, youyou dodo notnot havehave monemoney,y, money to eat or to buy clothes. Participants peoplepeople rerejejectct ththem.em. AndAnd ththereere identified orphans as a particularly vulnerable areare people,people, thatthat dedespitspitee allall group, whose needs include housing, food, clothing, this,this, keekeepp movingmoving forwardforward education, and recreational opportunities. For lack andand dodo whatwhat ththeyey wantwant toto do”do” of funds, youth and their families cannot afford school uniforms or materials, transportation to and from school or work, or medicines when they get sick. For example, they noted that many youth cannot complete complementary or technical education programs because neither they nor their parents can afford the daily transportation costs. In addition, communities lack electricity and adequate streets, which impedes youths’ studies and ability to travel safely.

Many youth need to help their families in doing housework or earning income, which can detract from the time available to study or engage in activities for personal development and recreation.

Focus group participants expressed a high level of vulnerability and need for protection against crime and drugs in their communities. Participants ages 10‐13 and 14‐17 emphasized the need to keep youth away from drugs and criminal activities. Youth participating in programs noted that other youth tell them not to waste their time and try to lure them into activities to make money quickly such as drug‐dealing. In some communities, the level of crime makes it difficult for youth to do activities outside their

Final Report: DR Cross‐Sectoral Youth Assessment Page 11 homes. Anti‐crime programs such as Barrio Seguro are viewed as helpful but insufficient, especially since the police are viewed negatively.

Youth generally lack positive activities and safe spaces, which impedes their ability to occupy their time productively and makes them more vulnerable to negative influences.

Focus group participants expressed concern and even indignation that many youth in their communities spend the whole day with nothing to do. Spending time in el coro – hanging out with friends on the street corner – was seen as making it difficult for youth to integrate into more constructive activities. Youth also spent time in colmadones – establishments with alcohol and dancing – even when the activities there were only intended for adults. In addition, older focus group participants (14‐17 and 18‐24‐year‐olds) noted that youth invest their time and money in juegos de apuestas – betting games. In addition, youth perceived that the fact that communities lack activities for youth increases the likelihood that they will become involved in crime.

Programming for Youth

Numerous programs, ranging from small organizations serving a single community to large initiatives operating at a regional or national scale, attempt to meet the multiple needs that at‐risk youth face in the Dominican Republic. They are implemented by NGOs, youth networks, churches, and the government, among other institutions. Their work is supported financially by private funds, including from individuals, churches and private companies; multilateral and bilateral donors; and the Dominican government.

In order to manage the research scope of this assessment, the team focused on three types of youth programs: 1) those financed by USAID/DR, 2) large‐scale programs, and 3) smaller programs that presented compelling models for particular at‐risk youth populations. The annexes present a description of the program, including implementing organization and funder, goals, positive features and limitations of each of the programs examined for this assessment and described in the sector‐specific sections below.

The programs examined seek to address a broad range of needs, in some cases focusing on a specific area, in others offering a more comprehensive set of services. From an academic standpoint, programs complement and strengthen what students learn in the classroom, or bring overage students up to grade level. In addition to targeting basic literacy and numeracy and thinking skills, programs provide “life skills”16 training that facilitates youths’ personal development and their capacity to successfully navigate in a variety of settings (e.g., school, home, work, and community), including knowledge and skills to promote and protect their health. Programs focused on youth employment develop technical‐vocational and entrepreneurship skills and connect older youth with internships and access to micro‐credit. In addition, some programs address legal (e.g., documentation), 16 Also called “soft skills,” these are often broadly defined and may include attitudes and behavioral skills relative to self (self‐esteem, self‐discipline, perseverance), others (leadership, teamwork, communication, conflict prevention and resolution), job‐seeking (CV‐writing, interviewing techniques), work (time management, decision‐making, problem‐ solving, quality assurance), and health (hygiene, nutrition, management of risky behavior).

Final Report: DR Cross‐Sectoral Youth Assessment Page 12 medical, or psychological issues (e.g., arising from abuse), while some provide recreation, such as sports, which draws in youth, keeps them engaged in positive activities, and provides additional opportunities to address their needs.

In some cases, programs provide a holistic set of services to a particularly vulnerable population. Two examples of such programs financed by USAID/DR are the Aprendiendo Juntos (Learning Together) project led by Catholic Relief Services (CRS), and the Batey Community Development Project led by Save the Children. Using an “alternative education center” as a base from which to provide services, the Aprendiendo Juntos project addresses the range of complex needs of out‐of‐school and other highly vulnerable youth. This project is described further in the Education section below.

The Batey Community Development Project utilizes a community‐based approach, in which a concentration of services is provided to eight communities of Haitian migrants and descendents. A local coordinator works in each community to ensure coordination of service delivery. While the project does not have a youth component per se, it works to improve teaching and learning through teacher training and complementary school programming, provides vocational and entrepreneurship skills to youth ages 14‐17, addresses sexual health needs (implemented by Mujeres en Desarrollo, or MUDE), and provides opportunities for community leadership, including“Her“Heree inin PuertoPuerto PlaPlattaa wewe areare disaster preparedness. These areas have missingmissing recrerecreaattiioonnalal intersected, for example as youth acquiring activiactivities,ties, culturalcultural aacctivitivititieses ...... plumbing skills have become involved in community thesthesee culturalcultural activiactivitiesties forformm infrastructure projects.

youryour charactercharacter andand youryour personality”personality” According to focus groups with youth participating in these and other programs, youth value the opportunities that such programs present and believe they help them to overcome the barriers they face. Youth mentioned that they are seen in their communities as improving themselves by participating in these programs. Many youth reported gaining educational knowledge and skills, both academic and vocational, ranging from jewelry‐making and woodworking to English language skills. In addition, they believed programs had helped them to improve their expressive capacity, to develop a vision for the future, and to increase their knowledge of themes relating to health. They enjoyed recreation, particularly sports and computers, but also cultural activities such as cooking and dance. Many also report greater self‐esteem, which in turn they value as facilitating them in realizing their goals.

The general perception among interviewees and youth was that the demand for such programs greatly exceeds supply. Youth indicated that, apart from the programs in which they participate, few or no similar opportunities exist in their communities. They believed that existing programs function well, but they lack coverage relative to demand. Youth believe that others who lack opportunities to participate in programs would benefit from them. They see youth outside of programs as envious and wishing they could participate, or vulnerable to involvement in criminal activity.

Final Report: DR Cross‐Sectoral Youth Assessment Page 13

Youth saw a strong need for educational, employment, health promotion and recreational programs and spaces. They advocated for alternative and vocational education opportunities, apart from traditional schooling, as ways that youth could use their time productively and engage in learning. They expressed a strong need for health programs, especially to address sexual activity and drug use. Youth across age groups and geographic areas also strongly expressed the need for recreational and sports facilities.

Across age groups but particularly among younger youth, focus group participants also indicated the importance of spirituality and the need for emotional support. Both interviewees and focus group participants noted that at‐risk youth often suffer from low self‐esteem, associated with poverty, lack of success in school, or abuse and violence.

Youth participating in programs with a spiritual component identified God as a need in their lives. Other youth ages 10‐13 and 14‐17 who participated in programs emphasized the need for emotional support. Youth ages 10‐13 who did not participate in any program expressed the need for a person or organization who could provide guidance, whom they could trust, and who could communicate with them discreetly and effectively. Additional recommendations made by youth are included under Key Success Factors.

IV. EDUCATION

The interviewees and youth alike who participated in this assessment recognize the importance of education for improving youths’ opportunities in life. However, despite the progress of the Dominican public education system in increasing access, academic progression and literacy, many youth are not obtaining the opportunities or the knowledge and skills they need. While basic education enrollment is fairly high (89% in 2008‐0917), at least18 22,000 youth ages 10‐14 remain out of school.19 Secondary enrollment is dramatically lower (50% in 2008‐0920), as youth face a number of constraints to accessing education at that level. Impediments to access are a function of both family and community context, and the school system itself. Those youth who are enrolled in school are often inadequately prepared for work, which contributes to their particularly high rate of unemployment. While many programs exist both within and outside of the formal education system to address youths’ educational needs, they fall short of the considerable demand.

The Education System and Education Policies

Over the past two decades, the government has engaged in important reform efforts to improve the education level of its citizens. Starting with the first 10‐Year Education Plan in

17 MINERD, 2010. “Boletín de Indicadores: Año Lectivo 20082009.”

18 Given that overall basic education enrollment stands at 89% according to MINERD, it is likely that more than 22,000 youth agesaged 10‐14 are out of school. Otherwise, a net enrollment rate of roughly 9899% for that age group would be implied.

19 Central Bank, 2010. National Labor Force Survey database, 2nd Semester 2008 data

20 MINERD, 2010. “Boletín de Indicadores: Año Lectivo 20082009.”

Final Report: DR Cross‐Sectoral Youth Assessment Page 14 http:school.19

1992, the government has taken steps aimed at expanding education coverage and increasing efficiency, improving literacy, and modernizing the curriculum. In 2008, the government established a new 10‐Year Education Plan (2008‐2018) and, to guide its implementation, the Education Management Plan (2008‐2013). The Spanish Agency for International Development Cooperation (AECID, for its Spanish acronym) and the European Union provide significant budgetary support in line with these Plans, while other donors such as the Inter‐American Development Bank (IDB) fund specific, related projects.

Passed in 1997 as part of the education reform process, the General Law on Education (66‐

97) guarantees the right of all inhabitants of the Dominican Republic to education. The final year of initial education and all eight years of basic education are compulsory and to be provided free of charge. Secondary education is also to be provided free of charge, though it is not compulsory. Children with special needs are to be educated with their own age group and special education integrated in regular programs, adapting the curriculum as necessary.

The table below describes the structure of the education system.

Table 2 Structure of Dominican Education System by Intended Ages Agency Level Cycle Ages

Grades and Ag es

Ministry of Education Initial Preschool 0‐5 Basic First 6‐9

Second 10‐13 Secondary First 14‐

Second 16‐17

Adult Basic Secondary

Min. of Higher Education, Science and Technology

Tertiary

INFOTEP Technical‐Professional Adapted from OECD. 2008. “Review of National Education Policies: Dominican Republic”

The government entities with primary responsibility for education include the Ministry of Education (Initial, Basic, Secondary and Adult Education), the National Institute for Technical‐Professional Training (INFOTEP, for its Spanish acronym), and the Ministry of Higher Education, Science and Technology. The Ministry of Education administers public schools as well as supervises private and “semi‐official”21 schools. INFOTEP, which provides training courses and continuing education through accredited centers, will be discussed further under Youth Employment.

Basic and secondary education are each divided into two cycles, with the second cycles culminating in a National Examination. Basic education comprises two four‐year cycles.

21 Publicly subsidized schools operated by private (e.g., religious) entities

Final Report: DR Cross‐Sectoral Youth Assessment Page 15

Secondary comprises an initial two‐year cycle, with a common curriculum for all students, and a second two‐year cycle, allowing for electives and specialization through three modalities: general academic, technical‐vocational, and arts. Students are required to pass National Examinations at the conclusion of basic and secondary education in order to progress to the next education level.

In addition to these levels, the subsystem of Adult Education promotes literacy and professional training, as well as offers equivalency programs in basic and secondary education for those who have not completed those levels. These programs, known as Basic Education for Adults (EBA, for its Spanish acronym) and Secondary Education for Adults (PREPARA, for its Spanish acronym), offer older youth and adults important second‐chance opportunities to complete their education. Since 2007, the World Bank has invested to expand the coverage and improve the quality of these two programs.

Education Indicators and Perceptions of Education

Access

The Dominican Republic has made commendable progress in expanding education access, though challenges exist for increasing access further. In 2008‐09, net basic education enrollment was 89.2 percent. Net enrollment was much lower for secondary (50.9%),22 though this represented a doubling in enrollment since 2000. Education services are predominantly publicly provided (accounting for 84% of enrollment), though private entities serve a higher proportion of youth at the secondary level (25% compared to 19% for basic education).23

The growth of public education infrastructure has not kept pace with rising enrollment,24 which has diminished…