The review team analyzed 32 policies (see Annex 1) for this assignment and assigned relative scores for specific policies against the established criteria (Annex 2). The team used these criteria to gauge how individual policies can potentially impact youth associations and businesses within the PSSA Zone of Influence (ZOI). It should be noted that assigned ratings are based on the current design of these policies. The team used the following parameters to assess how existing policies might influence the business enabling environment for youth enterprises: (i) access to inputs and resources; (ii) access to skills and technology; (iii) access to finance and financial services; and (iv) access to business, technical services, and markets. Results show that most of the policies reviewed do not focus on any targeted populations or parameters. Only a few existing policies cover the broad areas of PSSA focus to varying degrees. Results of a comparison of existing policies with PSSA parameters are presented in Annex 3.
Criteria (CR)
Description/ Examples
CR 4: Enabling factors/barriers
Specific and targeted instruments to enforce the utility of the policy. Government interventions. Strategies for promoting the achievement of maximum impact/output. The degree of integration and coordination with other policies for maximum effectiveness. Matching tools. Other considerations including critical barriers preventing the policy from being developed or adopted at a given time, when these barriers normally shift, and how one acts quickly and proactively when there is a window of opportunity. Institutions and key actors responsible for administering, implementing, and enforcing the policy. Mechanism to facilitate more engagement of the private sector. Consultative mechanisms between the public and private sector (i.e., a coordination platform). Clearly defined roles for key actors. Clear guidelines on how each actor will be held accountable for the areas assigned within the policy action plan. The lead institution(s) to champion the policy agenda. Monitoring and evaluation systems and tools, including indicators relevant to the policy (e.g., realistic, and measurable indicators) and knowledge management system, to ensure the policy remains relevant and valid in current and future dynamics. The expected short-, intermediate-, and long-term outcomes; the added value of the policy. Also, the unintended positive and negative consequences of the policy (e.g., multiplier and trickle-down effects). Demonstrable improvements from the policy; evidence on the ground on the effectiveness of the policy (direct, indirect, qualitative, or quantitative). Gaps in the data/evidence base. [62] [63] [64] [65] [66]
CR 5: Institutional framework
CR 6: Implementation framework
CR 7: Expected impact
CR 8: Evidence/ ability to measure policy effectiveness
[67]
16
Youth Enterprise Policy Analysis Report
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online