Annual Review - Summary Sheet
This Summary Sheet captures the headlines on programme performance, agreed actions and learning over the
course of the review period. It should be attached to all subsequent reviews to build a complete picture of actions
and learning throughout the life of the programme.
Caribbean Inclusive Growth Programme
Programme Value: £1.5 m
Programme Code: 202435
Review Date: Jan 5-7, 2015
Start Date:
July 2012 (ARIES approval),
Sept 2013 (contract)
End Date: March 2017
Summary of Programme Performance
Programme Score
Risk Rating
Summary of progress and lessons learnt since last review
The main progress since the last Annual Review has been:
 Confirmed country coverage/footprint with an expanded list of directly participating countries,
namely: 3 partnerships covering 6 countries – Jamaica, OECS partnership 1 (St. Lucia – lead,
Antigua & Barbuda and Grenada) and OECS partnership 2 (St. Vincent & the Grenadines (lead)
and Dominica)
 Confirmation and expansion of the sectors of focus for the training delivery
 Revised implementation plan, reflecting, inter alia, new country footprint, partners and timelines.
 Completion of procurement and selection process for the Canadian Colleges that will partner with
the Caribbean counterparts to design and deliver training in each of the 3 partnerships.
 Planning for further on the ground missions by selected Canadian partners to inform substantive
training design and delivery.
However, delays and challenges in the confirmation of the country footprint for the intervention delayed
the launch and implementation of the training partnerships, and the overall project schedule, affecting
Key lessons learnt are:
 The need to monitor contractual issues very closely, and engage with Procurement as early as
possible to speed up the resolution process.
Summary of recommendations for the next year
In line with DFID’s mandatory SMART Rule for projects scoring C in an Annual Review:
 The DFID Caribbean (DFIDC) project team will identify of improvement measures for the
programme, and reflect these in a delivery plan (by end February)
The project team will make a submission to DFIDC management on the future of the project
Other recommendations include:
 Speedy resolution of the contractual and funding issues that have arisen within the project
affecting DFID’s funding share.
Update of the programme logframe to reflect any programme changes and improve indicators as
needed (once contractual issues are resolved).
A. Introduction and Context (1 page)
DevTracker Link to Business Case:
DevTracker Link to Log frame:
3755669; 4782974
Outline of the programme
Under the Caribbean Inclusive Growth Programme, DFID is funding a Youth Skills Development
Programme for disadvantaged youth. The programme provides demand-led training based on local
labour market needs for youth, with vocational certification for each successful graduate. It also builds
the capacity of national training agencies and training providers to reach disadvantaged groups and to
design and deliver demand-led, competency-based training. At least 1,000 young people will benefit
directly from this programme, though there will also be indirect beneficiaries. These young people will
develop basic technical and critical life skills, which will enable them to seek jobs, become self-employed
or access further training. The project is delivered through Colleges and Institutes Canada (CICan) who
utilise selected Canadian colleges in their network to partner with the national training agencies (NTAs)
and local training providers to design and deliver the training, and build capacity.
DFID’s support is linked to a larger Caribbean regional skills development programme (Can $20 m)
funded by Canada through DFATD, the CARICOM Education for Employment (C-EFE) programme. CEFE is working to improve the overall technical and vocational education and training (TVET) system in
the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), working with regional and national agencies and training
providers. C-EFE’s three project components focus on:
 strengthening regional capacity to coordinate, promote and conduct quality assurance for demanddriven 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 “pretechnology” programmes specifically targeted at disadvantaged groups. (All done through twinning
with experienced, selected relevant Canadian colleges).
DFID’s intervention builds on this programme, utilising the regional and national institutional
relationships, strategic and capacity-building investments and the same executing agency (CICan).
DFID’s contribution allows for greater reach to disadvantaged youth in this context.
The programme responds to the major challenges in the region of high youth unemployment, shortages
of key skills and the mismatch between the outputs of the education sector and the requirements of the
labour market. It provides an avenue for a marginalised portion of the population to participate in and
benefit from, economic activity.
Annual outcome assessment
Despite the delays on this project moving to full implementation (as explained later), there is still
sufficient time for the project to deliver the outputs within the existing project timeframe. It is expected
that the outcome of enhanced economic opportunities for disadvantaged groups can be achieved.
Several key elements contribute to this assessment:
 the overall implementing partner has a strong track record in Education for Employment initiatives;
 there appears to be strong buy-in and commitment from the regional partners,
 there is good demand within the target groups in the six countries,
 the identified partner Canadian colleges are strong,
 there is already private sector engagement, and
 the sectors identified for work have reasonable prospects.
Overall output score and description
C – Outputs substantially did not meet expectation
There has been progress on the project, but the delays relating to the confirmation and re-alignment of
the country footprint for the project in turn delayed the launch and implementation of the training
partnerships, and the overall project schedule. All the outputs are linked to training taking place, so the
fact that training had not commenced in the review period meant that most of the milestones on the three
project outputs could not be met or were only partially met. Specifically, the milestones on output 1 (re.
youth trained) were not met, as the training did not commence in the review period. All the milestones
on the capacity-building output (output 2) were also affected, as the partner local institutions could not
actively participate in, and learn from the training design and delivery process without the
commencement of the training. Similarly, on output 3 (private sector participation in training), work
placements linked to the training could not be set up, meaning that one of the three milestones on this
output could not be met.
Key lessons
 The value of involving Procurement group early in the project and contract management process.
(While intense efforts were made by the project team to clarify the proposed funding model and cost
changes and to set out DFID’s position, earlier direct involvement by Procurement Group may have
been helpful in speeding up a possible resolution).
 The value of deciding some key programme features up-front. (While flexibility and openness in
deciding the country footprint for the project during inception had some merit, it would have been
easier for project implementation if DFID had made a strategic decision up-front/ earlier on the
preferred country footprint for the programme)
Key actions
In line with DFID’s mandatory SMART Rule for projects scoring C in an Annual Review:
 The DFIDC project team will identify improvement measures for the programme, and reflect
these in a delivery plan (Timing: by end February)
 The project team will make a submission to DFIDC management on the future of the project
Additional actions will also be taken forward, as outlined in the following table.
Resolution of contractual and funding model issues
Update of the programme logframe to reflect any
programme changes and improve indicators as
needed (once contractual issues are resolved).
Ensure that capacity-building is set as a priority by
SDA and SPO icw with
Results Adviser and
Q1 2015
Within 1 month of
resolution of
contractual issues
CICan once training design and delivery starts in
Ensure that industry involvement remains a focus
and is duly reflected in any performance
improvement measures.
& CICan
& CICan
Has the logframe been updated since the last review?
No, not formally. Given the timing of the country footprint decision (May 2014), a logframe update was
not done as planned in the first quarter of 2014. While a revised draft logframe was done in October to
reflect the updated timelines (in line with a subsequent decision), it was decided to defer a formal
logframe update until after the Jan 2015 review, so as to preserve the integrity of the Jan 2015 review
process and to take on board any arising issues coming out of actual start-up on the ground.
C: DETAILED OUTPUT SCORING (1 page per output)
Output Title
Disadvantaged groups (youth) effectively trained in labour market
relevant areas.
Output number per LF
Output Score
Impact weighting (%):
Risk revised since last AR?
Impact weighting % revised N
since last AR?
participants from 100
disadvantaged groups accessing
training through the programme
(cumulative, disaggregated by sex)
1.2 Proportion of trainees reporting 50%
(disaggregated by sex).
0 – Milestone not met.
The training has not yet commenced.
N/A – Milestone not met.
The training has not yet commenced.
Key Points
Since the last review, DFID Caribbean underwent some strategic changes, which affected the planned
country footprint for the project. A set of countries was initially confirmed by DFID in March 2014.
However, further changes became necessary because of a further corporate decision, and DFID finally
approved a revised country footprint at the end of May 2014 (Jamaica, OECS partnership 1 – St. Lucia
(lead), Antigua & Barbuda and Grenada); and OECS partnership 2 – St. Vincent & the Grenadines (lead)
and Dominica).
The issues with the country footprint stalled further progress on implementation, and as a result, the
substantive training design by the Canadian partner colleges and launch of the training did not occur in
the review period as originally envisaged in the contract. CICan had to do additional work for the
inception work within the target countries, which included two new countries (St. Vincent & the
Grenadines and Dominica). They selected and reconfirmed sectors of focus, engaged with and
assessed proposed delivery agents and worked with the national training agencies across the six target
A revised implementation plan was developed and was submitted to DFID at the end of August 2014.
The focus in the second half of the year was procurement of the partner Canadian colleges who would
work with the regional partners to design and deliver programmes. This competitive tendering and
evaluation process was completed in October 2014, and activities thereafter focussed on the practical
arrangements for these partners to start their work in leading the design and delivery of the training.
The start-up missions by the selected Canadian partner colleges were postponed from December due to
logistical and timing challenges, and have been further delayed due to ongoing contractual issues that
have arisen on the programme. Once these issues can be resolved, the first round of training will
Summary of responses to issues raised in previous annual reviews (where relevant)
The formal logframe review and update was deferred until after the Jan 2015 review in light of the delays
in the country footprint decision. (See section B above for further detail)
 Work with the CICan to resolve the contractual issues quickly and get the training plans on stream.
 Revise the logframe as needed to reflect the revised timing and country approach (once contract
issues are resolved).
C: DETAILED OUTPUT SCORING (1 page per output)
Output Title
Enhanced capacity in selected countries to reach, identify, target and deliver
skills training programmes for disadvantaged groups (youth and poor women).
Output number per LF
Output Score
Impact weighting (%):
Risk revised since last AR?
Impact weighting % revised N
since last AR?
2.1 Number of national training agency 3
(NTA) approved training delivery agencies
authorized to deliver programming for
disadvantaged youth.
2.2 Proportion of participating programme
understanding of how to address gender
Programme training staff
directly engaged with
2.3 Proportion of participating programme Programme training staff
enhanced in
understanding of how to design and deliver directly engaged with
programming for disadvantaged groups.
Milestone not met
However, at least 13 local
delivery agents have been
identified for the 3 country
Milestone not met
However, programme training
staff have been actively
engaged with CICan in the
inception process.
Milestone not met
However, programme training
staff have been actively
engaged with CICan in the
inception process.
Key Points
Given delays in the start of the training, the opportunities to fully build capacity during the review period
were constrained. As a result, planned capacity building in addressing gender issues and designing and
delivering skills training programming for disadvantaged groups was limited to the exposure gained
through the inception and the Canadian partner selection processes. The full hands-on element of the
capacity-building for the local training providers will not take place until the substantive training design
and delivery begins on the ground. Similarly, full authorisation and accreditation for disadvantaged youth
programming will need to follow the actual commencement of the training.
Representatives of selected national training agencies (NTAs) have also been fully engaged in the CEFE PSC, which includes a gender component, and outptuts from the Gender and TVET Technical
Working Group, so the participating NTAs are also building their own awareness and understanding of,
and sensitivity to, gender issues.
Summary of responses to issues raised in previous annual reviews (where relevant)
The formal logframe review and update was deferred until after the Jan 2015 review in light of the delays
in the country footprint decision. (See section B above for further detail)
 Ensure that capacity-building is set as a priority by CICan once training design and delivery starts in
earnest. (DFID & CICan)
C: DETAILED OUTPUT SCORING (1 page per output)
Output Title
Private sector participates in design and delivery of skills training
Output number per LF
Output Score
Impact weighting (%):
Risk revised since last AR?
Impact weighting % revised N
since last AR?
3.1 Extent to which private sector
organisations are represented on
Committee for skills training
3.2 No. of employers participating
internships in youth at risk
3.3 No. of training delivery agents
with established private sector
partnerships providing for hosting
trainees in practicum and hiring
graduates on completion.
sector attendance
at PSC meetings
100% - Milestone exceeded.
There has been full private sector/ industry
attendance the PSCs held in 2014, with all
designated representatives attending both PSC
N/A* - (Milestone not met)
*The training and related field placements and
internships have not yet started.
2* - Milestone met.
*There are at least 2 proposed training delivery
agents with relationships with the private sector
that would facilitate hosting of trainees as
possible hiring. (These relationships are
relevant to the project but are not necessarily
fully/directy attributable).
Key Points
CICan has a strong track record on industry engagement in its Education for Employment work. There is
standing representation from the Caribbean Association of Industry and Commerce and the Caribbean
Tourism Organisation on the CARICOM Education for Employment Programme (C-EFE) Project
Steering Committee, which also covers the DFID Youth Skills Development work. In this way, there is
private sector input in the overall strategic direction and oversight of the programme. At the country
level, efforts continue to be made to engage and involve the private sector. Private sector partners have
been involved in the inception activities, and the programme has been interacting with key private sector
bodies such as Chambers of Commerce, Employers’ Confederations and tourism associations. Good
intial progress has been made in relation to identifying possible partners for the hands-on components of
the training, particularly in the marine sector. For example, in St. Lucia there are linkages with Jus’ Sail
and the marina to host trainees. The importance of strong industry engagement has been emphasised
with the implementing partner CICan, and remains a programme priority.
The progress made to date with private sector partners has largely met expectation, with the exception
of the employers participating in field placements, which could not be realistically assessed since the
training has not yet started.
Summary of responses to issues raised in previous annual reviews (where relevant)
The formal logframe review and update was deferred until after the Jan 2015 review in light of the delays
in the country footprint decision. (See section B above for further detail)
 Revise the logframe for this output as needed to reflect the revised timing and country approach and
to clarify and improve the indicators (once contract issues are resolved).
 Ensure that industry involvement remains a focus and is duly reflected in any performance
improvement measures.
Key cost drivers and performance
While costs have been incurred by CICan for this review period, there has been no submission of
invoices representing actual expenditure, despite repeated requests and queries. Invoices are currenty
expected in January 2015.
The key cost drivers identified in the business case remain (ie fees for curriculum development, training
of instructors and participants, orientation of stakeholders, management); with the addition of travelrelated project expenses. However, the latest proposed estimates prepared by CICan represent some
increases to specific line items (travel being the most significant), even though these are not currently
proposed for payment by DFID. This along with other proposed funding model changes have been
discussed extensively with CICan, and will be taken forward by Procurement within the contract
management process.
VfM performance compared to the original VfM proposition in the business case
The overall value for money of the intervention was assessed in the business case with a simple costbenefit 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. At the last review, it was noted the original positive cost-benefit analysis from
the project remained substantially valid, as the timing of the estimated flows with the implementation delays
and that the DFID investment had decreased by 17% (due to the negotiated contract sum). The main
changes over the current review period are the delays in implementation and the proposed new funding
model for the project, which suggests higher overall project costs, and a related smaller DFID share of the
costs and benefits. Even considering these developments, cost-benefit calculations give a positive NPV
(ranging from £.16 m - £3.84 m) and an IRR above the 10% discount rate.
We cannot assess effectiveness at this stage, since this relates to the trainees being able to get jobs or
continue training, and the training has not yet commenced.
Assessment of whether the programme continues to represent value for money
Despite the delays, the programme can still deliver its outputs and outcome, and still continues to
represent value for money. Based on our calculations, there is still a significant positive NPV, and the
IRR is generally well above the discount rate, even when the proposed new funding model figures are
taken into account. The perceived increase in overall project costs and its effect on the value of DFID’s
investment is still of concern to DFID, so we will work through this issue in the contract management
process, to ensure the final outcome gives good value for money.
Quality of financial management
Since the submission of the Inception Report in October 2013 CICan has submitted a revised
Implementation plan and a Semi Annual Report which both record activities completed and provide an
updated spending profile. The submission of these reports was consistent with the terms of the contract.
However, as noted earlier, there have been no invoices submitted as yet for this financial year, despite
several requests and queries from DFID. As these invoices reflect the actual fees and expenses
incurred, we are not able to fully account for their performance against the forecast spending profile.
Date of last narrative financial report
Date of last audited annual statement
30 November 2014
E: RISK (½ page)
Overall risk rating: High
Overview of programme risk
The risk rating from the last review has been raised. The project delays and the contractual challenges
have raised the implementation risks around the project. These have superseded previous concerns
including the varied capacity levels within the National Training Agencies and potential partner delivery
agents; political risk; the potential difficulties in reaching the target beneficiaries and possible
overshadowing of DFID programme by C-EFE. Mitigation around the implementation risks is to be put in
place - taking forward a contract management process to address the funding model and delivery issues.
Other programme delivery risks remain at medium with the political risk arising from the need to select a
few countries from within the CARICOM group being mitigated through discussions in the PSC and
DFID’s own mission visits to ODA-eligible OECS states.
A Risk Register has been developed, shared and agreed between CICan and DFID, and contains risks
identified in the business case and the Due Diligence Assessment. The DFID and CICan Sr. Programme
officers have agreed to review it semi-annually and discuss any risk changes as they occur. The
heightened implementation risks will be reflected in the Risk Register with the appropriate mitigation
once the contract management process around this issue is fully in place.
Outstanding actions from risk assessment
There are no major outstanding issues from the risk assessment - key Due Diligence risks were all
mitigated directly through conversations with CICan; and where necessary expert advice was sought
from DFID HQ. The initial Due Diligence Assessment did not identify any critical or high weaknesses and
mitigation/follow-up action has been identified for the medium and low priority areas for attention.
Delivery against planned timeframe
There have been significant delays in the schedule for this project. As reported in the last Annual
Review, after the initial procurement hurdles, a new implementation schedule was approved in the
programme contract. However, following inception, challenges in DFID’s confirmation of the country
footprint delayed the transition to implementation. A revised schedule was presented, and will need to
be amended in light of some contractual issues that have arisen. The overall schedule for completion of
all 3 cohorts of training is still largely on track, but completion of the first cohort of training is now delayed
by about 6 months. These issues will be addressed in the contract management process and PIP.
Completion of 1 round of training
Completion of 2nd round of training
Completion of 3rd round of training
Contract dates
Apr 2015
Dec 2015
Jul 2016
Estimated new delivery dates*
Oct 2015
Feb 2016
Sept 2016
* These dates reflect the dates from the new Implementation Plan, plus a 2-month lag for resolving the contractual issues.
We judge that the delays have increased the costs of the intervention. While there has been no request
to date to increase DFID’s contribution to the project, the additional costs seem to be absorbed by CICan
and increased contributions from other sources.
Performance of partnership (s)
The main partnerships to date has been the partnership between CICan and the DFID. The working
relationship has been generally constructive, in spite of challenges experienced . There have been
some issues in interpretation and utilisation of the contract. There is scope to manage the contractual
issues better and to increase DFID responsiveness; and CICan clarity. The other major partnerships are
between CICan and the regional institutions. Project reports and feedback from DFID’s missions and
from PSC meetings indicate that this is an effective and valued partnership. It is too early to comment
on the partnership between the selected Canadian colleges and their local counterparts.
Asset monitoring and control
Update on partnership principles (if relevant)
The partnership principles are not directly relevant to this project, as it is implemented by a contracted
agency from outside the Caribbean, CICan. There are no major issues within the target countries in the
programme that would warrant concerns in implementation.
The government-related National Training Agencies are involved in the project, and in this context,
principles of country ownership and involvement are embedded in the governance and management
arrangeements for the project, such as adequate country representation on the Project Steering
Evidence and evaluation
We are not aware of any changes to the fundamental evidence base of the project.
Since the DFID project is linked to the larger C-EFE programme, the M&E procedures for C-EFE are
being extended to incorporate M&E of the youth skills development work. There is a consultancy on
data-gathering tools and guidelines which is being expanded to include measurement of the youth skills
project outputs and outcome. Basic baseline surveys have already been developed for the NTAs. The
NTAs are to conducte tracer survery on participants to measure the programme impact on future training
and employment.
After the first round of training, each programme will be assessed, drawing on inputs from participants,
trainers, employers and the NTAs. A forum will be convened to facilitate sharing, and necessary
improvements will be made in the subsequent training rounds.
Monitoring progress throughout the review period
During the review period, DFID Caribbean:
 met with CICan at least quarterly (on 25 March, 28 May, 20 June, 20 August, 5 September, 9 October
and 6 November 2014), in addition to several email exchanges;
 visited all 5 Eastern Caribbean states targeted by the intervention (St. Lucia, Grenada and St. Vincent
& the Grenadines in June 2014, and Antigua & Barbuda and Dominica in October 2014);
 participated in the selection ceremony for the partner Canadian institutions on 24 October 2014; and
 participated in the November 2014 C-EFE Project Steering Committee Meeting.
Feedback was received from representatives of the NTAs and some of the proposed local training
delivery agents mainly through DFIDC’s scoping missions and through participation in partner selection
process and C-EFE PSC meeting. The feedback indicated that the contributions to date were valued,
and that they were pleased with the quality of personnel on the project, and saw expected good valueadded from the Canadian experts’ work in areas such as industry engagement, career counselling and
addressing literacy and numeracy gaps. The feedback from a wider set of stakeholders in country
through the scoping missions also emphasised the need for intervention in the area of skills and to
address the needs of youth.
The Annual Review was conducted as a desk exercise, drawing on information from project reports,
project meetings with CICan, the November C-EFE PSC meeting, and the DFID Caribbean scoping