2015年-世界发展银行全球_Labor_Market_Impacts_and_Effectiveness_of_Skills_Development_Programs_in_India_39页_741kb

Summary of Labor Market Impacts and Effectiveness of Skills Development Programs in India

Core Content

This report evaluates the labor market impacts and effectiveness of five major national skills development (SD) programs in India, namely the National Skills Development Corporation (NSDC), Skills Development Initiative Scheme (SDIS), Aajeevika Skills Development Program (ASDP), Rural Self-Employment Training Statute (RSETI), and Skill Training for Employment Protection amongst Urban Poor (STEP-UP). The study was requested by the Government of India (GOI) to assess whether these programs are achieving their goals before expanding them to meet the ambitious target of skilling 500 million workers by 2022.

The report combines both quantitative and qualitative analyses, drawing on survey data from trainees, non-trainees, employers, and training providers in five states: Assam, Andhra Pradesh (AP), Madhya Pradesh (MP), Odisha, and Rajasthan. It also compares the findings with international experiences to provide a broader context.

Main Findings

Employment Outcomes

• Initial Placement Rate: The overall placement rate of trainees shortly after training is modest, at 27%, with variation across programs (23% to 36%).
• Employment Rate 1-2 Years Later: The employment rate remains around 28%, showing that initial placement does not guarantee long-term employment.
• State Variations: There are significant differences in employment outcomes across states, with higher rates in AP and Assam and lower rates in Odisha and Rajasthan.
• Gender Differences: Women represent close to half of trainees in four of the five programs, and SD programs have a stronger positive effect on their employment than on men.

Wage and Earnings Effects

• Wage Premium: Trainees who complete SD programs receive a wage premium of about 21% compared to non-trainees.
• Job Quality: Trainees are more likely to be employed in better quality jobs, as measured by job contracts, shorter working hours, and access to pension plans.

Cost-Effectiveness

• Overall Impact: SD programs contribute to a 7 percentage point increase in employability.
• Program Variability: Not all programs perform equally. ASDP and RSETI show no significant labor market impact, while the others do.
• Training Characteristics: Programs that combine classroom learning with practical training (such as apprenticeships) have a stronger positive impact on employment and wages.
• Age and Experience: Training has no significant effect on youth aged 15-20, but it becomes effective for those aged 21 or older. Prior work experience also increases the probability of employment.

Program Design and Implementation

• Target Groups: Three programs (ASDP, RSETI, and STEP-UP) specifically target poor youth, while NSDC and SDIS do not discriminate based on socio-economic status.
• Training Providers: Most training is delivered by private institutions, with only a small proportion of public providers. In NSDC, ASDP, and STEP-UP, 90% of training providers are private, while in SDIS, it is 75%.
• Course Offerings: While the programs offer a wide range of trades, most trainees concentrate on a limited set of popular courses, such as tailoring, computer skills, and data entry, across all programs.

Challenges and Recommendations

• Quality and Relevance: There is a lack of attention to the quality of training and labor market demand, which affects program effectiveness.
• Placement and Retention: The study highlights the need for improved post-placement support to reduce labor market churning and ensure job sustainability.
• Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E): The M&E systems vary across programs and states, and more in-depth evaluations are needed, especially for ASDP and RSETI.
• Public Investment Justification: Despite the modest impact of SD programs, they are still justified as part of a broader human capital investment strategy, complementing education and longer-term training.

Key Policy Recommendations

1. Improve Training Quality and Relevance: Programs should use labor market data and involve employers in the design of courses and training standards.
2. Target Effective Groups: Focus on trainees aged 21 or older and those with prior work experience to maximize program effectiveness.
3. Enhance Post-Placement Support: Provide support for at least six months to one year after training to help with job search and reduce unemployment.
4. Standardize Certificates: Promote independent assessments and standardized certificates to enhance the value of training outcomes.
5. Link Funding to Outcomes: Continue using placement targets as conditions for funding, but ensure strict applicant selection to prevent false reporting and improve program efficiency.
6. Strengthen M&E Systems: Conduct more rigorous evaluations, especially for programs with no measurable impact, to inform future policy decisions.
7. Learn from Successful States: Promote best practices from successful states like AP to improve program coordination and outcomes.
8. Integrate with Broader Human Capital Strategies: SD programs should be viewed as part of a diversified approach to human capital development, not as standalone solutions for economic growth.

Conclusion

While SD programs in India have shown some positive labor market impacts, particularly in terms of employability and wage premiums, their overall effectiveness is limited. The programs are more successful when they are closely aligned with labor market demands and when they involve practical training and employer engagement. However, they are not a panacea for India’s employment challenges and should be complemented by other forms of human capital investment. The report emphasizes the need for better targeting, quality assurance, and post-training support to enhance the impact of these programs.