Evaluates the impact of training funded by the Human Resources Development Assistance (HRDA) project in Madagascar from 1988-1996. HRDA has been a successful program in Madagascar. The Mission stands as a model for promotion of women, assistance to the private sector, and for use of cost-effective in-country training. If USAID/Madagascar can now plan training in accordance with reengineering guidelines and strengthen monitoring, human capacity building could become its most powerful tool. Highlights from a survey of 495 of the 1,030 HRDA trainees are as follows. (1) Ninety-two percent had gained some specific skills or knowledge, 72% improved job performance directly related to their learning, and for 33% their improved job performance led to positive results for their organizations. (2) U.S.-based training created the highest value-added at the level of organizational results, third-country training the least. Third-country training’s impacts on job performance and trainee learning were also significantly lower. (3) Trainees from the private sector and NGOs were able to make their learning translate into organizational results twice as often as their counterparts from the public sector. (4) The worst combination of variables for employment and location of training was government employees trained in third countries. (5) Management training produced consistently high results. This may be due to the slightly closer attention given to management training than to other types of training, with 67% of management trainees reporting that their training corresponded to their original objective (versus 30% in the sample as a whole). Unfortunately, the levels of monitoring will likely prove inadequate for reporting requirements under reengineering guidelines. Only 32% of those asked said that anyone had evaluated their learning, and only 36% answered that USAID had made any inquiry into their satisfaction with the training experience. A mere 16% answered that either USAID or their supervisor had made any kind of evaluation, including simple inquiry, of the impact of their training on their organizations. USAID was conscientious about monitoring satisfaction for U.S. training, but relatively negligent for in-country programs. Also, there appears to be inconsistency in terms of preparing trainees for training. Barely more than 50% of trainees recalled hearing from either a supervisor or from USAID what the objective of their training would be. However, 43% of all trainees received formal orientation on substantive, i.e., non-logistical, matters. There is some evidence, but no proof, that pre-training conditions corresponded to training impact. Finally, fully half of the respondents cited cases in which the training had a positive collateral impact either on their personal lives or on their careers outside of their immediate workplaces. For U.S. training, because training was of longer duration and higher quality, and because trainees had enthusiasm for the U.S., impact was slightly higher.
