Namibia - Vocational Training Grant Fund Impact Evaluation 2011-2016, Baseline and Follow-up Surveys

Primary tabs

The impact evaluation of the Vocational Training Grant Fund (VTGF) subactivity in Namibia used a random assignment design to determine the effects of VTGF-funded scholarships for vocational training on recipients' training and labor market outcomes, such as employment and earnings. Under this design, eligible applicants to each VTGF-funded training in which the number of applications exceeded the number of available slots were randomly assigned by the training provider either to a group that was offered a VTGF scholarship (treatment group) or one that was not (control group). The treatment and control groups for each training were expected to be equivalent, on average, except for the offer of VTGF funding. Therefore, differences in the outcomes of the treatment and control groups measured about one year after the end of training could be attributed to the impact of the VTGF funding. As described in the VTGF final evaluation report, the impact evaluation found that the scholarship offer substantially increased participation in and completion of vocational training, but that this did not translate into positive impacts on employment, earnings, or income. The impact evaluation was complemented by an implementation analysis, which drew on qualitative data collected close to the end of the compact; the implementation findings were provided in an interim evaluation report covering all three subactivities.

Acronym: 
VTGF 2011-2016
Type: 
Microdata
Topics: 
Topic not specified
Economy Coverage: 
Economy Coverage not specified
Languages Supported: 
English
Geographical Coverage: 
Namibia
Reference ID: 
NAM_2011-2016_MCC-VTGF_v01_M
Release Date: 
March 26, 2019

Harvest Source

Harvest Source: 
Microdata

Harvest Source ID

Harvest Source ID: 
10382

Last Updated

Last Updated: 
March 26, 2019
Data Collector(s) Name: 
Survey Warehouse
Study Type: 

Impact Evaluation

Data Collector(s) Name: 
Survey Warehouse
Deviations from Sample Design: 
The follow-up sample used for the impact analysis covers 26 VTGF-funded trainings, which is not the full set of trainings funded by the subactivity (the baseline sample included an additional 2 trainings that were subsequently dropped). Specifically, the follow-up sample excludes 27 trainings for which there was no control group (typically because there were sufficient slots to accommodate all applicants), 22 trainings for which the follow-up survey date (one year after the end of training) would fall outside of the evaluation period, and 9 trainings for which there were severe violations of random assignment. These 58 excluded trainings comprise about half of the total number of VTGF-funded trainees.
Disclaimer: 
The user of the data acknowledges that the original collector of the data, the authorized distributor of the data, and the relevant funding agency bear no responsibility for use of the data or for interpretations or inferences based upon such uses.
Estimates of Sampling Error: 
The survey data were intended to cover the universe of applicants to the included trainings, and did not involve any sampling. The only source of error in the estimated means is survey non-response. Users can therefore rely on standard formulae to calculate the sampling error for the estimated means. Standard errors for differences between the treatment and control groups were estimated in a linear regression framework that accounted for training fixed effects. No other adjustments to the standard errors were necessary.
Funding Name, Abbreviation, Role: 
Millennium Challenge Corporation
Primary Investigator Name, Affiliation: 
Mathematica Policy Research
Questionnaires: 
The VTGF baseline survey was originally developed by Millennium Challenge Account-Namibia (MCA-N). It was designed as a computer-assisted survey to be conducted by telephone, in English. The survey collected data on basic demographic characteristics of the applicants, together with a range of outcome measures that focused on the applicants' vocational training history, employment status, and earnings and income. Minor changes were made to the instrument when NORC/Survey Warehouse too over the data collection from MCA-N, and again when Mathematica joined the evaluation. These involved adjusting the wording of some questions, adding or removing some questions, and making some changes in question order and skip patterns. Despite these changes, the basic survey instrument and methodology remained similar over time, enabling us to combine data from different periods for the analysis. The questionnaire, marked to show changes over time, is provided as part of the baseline data package. The VTGF follow-up survey was developed by Mathematica, and was also a computer-assisted survey that was conducted by telephone. The survey was developed in English and was translated into Afrikaans and Oshiwambo; the translated versions were used for respondents who were not comfortable in English. The survey included the following modules: (1) education and vocational training; (2) employment and earnings; (3) income and household demographics; and (4) health behaviors (realted to HIV/AIDS and pregnancy). The questionnaires (in all languages) are provided as part of the follow-up data package.
Response Rates: 
The response rate to the baseline survey was 74 percent (78 percent in the treatment group and 71 percent in the control group). The response rate to the follow-up survey was 69.4 percent (72.2 percent in the treatment group and 66.6 percent in the control group).
Sampling Procedure: 
The targeted sample for the VTGF evaluation consists of all applicants to VTGF-funded trainings who were randomly assigned to the treatment and control groups. For the baseline survey, there were 1,892 unique applicants to the 28 trainings included in the evaluation, including 955 assigned to the treatment group and 937 assigned to the control group. Of these applicants, 55 (3 percent) applied to multiple trainings; these applicants were linked to the first included training for purposes of the evaluation. Of the 1,892 unique applicants, 1,406 completed a baseline survey, and constitute the analytic sample used for the VTGF baseline analysis. For the follow-up survey, 2 of the 28 trainings initially included in the evaluation were dropped, as the scheduled follow-up fell outside the evaluation period. There were 1,801 unique applicants to the remaining 26 trainings included in the evaluation, including 889 assigned to the treatment group and 912 assigned to the control group. Of the 1,801 unique applicants, 1,250 completed a follow-up survey (642 in the treatment group and 608 in the control group), and constitute the analytic sample used for the VTGF follow-up analysis.
Subtitle: 
Baseline and Follow-up Surveys
Supervision: 
Two MCA-N staff members were responsible for collecting the portion of the baseline data for which MCA-N was responsible. The remainder of the baseline data, collected by NORC/SW, were collected by a handful of interviewers who worked from NORC's office in Windhoek. These were supervised by a senior on-site SW staff member. NORC staff provided support as required. The follow-up data were collected by a handful of interviewers who worked from SW's office in Windhoek. These were supervised by a senior on-site SW staff member. NORC staff (first six months of data collection) and Mathematica staff (remaining data collection period) provided support as required.
Unit of Analysis: 
- Individuals
Universe: 
Applicants to VTGF-funded trainings throughout Namibia who were randomly assigned to treatment and control groups.
Version Description: 
Anonymized dataset for public distribution
Weighting: 
No weights were used in the main analysis either at baseline or at follow-up. However, as a robustness check, we estimated results at follow-up using non-reponse weights. These weights were designed to make the weighted follow-up sample reflect the applicant sample in terms of its distribution across trainings. To create these weights, we weighted each follow-up respondent by the inverse of the response rate in the training to which they applied, separately by treatment status. We then top-coded these weights at 3 standard deviations above the mean for the full sample (separately by treatment status) to account for outliers and normalized the sum of the weights (again separately by treatment status) to equal the number of observations. The non-response weight variable is called t1_weight. The results applying these weights were very similar to the unweighted results.

No Visualizations Available.

Baseline data: Mamun, Arif, Evan Borkum, Malik Mubeen, and Linus Marco."Evaluation of the Vocational Training Grant Fund (VTGF) Subactivity Baseline Survey, 2011-2014". Data submitted to the Millennium Challenge Corporation. Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research, September 2015. Follow-up data: Borkum, Evan, Arif Mamun, and Malik Mubeen."Evaluation of the Vocational Training Grant Fund (VTGF) Subactivity Follow-up Survey, 2014-2016". Data submitted to the Millennium Challenge Corporation. Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research, September 2017.

The impact evaluation of the Vocational Training Grant Fund (VTGF) subactivity in Namibia used a random assignment design to determine the effects of VTGF-funded scholarships for vocational training on recipients' training and labor market outcomes, such as employment and earnings. Under this design, eligible applicants to each VTGF-funded training in which the number of applications exceeded the number of available slots were randomly assigned by the training provider either to a group that was offered a VTGF scholarship (treatment group) or one that was not (control group). The treatment and control groups for each training were expected to be equivalent, on average, except for the offer of VTGF funding. Therefore, differences in the outcomes of the treatment and control groups measured about one year after the end of training could be attributed to the impact of the VTGF funding. As described in the VTGF final evaluation report, the impact evaluation found that the scholarship offer substantially increased participation in and completion of vocational training, but that this did not translate into positive impacts on employment, earnings, or income. The impact evaluation was complemented by an implementation analysis, which drew on qualitative data collected close to the end of the compact; the implementation findings were provided in an interim evaluation report covering all three subactivities.

FieldValue
Modified Date
2019-04-08
Release Date
Identifier
b0b5c74d-7967-48ac-9483-f6e6fcd95505
License
License Not Specified
Contact Email
Public Access Level
Public
Rating: 
0
No votes yet
Reference ID: 
NAM_2011-2016_MCC-VTGF_v01_M
Acronym: 
VTGF 2011-2016
Type: 
Languages Supported: 
Disclaimer: 
The user of the data acknowledges that the original collector of the data, the authorized distributor of the data, and the relevant funding agency bear no responsibility for use of the data or for interpretations or inferences based upon such uses.
Response Rates: 
The response rate to the baseline survey was 74 percent (78 percent in the treatment group and 71 percent in the control group). The response rate to the follow-up survey was 69.4 percent (72.2 percent in the treatment group and 66.6 percent in the control group).
Weighting: 
No weights were used in the main analysis either at baseline or at follow-up. However, as a robustness check, we estimated results at follow-up using non-reponse weights. These weights were designed to make the weighted follow-up sample reflect the applicant sample in terms of its distribution across trainings. To create these weights, we weighted each follow-up respondent by the inverse of the response rate in the training to which they applied, separately by treatment status. We then top-coded these weights at 3 standard deviations above the mean for the full sample (separately by treatment status) to account for outliers and normalized the sum of the weights (again separately by treatment status) to equal the number of observations. The non-response weight variable is called t1_weight. The results applying these weights were very similar to the unweighted results.
Estimates of Sampling Error: 
The survey data were intended to cover the universe of applicants to the included trainings, and did not involve any sampling. The only source of error in the estimated means is survey non-response. Users can therefore rely on standard formulae to calculate the sampling error for the estimated means. Standard errors for differences between the treatment and control groups were estimated in a linear regression framework that accounted for training fixed effects. No other adjustments to the standard errors were necessary.
Data Collector(s) Name: 
Survey Warehouse
Supervision: 
Two MCA-N staff members were responsible for collecting the portion of the baseline data for which MCA-N was responsible. The remainder of the baseline data, collected by NORC/SW, were collected by a handful of interviewers who worked from NORC's office in Windhoek. These were supervised by a senior on-site SW staff member. NORC staff provided support as required. The follow-up data were collected by a handful of interviewers who worked from SW's office in Windhoek. These were supervised by a senior on-site SW staff member. NORC staff (first six months of data collection) and Mathematica staff (remaining data collection period) provided support as required.
Primary Investigator Name, Affiliation: 
Mathematica Policy Research
Version Description: 
Anonymized dataset for public distribution
Subtitle: 
Baseline and Follow-up Surveys
Unit of Analysis: 
- Individuals
Universe: 
Applicants to VTGF-funded trainings throughout Namibia who were randomly assigned to treatment and control groups.
Geographical Coverage: 
Data Classification of a Dataset: 
Sampling Procedure: 
The targeted sample for the VTGF evaluation consists of all applicants to VTGF-funded trainings who were randomly assigned to the treatment and control groups. For the baseline survey, there were 1,892 unique applicants to the 28 trainings included in the evaluation, including 955 assigned to the treatment group and 937 assigned to the control group. Of these applicants, 55 (3 percent) applied to multiple trainings; these applicants were linked to the first included training for purposes of the evaluation. Of the 1,892 unique applicants, 1,406 completed a baseline survey, and constitute the analytic sample used for the VTGF baseline analysis. For the follow-up survey, 2 of the 28 trainings initially included in the evaluation were dropped, as the scheduled follow-up fell outside the evaluation period. There were 1,801 unique applicants to the remaining 26 trainings included in the evaluation, including 889 assigned to the treatment group and 912 assigned to the control group. Of the 1,801 unique applicants, 1,250 completed a follow-up survey (642 in the treatment group and 608 in the control group), and constitute the analytic sample used for the VTGF follow-up analysis.
Deviations from Sample Design: 
The follow-up sample used for the impact analysis covers 26 VTGF-funded trainings, which is not the full set of trainings funded by the subactivity (the baseline sample included an additional 2 trainings that were subsequently dropped). Specifically, the follow-up sample excludes 27 trainings for which there was no control group (typically because there were sufficient slots to accommodate all applicants), 22 trainings for which the follow-up survey date (one year after the end of training) would fall outside of the evaluation period, and 9 trainings for which there were severe violations of random assignment. These 58 excluded trainings comprise about half of the total number of VTGF-funded trainees.
Release Date: 
Tuesday, March 26, 2019
Last Updated Date: 
Tuesday, March 26, 2019
Questionnaires: 
The VTGF baseline survey was originally developed by Millennium Challenge Account-Namibia (MCA-N). It was designed as a computer-assisted survey to be conducted by telephone, in English. The survey collected data on basic demographic characteristics of the applicants, together with a range of outcome measures that focused on the applicants' vocational training history, employment status, and earnings and income. Minor changes were made to the instrument when NORC/Survey Warehouse too over the data collection from MCA-N, and again when Mathematica joined the evaluation. These involved adjusting the wording of some questions, adding or removing some questions, and making some changes in question order and skip patterns. Despite these changes, the basic survey instrument and methodology remained similar over time, enabling us to combine data from different periods for the analysis. The questionnaire, marked to show changes over time, is provided as part of the baseline data package. The VTGF follow-up survey was developed by Mathematica, and was also a computer-assisted survey that was conducted by telephone. The survey was developed in English and was translated into Afrikaans and Oshiwambo; the translated versions were used for respondents who were not comfortable in English. The survey included the following modules: (1) education and vocational training; (2) employment and earnings; (3) income and household demographics; and (4) health behaviors (realted to HIV/AIDS and pregnancy). The questionnaires (in all languages) are provided as part of the follow-up data package.
Harvest Source: 
Harvest Source ID: 
10382
Citation Text: 
Baseline data: Mamun, Arif, Evan Borkum, Malik Mubeen, and Linus Marco."Evaluation of the Vocational Training Grant Fund (VTGF) Subactivity Baseline Survey, 2011-2014". Data submitted to the Millennium Challenge Corporation. Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research, September 2015. Follow-up data: Borkum, Evan, Arif Mamun, and Malik Mubeen."Evaluation of the Vocational Training Grant Fund (VTGF) Subactivity Follow-up Survey, 2014-2016". Data submitted to the Millennium Challenge Corporation. Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research, September 2017.
Modified date: 
17981
Study Type: 
Impact Evaluation
Primary Dataset: 
Yes

Data Access and Licensing

This dataset is classified as Public under the Access to Information Classification Policy. Users inside and outside the Bank can access this dataset.

This dataset is available from an external third-party website. Visit the website to obtain license information. More information

Share Metadata

The information on this page (the dataset metadata) is also available in these formats.

PRINT EMAIL JSON RDF