Business Case and Intervention Summary
Intervention Summary
Title: Caribbean Inclusive Growth Programme
What support will the UK provide?
DFID will provide up to £1.5 mn in funding to support a skills training programme for disadvantaged
groups, particularly youth, to develop basic technical skills and critical life skills, so that they can get
jobs, employ themselves or access further training. At least 1,000 young people would benefit directly
from this programme, though there will also be indirect beneficiaries. The support would be linked to a
larger Caribbean regional skills development programme funded by Canada, the CARICOM Education
for Employment (C-EFE) programme, which is working to improve the overall technical and vocational
education and training (TVET) system in the Caribbean Community (CARICOM).
Why is UK support required?
Many young people in the Caribbean are excluded or marginalised from economic activity, and are
unable to find gainful employment. Youth unemployment rates are very high, due to overall low growth
prospects in the region, and the fact that there is a significant mismatch between the existing skills of
young job seekers and actual labour market demand. This situation means that the Caribbean is not
only losing out on a large potential pool of resources for economic development, but is also facing a
high risk that unemployed youth may become involved in criminal activity. For example, it is estimated
that if youth unemployment were to be reduced to the adult level, the average GDP increase for the
Caribbean would be 1%.i Also, youth crime is costing CARICOM countries 2.8% - 4% of GDP
annually.ii In a context of low growth and increasing crime, the Caribbean cannot afford this.
Unemployed youth are excluded and marginalised, and every recent analysis of youth development in
the Caribbean has highlighted this as the main development challenge, with significant negative
effects.iii Caribbean policy-makers and other stakeholders have identified as a clear priority the
development of a “demand-driven” TVET programme as a clear priority. This programme would be
focused on the needs of the labour market and result in increased productivity and skills for
employment. Existing development programming only partially addresses the challenge, particularly in
relation to youth.
UK support will facilitate more comprehensive and sustainable treatment of the labour market
mismatch for disadvantaged groups; and improved targeting. It will support building relevant, labourmarket skills and key life skills. This is turn will improve access to employment; and reduce the risk of
involvement in crime. UK support on skills development will also complement existing UK
programming to help increase economic growth and create jobs in the Caribbean.
What are the expected results?
The expected short to medium-term results include:
 better economic opportunities for disadvantaged groups participating in the programme (e.g. at
least 500 disadvantaged youth being employed or continuing training);
 better systems and resources to effectively deliver labour-market relevant training to
disadvantaged groups (including curricula, certifications and delivery systems); and
 increased private sector participation in youth skills development.
Longer-term expected impacts are lower unemployment rates and higher labour force participation
rates (for youth, females and males).
Business Case
Strategic Case
A. Context and need for a DFID intervention
1. General Background (Caribbean development and DFIDC programme)
The Caribbean has made impressive development gains since independence, compared to other
developing regions.
However these gains are under threat with some declining social
outcomes/indicators, limited fiscal space for public services, and challenges such as climate change
and growing crime and insecurity. Economic growth in the Caribbean has been slow, falling in every
decade since the 1970s, and averaging only 1.2% over the last decade in per capita terms. This
reflects challenges of small size, lack of competitiveness and diversification, high debt levels and
excessive reliance on preferences and traditional sectors. Moreover, a study commissioned by
DFID Caribbean (DFIDC) on growth identified an absence of entrepreneurship and innovation as the
binding constraint to growth in the Caribbean. DFIDC’s programme seeks to address these
development challenges, through its wealth creation, governance & security; and climate change
and disaster risk reduction pillars. Within the wealth creation pillar DFIDC is helping to increase and
diversify exports and create jobs by supporting business environment reforms to reduce the cost of
doing business and improve competitiveness; helping the region to implement and take advantage
of its trade agreements; and promoting innovation and entrepreneurship through a Challenge Fund.
DFIDC is also helping support economic stability.
2. Need for Inclusive Growth
In the Caribbean, the benefits of growth and economic development are unevenly shared, with some
persistent poverty. While there is a paucity of good data, available statistics show that Caribbean
countries generally have higher levels of inequality when compared with countries at similar levels of
development, with Gini coefficients (2000-2011) of 42.6 for St. Lucia, 43.2 for Guyana, 45.5 for
Jamaica and 52.8 for Belizeiv. A number of people are excluded from any or full participation in
economic activity, related to variables of gender, age (youth), race/ethnicity, class, and geography.
Beyond equity concerns, these excluded or unfavourably included groups represent a lost or
diminished resource for economic development. Moreover, practical experience on the ground
in the Caribbean shows that marginalising parts of the population from economic activity can also
directly create a drag on growth by generating negative social effects such as crime and violence,
which dampen demand and investment, and raise the cost of doing business. Overall, youth crime
is costing CARICOM countries between 2.8 and 4% of GDP annually, in terms of direct expenditure
on fighting crimes and lost revenues due to youth imprisonment. Jamaica, for example, incurs more
than US$ 529mn every year as direct public and private costs linked to fighting youth crimev.In an
environment of declining growth, this is particularly problematic. The Caribbean cannot therefore
afford to ignore marginalised groups.
Internationally, a large body of literature around growth, inequality and inclusiveness confirms that
although high growth over extended periods of time is necessary to reduce povertyvi, a broad
approach supporting growth alone is necessary, but not sufficient, to ensure that a wide crosssection of people can participate in, and benefit from, economic growth on favourable terms. The
literature also suggests that sustainable growth and poverty reduction require the inclusion of an
increasing share of the labour force in an efficient way.vii
In this context, there is therefore a need to actively promote inclusive growth in the Caribbean growth where the poor, marginalised and vulnerable are able to participate in, contribute to and
benefit from economic growth on favourable terms. Basic social protection and services are already
provided by the state in many cases for many of these groups, with some development support.
Hence, the needs on that side are not so pronounced, though there are some gaps and scope for
improvement. So from a growth perspective, the emphasis is on promoting the economic
1
empowerment of excluded groups, in order to unlock and maximise their potential in economic
activity.
3. Focus on Youth (and Women)
Analysis by DFID Caribbean suggests that a focus on youth and women is important in promoting
inclusive growth because they both represent a large proportion of the population (60%viii and
51%ix of CARICOMx’s population are youth under 30 and women and girls respectively, and up to
44% of Caribbean households are female-headed), and they suffer economic disadvantage that
could reap a big economic dividend if successfully addressed, as outlined below.
3.1 Youth Economic Disadvantage
In economic terms, youth unemployment rates across the Caribbean are high, and in many
cases are about twice the overall unemployment rate. Although this is not unusual in that youth
unemployment rates worldwide are quite high relative to adult rates, youth unemployment rates in
the region have been flagged as among the highest in the world xi. For example, the average youth
unemployment rate in the Eastern Caribbean States from 1998-2005 was 32%, compared to global
rate of 14%xii. This is particularly striking considering that the region spends a relatively high
proportion of its GDP on education. The analysis shows that if youth unemployment were to be
reduced to the level of adult unemployment, the Caribbean economy as a whole would
benefit from an average increase of 1% in GDP and as high as 7% in some Caribbean
countriesxiii. For example, in St. Lucia and St. Vincent & the Grenadines, the projected GDP
increase is estimated at 2.5% and 2.3% respectively. In addition, the evidence shows clear links
between high youth poverty and unemployment and increased youth crime xiv. Hence, tackling youth
unemployment could also help avert the significant costs of youth crime, estimated at 2.8% - 4% of
GDP annually.xv
Within the broad group of youth, the sub-group of particular concern are young people ages 15-24
making the transition from school to work, who have great difficulty in effectively entering the
labour market. This challenge of school-to-work transition is evident in data from the Organisation of
Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) which showed that secondary school graduates took on average
14 months to find a job, much longer than their counterparts in Argentina (8.7 months), Mexico (3.6
months) or Brazil (1.6 months). xvi
3.2 Women’s Economic Disadvantage
With respect to women in the Caribbean, they are still quite disadvantaged in economic terms,
despite relatively high levels of female enrolment and attainment at all levels of education and
constitutional and legal protection against discrimination. The trend is for women in the Caribbean
to suffer unemployment rates nearly twice that of men, have higher levels of poverty, earn less
than men, be over-represented in the informal sector and under-represented in decision-making
positions, and have lower labour force participation rates (averaging 54% v. 78% for men).xvii
The evidence also shows Caribbean women to be over-represented as employees – 77.6%
versus 68.6% of males; and to be under-represented as employers or own-account workers
with 19.5% of females in the labour market being self-employed versus 28.7% of malesxviii. Against
this backdrop, there is also a wealth of strong international evidence on the economic value of
investing in women.
Tackling the economic disadvantage of both youth and women is therefore important in promoting
inclusive growth. However, the following discussion and proposed intervention focuses on youth
only, since the issues around women as economic actors will be looked at subsequently under an
additional component of the proposed Caribbean Inclusive Growth Programme, once further
analysis and design is completed.
4. Issues in the Integration of Youth into the Labour Market (What’s the problem?)
The World Bank identifies 5 main sets of constraints which limit young people’s access to the labour
2
market – job-relevant skills constraints (including “insufficient basic skills, technical skills mismatch,
behavioural skills mismatch and insufficient entrepreneurial skills”xix); lack of labour demand, job
search constraints, firm start-up constraints and social constraints on the labour supply sidexx. There
is some evidence of all of these constraints within the Caribbean context. For example, linked to the
growth context set out earlier, lack of labour demand is a problem within the Caribbean. The high
cost of starting and doing business in the region is also a constraint for both young people and the
wider population, including access to finance and networks. However, the evidence emerging from a
number of recent publicationsxxi suggests that in the Caribbean, the main driver of youth
unemployment is job-relevant skill constraints.
4.1 The Skills Problem
The Skills Mismatch - There is good evidence (consistent and from reliable sources) emerging of a
significant mismatch between the outputs of the education system in the Caribbean and the
demands of the regional and global labour marketxxii and that several factors including an overemphasis on academia and lack of labour market information have created the paradoxical situation
where educated workers are trained for careers weakly related to the region’s productive sectorsxxiii.
With Caribbean economies oriented towards the skill-intensive service sector, and emerging sectors
such as renewable energy, the market for unskilled labour is diminishing within the region. There is
an emerging phenomenon that even where new job opportunities arise in the region,
unemployment, particularly among youth, remains very high as a consequence of a lack of
relevant skills among school leavers. A recent World Bank assessmentxxiv of skills challenges in
the Caribbean pointed to a “general disconnect between education and the world of work in the
Eastern Caribbean” and concluded:
Even during recent economic booms, youth unemployment remained high, indicating a mismatch between
skills acquired in school and the critical skills demanded by the labor market. There is a clear need for more
relevant education and training to prepare young people for the demands of work.
In similar vein, a USAID (2008) assessmentxxv in the Eastern Caribbean identified the lack of skilled
workers as the greatest obstacle to competitiveness in all industries and indicated that the formal
labour market tended to bypass those lacking basic soft and technical skills relevant to the job
market. The assessment found that where training was deliberately linked to labour market needs,
student demand outstripped supply, citing the example of the National Skills Development Centre in
St. Lucia where demand exceeded supply by 150%.
The Skills Deficit - A comprehensive analysis of this issue in the OECS identifies the specific skills
deficits as: (i) basic skills such as reading, writing and arithmetic; (ii) behavioural life skills that are
valued by employers such as team work, pro-activeness, critical thinking and communication; (iii)
professional skills linked to a specific career or technical skills in demand; (iv) lack of labour
market training while in the labour force. The lack of critical “soft skills” needed to gain and
retain employment, is particularly lamented by employers. This is evidenced by the results of several
surveys of private employers, which highlight the extent to which these skills are desired, and
simultaneously missing among prospective employeesxxvi. These deficits appear in school leavers
and those who have not completed schooling, as there are problems with dropouts as well as
systemic problems of quality and access at the primary, secondary and post-secondary levels.
Underlying Education System Issues - At the primary and secondary levels, there are issues of
quality, leading to declining attainment in core subjects and large proportions of students
leaving school without any or adequate certification. Boys are particularly vulnerable, as they
are more likely to drop out of school, have lower attainment rates and a significantly lower transfer to
the post-secondary level.
Looking at the Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET) sector in particular,
programmes in the region are mainly offered at the secondary level through government secondary
3
schools and at the post-secondary level through community colleges, technical institutes, and public
and private skills training programmes, targeting those who have dropped out of the formal education
system. Most countries have National Training Agencies (NTAs) operating mainly out of the
Ministries of Education which are affiliated to the Caribbean Association of National Training
Agencies (CANTA). The CARICOM-endorsed Regional Strategy for TVET provides a regional policy
framework for TVET coordination by the NTAs in key areas such as instructor training and
programme delivery. However, the TVET sector in the region is under-performing due to a number of
key systemic issues including: the need for a comprehensive evidence-based management system
such as labour market information systems to inform decision-making; the need for a regional
performance information system to measure impact; and the need for a demand-driven programme
development model that integrates the employer sector as an effective partner in the system. The
system therefore needs serious work in infrastructure, equipment and operating practice to meet
these challenges.
4.2 The Solution
In this context, what remedial action is recommended to help youth get critical labour-market
relevant skills to gain and retain employment? The literature, such as the World Bank 2007
Reportxxvii suggests tackling the problem through second-chance education programmes; scaled-up,
private-sector driven youth training at the regional level; and increased labour market intermediation.
This is echoed in a recent Canadian TVET Sector Study on the Caribbean which concluded: “The
development of a demand-driven, industry-supported programme model in TVET will address
the key issues of better youth-to-work transition, and contribute to a better performing economyxxviii.
A focus on post-secondary education is supported by economic analysis of the costs of school
leaving and rates of the return to education, which identifies higher returns from post-secondary
education in the Caribbean. For example, taking into account schooling costs and the impact of
experience, the World Bank estimated the rates of return to primary, secondary, post-secondary and
tertiary education at 13%, 13%, 24%, and 19%, respectively for 24-year olds in St. Vincent and the
Grenadines.xxix Other economic analysis is summarised in the following table:
Table 1 - Costs of Early School Leaving (Selected Caribbean)
Total (Females
& Males)
Barbados
Dominica
Grenada
Jamaica
Trinidad and
Tobago
Total
Cost of early school leaving,
%GDP
Primary
0.07%
0.00%
0.68%
1.72%
Secondar
y
0.28%
0.28%
1.88%
3.00%
Tertiary
1.04%
1.28%
4.79%
5.59%
0.27%
0.52%
2.43%
1.43%
3.00%
2.32%
Percentage increase in lifetime
earnings
Primary
Secondary
Tertiary
over no
over
over
education
primary
secondary
3%
7%
10%
0%
11%
17%
4%
10%
20%
20%
16%
20%
6%
6.60%
21%
13.00%
21%
17.60%
Source: Chaaban, J. 2009. “Costs and Benefits from Investing in Youth in the CARICOM Member States
5. What should DFID do to intervene in this area and why?
The foregoing analysis suggests a DFID intervention to help address the skills deficit among
disadvantaged Caribbean youth (male and female), focussing on the post-secondary level.
The broader systemic issues of education quality in the region, particularly at the primary and
secondary levels, are important to tackle in the longer term, but these are beyond DFID’s remit and
resources in the region. The proposed skills intervention is therefore aimed at more direct labour
market linkage. A training programme would be developed for implementation in selected
Caribbean countries, targeting disadvantaged youth and encompassing basic and technical
4
skills and critical life/employability skills. A key element of the Competency-Based Education
and Training (CBT) model to be adopted in the proposed intervention is direct engagement of the
private sector in forging relationships between education and the employment sector. Under this
intervention, strategic partnerships will be developed with a number of private sector partners who
will play a critical role in identifying skills required from new employees, approving curriculum, hosting
students in practicum and hiring the graduates upon completion.
This approach would help generate tangible benefits for disadvantaged groups, and would fit well
with DFIDC’s existing wealth creation programme. Our conceptual approach to inclusive growth
includes work at multiple levels - working to expand overall growth and employment opportunities
and building group and individual capacity to capitalise on those opportunities. However, our current
support focuses on the enabling environment, and supporting government and firm-level action,
without any interventions directly targeting the individual/group level barriers to participating in
growth. This proposed skills development intervention would address that gap, and strengthen the
likelihood of better outcomes for disadvantaged groups, leveraging our existing considerable
investments in competitiveness and entrepreneurship. In addition, it would also link to DFIDC’s wider
work on reducing crime and violence in the region.
6) How does the intervention fit strategically within work of DFID/HMG and other donors?
6a) Strategic Fit with wider DFID/HMG work
The proposed intervention is also consistent with wider DFID/HMG strategies and priorities for
supporting poverty reduction through providing resources to the most vulnerable and disadvantaged.
In this regard, the intervention fits with DFID’s overall Strategic Vision for Girls and Women through
the development of girls’ and women’s skills for economic activity, as proposed in the education pillar
of DFID’s gender vision. The focus on the more vulnerable and disadvantaged segments of the
population is also consistent with the DFID’s focus on poverty reduction.
6b) Strategic Fit with the Work of Other Donors
On the youth skills side, a number of donors are engaged in education and skills work in the region,
including the EU, USAID, the World Bank, CDB, IDB and CIDA. For example, the World Bank has
country-level skills for inclusive growth programme in St. Lucia and Grenada. The EU supports
TVET generally through projects on education and ICT, as well as specific capital and training
projects (e.g. apprentice programme for youth in Grenada). USAID supports youth workforce
development training in parts of the Eastern Caribbean, and some youth “second-chance” workforce
development training, youth micro-enterprise and tertiary-level entrepreneurship. The CDB supports
general TVET sector programmes in specific countries, some with youth training (e.g. St. Vincent), as
well as community-level skills training programmes. CIDA is perhaps making the largest regional
investment in skills development, with their Cn$20 million CARICOM Education for Employment
Programme which aims to enhance the technical and vocational education system in the region,
working mainly through national training agencies. Given the needs across the region, there is still
scope for more action, once managed in a co-ordinated way. DFID’s relatively modest contribution
could therefore add value by allowing for early, targeted delivery of skills development to
additional numbers of the more disadvantaged and at-risk young people in the region.
B. Impact and Outcome that we expect to achieve
The expected impact of the programme is a more equitable and effective labour market in
Caribbean countries, particularly for disadvantaged groups (youth and women), as shown in reduced
unemployment rates and higher labour force participation rates. The expected outcome is
enhanced economic opportunities for disadvantaged groups (youth and women), as shown in the
number of graduates from the programme getting jobs or transitioning to further training, and the
proportion of private sector entities with established job placement programmes (including) for
disadvantaged groups extending beyond project end date.
5
Appraisal Case
A. What are the feasible options that address the need set out in the Strategic case?
1. Initial Sift of Feasible Options Based on Evidence and Context
To deliver on the planned outcome of enhanced economic opportunities for disadvantaged groups
(youth), the feasible options were sifted out based on tested approachesxxx; analysis of the Caribbean
context (major skills problem, and other social and economic factors); and the resources available
within DFIDC.
For tackling youth-at risk issues, a number of promising and proven approaches were identified
based on strong or emerging impact and other evaluation evidence. Those relevant to youth
unemployment were:
 youth job training that included life skills and internships (promising);
 a formal youth service (proven);
 employment services for youth (promising); and
 and self-employment support (promising).
Life skills training was identified as useful in all at-risk youth interventions.
In assessing feasible Caribbean interventions, employment services and self-employment support
were rejected as they did not address the core problem of skills, and the youth service option was
judged too expensive to be feasible, given available DFIDC resources and varying political
commitment. The remaining approach was youth job training including life skills and internships.xxxi
2. Consideration of Existing CIDA CARICOM Education for Employment (C-EFE) Programme
The context of existing interventions was also considered. As flagged previously, the main relevant
regional intervention is the CIDA’s CARICOM for Education for Employment programme, which aims
to develop the overall technical and vocational education and training (TVET) system in the
Caribbean into a more demand-driven, responsive and applied system, working with National
Training Agencies. The programme covers all CARICOM countries except Haiti, the Bahamas and
Montserrat, and the three project components focus on:
 strengthening regional capacity to coordinate, promote and conduct quality assurance for
demand-driven TVET programming and certification;
 developing and managing appropriate systems to inform TVET planning, including labour market
information systems and strategies for greater industry collaboration; and
 strengthening the capacity of TVET institutions to attract, train, and graduate citizens with
relevant TVET skills, essentially focussing on the development and delivery of 16 TVET
programmes following the demand-driven model, related to identified priority sectors, as well as
2 “pre-technology” programmes specifically targeted at disadvantaged groups.
Key elements of the programme include:
 strong partnerships with the regional and national public TVET systems through the
direct work with national training agencies and the regional associations (CARICOM and the
Caribbean Association of National Training Agencies, CANTA), and
 emphasis on building strong links with the private sector, to ensure that programmes are
indeed relevant to the labour market.
The first element includes intense capacity-building for the national training agencies, and an overall
strengthening of TVET systems and policy framework in the region. In the Caribbean context, this
would help raise effectiveness, and lay the groundwork for sustainability.
On private sector/ market linkages, the whole “Education for Employment” model utilised hinges
6
upon labour market demand-led programming. In the Caribbean context, this is approached through
securing the participation of private sector associations and representatives on project steering
committees, including curriculum design. The initial design and inception phases of the programme
have identified priority sectors in each country which would inform the selection of areas for TVET
programming there. In addition, there is a project component that specifically seeks to help build up
appropriate systems for getting labour-market information, and using this to inform TVET planning
and programming. The programme is also developing specific strategies to maximise private sector
participation, given for example, the challenges in the Caribbean in getting optimal reach to the
private sector from membership organisations.
3. Feasible Options
In light of this analysis, the feasible options identified were:
1) Do nothing.
2) Support a skills development training programme for disadvantaged youth in the Caribbean,
connected to the labour market, including basic and technical skills, as well as life skills, either
through:
a) a programme linked to the existing CIDA CARICOM Education for Employment (C-EFE)
programme, delivered through national training agencies;
b) a separate DFID programme delivered through NGO and private sector operators.
Option 1 Do nothing
Under this option, DFID would not initiate a dedicated intervention in this area. Within its own
programme, DFIDC would continue efforts to mainstream issues relating to gender and youth in its
core growth programming, particularly under the existing COMPETE Caribbean private sector
development programme and the CARTFund programme supporting trade and regional integration.
CIDA would go ahead with implementation of its CARICOM Education for Employment programme,
focussing on the overall development of the technical and vocational education system, building links
between the training system and the labour market and private sector actors, and strengthening the
capacity of national training agencies to support demand-led TVET training for Caribbean citizens.
Environmental issues would be mainstreamed in C-EFE programme delivery, for example using
green approaches in management of the training (e.g. reducing waste), as well as in the delivery of
content on relevant sectors e.g. mining. Gender issues would also be mainstreamed throughout
programme delivery, including through social marketing to improve women’s participation in nontraditional areas. Specific focus on disadvantaged groups would be limited to the planned delivery of
2 pre-technology programmes for disadvantaged youth and women within the CIDA programme, with
a targeted number of 80 beneficiaries.
Option 2a – Support a skills development training programme for disadvantaged youth in the
Caribbean, with clear links to the labour market(delivered as a complementary programme to
CIDA’s C-EFE Programme)
Under this option, DFID would support will provide complementary funding of up to £1.5mn to CIDA’s
CARICOM Education for Employment (C-EFE) programme, specifically targeted at supporting the
delivery of training to disadvantaged youth (male and female), with a minimum of 1,000 direct
beneficiaries. The DFID-funded programme would be implemented by the same executing agency,
the Association of Canadian Community Colleges (ACCC). The programming would be holistic,
including basic skills and life skills, and would also mainstream gender and environment issues, as
outlined in Option 1 above. DFID proposed funding would allow for expansion of the programming
for disadvantaged groups within the broader C-EFE programme, which would give participants the
opportunity to reintegrate into the learning cycle and either directly gain employment or access
7
further technical/vocational training for future employment. Use of the DFID resources would also
help enhance capacity of training providers and administrators to address the needs of
disadvantaged groups on a more systematic basis.
Targeting under this option would be based on the identification of youth-at-risk as a key priority
area in consultation with local stakeholders during the programme design phase and would be
effected through a two-fold strategy: (i) the development and implementation of a comprehensive
social marketing campaign designed to increase the status and enrolment in TVET programmes and
achieve rebranding of such programmes, especially among key influencers like parents; and (ii)
utilising or working through seasoned NGOs in the Caribbean with experience in the targeting and
delivery of training programmes for unattached, high-risk youth. This approach will build on the
substantial ongoing work of other donors targeting at-risk youth for skills development in the
Caribbean through their representation on the C-EFE Programme Steering Committee.
Option 2b –Support a holistic, skills development training programme for disadvantaged
youth in the Caribbean, with clear links to the labour market, delivered independently through
private sector and NGO operators.
Under this option, DFID would design a purpose-built intervention specifically targeting access of
disadvantaged groups to potential job opportunities. The minimum number of direct beneficiaries
would be 1,000. Specific sectors of intervention would be chosen for each country, closely matched
to the work emerging out of the COMPETE programme, looking at the key growth sectors emerging.
Specific training programmes would be developed for these areas, on a regional/sub-regional basis
where appropriate, engaging private sector participation in the design and delivery of appropriate
training programmes. These programmes would specifically target participants from identified
disadvantaged groups (mainly youth transitioning from school to work and poor women), and would
be holistic in their approach, in that they would include development of key life skills and appropriate
work-related attitudes and practices. Programme delivery would be outsourced to a variety of private
sector or NGO entities in the training sector, and could be managed by an overall project
management entity.
B. Assessing the strength of the evidence base for each feasible option
In the table below the quality of evidence for each option is rated as either Strong, Medium or Limited
Option
1
2a
2b
Evidence rating
Limited
Medium
Medium
There are not many Caribbean-specific examples, but the general conclusion drawn from evaluations
in middle-income contexts like Latin America, such as the Jóvenes and Entra 21 programmes, is that
integrated training, linked to the labour market and including both life skills, alongside basic or
technical skills, is likely to be successful.xxxii Progress in similar programmes in the Caribbean (e.g.
World Bank Skills for Inclusive Growth) has been mixed.xxxiii There have been limited rigorous
evaluations on skills development programming for youth, but the literature does consistently point to
the need for such programmes to be holistic, incorporating not only technical skills but key life
skills.xxxiv
What is the likely impact (positive and negative) on climate change and environment for each
feasible option?
Categorise as A, high potential risk / opportunity; B, medium / manageable potential risk /
opportunity; C, low / no risk / opportunity; or D, core contribution to a multilateral organisation.
8
Option
1
2a
2b
Climate change and environment risks Climate
change
and
environment
and impacts, Category (A, B, C, D)
opportunities, Category (A, B, C, D)
C – Low risk
C – Low opportunity
C – Low risk
C – Low opportunity
C – Low risk
C – Low opportunity
All three options present similarly low risks and opportunities. The main difference is simply the level
of DFID control and the capacity of implementing partners. On risks, there is the general risk of
natural disasters affecting the training, which can be managed through appropriate contingency and
business continuity plans. There is also a low risk of the training contributing to carbon levels which
can be managed by actively taking measures to reduce travel, measuring carbon miles and
offsetting, and using environmentally sound approaches on site. These can be hardwired contractual
arrangements and monitored through project reporting. On opportunities, providing sector-specific
training, and integrating green practices in delivery provides an opportunity to get key climate
messages across to relevant sectors. The training can also help to build community level resilience
to climate change, through improved coping mechanisms for participants.
C. What are the costs and benefits of each feasible option?
The costs and benefits of the feasible options are outlined in the following table and narrative section.
Parameter
Option 1 (Do nothing)
Reach
to
disadvantaged
Associated benefits
80 targeted
Estimated financial
costs (DFID)
Coherence
Quality of providers
Enhanced
job/wage
prospects for beneficiaries
(base case 40), averted
costs of crime, some
capacity to deliver in
future.
£0
High internal coherence
within
overall
C-EFE
programme.
Strong experience and
track
record
in
implementing
demanddriven programming.
Option 2a (prog. linked to
C-EFE)
At least 1,000 additional
disadvantaged youth
Enhanced
job/wage
prospects for beneficiaries
(base case 500), averted
costs of crime, capacity to
deliver in future.
Option 2b (Separate
training programme)
At least 1,000 additional
disadvantaged youth
Enhanced
job/wage
prospects
for
beneficiaries (base case
500), averted costs of
crime.
£1.5 mn (maximum)
£1.65 mn
High
synergies
and
coherence with wider TVET
reform, programming at
regional
and
national
levels, and private sector
labour market linkages.
Limited synergies with
wider
TVET
reform,
programming and private
sector
labour
market
linkages.
Potentially
higher coherence with
DFIDC private sector
development
programmes.
Possibility of dilution of core
DFID objectives through
competing priorities from
wider programme.
Strong experience and
track record of main
service-provider
in
managing
and
implementing
demanddriven programming.
Quality
depending
capacity.
reasonable
available.
on
variable
partner
Some
options
9
Value for Money
n/a
Medium. Relatively highcost types of interventions
(economy),
but
good
likelihood of effectiveness
(including aid effectiveness)
and sustainability.
DFIDC
management
intensity
Nil
Sustainability
Low-medium,
limited
scope
for
hands-on
capacity-building
in
working
with
in
disadvantaged groups.
Medium
–
some
engagement required re.
overall project steering,
targeting and monitoring.
Medium, greater scope for
hands-on capacity building
in
working
with
disadvantaged
groups.
Stronger links with National
Training Agencies. d.
Integration
of
gender
Integration
of
environment/climate
change
High commitment and
capacity to implement.
Good
scope
for
integration, drawing on
mainstream programming.
High
commitment
and
capacity to implement.
Good scope for integration,
drawing on mainstream
programming.
Low/Medium. Relatively
high-cost
types
of
interventions (economy),
fair
likelihood
of
effectiveness and lower
sustainability.
Longer
start-up period, higher
transaction
costs
for
national and regional
stakeholders.
High – more hands-on
support and management
needed for start-up and
execution.
Low/Medium.- Capacity of
private and NGO partners
to sustain action for
disadvantaged groups in
absence of close links to
National
Training
Agencies not clear.
Commitment and capacity
to implement variable.
Some
scope
for
integration
but
more
limited resources to take
forward and sustain.
Youth Skills Component
Option 1 – Do Nothing
Costs
There would be little or no marginal costs for this option. DFID would continue work within the preapproved budgets for its existing growth programmes, particularly on the COMPETE Caribbean
private sector development programme. CIDA would continue implementation of its CARICOM
Education for Employment Programme (C-EFE), also within its pre-approved budget.
Benefits
This DFID approach should provide some opportunities for disadvantaged groups, but without any
intervention to support these groups’ capacity to fully capitalise on these opportunities, the positive
outcomes and benefits for disadvantaged groups will be limited. As CIDA’s planned CARICOM
Education for Employment programme would still go forward, there would be some skills
enhancement for disadvantaged groups, as well as capacity development for national training
agencies and partner organisations. However, the outreach to disadvantaged groups, and
consequently the immediate and medium-term impact would be reduced. For example, training for
offered to disadvantaged groups would be limited only to the 80 participants designated for the two
pre-technology programmes in the existing CIDA C-EFE programme.
Option 2a – Support a skills development training programme for disadvantaged youth in the
Caribbean, with clear links to the labour market (delivered as a complementary programme to
CIDA’s C-EFE Programme)
Costs
The costs of the skills component of the intervention is a DFID contribution of up to £1.5 million for
the development of a specific training programme for disadvantaged groups. There are also implicit
staff costs associated with the DFIDC staff time (from the Social Development Adviser, Growth Policy
10
Adviser and Growth Team programme staff) that will need to be devoted to managing the initiative,
and liaising with CIDA, ACCC and project stakeholders in the implementation of the programme.
These are estimated at 0.1 FTE, though this may be higher in the initial implementation phase.
Benefits
Reach - This option would have the benefit of reaching a larger pool of beneficiaries (at least 1,000
additional) among disadvantaged youth in the region. It would also start this activity for
disadvantaged groups at an earlier stage than if CIDA implemented its programme alone.
Benefits to participants – The successful participants would gain enhanced skills to successfully
enter the job market or access further training for future employment. Successful participants would
have increased earnings from employment over the life course.
Additional benefits - In addition, participating programme partners should improve their capacity to
deliver labour-market relevant programming to disadvantaged groups, and the National Training
Agencies would provide quality assurance and accreditation/certification. This should lay the
foundation for sustainable delivery to disadvantaged groups beyond the project life, hence reaching
an even wider pool of beneficiaries. Successful delivery of the programme should also reduce the
risk that youth in particular get engaged in risky, criminal behaviour, so would also have the
benefit of avoiding the significant costs of youth crime as there is some evidence from
evaluations of similar programmes demonstrating reduced crime as an indirect benefit deriving from
trainingxxxv.
Coordination benefits - In addition, since this option entails working in close partnership with
another development agency (CIDA), it is consistent with aid effectiveness commitments, and should
help improve efficiency and reduce transaction costs on country and regional partners and
stakeholders. Being linked to the wider C-EFE programme, the intervention would also benefit from
important elements such as the work on improving the labour market information systems and the
linkages to be built between the private sector and the training sector. The proposed partnership
also has regional buy-in and support, which also raises the likelihood that the benefits will be
realised.
Option 2b –Support a skills development training programme for disadvantaged youth in the
Caribbean, with clear links to the labour market, delivered independently through private
sector and NGO operators.
Costs
The estimated costs of this option would be up to £1.65 million, including additional start-up costs
estimated at £150,000 or 10% of the reference budget. There may be some additional implicit costs
in the initial phase required though in time to get up to speed with the programme context and key
stakeholders.
The transaction costs for this option would be much higher than under option 2a, as setting up a
specific skills development programme from scratch, will require much more DFIDC staff time than
complementing an existing CIDA programme, particularly as it relates to specific design and
relationships and coordination with stakeholders. The estimated DFIDC staff time (from the Social
Development Adviser, Growth Policy Adviser, Private Sector Adviser and Growth Team programme
staff) is estimated at 0.2 FTE for the initial year and 0.15 FTE thereafter. There would also be
increased transaction costs for the national and regional stakeholders working on TVET development
in the region, and increased time for donor coordination activities to ensure that the DFID programme
is properly articulated with the existing CARICOM-endorsed CIDA programme.
Benefits
This option would have similar benefits to those outlined for Option 2a in terms of reach,
benefits to participants and additional benefits. The main differences in this respect would be
11
that there may be a lower level of effectiveness given the differences in implementation and
management capacity, and in timing, since there would be a longer lag before the actual delivery of
programming for the disadvantaged for procurement and to give the service providers would need
some lead time to get fully up to speed on the programme context.
However, as a separate programme, the coordination benefits identified for option 2a would not be
generated in this case. On the positive side, under a separate DFID programme, the implementing
agency would be entirely focussed on DFID objectives, and there would there a reduced risk of DFID
objectives for disadvantaged groups being diluted in the light of broader programme objectives and
priorities.
The sustainability of benefits under this option is also likely lower than under option 2a, as the
intervention would not benefit from the same level of linkages with national training agencies, which
would help lay the ground work for sustainable programme delivery over time.
On the basis of the qualitative assessment of the three options, Option 2a (Skills programme
complementing the CIDA C-EFE programme) is the preferred option, so the ensuing value for
money discussion focuses on this option.
D. What measures can be used to assess Value for Money for the intervention?
Net Present Value and Internal Rate of Return
The overall value for money of the intervention was assessed with a simple cost-benefit analysis, taking
into account the cost of the maximum DFID investment (£1.5 mn), compared with the monetised
benefits of the expected earnings of successful participants in the training who gained employment
after training.xxxvi The counterfactual was that participants would have no skills (and therefore earn only
an unskilled wage). We calculated both the net present value (NPV) and internal rate of return (IRR)
for the programme from start in 2012-13 up to 2023-24 (this allowed 10 years of employment for the
first expected batch of trainees). The expected wage premium from completing the training was
calculated using 2 different approaches:
1) earning 20%xxxvii more than the indicative average unskilled wage (conservative approach)
2) earning the difference between an average semi-skilled wage and an average unskilled wage.
(optimistic approach)
The analysis also incorporated varying levels of success for trainees in finding gainful employment
after the training, calculated at 50% (the base target for the project), 75% and 33%.
Under both approaches, the programme showed a positive NPV and a higher IRR than our standard
discount rate. The results are summarised in the table below:
Approach
1- 20% premium on unskilled
wage
2- Difference between unskilled
and semi-skilled wage
3- Half difference between
unskilled and semi-skilled wage
NPV (£) @ Job success rate:
IRR @ Job success rate:
33%
50%
75%
33%
50%
75%
-385,076
109,348
834,683
4%
12%
21%
2,427,813
4,376,633
7,235,611
36%
51%
68%
543,246
1,517,656
2,947,144
17%
28%
40%
Based on this analysis, even with very conservative calculations, the programme would break even
(with an NPV of £.1mn), and under a more optimistic scenario, could realise a relatively high NPV of
£4.38 mn and an IRR of 51%.
Additional Benefits
While these rudimentary figures are encouraging, they do not take into account the following
additional benefits:
12
1) Significant social benefits - There is some evidence from evaluations of similar
programmes demonstrating reduced crime as an indirect benefit deriving from trainingxxxviii, so
the programme should help avert some of the significant costs of youth crime This has been
recently estimated to cost CARICOM countries between 2.8 – 4% of GDP annuallyxxxix.
There are other social benefits which are likely to derive from the training and transition of
youth to employment, including greater levels of social engagement, social connectedness
and discipline, and reduced likelihood of a range of risky behaviours including drug abuse,
teenage pregnancy and HIV infection. Although much less robust, there is, importantly, some
evidence of such social benefits as outcomes from youth training programmes in the
Caribbeanxl.
2) Legacy benefits – The programme would also generate valuable legacy benefits after
completion, arising from developed curricula, accredited training programmes, instructor
training, and relationships built with the private sector. These would generate further future
benefits for other youth beyond the life of the project.
In light of the cost benefit analysis results and additional social and other benefits, the proposed
programme investment is judged to represent reasonable overall value for money.
Other Value for Money Measures
Other specific value for money measures are outlined below.
1) Economy
It is recognised though that as a region composed of very small countries, with relatively high costs of
living and doing business, costs for training delivery in the Caribbean are likely to be relatively high
compared to other contexts. The current indicative estimates (using maximum contribution and
minimum beneficiaries), suggest that the indicative costs for the project are at the top-end relative to
international comparatorsxli
In light of this, stringent efforts will be made in negotiation on price with the service provider to ensure
that input costs and fees are kept to the absolute minimum to deliver the desired results.xlii Costs by
budget line will be monitored in relation to like expenses within the region, as well as international
benchmarks for unit costs of delivery, where available for middle-income country contexts.
2) Efficiency
In light of the cost structure in the Caribbean region, the unit costs of delivery are relatively high.
When compared to budgeted costs for similar programming in the region, the indicative cost per
contact hour of delivery is £3.26 for the intervention is higher than the estimated costs of £2.66 £2.80 in Grenada, for example though it is likely lower than costs in St. Lucia.xliii Though there may
be some comparison issues, this still suggests that there will be a need to push on this aspect of
value for money during programme design and implementation. Therefore, along with strong price
negotiation at the contract stage, DFID will make strong efforts to maximise the use of the agreed
funds, with a target of reducing the estimated cost per credit hour by 10% over the life of the project.
3) Effectiveness
Effectiveness of this intervention will be measured primarily on the training participants’ success in
gaining employment (including self-employment) or continuing training after completing the
programme. The minimum success rate targeted for the programme is 50%.
The main issue of concern in the intervention would be cost-effectiveness, particularly in light of the
high cost structure outlined previously. A tight rein on both costs and actual delivery of results will
therefore be key in implementation, and will be followed up throughout.
E. Summary Value for Money Statement for the preferred option
The youth skills component of the proposed intervention has an estimated possible NPV of £4.38 mn
and an internal rate of return (IRR) of 51%, taking into account a total maximum DFID investment of
13
£1.5 mn, a minimum of 1,000 beneficiaries, and a 50% expected job success rate for beneficiaries.
This does not take into account other significant benefits that would arise from the project, namely
the substantial averted costs from risky behaviour by youth, which should also accrue, as well as the
legacy benefits of developing curricula for, and strengthening delivery of programmes to,
disadvantaged youth, which would benefit additional youth after the end of the project.
As a complementary intervention to the larger Canadian CARICOM Education for Employment
Programme, the proposed intervention increases the potential positive impact of the Canadian
programme on the poor and disadvantaged, minimises transaction costs for both DFID and project
stakeholders, and contributes to greater aid effectiveness.
Commercial Case
Direct procurement
A. Clearly state the procurement/commercial requirements for intervention
DFID will require consultancy services to deliver the skills development component of the
programme. Given that DFID’s proposed intervention is complementing an existing initiative of
another donor (CIDA), we would use a negotiated procedure to contract the service provider
implementing the existing CARICOM Education for Employment (C-EFE) programme, the
Association of Canadian Community College (ACCC). There is a strong technical case for this
approach, given the small size of DFID’s contribution relative to the existing overall C-EFE
programme; ACCC’s considerable knowledge and experience in this area; and their extensive
linkages with key regional stakeholders for the programme.
B. How does the intervention design use competition to drive commercial advantage
for DFID?
There is no competition per se given the use of the negotiated procedure, but DFID will focus on
getting maximum value for money in the negotiation process.
C. How do we expect the market place will respond to this opportunity?
N/A since the negotiated procedure will be used so there will be no public advertisement.
D. What are the key cost elements that affect overall price? How is value added and
how will we measure and improve this?
The key cost-drivers in the skills development component are:
 Human resources (e.g. Fees for curriculum development, training of instructors and
participants, orientation of stakeholders, management)
 Training resources
 Training venues
 Participant costs (e.g. any stipends, protective equipment where necessary)
 Workshop consumables
 Transportation
Value is added through the quality of the design and delivery of the training programmes to
disadvantaged groups, and the development of sustainable mechanisms to deliver this over time.
We will measure this throughout programme implementation, including participant attendance at, and
feedback on, training programmes, as well as regular programme monitoring through the Project
Steering Committee and designated programme reviews. The results of this will inform our decisions
on programme changes needed to improve effectiveness.
14
E. What is the intended Procurement Process to support contract award?
The proposed procurement process is a negotiated procedure with the Association of Canadian
Community Colleges (ACCC), the executing agency for the existing CIDA CARICOM Education for
Employment Programme. This process would be managed by Procurement Group.
Background and Rationale
Three procurement options were explored for providing complementary support to the CIDA
programme - an Administrative Arrangement (AA) with CIDA; contracting a service provider through
the restricted (competitive) procedure; and the negotiated procedure.
The first option was not viable because of bureaucratic complications that would likely lead to very
long delays before implementation would be possible.
Using the “restricted (competitive) procedure” did not appear useful under the circumstances of
complementing an existing programme with an implementing partner (ACCC) already in place.
Potentially working with another service-provider was not deemed optimal in this case, as it could
complicate the process, prevent the desired integrated approach and severely limit potential impact.
In addition, given the small size of countries in the region, multiple implementing partners would also
put unnecessary burdens on in-country stakeholders.
The negotiated procedure was judged to be appropriate in this case, as the identified serviceprovider (ACCC) had strong technical skills and experience in the design and the delivery of
implementing similar technical and vocational education and training programmes elsewhere; had
already done essential groundwork in design and inception activities; and had developed strong
relationships with key stakeholders in the region. The “negotiated procedure” approach was
confirmed by DFID’s Procurement Group in February, 2012. xliv
Negotiation Process
DFID will apply high technical standards and a strong push on costs in the negotiation process with
ACCC on its technical and commercial proposals, to ensure that the programme contract represents
maximum value for money.
F. How will contract & supplier performance be managed through the life of the
intervention?
On the skills development component, DFID Caribbean’s Growth Programme Team will manage the
service provider throughout programme implementation. This will be done through regular
engagement with the service provider and CIDA, including through meetings held on at least a
quarterly basis. The team will monitor the progress of implementation and will liaise closely with the
designated implementer(s) to ensure that deliverables remain on track and that any issues are
identified and addressed at the earliest possible stage. Authorisation of scheduled payments will be
dependent on satisfactory performance by the service provider.
Indirect procurement
A. Why is the proposed funding mechanism/form of arrangement the right one for this
intervention, with this development partner?
N/A for the skills development component of this intervention.
15
B. Value for money through procurement
N/A for to the skills development component of this intervention.
Financial Case
A. What are the costs, how are they profiled and how will you ensure accurate
forecasting?
The estimated costs are as follows:
 Skills development component (complementary support to the CIDA CARICOM Education for
Employment programme, managed as a separate contract with the Association of Canadian
Community Colleges (ACCC)) – up to £1.5 mn.
The expected profile of the costs is as follows:
Component
FY 2012-13
FY 2013-14
FY 2014-15
C-EFE Complementary Support*
£300,000
£600,000
£600,000
* The actual specific profile may be amended depending on the outcome of the negotiation process
with the executing agency. The detailed budget will also be agreed as part of this process.
Accurate forecasting will be ensured by:
 Building in a clear payment schedule with the amounts and timelines in the contracts and
relevant administration arrangements for implementation
 Keeping close contact to ensure that deliverables and timing are on track, and that any
necessary adjustments are flagged early and incorporated into forecasting.
B. How will it be funded: capital/programme/admin?
The programme will be fully funded from DFID Caribbean’s programme budget.
C. How will funds be paid out?
For the skills development component, the funds will be paid out to the service provider (ACCC) on
submission of valid invoices for accepted programme deliverables, in accordance with the contractual
arrangements.
D. What is the assessment of financial risk and fraud?
The financial risk and the risk of fraud are low for the service provider’s management of the skills
development component. The proposed executing agency ACCC is an established institution with a
strong track record, and will be under the vigilant oversight of both DFID and CIDA. The main
implementing partners will be the National Training Agencies, as well as the partner organisations in
country delivering training on the ground. The financial risk around these will likely be higher, but
varies by organisation, and will be assessed on a case by case basis (once the programme countries
are selected by the Steering Committee and relevant partners are identified in the initial phases).
The overall risk of fraud and corruption is therefore rated as medium.
The likely opportunities for fraud in the proposed intervention would be around procurement, theft
and misuse of assets, conflict of interest and management of training processes. Appropriate risk
16
management arrangements will be put in place through the contract. Specifically, to help mitigate
financial and fraud risks, DFID will include contract provisions that require ACCC to ensure that their
own agreements with NTA’s and other partner organisations make provision for safeguarding assets,
employing fair and transparent procurement practices and declaring and managing conflicts of
interest. ACCC will also be required to ensure that financial transactions are supported by adequate
documentation.
DFID will also commission or carry out spot checks as part of project monitoring to verify that sound
financial and procurement management is in place.
E. How will expenditure be monitored, reported, and accounted for?
Expenditure on the skills development component will be monitored through the contract and
specified financial reports to be submitted. The Growth Programme team will monitor expenditure at
least on a quarterly basis, in liaison with the service provider. Due diligence will be applied in
ensuring that the expenditure goes towards intended purposes, with audited accounts to be
submitted during the life of the programme.
Management Case
A. What are the Management Arrangements for implementing the intervention?
The skills development component of the intervention will be managed through a contract. DFIDC will
be responsible for specifying the Terms of Reference of the contract, which will clearly spell out the
approach and deliverables under the programme. The service provider (ACCC) will be responsible for
designing and managing delivery of the training programme, overall programme management and
monitoring, and financial management and reporting. DFID Caribbean’s Growth team will oversee
implementation and provide technical and management inputs as required. DFID Caribbean will also
participate in the Project Steering Committee (PSC) set up for the overall C-EFE programme, which will
also discuss the complementary DFID support under this intervention. This will ensure optimal
articulation between the programmes, and will also act as the primary body for stakeholder participation
in decisions on the particular sectors and countries to be targeted in implementation of the programme.
The PSC will include representatives from CARICOM, the Caribbean Association of National Training
Agencies and the private sector, in addition to CIDA and DFID as development partners.
B. What are the risks and how these will be managed?
The key risks and associated management actions for the skills development intervention are as
follows:
Risk
Probability/ Management actions
Impact
The economic environment is Medium/
Industry involvement in training design, providing
not conducive to participants High
practical experience and helping with job placement
getting employment.
should increase the likelihood of employment. or
offering work experience/job outcomes. All efforts
will be made to ensure that sectors selected for
associated training represent areas where there is
good growth potential.
The overall economic
conditions in the Caribbean (e.g. possible further
recession) are beyond our control.
17
The programme’s impact is Medium/
limited
to
the
direct Medium
participants in the training only
The service provider focuses
on broader C-EFE programme
giving insufficient attention to
linked DFID programme.
Targeting of disadvantaged
groups is not effective
MediumLow/
Medium
Strong regional stakeholder
participation in sector choices
results in sectors without
sufficient growth potential.
NTAs and other programme
partners have insufficient
capacity
to
effectively
implement the programme
Medium/
Medium
MediumLow/High
Medium/
High
In implementation and monitoring, strong emphasis
will be placed on building capacity of programme
partners to deliver appropriate, certified programming
to disadvantaged groups. This will help lay the
groundwork for delivery to additional disadvantaged
youth beyond the life of the project.
Contract with clear deliverables and performance
criteria, close management by DFID
Provision will be made for appropriate outreach and
communications to disadvantaged groups to help to
encourage them to access the training. There will
also be strong technical oversight by DFID Social
Development Adviser to ensure that effective
targeting mechanisms are in place.
Strong DFID PSD engagement re. proposed sectors
and active DFID participation in the Project Steering
Committee
DFID will track progress and consider providing
supplementary resources for capacity-building if
existing resources prove insufficient.
C. What conditions apply (for financial aid only)?
N/A
D. How will progress and results be monitored, measured and evaluated?
Progress and results on the skills development component will be monitored on an ongoing basis
through a number of mechanisms.
The CIDA CARICOM Education for Employment (C-EFE) Programme provides for semi-annual, annual
and end-of-project reporting on the overall programme. Comprehensive systems are being put in place
within the programme to collect all the required results information, including Review Committees to
consider student, industry and institution satisfaction and feedback. The Programme Steering
Committee will give oversight to the programme and review all major reports.
DFID will be able to link into this overall monitoring and reporting system for its complementary support
under the proposed intervention. DFID will participate in quarterly Project Steering Committee
meetings for the overall programme. In addition, under the Terms of Reference in the programme
contract, there will be clear deliverables around monitoring, data collection and annual reporting on
project progress and results, to ensure that adequate information is available to track progress of the
programme. DFID will also conduct annual reviews, and an end-of-project review for this programme,
based on the agreed programme logframe, linking as far as possible with the overall monitoring and
evaluation arrangements for the wider C-EFE programme.
Logframe
Quest No of logframe for this intervention: 3376086
18
References and Endnotes
World Bank. 2003. “Caribbean Youth Development: Issues and Policy Directions.
Washington, DC: Human Development Department, Latin America and the Caribbean
Region, World Bank
ii CARICOM, 2010.Eye on the Future – Report of the CARICOM Commission on Youth
Development.
i
World Bank. 2003. “Caribbean Youth Development: Issues and Policy Directions.
Washington, DC: Human Development Department, Latin America and the Caribbean
Region, World Bank
iv CARICOM, 2010.Eye on the Future – Report of the CARICOM Commission on Youth
Development.
iv UNDP, Human Development Report, 2011. Gini coefficients of St. Lucia (42.6) and
Jamaica (45.5) are above the average (40.2) for countries categorised as “High Human
Development”. Guyana (43.2) is slightly below the average of 43.7 in its category of “Medium
Human Development” while Suriname (52.8) is significantly higher.
v CARICOM, 2010.Eye on the Future – Report of the CARICOM Commission on Youth
Development.
vi See for example Deininger and Squire (1998), Dollar and Kraay (2002), White and
Anderson (2001), Ravallion (2001) and Bourguignon (2003).
iv
vii
See “What is inclusive growth”, World Bank, 2009
viii
See CARICOM Commission on Youth Development Report (2010)
ix
2010 data for all CARICOM except St. Kitts & Nevis and Dominica. Source: World
Development Indicators 2011.
CARICOM is the Caribbean Community, a regional grouping comprising 15 countries –
Antigua & Barbuda, the Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Haiti,
Jamaica, Montserrat, St. Kitts & Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent & the Grenadines, Suriname and
Trinidad & Tobago.
x
xi
CARICOM Commission on Youth Development Report (2010)
xii
See World Bank 2007
World Bank. 2003. “Caribbean Youth Development: Issues and Policy Directions.
Washington, DC: Human Development Department, Latin America and the Caribbean
Region, World Bank
xiv See for example World Bank, 2008 “Youth at Risk in Latin America and the Caribbean”,
and World Bank, 2003, Caribbean Youth Development: Issues and Policy Directions”
xiii
xv
World Bank, 2003, Caribbean Youth Development: Issues and Policy Directions”
Cunningham, 2007. “Youth At Risk in Latin America and the Caribbean – Understanding
the Causes, Realizing the Potential”. World Bank, Washington DC.
xvi
xvii
2009 data. Source: World Development Indicators 2011.
xviii
Lashley, J. “Gender and Enterprise Development in the Caribbean” DFID Study. 2009.
See World Bank, 2010. “Active Labor Market Programs For Youth, A Framework to Guide
Youth Employment Interventions”, World Bank Employment Policy Primer, No. 16, November
2010.
xix
See World Bank, 2010. “Active Labor Market Programs For Youth, A Framework to Guide
Youth Employment Interventions”, World Bank Employment Policy Primer, No. 16, November
2010.
xx
xxi
See Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), Community College Models in the
Caribbean: Baseline Study and Consultancy Report, 2003; Caribbean Knowledge and
19
Learning Network, Labour Market Survey, January 2006; Skills Strategy Options for the
OECS, Report to the OECS and the World Bank, Middleton, John, May, 2011.
See for e.g. CDB 2005. “Tertiary Education Financing in the Anglophone Caribbean:
Presentations and Recommendations”; CARICOM, 2006. “Presentation to COHSOD
Secretariat” CKLN. 2006. “Caribbean Knowledge and Learning Network Labour Market
Survey”. CKLN Secretariat. Kingston, Jamaica; Salling Olesen. 2006. “Caribbean Skills
Enhancement Project – coherence in Education, Training, and Informal Learning.”
Background Paper prepared for World Bank.
xxii
See for e.g. CDB 2005. “Tertiary Education Financing in the Anglophone Caribbean:
Presentations and Recommendations”; CARICOM, 2006. “Presentation to COHSOD
Secretariat” CKLN. 2006.
“Caribbean Knowledge and Learning Network Labour Market Survey”. CKLN Secretariat.
Kingston, Jamaica; Salling Olesen. 2006. “Caribbean Skills Enhancement Project –
coherence in Education, Training, and Informal Learning.” Background Paper prepared for
World Bank.
xxiii
World Bank. 2007. “School and Work: Does the Eastern Caribbean Education System
Adequately Prepare Youth for the Global Economy?”. World Bank Report No.38555.
Washington DC.
xxiv
xxv
USAID. 2008. Rapid Youth Assessment in the Eastern Caribbean.
xxvi
See for example Salling Olesen (2006); World Bank (2007)
World Bank. 2007. “School and Work: Does the Eastern Caribbean Education System
Adequately Prepare Youth for the Global Economy?”. World Bank Report No.38555.
Washington DC.
xxvii
Association of Canadian Community Colleges (ACCC), 2010, “Technical and Vocational
Education and Training (TVET) in the Caribbean Region”.
xxviii
xxix
World Bank, 2007. School and Work – Does the Eastern Caribbean Education System
Adequately Prepare Youth for the Global Economy. World Bank, 2007.
xxx
See World Bank, 2008 “Youth at Risk in Latin America and the Caribbean”.
For further detail, see DFIDC’s “Youth Unemployment Approaches Sift – Summary Table”
DFID QUEST no. 3564203
xxxii See World Bank, 2008 “Youth at Risk in Latin America and the Caribbean”.
xxxi
xxxiii
See World Bank review reports on OECS Skills for Inclusive Growth projects in St. Lucia
and Grenada.
xxxiv See ILO 2010 “Global Employment Trends for Youth”
xxxv See for example: Howell (1995), Kellerman et al (1998); Flude (2000); Van Reenen
(2001); and Cunningham (2008).
See DFIDC’s “Inclusive Growth Cost Benefit Analysis”, 2012, DFID QUEST no. 3564199,
for the full calculation sheets.
xxxvii This wage premium rate is consistent with some of the data on the returns to postsecondary education.
xxxviii See for example: Howell (1995), Kellerman et al (1998); Flude (2000); Van Reenen
(2001); and Cunningham (2008).
xxxvi
xxxix
Chabaan, 2009, p. 20
See for example evaluations of the SERVOL Programme in Trinidad and Tobago in Griffith,
2002; and of the National Youth Service of Jamaica in Williams L. and Tindigarukayo J.
(2002).
xli See DFID Caribbean Summary Table re. Youth Employment Interventions Indicative Costs,
2012, QUEST no. 3564206
xlii See DFID Caribbean Summary Table re. Youth Employment Interventions Indicative Costs,
2012, DFID QUEST no. 3564206
xl
xliii
See “DFIDC Youth Skills Efficiency Calculations”, QUEST no. 3564203
20
xliv
See DFID QUEST document no. 3359482 for the submission and DFID QUEST document
no. 3588805 for the approval from DFID’s Procurement Group.
21