Equipping Youth for Employment Project (RRP MYA 48431)

GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND TARGETING OF GEOGRAPHICALLY FOCUSED INITIATIVES

1. While EYE is principally national in scope, outputs 2 and 3 include geographicallyfocused interventions selected to maximally contribute to national reforms while addressing urgent local needs, and to support effective implementation. A systematic two-stage geographic targeting strategy used quantitative analysis and geographic information system (GIS) mapping to identify priority areas.

1. First-Stage Targeting (State and Region-Level)

2. The first stage applied five criteria to prioritize states and regions for outputs 2 and 3,using ADB estimates of:

(i) the share of the national population living below the national poverty line, based on the 2009/10 IHLCS dataset (see Map 1);1

(ii) the share of youth age 12-17 engaged in child labor (using Census data) (see Map 2);

(iii) the number of rural primary completers failing to complete LSE estimates (using the 2014 Census dataset)—see related Map 3 further below;

(iv) strategic position along one of Myanmar’s economic corridors; (v) geographic clustering, to support implementation and monitoring and evaluation

(M&E) of EYE’s first phase, with the expectation that potential additional financing for a second phase of EYE would allow expansion to other states and regions.

3. This first step resulted in selection of 6 of Myanmar’s states and regions as corepriorities spanning both outputs 2 and 3: alphabetically, Ayeyarwady, Bago, Magway, Mandalay, Sagaing, and Shan. For output 3, three additional criteria were applied (see para. 5), allowing consideration of sites in other states and regions. Following identification states and regions for prioritization in geographically focused interventions under outputs 2 and 3, the second stage of targeting process identified specific townships in those states and regions using output-specific criteria.

2. Second-Stage Targeting (Township-Level)

4. Output 2 (SES). Geographically focused interventions under output 2 focus onaddressing key supply-side barriers to completion of secondary education, particularly for youth in rural areas. For output 2, the second stage of the geographic targeting strategy thus focused on generating (using the 2014 Census dataset) estimates for numbers of youth age 17-19 in rural households in each township that have completed primary but dropped out without completing LSE (grade 9), shown in Map 3.2 Restricting the prioritization to the 6 noted states and regions, this yielded a longlist of 103 townships (Map 4), which account for more nearly 145,000 (57%) of the nationwide total of 253,000 rural primary completers in each cohort who fail to complete LSE. In view of limited resources for EYE’s first phase and to support a rigorous impact evaluation, randomization was then used to select 48 “treatment” townships for inclusion in the first phase of EYE (Map 5). The remaining 55 townships comprise a “control sample” in the impact evaluation strategy, with potential support for these townships in an expected second phase of EYE. 3 Balance testing confirmed that treatment and control sample townships were statistically similar in terms of average values

1 Targeted states and regions comprise 6 of the 8 states and regions with the largest poor populations, and are estimated to account for two-thirds (66.4%) of Myanmar’s population living below the official poverty line.

2 Reliable township-level estimates of poverty in Myanmar are not available. However, ADB-supported analysis as part of the CESR confirmed that dropout between primary school and LSE completion is highly correlated with household poverty.

3 It is expected that additional financing for a second-phase of EYE will allow for similar targeted support to these control sample townships as well as other townships in border states and regions.

of all relevant variables, while each sample also includes an equal number of townships (7) in MOE’s stipend program (supported by World Bank and Australia) as of SY2016/17.

5. Output 3 (TVET). Geographically focused interventions under output 3 aim toexpand access to TVET and gainful employment among disadvantaged youth by introducing new CBMSCs in existing TVET schools under MOE and MOI (i.e., the network of existing GTHS and ITCs), and providing stipends and dormitory accommodation and other assistance to ensure participation by youth recruited from more remote ethnic group areas. Second stage selection of TVET school sites thus gave priority to sites in the 6 noted states and regions (jointly prioritized under output 2), but allowed some flexibility. Three main criteria were used:

(i) ADB estimates using 2014 Census data of township-level employment in identified target industries (including construction, energy, selected manufacturing industries, etc.), used as proxy industry demand for skills produced by CBMSCs (see Map 6);

(ii) continuation of support for TVET schools included in the ongoing TA 8634-supported pilot test, some of which are expected to serve as centers of excellence in CBMSC curriculum development; and

(iii) ensuring relative balance of TVET sites across the 3 economic corridors traversing Myanmar.4

6. This resulted in selection of 10 existing TVET schools located in the 6 states andregions identified in stage 1 for introduction of CBMSCs, alongside expansion of CBMSC programs at the 5 TVET schools being supported under the TA 8634 pilot test (see Table 1).

4 Based on this, sites in Yangon, Mon, and Kayin were also considered.

2

IHLCS 2009/10-Based Estimates of Share of Poor Population by State and Region

2014 Census-Based Estimates of Child Labor Incidence Among 12-17 Year-Olds

3

Numbers of Primary Completers Age 17-19 Who Dropped Out Without Completing LSE

Note: Dashed lines denote GMS Economic Corridors traversing Myanmar.

4

Ranking of Townships with Largest Numbers of Estimated Primary Completers Age 17-19 Who Dropped Out Without Completing LSE

Note: Dashed lines denote GMS Economic Corridors traversing Myanmar.

5

Map 5: Treatment Townships for School Upgrading and Dormitory Support Under EYE Phase I

Note: (*) Denotes 7 of the 48 treatment sample townships that are included in the MOE stipend program (supported by World Bank and Australia) as of SY 2016/17. The control sample of 55 townships (displayed with diagonal lines in the map, but not listed) also has 7 townships included in the stipend program.

6

Employment in Target Industries by Township

Note: Dashed lines denote GMS Economic Corridors traversing Myanmar.

7

Table 1. GTHS and ITCs Selected to Deliver CBMSCs with Support Under "EYE" Output 3

GMS Economic Corridors

No. Type School Name State/Region Northern

Central North‐South East‐West

Census‐based Est. of Workers in Target 

Industries Other ConsiderationsI. Existing pilot schools (2015‐2017 ADB‐JFPR TA)

1    GTHS Mandalay GTHS Mandalay x2    GTHS Naypyitaw GTHS Naypyitaw x3    GTHS Yangon GTHS Yangon x x4    ITC Mandalay ITC Mandalay x5    ITC Pakokku ITC Magway x

II. Additional sites6    GTHS Hpa-an GTHS Kayin x 17,400  Only site in Kayin

7    GTHS Kale GTHS Sagaing (Chin border) x 12,900 

Strategic position: near Western end of Norther Corridor (near India), and can attract students from Chin & Sagaing

8    GTHS Lashio GTHS Shan x 17,300 

Strategic position: near Eastern end of Norther Corridor (near Yunnan), and can attract students from Shan & Kachin

9    GTHS Mawlamyine GTHS Mon x 25,700  Only site in Mon10    GTHS Meikhtila GTHS Mandalay x 15,400  Near Mandalay, etc.11    GTHS Monywa GTHS Sagaing (near MDY) x 27,700 

12    GTHS Pathein GTHS Ayeyarwady x 20,400 Only site in Ayeyarwady, at West end of E‐W Corridor

13    GTHS Taungoo GTHS Bago x 14,700 Expected to draw trainees also from 

Kayin & Kayah

14    ITC Magway ITC Magway x13,300 

Expected to draw trainees also from 

Chin & Rakhine

15    ITC Tha Ga Ya ITC Bago (Yedashe Tsp.) x7,200

Only site in Bago; expected to draw trainees also from Kayin & Kayah

8