There are a number of additional factors that have further compounded the pervasive concerns about lack of impact and re-orientation. In particular, there is considerable confusion about what exactly "training to overcome economic vulnerability" actually refers to and the availability of hard evidence on training provision, outputs and impacts continues to be 'lamentable' (CINTERFOR, 1998).
2.2.1 Training provision, outputs and impacts There is an extraordinary lack of good quality, comprehensive data about the provision of training to the poor and the outputs and impacts of this training effort which, in itself, amounts to an information crisis. Not surprisingly, therefore, most attempts to review the global experience of training for the poor are characterised by sweeping, unsubstantiated observations, generalisations and recommendations and chronic anecdotalism,(2) with most reports recycling the same examples of successful and unsuccessful interventions(3).
Both ministry-based training institutions and NGOs and other private sector providers are equally culpable. Despite the alleged superiority of NGO training interventions, there is no evidence to suggest that they are any better at monitoring and evaluating outputs and impacts. Out of a total of 30 international NGOs who were asked as part of this study to provide evaluations of training and other skill development projects, not one was able to furnish any robust evidence.
Given this paucity of information, it is not possible to draw any solid conclusions about recent trends in the provision of training to well delineated target groups. However, a proper enumeration of all types of training activities that directly and indirectly impact on the poor would almost certainly reveal a far greater level of training provision than is commonly assumed.(4).
It is frequently stated that social and private returns to training for the poor are low, but there is little or no hard evidence to support these claims. The alleged limited net benefits to training are in striking contrast to the claims that are repeatedly made with respect to primary education and other interventions in support of the poor (most notably micro credit). What is interesting here is that the evaluation playing field is so uneven. Since most training interventions for the poor are assumed to have measurable and fairly immediate income and productivity pay-offs, it is normally expected that they should be rigorously evaluated. However, usually intractable methodological problems make it virtually impossible to measure the actual impacts of individual primary education projects. Thus, faute de mieux, as long as the outputs of primary education projects are reasonably good, it is usually assumed that the medium-long term impacts will be broadly in line with the social rates of return and externality evidence.
Moreover, since poverty is correctly seen as the consequence of unequal relations in different institutional arenas (the household, community and the state), it is widely believed (at least implicitly) that primary education (particularly for girls) has greater potential for changing these social relationships than training. In fact, because of the prevalence of stereotyped training for women, these kinds of training activities have been criticised for actually reinforcing the subordination of women.
There are a number of reasons for the paucity of information about training outcomes and impacts. These include fragmented provision, the complexity of evaluation methodologies and lack of commitment.
Fragmented provision: Even in quite small countries, training activities in support of the poor are widely dispersed across very large numbers of public and private organisations. Not only is reporting by local NGOs to parent organisations or funders partial and rudimentary, it is equally rare for governments to maintain any kind of basic data base on formal training courses and other types of training services offered by individual ministries.
Private sector training centres have burgeoned in many countries during the last decade. Public training provision has been unable to keep pace with demand (especially among school leavers) and governments have lowered regulatory barriers to entry for aspiring training entrepreneurs. Many private training centres are not registered and, even among those that are, little is usually known about the training that is offered and the clienteles that are served. It has been suggested that 'back yard' training is affordable for the poor and widespread, particularly in urban areas. However, this training is often indistinguishable from on-the-job training, and formal provision (where fees are payable for discrete 'courses') is probably quite limited, especially in rural areas.(5)
Evaluation methodologies: Evaluating training programs is very complex. This gives rise to a number of serious methodological problems which, invariably, are not properly dealt with. In particular, attribution of the precise impact of training activities is virtually impossible when a package of services are made available (credit, tools, technical assistance, training courses). And, given the current "fascination with micro-finance" (Buckley, 1997) there is a real danger that credit may take all (or certainly more than its fair share) of the credit! Selecting a control group in order to compare training and no-training outcomes is also often very difficult and is frequently not done well. Similarly, the nature and incidence of 'displacement effects' are usually ignored altogether.
Tracer surveys of individuals once they have completed their training are essential. However, formal surveys of representative samples of graduate trainees are rare and low response rates invalidate the results of most that are undertaken.
Evaluation commitment: Most donor-supported training projects are formally evaluated. However, evaluations are usually undertaken too soon after projects have finished to be able to assess the extent to which there have been sustainable impacts on the well being of trainees. Rigorous evaluations are too time consuming and expensive for most projects. Moreover, there is usually little incentive to undertake them since it is the immediate post-project evaluation that is most critical in securing additional resources and project extensions.
EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING PAPERS 43 Learning to change: Skills development among the economically vulnerable and socially excluded in developing countries Paul Bennell Employment and Training Department International Labour Office Geneva First published 1999
To learn more about this author, visit International Labour Organization's Website.
Like this article? Share it with your friends
|
|
|
![[Get Copyright Permissions]](http://license.icopyright.net/images/icopy-w.gif){kind=small}
