Document of

The World Bank

Report No:ICR00003953

IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION AND RESULTS REPORT
(IDA-H5940, TF-97110, TF17816)
ON AGRANT
IN THE AMOUNT OF US$10.0 MILLION FROM THE AFRICA CATALYTIC GROWTH FUND
AND A GRANT
IN THE AMOUNT OF SDR 4.0 MILLION (US$6.0 MILLION EQUIVALENT)FROM THE IDA CRISIS RESPONSE WINDOW
AND AN ADDITIONAL GRANT
IN THE AMOUNT OF US$3.4 MILLION FROM THE AFRICA CATALYTIC GROWTH FUND
TO THE
REPUBLIC OF LIBERIA
FOR A
LIBERIA YOUTH, EMPLOYMENT, SKILLS PROJECT
December 21, 2016
Social Protection and Labor Global Practice
Africa Region

CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS

(Exchange Rate Effective December 5, 2016)

Currency Unit=Liberian Dollars (LRD)

LRD 1.00 = US$ 0.011

US$1.00 = LRD 91

FISCAL YEAR

July 1 – June 30

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

ACGF / Africa Catalytic Growth Fund
AF / Additional Financing
AfT / Agenda for Transformation
CAS / Country Assistance Strategy
CF / Community Facilitator
CfWTEP / Cash-for-Work Temporary Employment Project
CLIP / Community Livelihoods Project
CPS / Country Partnership Strategy
DA / Designated Account
EVD / Ebola Virus Disease
FDI / Foreign Direct Investment
FM / Financial Management
FMC / Farm Management Committee
GDP / Gross Domestic Product
GoL / Government of Liberia
GRM / Grievance Redress Mechanism
ICR / Implementation Completion and Results Report
IEG / Independent Evaluation Group
ILO / International Labour Organization
KPI / Key Performance Indicator
LACE / Liberia Agency for Community Empowerment
M&E / Monitoring and Evaluation
MFDP / Ministry of Finance and Development Planning
MOU / Memorandum of Understanding
MYS / Ministry of Youth and Sports
NGO / Nongovernmental Organization
PDO / Project Development Objective
PFMU / Public Financial Management Unit
PMT / Project Management Team
POM / Project Operational Manual
PP / Procurement Plan
PRS / Poverty Reduction Strategy
PSNP / Productive Safety Net Program
PST / Project Support Team
TVET / Technical and Vocational Education and Training
YES / Youth Employment Support
YOP / Youth Opportunities Project
Senior Global Practice Director / : / Michal Rutkowski
Practice Manager / : / Stefano Paternostro
Project Team Leader: / Suleiman Namara
ICR Team Leader: / Abu Kargbo
LIBERIA
YOUTH, EMPLOYMENT, SKILLS PROJECT
CONTENTS
A. Basic Information
B. Key Dates
C. Ratings Summary
D. Sector and Theme Codes
E. Bank Staff
F. Results Framework Analysis
G. Ratings of Project Performance in ISRs
H. Restructuring (if any)
I. Disbursement Profile
1.Project Context, Development Objectives and Design
2.Key Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcomes
3.Assessment of Outcomes
4.Assessment of Risk to Development Outcome
5.Assessment of Bank and Borrower Performance
6.Lessons Learned
7.Comments on Issues Raised by Borrower/Implementing Agencies/Partners
Annex 1. Project Costs and Financing
Annex 2. Outputs by Component
Annex 3. Economic and Financial Analysis
Annex 4. Bank Lending and Implementation Support/Supervision Processes
Annex 5. Beneficiary Survey Results
Annex 6. Stakeholder Workshop Report and Results
Annex 7. Summary of Borrower's ICR and/or Comments on Draft ICR
Annex 8. Comments of Cofinanciers and Other Partners/Stakeholders
Annex 9. List of Supporting Documents
MAP

A. Basic Information

Country: / Liberia / Project Name: / LR: Youth, Employment, Skills Project
Project ID: / P121686 / L/C/TF Number(s): / IDA-H5940, TF-97110
ICR Date: / 12/05/2016 / ICR Type: / Core ICR
Lending Instrument: / SIL / Borrower: / REPUBLIC OF LIBERIA
Original Total Commitment: / US$16.00 million / Disbursed Amount: / US$19.59million
Revised Amount: / US$19.40million
Environmental Category: B
Implementing Agencies:
Liberia Agency For Community Empowerment
Cofinanciers and Other External Partners:

B. Key Dates

Process / Date / Process / Original Date / Revised / Actual Date(s)
Concept Review: / 09/21/2009 / Effectiveness: / 09/13/2011 / 09/13/2010
Appraisal: / 02/03/2010 / Restructuring(s): / 11/26/2012
06/19/2013
12/11/2014
Approval: / 06/24/2010 / Midterm Review: / 10/01/2012 / 09/10/2012
Closing: / 06/30/2013 / 06/30/2016

C. Ratings Summary

C.1 Performance Rating by ICR
Outcomes: / Moderately Unsatisfactory
Risk to Development Outcome: / Significant
Bank Performance: / Moderately Satisfactory
Borrower Performance: / Moderately Satisfactory
C.2 Detailed Ratings of Bank and Borrower Performance (by ICR)
Bank / Ratings / Borrower / Ratings
Quality at Entry: / Moderately Unsatisfactory / Government: / Moderately Satisfactory
Quality of Supervision: / Satisfactory / Implementing Agency/Agencies: / Moderately Satisfactory
Overall Bank Performance: / Moderately Satisfactory / Overall Borrower Performance: / Moderately Satisfactory
C.3 Quality at Entry and Implementation Performance Indicators
Implementation Performance / Indicators / QAG Assessments (if any) / Rating
Potential Problem Project at any time (Yes/No): / No / Quality at Entry (QEA): / None
Problem Project at any time (Yes/No): / No / Quality of Supervision (QSA): / None
DO rating before Closing/Inactive status: / Moderately Satisfactory

D. Sector and Theme Codes

Original / Actual
Sector Code (as % of total Bank financing)
Other social services / 61 / 61
Public administration- Other social services / 25 / 25
Vocational training / 14 / 14
Theme Code (as % of total Bank financing)
Gender / 16 / 16
Improving labor markets / 56 / 56
Social Safety Nets/Social Assistance & Social Care Services / 28 / 28

E. Bank Staff

Positions / At ICR / At Approval
Vice President: / Makhtar Diop / Obiageli K. Ezekwesili
Country Director: / Henri Kerali / Ishac Diwan
Practice Manager/Manager: / Stefano Paternostro / Lynne D. Sherburne-Benz
Christopher Thomas
Project Team Leader: / Suleiman Namara / Giuseppe Zampaglione
Peter Darvas
ICR Team Leader: / Abu Kargbo
ICR Primary Author: / Abu Kargbo/Peter Pojarski

F. Results Framework Analysis

Project Development Objectives (from Project Appraisal Document)

To expand access of poor and young Liberians to temporary employment programs and to improve youth employability, in support of the Government of Liberia’s response to the employment crisis

Revised Project Development Objectives (as approved by original approving authority)

No revision.

(a) PDO Indicator(s)
Indicator / Baseline Value / Original Target Values (from approval documents) / Formally Revised Target Values / Actual Value Achieved at Completion or Target Years
Indicator 1: / Direct project beneficiaries
Value
(quantitative or
qualitative) / 0 / 49,500 / 59,800 / 58,581
Date achieved / 06/03/2010 (PAD date) / 06/30/2013
(original closing date) / 12/31/2015 / 06/30/2016
Comments
(including %
achievement) / Target almost fully achieved. Revised during the restructuring in June 2013 and then during the Additional Financing (AF). Target increased.
Indicator 2: / Female projectbeneficiaries
Value
(quantitative or
qualitative) / 0 / 48 / 48 / 47.5
Date achieved / 06/03/2010 / 06/30/2013 / 12/31/2015 / 06/30/2016
Comments
(including %
achievement) / Target substantially achieved at 99%.
Indicator 3: / Beneficiaries of CommunityLivelihoods Program
Value
(quantitative or
qualitative) / 0 / 45,000 / 56,500 / 56,250
Date achieved / 06/03/2010 / 06/30/2013 / 12/31/2015 / 06/30/2016
Comments
(including %
achievement) / Target achieved. Revised wording during the second restructuring, from ‘community works’ to “community livelihoods.” New target of 47,500 was from June 2013 restructuring. However, the Project Paper for the AF already shows a target of 56,500.
Indicator 4: / Net income gain of targetedparticipants in year ofparticipation (%)
Value
(quantitative or
qualitative) / 0 / 75 / 75 / Not known
Date achieved / 06/03/2010 / 06/30/2013 / 12/31/2015 / 06/30/2016
Comments
(including %
achievement) / Target cannot be reported as achieved because of lack of data. This indicator was to be measured by an impact evaluation, which was not completed.
Indicator 5: / Persons participating and completing skills development programs
Value
(quantitative or
qualitative) / 0 / 4,500 / 3,300 / 2,331
Date achieved / 06/03/2010 / 06/30/2013 / 12/31/2015 / 06/30/2016
Comments
(including %
achievement) / Original and revised targets not achieved. Revised wording in June 2013, from original “persons participating and completing skills development programs and receiving certification.” Revised target from 4,500 to 3,300. Completion date further moved to 12/31/2015 with the AF Project Paper.
Indicator 6: / Board of Certification andAccreditation for TVET isestablished (yes/no)
Value
(quantitative or
qualitative) / No / Yes / — / No
Date achieved / 06/03/2010 / 06/30/2013 / — / —
Comments
(including %
achievement) / Dropped in June 2013 restructuring atthe request of the Government becauseestablishment of a TVET Board would require a presidential mandate and therefore was beyond the control of this project.
(b) Intermediate Outcome Indicator(s)
Indicator / Baseline Value / Original Target Values (from approval documents) / Formally Revised Target Values / Actual Value Achieved at Completion or Target Years
Indicator 1: / Work days created
Value
(quantitative or
qualitative) / 0 / 1,800,000 / 2,275,000 / 2,337,500
Date achieved / 06/03/2010 / 06/30/2013 / 12/31/2015 / 06/30/2016
Comments
(including %
achievement) / Target achieved. Revised at AF. Original wording “Days of temporaryemployment created(number).” Target also revised.
Indicator 2: / Women participation (%)
Value
(quantitative or
qualitative) / 46 / 50 / 50 / 42
Date achieved / 06/03/2010 / 06/30/2013 / 12/31/2015 / 06/30/2016
Comments
(including %
achievement) / Target not achieved. Target date revised to 12/31/2015 at the time of AF.
Indicator 3: / Youth participation (under35 years)
Value
(quantitative or
qualitative) / 46 / 50 / 50 / 79
Date achieved / 06/03/2010 / 06/30/2013 / 12/31/2015 / 06/30/2016
Comments
(including %
achievement) / Target surpassed. Target date revised to 12/31/2015 at time of AF.
Indicator 4: / Beneficiaries below the poverty line
Value
(quantitative or
qualitative) / 80 / 85 / 85 / Not known
Date achieved / 06/03/2010 / 06/30/2013 / 12/31/2015 / 06/30/2016
Comments
(including %
achievement) / Target date revised to 12/31/2015 at time of AF. Target cannot be reported as achieved because of lack of data. This indicator was to be measured by an impact evaluation, which was not completed because of the Ebola outbreak.
Indicator 5: / Beneficiaries unemployed(or inactive) before project (%)
Value
(quantitative or
qualitative) / 76 / 80 / 80 / Not known
Date achieved / 06/03/2010 / 06/30/2013 / 12/31/2015 / 06/30/2016
Comments
(including %
achievement) / Target date revised to 12/31/2105 at time of AF. Target cannot be reported as achieved because of lack of data. This indicator was to be measured by an impact evaluation, which was not completed because of the Ebola outbreak.
Indicator 6: / Total costs allocated toparticipants’ wages (%)
Value
(quantitative or
qualitative) / 68 / 72 / 62 / 59.7
Date achieved / 06/03/2010 / 06/30/2013 / 12/31/2015 / 06/30/2016
Comments
(including %
achievement) / Revised target substantially achieved. The revisionfrom 72% to 62% was done to reflect achievement ofthe 72%target for theoriginal projectfunding(47,500beneficiaries)with therevised targetof 50% for theAF(7,500beneficiaries). The revision inthe AF to 50% reflectsthe increasedallocation toinvestments intraining andcapital inputs.
Indicator 7: / Public works schemescompleted with satisfactoryquality (%)
Value
(quantitative or
qualitative) / n.a. / 85 / — / 100
Date achieved / 06/03/2010 / 06/30/2013 / — / 06/30/2016
Comments
(including %
achievement) / Target surpassed.
Indicator 8: / Public works schemescompleted within a specificperiod of time (%)
Value
(quantitative or
qualitative) / n.a. / 85 / — / 97
Date achieved / 06/03/2010 / 06/30/2013 / — / 06/30/2016
Comments
(including %
achievement) / Target surpassed.
Indicator 9: / Beneficiaries trained inbasic life skills
Value
(quantitative or
qualitative) / 0 / 45,000 / 56,500 / 56,250
Date achieved / 06/03/2010 / 06/30/2013 / 12/31/2015 / 06/30/2016
Comments
(including %
achievement) / Revised target achieved. Target increased with the AF.
Indicator 10: / Trainers educated in basiclife skills training (number)
Value
(quantitative or
qualitative) / 0 / 200 / 300 / 553
Date achieved / 06/03/2010 / 06/30/2013 / 12/31/2015 / 06/30/2016
Comments
(including %
achievement) / Target surpassed.
Indicator 11: / Beneficiaries trained inbusiness skills (#)
Value
(quantitative or
qualitative) / 0 / 0 / 5,250 / 7,400
Date achieved / 11/12/2014 / — / 12/31/2015 / 06/30/2016
Comments
(including %
achievement) / Target surpassed. New indicator introduced with the AF on 11/12/2014.
Indicator 12: / Trainers educated inbusiness skills training (#)
Value
(quantitative or
qualitative) / 0 / 0 / 50 / 116
Date achieved / 11/12/2014 / — / 12/31/2015 / 06/30/2016
Comments
(including %
achievement) / Target surpassed. New indicator introduced with the AF on 11/12/2014.
Indicator 13: / Business ownersparticipating and completingbusiness developmenttraining
Value
(quantitative or
qualitative) / 0 / 250 / 250 / 240
Date achieved / 06/03/2010 / 06/30/2013 / 12/31/2015 / 06/30/2016
Comments
(including %
achievement) / Target substantially achieved.
Indicator 14: / Women participation (%)
Value
(quantitative or
qualitative) / 0 / 25 / 25 / 25
Date achieved / 06/03/2010 / 06/30/2013 / 12/31/2015 / 06/30/2016
Comments
(including %
achievement) / Target achieved.Target date revised to 12/31/2015 at time of AF.
Indicator 15: / Youth participation (under35 years) (%)
Value
(quantitative or
qualitative) / 75 / 75 / 75 / 75
Date achieved / 06/03/2010 / 06/30/2013 / 12/31/2015 / 06/30/2016
Comments
(including %
achievement) / Target achieved. Target date revised to 12/31/2105 at time of AF.
Indicator 16: / Trainers and institutionalleaders for skillsdevelopment providerstrained
Value
(quantitative or
qualitative) / 0 / 200 / 200 / 250
Date achieved / 06/03/2010 / 06/30/2013 / 12/31/2015 / 06/30/2016
Comments
(including %
achievement) / Target surpassed.
Indicator 17: / Training providers meeting specified performancecriteria (%)
Value
(quantitative or
qualitative) / 0 / 80 / 80 / 100
Date achieved / 06/03/2010 / 06/30/2013 / 12/31/2015 / 06/30/2016
Comments
(including %
achievement) / Target surpassed.
Indicator 18: / Employers satisfied with thequality of the students (%)
Value
(quantitative or
qualitative) / 0 / 80 / 80 / 74
Date achieved / 06/03/2010 / 06/30/2013 / 12/31/2015 / 06/30/2016
Comments
(including %
achievement) / Target substantially achieved.

G. Ratings of Project Performance in ISRs

No. / Date ISR
Archived / DO / IP / Actual Disbursements
(US$, millions)
1 / 12/22/2010 / Satisfactory / Moderately Satisfactory / 0.70
2 / 07/13/2011 / Satisfactory / Moderately Satisfactory / 0.82
3 / 03/15/2012 / Satisfactory / Moderately Satisfactory / 3.14
4 / 11/26/2012 / Moderately Satisfactory / Moderately Satisfactory / 5.84
5 / 01/05/2014 / Moderately Satisfactory / Moderately Satisfactory / 6.20
6 / 09/02/2014 / Moderately Satisfactory / Moderately Satisfactory / 6.20
7 / 04/24/2015 / Moderately Satisfactory / Moderately Satisfactory / 6.20
8 / 12/18/2015 / Moderately Satisfactory / Moderately Satisfactory / 6.20
9 / 06/27/2016 / Moderately Satisfactory / Moderately Satisfactory / 6.20

H. Restructuring (if any)

The project underwent three restructurings, and one AF that also included a restructuring.

1)November 26, 2012;

2)June 19, 2013;

3)November 12, 2014 – AF (P147967)

4)December3, 2014 – final extension as part of the AF package

I. Disbursement Profile

1

1.Project Context, Development Objectives and Design

1.1.Context at Appraisal

  1. At the time of appraisal, Liberia was at an inflection point, moving from transitional post-conflict recovery to laying the foundations for long-term development. The Liberian economy, institutions, and human capacity had suffered the gradual and deep destruction of a protracted civil war, the origins of which correlated with a spiraling pattern of bad governance, regional instability, and the marginalization of huge sectors of society. Young Liberians and the rural populace were hit especially hard.
  2. Remarkable progress in the post-conflict economy and political process moved the country to a turning point. The 2005 elections ushered in a democratic government intent on redirecting the economy by creating broad ownership of the political structure. Since its election, the Government had set in motion a challenging reform agenda centered on its Poverty Reduction Strategy (PRS) as complemented by important reforms to improve economic governance, overall transparency, economic growth, and social development. Between 2005 and 2008, Liberia’s economy witnessed a steady uptrend with an average growth rate of 7.4 percent. Furthermore, foreign direct investments (FDIs) had increased, particularly,inthe mining, rubber, and forestry sectors.
  3. Despite this progress, the situation in Liberia remained fragile and exposed to the global financial crisis. As a result, growth was adversely affected, with gross domestic product(GDP) growth slowing to 4.9 percent in 2009.In 2009–2010, the per capita GDP was estimated at US$222 and an estimated 63.8 percent of Liberia’s 3.5 million people lived below the poverty line, with 47.9 percent living in extreme poverty.Furthermore, the main revenue sources of the cash-based budget of the Government of Liberia (GoL)were subject to the fluctuations of international markets, which were impacted by the crisis. Exports of natural resources were the main source of revenue for the GoL: international trade taxes accounted for 50 percent of Liberia’s tax revenue, but commodity prices had declined significantly because of the crises. Revenues from rubber exports, which accounted for nearly 80 percent of Liberian exports, were hit by a 60 percent decline in the international market price for rubber. Financing for FDIs, which accounted for 24 percent of GDP, became more difficult to secure because of the financial crisis, especially since theywere targeted toward natural resource exports,which had seen a decline in international prices
  4. The global crisis exacerbated existing youth vulnerabilities. With 75 percent of the population under 35 years, a large segment of the society came of age in the midst of a disrupted education system; lack of education and skills were likely to result in lowproductivity and low-wage jobs for these young people. The story of the young people who came of age during the war (in which there was no proper functioning education system), was likely made worse by the financial crisis, which was then followed closely by the Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) crisis. The country suffers from chronic underinvestment in the education system.
  5. Estimates on the rate of unemployment, underemployment, and unpaid work varied between 20 percent and 30 percent of the working-age population. The vast majority of the employed were engaged in very low-paying jobs, thereby underpinning the cycles of poverty or extreme poverty. The economic structure limited the creation of new, more productive jobs, given the prevalence of low-yield agriculture and the limited size of the formal sector. In addition, this sector was hit by the global financial crisis, in particular, by the fall in international demand for commodities and the slowdown in FDI. The creation of temporary employment opportunities for the youth in particular was seen as an emergency response to the repercussions of the financial crisis on the economic and social texture of the country.
  6. Overall, the technical and vocational education and training (TVET) system was highly fragmented among several ministries, had no accreditation or certification system in place, and was costprohibitive. The informal, private apprenticeship system wasmore aligned with demand; however, it lackedbudget resources and clear formal standards and regulations. A comprehensive TVET reform was necessary to reorient public and private TVET providers into a sustainable, demand-driven system.
  7. As a result, the project was constructed to try to address the issues of bridging short-term, temporary employment opportunities for the youth with the longer-term agenda on employability, skills development, and TVET system reform.Funding was secured from the Africa Catalytic Growth Fund (ACGF) (US$10 million, later supplemented by an additional financing of US$3.4 million), and from the IDA Crisis Response Window (US$6 million). The ACGF was seen as having the ability to act quickly, innovate, and address short-term issues within a longer-term program. The ACGF support for Liberia was based on Liberia’s qualification as a transformation country, on the project’s ability to contribute to shared growth and employment, and on the catalytic effect of the ACGF support. The Crisis Response Window, on the other hand, served as a mechanism to address short-term emergency issues, while also undertaking longer-term activities, such as improving employability though skills development.

1.2.Original Project Development Objectives (PDO) and Key Indicators (as approved)

  1. The original project development objective (PDO) was to expand access of poor and young Liberians to temporary employment programs and to improve youth employability, in support of the Government of Liberia’s response to the employment crisis.
  2. The original key performance indicators (KPIs) were:

(a)Direct project beneficiaries (number)

(b)Female project beneficiaries (percent)

(c)Beneficiaries of public works program[1] (number)

(d)Net income gain of targeted participants in year of participation (percent)

(e)Persons participating and completing skills development programs and receiving certification (number)

(f)Board of Certification and Accreditation for TVET is established

1.3.Revised PDO(as approved by original approving authority) and Key Indicators, and reasons/justification

  1. The PDO remained unchanged through the life of the project.However, certain revisions to the KPIs were applied through two of the three restructurings.

Table 1. Summary Revisions to Key Performance Indicators

# / Project Outcome Indicators / Date/Revision / Comment
1 / Direct project beneficiaries (number) / (i)June 19, 2013/revised target from 49,500 to 50,800
(ii)December 1, 2014/revised target from 50,800 to 59,800 / (i)Reflects reallocation
(ii)Reflects AF
2 / Female project beneficiaries (percent) / No change
3 / Beneficiaries of Community Works Program (number) / (i)June 19, 2013/revised target from 45,000 to 47,500
(ii)December 1, 2014/revised target from 47,500 to 56,500 / (i)Reflects reallocation
(ii)Reflects AF
4 / Net income gain of targeted participants in year of participation (percent) / No change
5 / Persons participating and completing skills development programs (number) / (i)June 19, 2013/revised wording
(ii)June 19, 2013/revised target from 4,500 to 3,300 / (i)Linked to the change in PDO indicator 6. Wording changed from “Persons participating and completing skills development programs and receiving certification” to “Persons participating and completing skills development programs.”The establishment of the TVET Board was a prerequisite for the certification of trainees upon completion of skills development programs.
(ii)Reflects reallocation
6 / Board of Certification and Accreditation for TVET is established (yes/no) / Dropped/June 19, 2013 / Dropped with the second project restructuring, at the request of the Government, with the argument that “TVET is not referenced in the Project Development Objective and the establishment of a TVET Board would require a presidential mandate and therefore is beyond the control of this project.”

1.4.Main Beneficiaries