S/ THEMES SUBTHEMES

N
Awareness and Implementation Entry points of awareness
Structures Roles and responsibilities in
implementation
Program evolution and transition
Socio-Economic Outcomes and Individual and Group Successes
Program Impact Temporary Relief and Partial Gains
Ripple Effects and Community Spillovers
Misuse, collapse, and misalignment Diversion and non-adherence
Group instability and breakdown
Capacity gaps and business inexperience
Structural and operational challenges Delayed disbursements and bureaucracy
Group accountability and repayment
difficulties
Insufficient capital for viable startups
Governance, accountability, and Abuse of power by technical staff
corruption Lack of transparency and oversight
Erosion of trust among youth
Recommendations for Future
Improvement
Design and Delivery Reforms
Policy and Structural Changes

THEMATIC

Theme 1: Awareness and Implementation Structures

This study explores how local actors in Pallisa District came to know about the Youth
Livelihood Programme (YLP), the specific responsibilities they held in its implementation,
and how the program has evolved over time. The findings reveal that awareness pathways
were both formal and informal, roles were defined but occasionally overlapping, and the shift
in policy priorities especially with the emergence of the Parish Development Model (PDM)
marked a major transition in focus and resource allocation.

Subtheme 1.1: Entry Points of Awareness

Awareness of the Youth Livelihood Programme emerged through multiple institutional

channels, especially among local leaders. Most respondents gained knowledge about the YLP
through district-level briefings, subcounty council sessions, or national directives relayed
through political meetings. Others became aware informally such as via radio announcements
or word of mouth. A clear distinction was noted between political actors (e.g., LC leaders and
NRM chairpersons), who often accessed information through government structures, and
technocrats like Community Development Officers (CDOs), who were introduced through
formal technical orientation and training sessions.

Participants commonly acknowledged the government as the originator of the program, and
many aligned it with the broader political ideology of youth empowerment. This duality of
technocratic versus political entry points sometimes shaped how different stakeholders
understood their roles.

Participant Reflections:

“YLP started I think around 2014, when I was aspiring to join politics… I always sought for
information from the subcounty, and that’s how I got to know about the program.”
Respondent 1, LC3 Youth Councillor

“We were called to attend a district orientation on YLP, UWEP… since then, I have been the
focal person coordinating the YLP activities at the subcounty.” Respondent 5, CDO

“I became aware of the program in 2018 through a radio announcement and later from our
CDO who visited our village.” Respondent 6, Youth Group Leader

“This program… I got to know it when it started… its purpose was to empower youths out of
poverty.” Respondent 4, NRM Chairperson

Subtheme 1.2: Roles and Responsibilities in Implementation

The implementation of YLP at the local level involved distinct roles that were distributed
across the political and administrative spectrum. LC3 officials and parish councillors played
the role of mobilizing communities, sensitizing youth groups, and advocating for balanced
representation across parishes. The CDOs were tasked with the technical backbone of the
program proposal vetting, group training, coordination of loan disbursements, and post-
disbursement monitoring. In some cases, respondents noted that their roles extended beyond
official boundaries, especially in response to gaps in communication, logistics, or
transparency. NRM party officials often assumed monitoring and supervisory duties, aligning
YLP’s performance with broader party expectations. The success of implementation
frequently depended on collaboration among these stakeholders.

Participant Reflections:

“My major role… was to sensitize the youth in the community to embrace and be part of
government programs.” Respondent 1

“My role involved identifying eligible groups, supporting proposal writing, facilitating
vetting meetings and conducting follow-up.” Respondent 5

“Most of all, I was in charge of the supervisory role… ensuring that the program is being
implemented well.” Respondent 4

“We went back to the CDO and communities to teach the youth how to get the YLP money…
and formulate groups with a purpose.” Respondent 3, Parish Councillor

“The LC3 office was to be identifying, giving and monitoring… the CDO does for us the
program, he does the report and gives it to our executives.” Respondent 2, LC3

Subtheme 1.3: Program Evolution and Transition

Participants traced the timeline of YLP from its active launch in 2014 to around 2020, noting
that the early years featured regular disbursements and strong community engagement.
However, this momentum declined sharply after 2019, primarily due to poor loan recovery
rates, administrative bottlenecks, and shifting government priorities. The rollout of the Parish
Development Model (PDM) marked a policy pivot toward inclusive household development,
with less emphasis on youth-targeted programs. Several respondents noted that the YLP has
since been overshadowed by newer interventions, and fresh funding had become rare by
2021. The transition reflects not only a change in national planning but also a gradual policy
decentralization process, where subcounty-level implementation has become increasingly
critical.

Participant Reflections:
“It has been active from the time it started in 2014, moved on until we reached around 2019.
After 2019, it started deteriorating.” Respondent 1

“Since 2020, new disbursements have become less frequent, and more attention has shifted to
the PDM.” Respondent 5

“This program is national… it started around 2011… the programs came concurrently both
for women and youths.” Respondent 4

“This YLP… has taken long, almost 5 years now… we give them money and then they bring
it back and we give it to other people.” Respondent 2

Theme 2: Socio-Economic Outcomes and Program Impact

This study examines the tangible and intangible effects of the Youth Livelihood Programme
(YLP) on the beneficiaries’ lives in Pallisa District. The analysis reveals a mix of meaningful
success stories, temporary socio-economic relief, and community-level ripple effects. While
some youth groups managed to thrive and grow their businesses, many experienced only
fleeting gains, with sustainability often undermined by structural weaknesses and personal
setbacks.

Subtheme 2.1: Individual and Group Successes

Several participants recounted cases of youth groups that leveraged YLP funds to start
income-generating projects that not only improved their own lives but also created
opportunities for others. Successful ventures included tailoring businesses, produce trading,
and boda boda (motorcycle taxi) operations. Key indicators of success reported included
regular loan repayment, hiring of fellow youth, business expansion, and asset acquisition.

One tailoring group, composed of young women, stood out for not only building a sustainable
enterprise but also mentoring other girls in tailoring. Their ability to repay their loan in full
demonstrated financial discipline and operational commitment. Other groups managed to set
up produce stores and salons, and in rare cases, even opened branch operations.

Participant Reflections:

“One group of young women started a tailoring business… gradually expanded to supplying
school uniforms in the area… they eventually trained two other girls.” Respondent 5, CDO
“Those youths worked well… they had started their own savings group even before we gave
them the money… when we gave them a hand, they grew even bigger.” Respondent 3, Parish
Councillor

“We found when they had started a salon… 2-4 had employed other youths and opened
branches.” Respondent 2, LC3

“The first six months were promising… we built a pigsty and bought 10 piglets… registered
profits and shared income.” Respondent 6, Youth Group Leader

Subtheme 2.2: Temporary Relief and Partial Gains

Many beneficiaries experienced only short-lived improvements in their socio-economic well-

being. Participants noted that some youth were able to use the funds to meet immediate needs
such as school fees, food, and healthcare. However, due to lack of business skills, unforeseen
challenges like livestock disease, or group breakdown, the majority of the projects failed to
generate long-term sustainability. The temporary nature of these benefits became evident
when follow-up monitoring revealed high rates of group collapse within the first year. Funds
were sometimes diverted to personal emergencies or mismanaged due to weak internal
accountability.

Participant Reflections:

“For some… the money helped them start small businesses… even if after some time the
businesses failed.” Respondent 1, LC3 Youth Councillor

“We saw groups investing in boda boda businesses and poultry farming… helped many
afford basic needs such as food and medical care.” Respondent 5

“Things changed when disease hit our pigs and three members migrated… by the end of
2020, our group had broken down.” Respondent 6

“Some used that money to pay children’s school fees and others for individual purposes…
most of them didn’t get anything from the money.” Respondent 4, NRM Chairperson

Subtheme 2.3: Ripple Effects and Community Spillovers

Beyond individual and group-level outcomes, some projects generated wider community
benefits. Notably, groups that succeeded often shared their skills or created employment
opportunities for fellow youths. There were gender-inclusive gains, such as women-led
enterprises training girls or mixed groups involving both male and female youth. In
successful cases, positive reputations and social capital were built enhancing trust in future
development programs. Conversely, where groups defaulted or misused funds, it led to
community disillusionment and a loss of credibility for government programs. The ripple
effect of mentoring, visible impact, and community-level engagement helped distinguish
high-performing groups from others. Yet, the absence of sustained follow-up sometimes
allowed poor practices to go unchecked.

Participant Reflections:

“They eventually trained two other girls in tailoring.” Respondent 5

“Those that were 2-4 had employed other youths and had opened branches in other places.”
Respondent 2

“We made sure that among those that are going to get… there should be males and females.”
Respondent 3

“Youths were helped… for some that money helped them start small businesses… that
somehow helped them at that time.” Respondent 1

Theme 3: Misuse, Collapse, and Misalignment

This study delves into the shortcomings of YLP implementation at the grassroots, particularly
where intended socio-economic transformation failed to materialize. While the program was
designed to offer structured support for youth enterprises, widespread misuse, misalignment
of intentions, and group breakdowns severely limited its impact. These failures were not only
behavioural but often linked to broader capacity and design gaps.

Subtheme 3.1: Diversion and Non-Adherence

One of the most frequently mentioned issues was the diversion of YLP funds to personal uses
unrelated to the approved business proposals. Some beneficiaries used the funds for school
fees, paying off personal debts, or supporting romantic relationships, while others failed to
follow through on the enterprises they had proposed. In several cases, the actual activities
undertaken bore no resemblance to what had been planned, reflecting either a lack of
commitment or exploitation of weak oversight systems. This mismatch between project
documentation and actual usage undermined the program’s integrity and return on
investment. It also contributed to the erosion of trust in public development initiatives,
especially where the funds did not yield visible or measurable economic outcomes.

Participant Reflections:

“Some people used that money to pay children’s school fees and others for their own
individual purposes.” Respondent 4, NRM Chairperson

“They didn’t venture into the said enterprises… some even selected the enterprises but didn’t
follow them when the money came.” Respondent 4

“After signing, they just ran away and disappeared… and went to Kenya.” Respondent 3,
Parish Councillor

“When they were giving them the money… the technical staff would follow them to the bank
and take part of the funds for themselves.” Respondent 3

Subtheme 3.2: Group Instability and Breakdown

The group-based funding model, while designed to foster cooperation and mutual
accountability, often became a liability. Participants described frequent occurrences of group
breakdown due to migration, interpersonal conflict, or mistrust. Leadership disputes, poor
communication, and lack of cohesion led to abandonment of projects, default on repayments,
and permanent disbandment of teams. The reality was that over half of the funded youth
groups collapsed within a year of receiving funds. The program’s reliance on group solidarity
did not account for the socio-economic instability of its participants, nor did it include robust
mechanisms for managing group conflicts or replacing members.

Participant Reflections:

“Three members migrated in search of jobs… by the end of 2020, our group had broken
down.” Respondent 6, Youth Group Leader

“More than 50% of groups had collapsed… many youths did not have prior business
experience.” Respondent 5, CDO

“The group leaders chased away the other members… and said they had suggested to share
the money.” Respondent 3

“When it comes to paying back… you find some have shifted or died… so it was hard to
recover the money.” Respondent 2, LC3
Subtheme 3.3: Capacity Gaps and Business Inexperience

Underlying many project failures was the youth's lack of technical skills, financial literacy,
and business acumen. The assumption that capital alone would generate success proved
misguided. Several respondents emphasized that beneficiaries were often unfamiliar with
budgeting, risk planning, and business sustainability strategies. As a result, even well-
intentioned projects faltered in the face of setbacks such as livestock disease, market
saturation, or inflation.

Moreover, the pre-disbursement training provided was often minimal or rushed, leaving
groups unprepared for real-world challenges. Some respondents noted that even the proposals
themselves were sometimes prepared by external actors, leaving group members
disconnected from the plans they were meant to implement.

Participant Reflections:

“Many youths did not have prior business experience… they diverted funds for personal
emergencies.” Respondent 5

“This program… did not have the aspect of teaching people how to use it.” Respondent 4

“They need skills, not just money… every subcounty should build a hub that teaches people
skills.” Respondent 2

“I believe the program needs more emphasis on pre-disbursement training.” Respondent 5

Theme 4: Structural and Operational Challenges

This study captures the design and delivery limitations of the Youth Livelihood Program
(YLP), particularly around how funding was administered and managed. Many beneficiaries
and implementers pointed out systemic weaknesses such as excessive delays, disjointed
accountability mechanisms, and inadequate funding all of which severely limited the
program’s efficiency and impact. These challenges frequently compounded the individual and
group-level constraints already faced by vulnerable youth.

Subtheme 4.1: Delayed Disbursements and Bureaucracy

Several participants described protracted gaps between the application process and actual
fund disbursement often lasting five to six months or longer. These bureaucratic delays
hindered youth from seizing viable market opportunities, especially those tied to agricultural
seasons or time-sensitive business plans. By the time funds were received, some intended
projects were no longer feasible, and in some cases, group cohesion had already weakened
due to prolonged waiting periods. Delays were largely attributed to multilayered vetting,
political interference, and inefficiencies within subcounty technical teams.

Participant Reflections:

“Some groups waited over six months from application to receiving funds, by which time
their business idea had already become unviable.” Respondent 5, Community Development
Officer

“When they want to invest in crop growing… the money is not given at the right time or
season.” Respondent 4, NRM Chairperson

“We got approved after 5 months.” Respondent 6, Youth Group Leader

Subtheme 4.2: Group Accountability and Repayment Difficulties

A consistent barrier to program sustainability was the group-based lending structure. While
intended to promote mutual support and accountability, this format failed in practice due to
poor cohesion, weak enforcement mechanisms, and limited follow-up capacity by local
authorities. When some members relocated, disengaged, or defaulted, the burden fell on the
remaining individuals who often lacked the means or will to repay the collective loan. In the
absence of formal contracts or clear legal guidance, enforcement was inconsistent, leading to
widespread default and loan write-offs. The ripple effect was a reduction in community trust
and a decline in government willingness to issue new disbursements.

Participant Reflections:

“Some… have shifted or died so this money to come back was challenging.” Respondent 2,
LC3

“Our group had broken down… we couldn’t make repayments.” Respondent 6

“Only 2 out of 8 groups fully repaid their loans.” Respondent 5

“Group leaders chased away the other members… and remained just them.” Respondent 3,
Parish Councillor

Subtheme 4.3: Insufficient Capital for Viable Startups

Almost all respondents acknowledged that the actual amounts received per individual
especially when split among large groups were too small to support meaningful enterprise
development. For example, a group of 10 might receive only UGX 5 million, leaving each
member with a negligible share for any substantive investment.

Expectations were often misaligned with the realities of fund size. This dissonance left youth
feeling disillusioned and forced many to initiate low-scale, high-risk ventures that quickly
collapsed. Moreover, some funds were reportedly reduced further through informal
deductions by local officials, further diminishing what was available for business use.

Participant Reflections:

“You would find about 10 people were given like 5 million… so they ended up starting very
small things that later died out.” Respondent 1, LC3 Youth Councillor

“Some thought that they would be given 10 million… but we gave them 8 million and others
less.” Respondent 3

“The technical staff would follow them to the bank… and take part of the funds for
themselves.” Respondent 3

“Many struggled due to internal mistrust… it would help if youth could access funds
individually or as smaller units.” Respondent 5

Theme 5: Governance, Accountability, and Corruption

This study explores governance-related failures that undermined the Youth Livelihood
Program (YLP) in Pallisa District. Respondents recounted widespread concerns around the
misuse of authority by technical staff, lack of transparency in fund handling, and a
breakdown of trust between youth and program administrators. These governance lapses did
not only affect fund utilization but also discouraged future participation and repayment,
eroding the broader legitimacy of the program.

Subtheme 5.1: Abuse of Power by Technical Staff

Respondents consistently pointed to instances where Community Development Officers

(CDOs) and other subcounty officials allegedly demanded bribes or deducted portions of the
funds before releasing them to youth groups. These deductions were informal,
undocumented, and often couched in veiled threats implying that refusal to cooperate would
delay or block disbursement. This abuse created a double burden for youth: not only were
they receiving insufficient funds to begin with, but they were also made to pay unofficial
“facilitation fees” that further reduced the capital available for their enterprises.

Participant Reflections:

“The technical people… would tell them ‘let’s discuss when we give you this much, you will
give us some of it… if not, you won’t get [the money].’” Respondent 3, Parish Councillor

“They followed them to the bank and took part of the funds… and when repayment time
came, the youths said they will only repay what they received.” Respondent 3

“The CDO would say… we are getting 4 million off this money.” Respondent 3

Subtheme 5.2: Lack of Transparency and Oversight

Respondents noted discrepancies between official disbursement records and the actual
amounts received by beneficiaries. In some cases, groups were recorded as having received
higher sums than what was physically handed over. This created accountability challenges,
especially during repayment tracking or audits. Moreover, oversight from higher
administrative levels was reported as either irregular or ineffective. This lack of stringent
monitoring allowed malpractice to continue unaddressed, further weakening the program’s
governance credibility.

Participant Reflections:

“What was given in writing is not what the youth received… because the technical people
always followed them.” Respondent 3

“There is no document to show what was taken [by officials] so the youths said, even if you
arrest us, we’ll say the truth.” Respondent 3

“In one cohort, only 2 out of 8 groups fully repaid their loans.” Respondent 5, Community
Development Officer

Subtheme 5.3: Erosion of Trust Among Youth

These acts of abuse and poor accountability generated deep mistrust among youth
participants. Many expressed resentment toward being asked to repay funds they never fully
received. Some openly refused repayment, citing exploitation by officials and lack of
documented proof for the deductions. Others viewed YLP as a political reward rather than a
development initiative further fueling apathy toward repayment obligations. As this mistrust
grew, the integrity of the program suffered. Fewer youth expressed interest in participating in
newer government initiatives, and repayment rates plummeted.

Participant Reflections:

“They (youths) didn’t get full amounts… they said they will only pay what they received.”
Respondent 3

“Some thought the money was a political reward for voting the president… and refused to
pay back.” Respondent 2, LC3 Chairperson

“People take it as money for politics, not money for development.” Respondent 2

Theme 6: Recommendations for Future Improvement

This study presents practical suggestions raised by stakeholders to enhance the effectiveness,
integrity, and long-term impact of youth-targeted cash transfer programs like the YLP.
Participants emphasized that while the intentions behind the program were good, its design
and execution lacked the capacity-building, structure, and policy alignment necessary for
sustainable results. Their proposed improvements reflect a desire for a more strategic, skill-
based, and accountable intervention model.

Subtheme 6.1: Strengthening Capacity Before Cash

Respondents widely agreed that disbursing money without adequate training and verification
of project readiness contributed to widespread program failure. Several noted that many
youths lacked basic business knowledge, while others proposed projects (e.g., crop farming)
without the necessary land or seasonal timing. Pre-disbursement training in business skills
especially bookkeeping, planning, and group dynamics was highlighted as essential to
success. Some participants further recommended that funds only be released after confirming
beneficiaries' capacity to implement proposed projects, including availability of land, ability
to read and write, and access to market.

Participant Reflections:

“You don’t even know if they’re able to do what they wrote down—some don’t even have
land or basic skills.” Respondent 4, NRM Subcounty Chairperson

“Many youths did not have prior business experience... pre-disbursement training would help
reduce misuse.” Respondent 5, Community Development Officer
“Before giving money, you must first teach and assess them... otherwise they’ll misuse it.”
Respondent 4

Subtheme 6.2: Design and Delivery Reforms

Participants expressed concern that the group-based model of YLP often caused
accountability issues, with members relocating or refusing to repay. Many proposed shifting
from group disbursements to individual or small-unit access, which they believed would
enhance responsibility and reduce internal conflict. They also stressed the need for clearer
tracking systems from disbursement to monitoring to ensure transparency and timely
reporting. Additionally, participants suggested revising the application process to reduce
bureaucratic delays, which had previously undermined the viability of business plans.

Participant Reflections:

“If youths could access funds individually or in smaller, well-supervised groups, there would
be better accountability.” Respondent 5

“Some waited over six months after applying by the time the money came, their idea had
already failed.” Respondent 5

“Instead of cash, government should build a hub that teaches people skills then support them
based on readiness.” Respondent 2, LC3 Chairperson

Subtheme 6.3: Policy and Structural Changes

Several leaders proposed broader institutional reforms, including the establishment of an

independent ministry or agency dedicated to youth economic empowerment. Their argument
was that leaving program implementation solely to subcounty staff many of whom were
poorly paid and tempted by fund mismanagement undermined outcomes. Others called for
youth empowerment to be integrated with educational and skilling reforms. They questioned
the relevance of academic curricula that left youth unemployed, emphasizing the need for
practical life skills, career guidance, and financing mechanisms to support post-training
startup.

Participant Reflections:

“If the government wants to help, let there be a ministry to run YLP not through the
subcounty staff who also want a share.” Respondent 3
“Even if someone is skilled, without capital or machines, there’s no impact.” Respondent 4

“You find someone with a degree but no job what they studied doesn’t help them at all.”
Respondent 4