Sport for Development? A Randomized Control Trial among Vulnerable Youth in Liberia
with Lori Beaman, Niall Keleher, and Jeremy Magruder
with Lori Beaman, Niall Keleher, and Jeremy Magruder
|
Most Recent Version:
(December 2018) |
| ||
Abstract:
Over the past two decades, sports programs have proliferated as a form of direct intervention as well as a mode of engaging youth in development projects. Thousands of organizations, millions of participants, and hundreds of millions of dollars are invested in sports based development programs each year. The underlying belief that sports promote socioemotional skills, psychological well-being, and foster traits that boost employability has provided motivation to expand funding and offerings of sports for development (SFD) programs. Through a randomized control trial in Monrovia, Liberia, we assess the impact of a sports and non-cognitive skills development program for vulnerable youth. Our results do not show evidence of improved psychosocial behaviors. However, we do see a 0.115 standard deviation increase in an index of labor market outcomes for those randomly assigned to participate. While we are unable to isolate the mechanism of these impacts, we find that the effects are strongest among those likely to be most disadvantaged in the labor market.
Over the past two decades, sports programs have proliferated as a form of direct intervention as well as a mode of engaging youth in development projects. Thousands of organizations, millions of participants, and hundreds of millions of dollars are invested in sports based development programs each year. The underlying belief that sports promote socioemotional skills, psychological well-being, and foster traits that boost employability has provided motivation to expand funding and offerings of sports for development (SFD) programs. Through a randomized control trial in Monrovia, Liberia, we assess the impact of a sports and non-cognitive skills development program for vulnerable youth. Our results do not show evidence of improved psychosocial behaviors. However, we do see a 0.115 standard deviation increase in an index of labor market outcomes for those randomly assigned to participate. While we are unable to isolate the mechanism of these impacts, we find that the effects are strongest among those likely to be most disadvantaged in the labor market.