Vocational Training and Youth Outcomes: Evidence from Nepal
Last registered on October 01, 2018

Pre-Trial

Trial Information
General Information
Title
Vocational Training and Youth Outcomes: Evidence from Nepal
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0003369
Initial registration date
October 01, 2018
Last updated
October 01, 2018 2:05 PM EDT
Location(s)
Region
Primary Investigator
Affiliation
State University of New York (Binghamton) & Harvard University
Other Primary Investigator(s)
PI Affiliation
World Bank
PI Affiliation
World Bank
Additional Trial Information
Status
Completed
Start date
2010-02-22
End date
2013-03-31
Secondary IDs
Abstract
Lack of skills is arguably one of the most important determinants for high levels of unemployment and poverty. Targeting youth unemployment and also important because of its strong influence on other important social outcomes. Using a experimental design based on an admission cutoff, we examine the employment effects of a vocational training program in Nepal launched in 2009 over a three-year period.
Registration Citation
Citation
Chakravarty, Shubha, Mattias Lundberg and Plamen Nikolov. 2018. "Vocational Training and Youth Outcomes: Evidence from Nepal." AEA RCT Registry. October 01. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.3369-2.0.
Former Citation
Chakravarty, Shubha et al. 2018. "Vocational Training and Youth Outcomes: Evidence from Nepal." AEA RCT Registry. October 01. http://www.socialscienceregistry.org/trials/3369/history/35018.
Sponsors & Partners

There are documents in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access to this information.

Request Information
Experimental Details
Interventions
Intervention(s)
Admission to the program was based on a calculated score for each applicant and coupled with a course-specific threshold score. For each course, applicants with scores above the threshold were assigned to the training program, whereas applicants whose scores fell below the threshold were not assigned to the program. To form a sufficiently large quasi-experimental control group, training providers were advised to shortlist at least 50 percent more candidates than the number of spaces available in the training event. The assignment procedure followed streamlined guidelines, including a detailed scoring rubric, instructions for ranking the shortlisted candidates by score, and selecting the top-scoring candidates for admission to the program.

The individual score used in ranking candidates consisted of five sub-scores based on: (a) applicants’ trade-specific education (prerequisite, 15 points) , (b) applicants’ economic status (up to 20 points), (c) applicants’ social caste, gender, and special circumstances (up to 25 points), (d) development status of applicants’ district of origin (up to 10 points), and (e) a score determined by a selection committee during an interview procedure (up to 30 points). Sub-scores for the first four components were determined based on the information each applicant provided in his or her application form. The application form lists the exact questions upon which the distribution of scores was based. Based on the aggregated four-component score, candidates were short-listed and invited for an interview. The fifth sub-score was determined based on an interview with a three- to five-member committee comprised of representatives from the training institution and potential employers. Moreover, representatives of the survey firm and/or the donor institutions (e.g., EF, World Bank, etc.) were usually present to observe the procedure. The selection committee jointly decided on the fifth sub-score by assessing the candidate’s commitment, motivation, attitude, aptitude, and clear vision for employment and enterprising. Eventually, the selection procedure yielded a total score for each individual by summing across the five components. Possible total scores ranged from 0 to 100.
Intervention Start Date
2010-02-22
Intervention End Date
2013-03-31
Primary Outcomes
Primary Outcomes (end points)
employment outcomes
self-employment outcomes
non-cognitive outcomes and attitudes
entrepreneurship outcomes
fertility outcomes
educational attainment outcomes
marital aspirations outcomes
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
Secondary Outcomes
Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)
Experimental Design
Experimental Design
Admission to the program was based on a calculated score for each applicant and coupled with a course-specific threshold score. For each course, applicants with scores above the threshold were assigned to the training program, whereas applicants whose scores fell below the threshold were not assigned to the program. To form a sufficiently large quasi-experimental control group, training providers were advised to shortlist at least 50 percent more candidates than the number of spaces available in the training event. The assignment procedure followed streamlined guidelines, including a detailed scoring rubric, instructions for ranking the shortlisted candidates by score, and selecting the top-scoring candidates for admission to the program.

The individual score used in ranking candidates consisted of five sub-scores based on: (a) applicants’ trade-specific education (prerequisite, 15 points) , (b) applicants’ economic status (up to 20 points), (c) applicants’ social caste, gender, and special circumstances (up to 25 points), (d) development status of applicants’ district of origin (up to 10 points), and (e) a score determined by a selection committee during an interview procedure (up to 30 points). Sub-scores for the first four components were determined based on the information each applicant provided in his or her application form. The application form lists the exact questions upon which the distribution of scores was based. Based on the aggregated four-component score, candidates were short-listed and invited for an interview. The fifth sub-score was determined based on an interview with a three- to five-member committee comprised of representatives from the training institution and potential employers. Moreover, representatives of the survey firm and/or the donor institutions (e.g., EF, World Bank, etc.) were usually present to observe the procedure. The selection committee jointly decided on the fifth sub-score by assessing the candidate’s commitment, motivation, attitude, aptitude, and clear vision for employment and enterprising. Eventually, the selection procedure yielded a total score for each individual by summing across the five components. Possible total scores ranged from 0 to 100.
Experimental Design Details
Randomization Method
Office by a computer
Randomization Unit
individuals
Was the treatment clustered?
No
Experiment Characteristics
Sample size: planned number of clusters
5000 individuals
Sample size: planned number of observations
5000
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
200 training events in treatment arm and approximately the same number in control group.
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
IRB
INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARDS (IRBs)
IRB Name
Binghamton University
IRB Approval Date
2014-10-06
IRB Approval Number
Protocol Number: 3369-14
Analysis Plan

There are documents in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access to this information.

Request Information
Post-Trial
Post Trial Information
Study Withdrawal
Intervention
Is the intervention completed?
No
Is data collection complete?
Data Publication
Data Publication
Is public data available?
No
Program Files
Program Files
Reports and Papers
Preliminary Reports
Relevant Papers