Can the current youth agricultural groups be sustainable? Experiences from Mid-Western Uganda

Figures & data

Figure 1. Sustainability conceptual framework (adapted from USAID,2019).

Table 1. Number of youth groups sampled

District	No. of groups	No. of groups (n)	Proportion (n/N)	No. of groups targeted	No. of groups accessed
Hoima	Government	158	0.22	24	22
	Non-Government	131	0.18	20	20
Masindi	Government	170	0.24	26	25
	Non-Government	263	0.36	40	40
Total		722	1	110	107

Table 2. Items used to measure the sustainability of youth SHGs

Parameters	Item	Measure
Financial health	Profitability	Profit margin (profit/sales* 100%) Number of units that reported losses the previous year The proportion of sales paid to youth (sales paid to youth/total sales * 100%)
	Liquidity	Group’s current ratio (current assets/current liabilities)
	Capital structure	The proportion of debt used to finance the enterprise (total debt/total capital*100%)
Engagement with market	Product quality	Number of technologies adopted in the previous year (value addition, PHH, marketing)
	Market reliability	Possession of signed contracts (where volumes, prices, and specific periods are specified) with potential buyers Meeting all requirements as per the contract
	Produce	Annual produce supply variance (actual produce—targeted produce)/targeted produce*100%
Leadership	Representation	Possession of requisite leaders (Chair, Vice-Chair, Secretary, Treasurer, Patron) Female representation amongst leaders Change of leaders since group formation Conducting an AGM
	Supervision	Conducting internal checks (HR, Finance, procurement) annually Conducting strategic performance review and planning
	Management	Preparation of monthly and annual financial reports Involvement of technical staff in the enterprise The proportion of technical staff who are youth (Youth Professional/Total No. of professional*100%) Possession of a functional Integrated Management System (accounts, membership database) Conducting staff performance appraisals Average years served per chairperson Voluntary Staff turnover ratio (No of youth who left group/total number of group members*100%)
Member Loyalty	Registration	The proportion of members who paid membership fees (paid members/total members*100%)
	Ownership	The proportion of members offering themselves for group activities (No. offering/group size*100%)
	Loyalty programs	Social support programs possessed Environmental sustainability programs groups have for their members
	Patronage	The trend of institutions providing support in the past year The proportion of members using group facilitated inputs (No. using/total No.*100)
Relationship with the external environment	Partnership with other actors	Actors worked with (NGOs, Government) with cash or in-kind incentives Local government planning activities the group participates in Resources the group has received in the past year
	Social cooperate responsibility	Programs the group has for promoting social cohesion
	Risk management	Possession of a risk management plan Implementation of findings of the risk management plan
Access to production inputs and resources	Production inputs	The proportion of members using group facilitated inputs (users/total members*100%)
	Extension services	Arrangements with extension service providers Whether the group receives M&E from technical people
	Financial Services	Possession of at least three signatories to its bank account The proportion of members using group facilitated finances (Users/total no. of group members*100%)

Adapted from the POSA Model (USAID, 2019)

Table 3. Group characteristics

Variables		Government (n = 47)				Non-Government (n = 60)
		Mean	Min	Max	SD	Mean	Min	Max	SD
Years of existence		3.7	1	5	1.15	3.2	1	5	1.23
Sex composition (average No. per group)	Male	7	2	13	3	16	1	35	8
	Female	6	2	11	2	14	3	30	7
Group size		13	8	15	3	30	7	60	10

Table 4. Main reason for group formation

Reason for Group Formation	Percentage
	Government Supported (n = 47)	Non-Government Supported (n = 60)
Accessing credit	75.81	11.32
Accessing information and advise	11.29	47.17
Socialization	6.45	12.26
Accessing free/subsidized inputs	6.45	27.36
Accessing markets	0.00	1.89

Table 5. Agricultural enterprise for the youth

Enterprises	Percentage
	Government (n = 47)	Non-Government (n = 60)
Crop Production
Fruits and Vegetables	0.00	21.7
Grains and Cereals	21.1	63.3
Perennial Crops	2.1	0.0
Roots and Tubers	0.0	1.7
Animal Husbandry
Bull Fattening	36.2	0.0
Piggery	27.7	10.0
Poultry	4.3	3.3
Animal Traction	8.5	0.0

Figure 2. Overall groups’ scores on sustainability parameters.

Table 6. Presence of group leaders

Leaders present	Percent		T-statistic
	Government-supported (n = 47)	Non-Government supported (n = 60)
Chair Person	97.9	100.0	−1.131
Vice-chairperson	44.7	46.7	−0.204
Secretary	95.7	100.0	−1.618
Treasurer	85.1	100.0	−3.210**
Patron/Mentor	4.3	55.0	−6.520***

***, ** and * indicate statistical significance level at 1%, 10% and 5%, respectively.

Table 7. Group rules and regulations set

Rule and Regulation	Percent
	Government-supported (n = 47)	Non-Government supported (n = 60)
Attendance	61.7	83.3
Time Keeping	31.9	76.7
Discipline	55.3	71.7
Engaging in Group Activities	38.3	43.3
Patron/Mentor	4.3	55.0

Table 8. Contribution of elements to group sustainability among government-supported groups

Parameter	Item	Component
		1	2	3	4	5	6
Leadership	Representation Supervision Group Management	.472 .582 .695	.718 .734 .477	.791 .810 .644 .600	.793 .700 .793	.768 .827	−.827 .954
Financial health	Profitability Liquidity Capital Structure
Member Loyalty	Registration Patronage Ownership Loyalty Programs
Access to Production Inputs and Resources	Financial services Production inputs Extension services
Engagement with Markets	Product Quantity Product Quality
Relationship with External Environment	Social Cooperate Responsibility Partnership with actors

Table 9. Contribution of elements to group sustainability among NGO supported groups

Parameter	Item	Component
		1	2	3	4	5	6
Access to Production inputs and Resources	Extension Services Financial Services Production Inputs	.451 .764 .724	.688 .499 .573	.565 .797 .798 .507	.711 .689 .780	.626 .778	.660 .751
Financial Health	Profitability Liquidity Capital Structure
Member Loyalty	Registration Ownership Patronage Loyalty programs
Leadership	Representation Supervision Group Management
Engagement with Market	Product Quantity Product Quality
Relationship with External Environment	Social Cooperate Responsibility Partnership with other actors

Valackienė, A., & Nagaj, R. (2021). Shared taxonomy for the implementation of responsible innovation approach in industrial ecosystems. Sustainability, 13(17), 9901. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13179901

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar