Efficiency of adult training programmes should be increased

The National Audit Office of Estonia has evaluated the implementation and efficiency of adult in-service training and retraining programmes. Although the availability of EU Structural Funds has increased the financial resources allocated to such programmes, the audit concluded that the organisation of adult training programmes is neither systematic nor coordinated, and does not contribute to improving the level and structure of qualifications in the workforce.

Due to the impact of the recession and high unemployment, the competitiveness and skills of the labour force have become an important issue in Estonia. A review (in Estonian, 668Kb PDF) by the National Audit Office of Estonia (NAO) assessed whether the money allocated to adult training has been used efficiently in terms of effective implementation of adult training programmes. The audit covered 25 programmes and open tender procedures financed from the European Union’s Structural Funds.

The analysis is based on interviews carried out with 34 experts from ministries and other institutions. It also included a focus group interview with key individuals involved in adult education and analysis of programmes, programme costs and programme contents. The audit looked at both work-related and informal training activities.

Greater emphasis on adult education

Adult education is attracting increasing attention in Estonia. The NAO estimates that about €128 million (EEK 2 billion) will be spent on adult in-service training and retraining between 2008 and 2013.

The audit examined 25 programmes that were mostly financed through EU Structural Funds. It assessed institutions (for example, government ministries, Estonian Unemployment Insurance Fund (EUIF), State Chancellery, non-profit organisations) that offered training to a wide range of target groups (including those providing training not only to their own personnel). The participants varied since different institutions and programmes have different target groups (such as unemployed people, members of a particular trade or profession, employers).

Participation in lifelong learning in Estonia reached 9.8% in 2008, slightly above the EU average of 9.6%. By 2013, the share of participants is expected to be 13.5%. However, low educational attainment remains a problem. While the share of those benefiting from higher education has increased in recent years, the share of those with upper secondary education or a lower level of education has remained the same. In addition, only around 8% of the working population in Estonia holds a professional qualification certificate from the Estonian Qualifications Authority (Kutsekoda).

Planning and coordination

The audit revealed that the system of coordinating adult training does not include all parties involved in training and its financing. For example, the Adult Education Council (AEC) includes representatives of government ministries, employer organisations and adult education institutions, but the representatives of the Ministry of Interior, the Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture are not included despite being involved in the financing of adult education.

The lack of coordination is at the root of most problems in this area. Because the different parties do not discuss their activities with each other, they are unable to adapt quickly to change. It is also difficult to identify training needs and to draw up a corresponding national plan, as different institutions plan their training activities independently and use different methods. The diversity of training facilities and weak cooperation leads to a situation where many training activities are duplicated.

The audit also revealed that information regarding available training opportunities is not centrally available.

Output evaluation

Another issue is that little attention is given to evaluating the impact of adult training measures. This leads to a number of problems. The first is data availability: in some cases there are no reliable data on participants and in others the content of the training is not evaluated.

Because the evaluation system is often not thoroughly developed, this makes it difficult to make an adequate assessment of the impact of a measure (for example, its goals may be very generalised). In addition, some impact assessments are conducted too late despite timely feedback being crucial in improving training programmes.

Among its other findings, the audit revealed that no quality assessment systems have been developed to ensure the quality of training. According to the audit, the state does not monitor adult training activities and the only quality requirement is the possession of a training licence.

The audit also warned against overestimating the importance of the rate of participation in lifelong learning; participation levels rose during the recession and may not remain stable once it ends.

Although there are some target groups whose rate of participation in lifelong learning is low (for example, young people, non-Estonians), no particular attention has been paid to these risk groups. For example, the unemployment rate among non-Estonians and 15–24 year-olds is higher than the average unemployment rate in Estonia (19% and 27.5% respectively in 2009, compared with the overall average of 13.8%). In spite of this, little training is aimed specially at these target groups and most of those who participate in adult education are young and well-educated Estonians.

Recommendations

The NAO recommends enhancing cooperation between different institutions and improving coordination and information-sharing in order to achieve more efficient implementation of adult learning programmes. It also suggests:

• focusing more on risk groups;

• making the system more transparent;

• developing quality assessment mechanisms to ensure high quality training.

Liina Osila and Kirsti Nurmela, PRAXIS Centre for Policy Studies