This laudable programme administered by the Board of Industrial Training (BIT) entails the training of 377 single parents in a variety of skills such as office procedure, information technology, cosmetology and the ubiquitous sewing and catering. Having successfully completed the training the graduates would then be eligible for a $65,000 grant to help them to become microentrepreneurs. There could be absolutely no quarrel with the vision and thinking behind such a programme. Thousands of single parents – in the main women who have few openings to become bread winners – live on the edge of the society, desperate poverty, are mostly unseen and are easy prey for predators of all kinds.
One expects, however, that aside from the real need for investment in this category that the line ministry and the labour and statistical bureaux would take an abiding interest in how the beneficiaries of this programme fare. This is essential not only to determine how successful the programme is in terms of how many microentrepreneurs are able to take their grants and transform them into sustainable means of earning income but to assess where it has to be tweaked or sharpened, how those who fail to cross the hurdles could be further assisted and to analyse whether value is being obtained for money from this exercise.
Large sums are being expended on these programmes and as noble as the objectives are there must be a hard-nosed evaluation of the wisdom of the intervention to determine whether it is more feasible for the single parents to simply be let loose in the market to find their own fortunes. So, for example, it may be more effective at this stage to fully subsidise day care so that the single parent could be freed up to find one or even two jobs to make ends meet.
Many programmes of this type have traditionally been run without an attempt to properly validate them. A prime example of this under the Jagdeo presidency was the President’s Youth Choice Initiative which saw millions wasted on improperly conceptualized projects which swelled the local population of white elephants. This single-parents programme has received $25m so far and the intention is to train another 500 single parents this year.
Another even larger and just as noble programme also runs the risk of proceeding without the necessary follow through to determine success. The National Training Programme for Youth Empowerment (NTPYE) targeted 5,000 youths over three years for instruction in over 70 skills. Unfortunately, the programme fell behind schedule. Last year, 1,798 applicants were accepted for training. Here again is a prime example of huge sums of money being earmarked without adequate means to gauge the successes and weaknesses. The Youth Entrepreneurial Skills Training Programme is another in which significant sums are invested in young people and one wonders as to whether there is duplication of effort here.
The Chief Executive Officer of the BIT, Mrs Alana Brassington acknowledged in the interview with this newspaper that a shortcoming of the BIT was its inability to trace the fortunes of persons who have been trained under the auspices of the board. It is, to put it mildly, disappointing that a tracking device has not been in place for a long time for these and many other programmes. Routinely ministries and state agencies trumpet the merits of the multiplicity of training regimens without the foggiest of ideas as to the impact.
Myriads of young women have graduated from cake decorating and sewing courses without any assurance that they have since set about creating icing masterpieces. It is that spend-and-forget attitude that must be reversed if there is to be any real meaning to the BIT programmes and others across central government.
Fortunately, Mrs Brassington pointed out that the UNDP-funded Enhanced Public Trust, Security and Inclusion (EPTSI) programme will finance a database and tracking has already commenced. This would also be of great use to EPTSI as it has also engaged in the training of young people.
For too long, policymakers and administrators have functioned in a data-less environment or have been oblivious to the importance of data acquisition in the fostering of projects of this type. For both the single-parent and NTPYE programmes the public should be apprised of how many of the trainees have been able to gain jobs and hold them or start up businesses, how many failed and what their options were, how many dropped out, how many migrated and how many simply did nothing after their training. A review of the programme would then generate positions on whether the invested sum was shrewdly spent or failed to have the desired effect.
This is exceedingly important as it makes no sense to have happy graduates today and disillusioned unemployed persons tomorrow. Tracking should be an essential tool in all programmes of this sort.
