In 2013, Government of Uganda introduced the Youth livelihood programme (YLP), targeting poor and unemployed youth to harness their social-economic potential and increase self-employment opportunities and income levels with an initial budget of 265 billion shillings. The project was meant to support the youth in form of a revolving fund for skills development and income generating projects.

Mayuge district was among the pioneer districts to benefit from this programme during the financial year 2013/14 with 76 project interest groups approved and funded.

The programme is premised on the principles of demand-driven; active youth participation and ownership; gender responsiveness and promotion of equity; equitable geographic distribution; public-private partnership; non-involvement of child labour; environmental integrity; provision for youth with special needs; cultural sensitivity; utilizing existing institutions; direct flow of funds to the individual youth group projects; community procurement; and revolving support.

The category of the livelihood projects supported included piggery, animal buying and selling, produce buying and selling, fish farming, animal traction and catering and tent hire. Meanwhile, three categories of enterprises were observed under the skills development component. These included carpentry and joinery, welding and metal fabrication and motorcycle repair and spare parts sale. Most of the skills development projects are concentrated in the peri-urban areas while livelihood support are  evenly distributed in both rural and peri-urban sub-counties. Regardless of the nature of the venture,  all the groups that attracted funding were fully registered at the sub-county and district.

The YLP is contributing towards self-employment and improvement in the welfare of the youth. However, the multiplier effect is still very limited based on the type of enterprises the youth are engaged in and the inadequate amount disbursed and the ability to repay, whereby projects have either broke down or defaulted.


This is mayuge's performance in the subsquent years that followed since the inception of the programme in the district;

Year No. of Projects Amount Recieved Recovery
2013/14 76 591,998,545=. 124,022,000=
2014/15 35 223,880,500=. 26,089,000=
2016/17 62 544,045,000=. 49,231,400=
2017/18 62 671,460,000=. Not yet disbursed

 Breakdown per sub county:

Sub county Amount disbursed Amount recovered
Baitambogwe 150,379,500. 33,648,000
Kigandalo 81,270,226. 12,829,000
Bukabooli 147,166,000. 10,614,000
Busakira 113,580,000. 26,245,500
Imanyiro 120,040,000. 14,748,500
Mpungwe 50,711,319. 8,554,000
Jagusi 36,489,000. 5,900,000
Kityerera 140,955,000. 17,583,400
Buwaaya 53,082,000. 6,700,000
Malongo  120,300,000. 13,720,000
Bukatube 59,053,000. 12,290,000
Wairasa 84,028,000. 12,030,000
Mayuge TC 140,170,000 14,290,000
Magamaga TC 44,000,000 5,760,000

Beneficiaries based on gender segregation

Financial year Male Female
2013/14 543. 465
2015/16. 245 193
2017/18 275. 257
2018/19 367 326
Total 1,430 1,241



The program still running in Mayuge district on the revolving fund basis has benefited 258 interest groups through funding in the district to a tune of 2.2 billion shillings of which 1,925,000,000= is direct government investment and 281,000,000= is revolving fund.

174 groups are due for full payment which have not been met and 84 still within the three years of recovery period. Recoveries for this financial year 2020/2021 have not been good as per the table below;


24/07/2020 1,126,343
24/08/2020 2,051,781
24/09/2020 1,621,200
24/10/2020 3,196,915
24/11/2020 2,331,357
24/12/2020 1,326,979

The months of January, February and March are yet be fed in the system, therefore the recoveries will be provided soon.

Reason for decline in Recoveries

1.    The termination of government funding for operation and enforcement of recoveries is the major factor to the decline. A resource to reach out to youths to remind them of recovery obligation is totally out even for the next financial year.

2.    COVID-19 period hampered the remittances to the recovery account given that many projects were not performing to capacity and it is still used as an excuse not to pay.