EVALUATIONOF!DFC TRAININGCOURSES...There are, however, variations within this overall picture and to inform about the variations the results for a course are presented in two figures

DECEMBER 2011 DANIDA FELLOWSHIP CENTRE

EVALUATION OF DFC TRAINING COURSES FINAL

C:\Documents and Settings\JBC\My Documents\Data\DFC M&E\Evaluation of DFC Training Final 2010.DOCX

DECEMBER 2012 DANIDA FELLOWSHIP CENTRE

EVALUATION OF DFC TRAINING COURSES FINAL

ADDRESS COWI A/S

Parallelvej 2

2800 Kongens Lyngby

Denmark

TEL +45 56 40 00 00

FAX +45 56 40 99 99

WWW cowi.com

PROJECT NO. P-74988-A-1

DOCUMENT NO. 01

VERSION 01

DATE OF ISSUE 28 February 2012

PREPARED Rolf Kromand

CHECKED Jens Brinch

APPROVED Jens Brinch

EVALUATION OF TRAINING COURSES IN 2010

5

CONTENTS

1 Introduction 7 1.1 Background 7 1.2 The 2010 Cohort of Fellows 7

2 Methodology 9 2.1 Survey Design 9 2.2 Data Collection and Number of Answers 10 2.3 Limited Analysis 10

3 Findings 12 3.1 Results and Reporting Structure 12 3.2 Results 13 3.3 The Individual Courses 20

4 Conclusion 57

APPENDICES

Appendix A : Predicted and Expected Competence and Contribution


7

1 Introduction

1.1 Background The performance contract between Danida Fellowship Centre (DFC) and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) states that the documentation for effect with respect to competences and capacity of participation in DFC organised training activities shall be further developed. This will be done by developing and implementing a structured monitoring and evaluation system enabling an assessment of the effect of DFC-organised training on the level of competence and capacity of the individual fellows.

The structured M&E system shall first and foremost produce the documentation for the effect of the DFC organised training activities; it will, however, be designed with a dual purpose: (i) to deliver proper documentation for achievements of the different training activities organised by DFC regarding capacity and competence of the participants; and (ii) to provide feed-back information to DFC enabling further development of training approaches in cooperation with the service providers for the different training courses.

1.2 The 2010 Cohort of Fellows To further support and document the effect of DFC organised training it was

course portfolio. The survey can be seen as an outcome evaluation, focussing on assessing and documenting the contribution of the DFC organised training courses to the competence level of the participating fellows.

In this document the results of the survey or the cohort analysis are presented. The analysis has been carried out as a post-course evaluation of the 2010 cohort of DFC

-assessments using a survey approach.

training courses with respect to their perceived competence level and is carried out as a one-off assessment. Information about competence level prior to the training is not available and the analysis consequently does not inform about progression in

8 EVALUATION OF TRAINING COURSES IN 2010

competence as a consequence of the training. This information will, however, become available gradually as and when the overall M&E system becomes active.


9

2 Methodology

2.1 Survey Design The survey has been designed as a web-based survey using Inquisite. The questions for the survey have been prepared to form part of the overall evaluation and monitoring tool that are to be used for evaluating DFC courses in the future..

The present survey is described in the methodological chapter of the system description document as a post course competence registration, using survey techniques.1 In brief the questions were designed in the following process:

Identification of relevant courses to be included in the evaluation done by DFC

Collection of course descriptions and contents from the course providers

Development of indicators for each course based on the input from the course providers

Development of the online version of the questionnaire for distribution

Ideally the assessment should have been done against clearly developed learning objectives for each module and each course, but not all courses have been organised in this way. As a substitute we have used the descriptive module text assuming that behind this there would be or could be an implicit learning target. In the survey the fellows are consequently asked to indicate their level of competence or skills and knowledge within the specific modules of their training courses. In parallel they are requested to indicate also the extent to which the training course has contributed to the competence level. The assessment along these two dimensions forms the core of this outcome analysis. It is a self

1 System for Monitoring and Evaluation of Training Activities, section 5: The survey instruments, by COWI


assessment and reflects the perceived competence level and the perceived contribution as seen by the participating fellows.

2.2 Data Collection and Number of Answers The data has been collected through a common e-mail distributed survey. Each course provider has been asked to provide a list of participants with e-mail contact information, and based on this an invitation to participate in the online survey has been sent to all participants.

The table below shows the distribution of invitations and replies to the post course evaluation survey.

Activity # number % share

Invitations sent* 11/10/2011

584 -

Replies to invitation (including partly completed questionnaires)

235 40%

Reminder sent 18/10/2011

349 -

Replies after reminder (completed questionnaires only)

232 40%

Replies after reminder (including partly completed questionnaires)

318 55%

Overall estimated reply rate

498 (584 - 45 - 41) 64%

* including double e-mail contacts as well as outdated contact information

During the first wave the mailing system replied 45 e-mail addresses did not exist. Additionally some 41 fellows had provided more than one e-mail contact address.

As can be seen in the table above the overall reply percentage is 64, which is considered satisfactory for this type of approach

2.3 Limited Analysis As mentioned previously the present evaluation is a part of the overall monitoring and evaluation system of the DFC courses. The whole course evaluation cycle is shown in the table below, where the present post-course competence registration is highlighted.


11

As the survey provides information about only one step in the full M&E cycle there are limitations in the analysis. A full pre-course registration along the same dimensions was not implemented for the 2010 cohort and the analysis consequently can only document learning effect via a statistical analysis based on data from the post-course competence registration. This means that the analysis below focus more on the relative differences between the different service providers rather than the improvement in terms of a 'before and after' analysis.

Overall the fellows have indicated their own perceived competence level within the different modules in the courses and also indicated to which extent the fellowship course has influenced this perceived level. Consequently the analysis can document the learning effect of the training courses understood as the perceived competence level.

The analysis also informs about the relative performance of the different modules within each course. Hereby it will be possible for the individual service provider to identify the course modules that have a registered underperformance compared to all other courses. This will provide an opportunity for DFC to offer feed-back to the service providers and discuss also how performance eventually can be improved for the modules in question.

Pre course registration

Pre-‐course competences registration

Post course competence registration

Post course assesment after 3 or more months/ feedback form superiors


3 Findings

3.1 Results and Reporting Structure The following sections describe self-declared level of competence and how they assess the contribution to their competence level by the DFC courses. The reporting follows a rigorous model, where the horizontal axis in the figures indicates the fellows' perceived level of competence on a scale of 1to 6 (1 = low, 6 = high), and the vertical axis indicates the degree to which the course has contributed to her/his level of competence on a scale from 1 to 6 (1 = low, 6 = high).

In general the assessment of both competence level and course contribution is quite high and skewed towards the higher end of the scale. As such the analysis documents that the DFC-organised training courses implemented in 2010 have attained a solid and good outcome, understood as the learning effect of the training.

There are, however, variations within this overall picture and to inform about the variations the results for a course are presented in two figures. The first figure shows the overall performance along the two selected parameters, and the second graph focuses on the relative performance of the modules within each course.

Many courses show a positive correlation between the level of competence and course contribution, meaning that an increase in the contribution from a course will follow an increase in competence / skill level or vice versa. When this is the case it is noted in the description of the figures. This is illustrated in the figure below, where all courses are presented.


13

The correlation between the selected two indicator variables is clear as shown in the trend line. The interpretation of the correlation is that with a high perceived competence level a certain average course contribution can be expected. A higher than expected actual course contribution (above the trend line) indicates a well performing course and a course contribution below the expected indicates a less well performing course. It should, however, be noted that what here is indicated as a less well performing course is still overall seen performing satisfactory being located in the upper right corner of the figure.

3.2 Results The following section contains the statistics for the DFC course portfolio. The first part deals with the overall general conclusions and in section 3.3 follows the evaluation of each of the courses and course modules.

3.2.1 General Competence Evaluation In the survey the participants have been asked to assess competence level and course contribution on a number of parameters common for all the courses delivered by different service providers.

The common parameters performance as assessed by the participants. This has not been possible within the existing performance assessment system as each service provider is using individual parameters, although within a common framework, given by DFC.

The table below shows the assessment for each of the parameters for each of the course providers in terms of how competent the fellows rate themselves. The tables have been coloured from the lowest score (red) to the highest score (green), in order to give an intuitive overview of the relevant performances.

3

3,5

4

4,5

5

5,5

6

3 3,5 4 4,5 5 5,5 6

Contribu

tion from

cou

rse training

Level of competence

Relatonship between contribution from course training and level of comptence


Table 1: Perceived level of competence by content of course and course provider (average score)

Understanding Capacity Trust

Carl Bro (Grontmij)

COWI Danicom NIRAS NIRAS/ Nordeco

DIHR UNEP/ Risoe

VFL Sociability Total

Working with people as manager or colleague

5,4 5,1 4,6 4,8 5,1 5,3 5,1 5,1 4,4 4,9 4,8

Problem analysis and problem solving 4,9 4,8 4,5 4,7 4,8 5,3 5,2 4,9 4,1 4,9 4,7

Practical Action Planning (planning project) 5,1 4,6 4,5 5,1 5,1 4,8 4,9 5,1 3,8 4,6 4,6

Openness to new approaches 5,2 4,8 4,3 4,9 5,1 4,8 4,8 5,3 4,0 5,0 4,6

Using Action Plans to initiate change 5,1 4,9 4,5 4,5 4,8 4,6 4,6 4,4 4,1 4,9 4,6 Ownership of stakeholders and beneficiaries in the action plan

5,3 4,9 4,4 4,2 4,7 5,1 4,3 4,7 3,8 5,3 4,5

Analytical understanding 4,7 4,9 4,3 4,8 4,6 5,1 4,3 5,1 4,0 4,8 4,5

Value of info sharing and shared approaches 4,8 4,9 4,2 4,6 4,8 5,1 4,7 5,3 3,8 4,6 4,5

Overall mean 4,8 4,8 4,3 4,6 4,7 4,9 4,6 4,8 3,8 4,8 4,5 The use of work schedules to link outputs and activities

5,2 4,8 4,2 4,5 4,7 4,8 4,5 4,6 3,7 5,1 4,4

Intercultural competences 4,0 4,7 4,2 4,5 4,8 4,8 4,5 5,0 3,7 4,8 4,4 Case handling ability: handling and managing a case on time and budget

4,8 4,7 4,2 4,5 4,6 4,9 4,6 4,7 3,7 4,5 4,4

Managing and reporting change processes 4,8 4,5 4,2 4,6 4,5 4,8 4,4 4,6 3,7 4,7 4,4 Project cycle and logical framework approach (LFA)

4,3 4,8 4,3 4,3 4,7 4,7 4,9 4,4 3,5 4,3 4,3

Principles of result-‐based monitoring and the use of milestones

4,6 4,6 4,1 4,2 4,4 4,8 4,4 4,4 3,5 5,0 4,3

Applying process planning approaches 4,3 4,5 4,0 4,5 4,4 4,8 4,8 4,4 3,7 5,0 4,3

Use and limitations of tools and models 4,4 4,4 3,9 4,8 4,2 4,8 4,3 5,1 3,6 4,6 4,2

Overall median 4,8 4,8 4,3 4,6 4,7 4,8 4,6 4,8 3,8 4,8 4,5


15

The table documents that the resulting competence level within the cross-cutting competences is very high with a score of 4.4 out of 6 possible as the median value for all general competence elements and all service providers.

However, there are some small deviances between the different service providers. Most of the providers has an average assessment of around 4.7 and 4.9 indicating limited variation between the relative performances. Only 2 providers are assessed relatively low (COWI and VFL (Videncenter for Landbrug)) with a score of 4.3 and 3.8 respectively. This is also clear from the colouring, where the two provides sticks out as a little more 'red' than the others. There is no information in this survey on the reasons for this relatively lower score.

The second parameter is the level of contribution from the conducted courses as assessed by the fellows. The average assessments from the fellows are shown in the table below.


Table 2 Perceived level of contribution from course by content of course and course provider (average score)

Contribution Capacity Trust

Carl Bro (Grontmij)

COWI Danicom NIRAS NIRAS/ Nordeco

DIHR UNEP/ Risoe

VFL Sociability Total

Working with people as manager or colleague

5,2 5,0 4,7 4,8 5,0 5,0 4,8 4,3 4,8 5,1 4,8

Practical Action Planning (planning project)

4,7 4,7 4,7 4,9 5,4 4,8 4,6 4,4 4,6 4,8 4,8

Using Action Plans to initiate change 4,5 5,0 4,8 4,3 5,2 4,8 4,8 3,7 4,6 5,2 4,8

Openness to new approaches 4,9 5,0 4,4 4,6 5,0 5,1 4,9 4,6 4,7 5,1 4,7

Problem analysis and problem solving 5,0 4,8 4,7 4,3 4,9 4,9 5,2 4,1 4,5 4,8 4,7 Value of info sharing and shared approaches

3,9 5,0 4,4 4,5 5,0 5,2 5,1 4,9 4,6 4,9 4,7

Ownership of stakeholders and beneficiaries in the action plan

4,5 5,1 4,7 4,0 4,8 5,1 4,3 3,9 4,3 5,0 4,6

Overall mean 4,5 4,9 4,5 4,3 4,9 4,8 4,6 3,9 4,4 4,9 4,6 The use of work schedules to link outputs and activities

5,1 5,0 4,5 4,2 4,8 4,8 4,5 3,3 4,3 5,0 4,6

Analytical understanding 4,6 5,0 4,3 4,7 4,9 4,8 4,5 3,4 4,4 4,4 4,5 Project cycle and logical framework approach (LFA)

3,8 5,0 4,7 4,2 4,9 4,8 4,5 3,6 4,0 4,5 4,5

Intercultural competences 3,8 4,8 4,2 4,3 5,0 4,7 4,8 4,6 4,4 5,0 4,5 Case handling ability: handling and managing a case on time and budget

4,5 4,7 4,5 3,8 4,8 4,8 4,9 3,9 4,1 4,9 4,5

Principles of result-‐based monitoring and the use of milestones

4,5 4,9 4,4 4,1 5,0 4,6 3,8 3,6 4,3 4,7 4,5

Applying process planning approaches 4,2 4,6 4,3 4,2 4,8 4,8 4,4 3,6 4,5 5,1 4,4 Managing and reporting change processes

4,5 4,7 4,4 4,3 4,6 4,7 4,0 3,1 4,1 4,7 4,4

Use and limitations of tools and models 4,1 4,7 4,2 4,4 4,4 4,6 4,3 3,7 4,3 4,7 4,3

Overall median 4,5 4,9 4,5 4,3 4,9 4,8 4,6 3,9 4,4 4,9 4,6


17

The table documents a relatively high average score for all service providers; there are, however, also here some differences and variations. The highest scores are 4.9 (Carl Bro) and 4.8 (NIRAS, NIRAS/Nordeco) and the lowest are 4.3 (Danicom) and 3.8 (UNEP/Risoe). The survey does not provide additional details on the reasons for these differences; it should, however, be noted that the number of training courses for each provider differs, which might exert some influence on the results.

3.2.2 Relative Performance for Courses The table below shows the average perceived competence score and the average contribution score for each of the courses evaluated. The scores have been coloured to illustrate particularly high and low scores.

First of all it is notable that all courses have been rated relatively high considering the possible scale ranging from 1-6. The average ratings are well above the arithmetic average on the scale of 3. This would indicate an overall high performance from all courses. This goes both in terms of the student's perceived competences as well as the assessment of the contribution from the course.

The best performing course on the two indicators is "HIV/AIDS Mainstreaming (January 2010)" with a competence score of 5.4 and a contribution score of 5.6 both well above the average across all courses of 4.7 and 4.8 respectively.

Course provider Course Mean

Competence Mean

Contribution

Capacity Trust Public Sector Leadership Course 2010

4,9 4,7

Carl Bro (Grontmij)

Organisational Change Management

4,7 4,7

HIV/AIDS Mainstreaming (January 2010 )

5,4 5,6

Corporate Social Responsibility (March 2010)

4,9 5,2

COWI

Financial Management and Good Governance

4,8 4,7

Gender Mainstreaming 5,3 5,1 Small and Medium sized Enterprises (SMEs) within Productive Industries and Services

4,6 4,9

Export-‐oriented Small and Medium sized Enterprises (SMEs)

4,2 4,7

Anti-‐Corruption/Curbing Corruption

4,8 5,0

Danicom

Climate change journalism beyond COP15

4,7 4,5

Conflict Management (2010) 4,6 4,9 The Role of Media in the Democratic Process

3,8 3,7

Sociability Public-‐Private Partnership 5,1 5,1


Niras Addressing Climate change in Development countries

4,3 4,9

Environmental Mainstreaming

5,0 5,1

Organic Agriculture and Products (2010 -‐ 2011)

4,4 4,7

Farmer Managed Advisory Course 2010

4,9 5,0

NIRAS/Nordeco Natural Resources Management for Sustainable Development (2010 course)

4,7 4,9

The Danish Institute for Human Rights

A Human Rights Based Approach (HRBA) to Development Programming (2010)

5,4 5,0

UNEP/Risoe Green Energy and Carbon Markets 2010

4,6 4,3

VIDENCENTRET FOR LANDBRUG

Entrepreneurship and Innovation (2009 -‐ 2011)

4,5 4,8

Food Safety and Traceability (2009 -‐ 2011)

4,7 4,8

"The Role of Media in the Democratisation Process" is located at the other end of the scale. The fellows have rated their competences as low as 3.8 and the contribution from the course also quite low at 3.7.

As mentioned above there is a correlation between the competence of the fellows and the perceived course contribution. While the table above shows the rating on the two indicator variables and the high and low scores, it fails to convey whether a course contributes more or less than can be expected from the competence level of the fellows.

The figure below shows the correlation between competence level and course contribution for each course with an indicated average expected performance line, based on a linear regression2. Whether or not a given course is performing better or worse than expected is indicated by position of the course above or below the average expected line. If a course is placed above the line it is performing better than average and vice-versa if placed below the line. Due to statistical variation only deviances more than +/- 0.13 from the average line are considered different from the expected, which is a quite low threshold.

2 y = 0.7185x + 1.4221 3 0,1 = 1 standard deviation of the differences


19

The table below shows the courses that deviate more than anticipated.

Only one course performs better than expected, based on the average correlation model. The model would predict a course contribution of 5.4 and the fellows indicate a course contribution of 5.6.

Course Average Competence

Average Contribution Predicted Expected

HIV/AIDS Mainstreaming (January 2010 )

5.4 5.6 5.4 +


4.7 4.7 4.8 -‐


4.7 4.5 4.7 -‐

Green Energy and Carbon Markets 2010

4.6 4.3 4.5 -‐

The Role of Media in the Democratic Process

3.8 3.7 4.1 -‐

The biggest negative deviation is found in the courses "The Role of Media in the Democratic Process", where the perceived competence level would indicate a course contribution of 4.1.

y = 0,7185x + 1,4221

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5

5,0

5,5

6,0

3,0 3,5 4,0 4,5 5,0 5,5 6,0Contribu

tion from

the course

Competence level

Average Competence vs. Course Contribution

Expected average correlation


3.3 The Individual Courses

3.3.1 Financial Management and Good Governance As shown in Figurscores high on both dimensions.4 The average competence level score is 4.8, while the average contribution from the course is 4.7. The course thus seems generally to have a positive effect on fellow competence in the subject matter area. Figure 1 also indicates a positive linear correlation between competence level and course contributions.

Figure 1: Correlation between perceived level of competence and contribution from the training for the course: Financial Management and Good Governance

Figure 2 is an enlargement of Figure 1 showing that the lowest competence level with the lowest contribution from the course relate to the modules "The Use of indicators to assess quality of procurement systems" (K) and "Identifying and describing salient features of effective procurement system including legal aspects and procedures "(J), while the highest level of competence with the highest contribution from the course is found in the modules" Public budgeting and accounting "(C) and" Causes of corruption "(G). Figure 1 also shows that the competence level within the modules never drops below 4.5, while the contribution from the course never drops below 4.4.

4

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5

5,0

5,5

6,0

1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5 4,0 4,5 5,0 5,5 6,0

Contribu

tion from

cou

rse training

Level of competence


21

Figure 2: Correlation between perceived level of competence and contribution from the training for the course: Financial Management and Good Governance (enlarged)

Modules: Public Finance Management (A), Cash Flow Management and preparation of cash flow budgets (B),

Public budgeting and accounting (C), Applying P/L budget control and variance analysis (D), Good Governance

and corruption (E), Defining and measuring Good Governance (F), Causes of corruption (G), Anticorruption

strategies (H), Public Procurement (I), Identifying and describing salient features of effective procurement systems

including legal aspects and procedures (J), The use of indicators to assess quality of procurement systems (K),

Content and importance of the different steps in the procurement cycle (L), Project Budgeting (M), Medium Term

Expenditure Frame work (N), Key features of budget preparation applying Medium Term Expenditure Framework

approaches (O), Knowledge about characteristics and structure of public budgeting and accounting such as origin

of revenue sources, current and capital expenditures (P).

3.3.2 Anti-Corruption/Curbing Corruption As shown in Figure 3 the Anti-Corruption course scores high on both dimensions. The average competence level score is 4.8, while the average contribution from the course is 5.0. The course thus has demonstrated a positive effect on competence in the subject area. Figure 3 also indicate a positive linear correlation between skill level and course contribution.

A

B

C

D

E

FG

H I

J KL

M

N

O

P

4,4

4,5

4,6

4,7

4,8

4,9

5

5,1

4,5 4,6 4,7 4,8 4,9 5 5,1

Contribu

tion from

cou

rse training

Level of competence


Figure 3: Correlation between perceived level of competence and contribution from the training for the course: Anti-corruption/Curbing Corruption

Figure 4 is an enlargement of Figure 3 showing that the lowest level of competence with the lowest contribution from the course relates to the module "Checks & balances (J)", while the highest level of competence with the highest contribution from the course relate to the modules, "The relation Corruption Good Governance" (C) "Danida's Action Plan to Fight Corruption "(D). Figure 4 also shows that the level of competence for all the modules never drops below 4.2, while the contribution from the course never drops below 4.5.

Figure 4: Correlation between perceived level of competence and contribution from the training for the course: Anti-corruption/Curbing Corruption (enlarged)

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5

5,0

5,5

6,0

1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5 4,0 4,5 5,0 5,5 6,0

Contribu

tion from

cou

rse training

Level of competence

A

B

C D

E FG

H

I

J

K

L

4,5

4,6

4,7

4,8

4,9

5

5,1

5,2

5,3

5,4

5,5

4 4,2 4,4 4,6 4,8 5 5,2 5,4 5,6 5,8 6

Contribu

tion from

cou

rse training

Level of competence


23

Modules: Understanding the concept of Corruption (A), Pertinent international covenants, rules and regulations

(B), The relation Corruption Good Governance (C), Danida's Action Plan to fight Corruption (D), Access to

Information (E), Curbing corruption: supply side interventions (F), Curbing Corruption in Donor Systems (G)

Curbing Corruption in Procurement (H), Diagnostic tools to analyse vulnerability (I), Checks & balances (J),

Detecting and reporting Corruption (K), Role of civil society in Good Governance (L).

3.3.3 Organisational Change Management As shown in Figure 5 the course "Organisational Change Management" scores high on both dimensions. The average competence level score is 4.7 and the average contribution from course is 4.7. The course thus seems generally to have a positive

a positive linear correlation between skill level and course contributions.

Figure 5: Correlation between perceived level of competence and contribution from the training for the course: Organisational Change Management

Figure 6 is an enlargement of Figure 5. The lowest competence level with the lowest contribution from the course relate to the module "Key features of communication for the buy-in for change" (J), while the highest level of competence with the highest contribution from the course relate to the module "The use of logical framework approach "(F). Figure 5 also shows that the competence level of all the modules never drops below 4.1, while the contribution from the course never drops below 4.3.

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5

5,0

5,5

6,0

1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5 4,0 4,5 5,0 5,5 6,0

Contribu

tion from

cou

rse training

Level of competence


Figure 6: Correlation between perceived level of competence and contribution from the training for the course: Organisational Change Management (Enlarged)

Modules: The new aid agenda (A), Aspects of organisational change including the integrated organisational model

(B), Importance of organisational culture and leadership (C), Strengths and weaknesses of different change

strategies (D), Content and importance of organisational analysis (E), The use of logical framework approach (F),

Aspects and tools for planning of change (G), The use of LEAN in organisations (H), The use of coaching (I), Key

features of communication for buy-in for change (J), Handling resistance to change (K), The use of indicators to

measure change (L).

3.3.4 Addressing Climate Change in Developing Countries As shown in Figure 7 the course "Addressing Climate Change in Developing Countries" scores medium on competence level and high on course contribution. The average competence level score is 4.3, while the average contribution from course is 4.9. The course seems generally to have a positive effect on perceived competence in the subject area. Figure 7 also indicate a positive linear correlation between skill level and the contribution by the course.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

4,2

4,3

4,4

4,5

4,6

4,7

4,8

4,9

5

5,1

4 4,2 4,4 4,6 4,8 5 5,2 5,4

Contribu

tion from

cou

rse training

Level of competence


25

Figure 7: Correlation between perceived level of competence and contribution from the training for the course: Addressing Climate Change in Development Countries

Figure 8 is an enlargement of Figure 7. The lowest competence level with the lowest contribution from the course relate to the module "Watershed Management / Water Resources Management" (E), while the highest level of competence with the highest contribution from the course relate to the module "Determining main Causes of climate change "(A). Figure 8 also shows that the competence level of all the modules never drops below 3.7, while the contribution from the course never drops below 4.1.

Figure 8: Correlation between perceived level of competence and contribution from the training for the course: Addressing Climate Change in Development Countries (Enlarged)

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5

5,0

5,5

6,0

1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5 4,0 4,5 5,0 5,5 6,0

Contribu

tion from

cou

rse training

Level of competence

AB

C

D

E F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

4

4,2

4,4

4,6

4,8

5

5,2

5,4

5,6

3,6 3,8 4 4,2 4,4 4,6 4,8 5

Contribu

tion from

cou

rse training

Level of competence


Modules: Determining main causes of climate change (A), Understanding global and local impacts of climate

change (B), Analysing individual Ecological / Carbon footprint (C), Actions for Climate change adaptation (D),

Watershed management /water resources management (E), Disaster risk reduction methods (F), Actions for

Climate Change mitigation (G), CDM (Clean Development Mechanism) (H), REDD (Reduced Emission from

Deforestation and Degradation) (I), Renewable energy production (e.g. waste, biogas, wind) (J), Ability to

identify and analyse opportunities for Climate change mitigation and/or adaptation (K), Identifying opportunities

for personal actions aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions (L), Development and implementation of

Climate Change Action plan (CCAP) (M), Discussion / dissemination of information on climate change issues in

home organisation (N).

3.3.5 Climate Change Journalism beyond COP15 As shown in Figure 9 the course "Climate Change Journalism beyond COP15" scores high on both dimensions. The average competence level score is 4.7, while the average contribution from the course is 4.5. The course thus seems generally to have a positive effect on the perceived competence in the subject area.

Figure 9: Correlation between perceived level of competence and contribution from the training for the course: Climate Change Journalism Beyond COP15

Figure 10 is an enlargement of Figure 9 and demonstrates that the lowest level of competence with the lowest contribution from the course relates to the module "National Programmes of Action (NAPA) and the Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Action (NAMA)" (G), while the highest level of competence with the highest contribution from the course modules on "Climate change science" (A), "Civil Society's Role in Addressing Climate Change" (H) and "Raising awareness and combating climate fatigue: associating climate change to personal stories locally" (M). Figure 10 also shows that the ability of all the modules never drops below 4.2, while the contribution from the course never drops below 3.7.

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5

5,0

5,5

6,0

1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5 4,0 4,5 5,0 5,5 6,0

Contribu

tion from

cou

rse training

Level of competence


27

Figure 10: Correlation between perceived level of competence and contribution from the training for the course: Climate Change Journalism Beyond COP15 (Enlarged)

Modules: Climate change science (A), UNFCCC working process and COP negotiations (B), BRICs and the new

world order: Fairness, 'climate debt', and understanding the interests of the different national alliances in the

climate change negotiations (C), Kyoto Protocol and associated instruments (CDM, JI, carbon market) (D),

Climate change mitigation and adaptation measures and strategies (E). National governance and accountability in

responding to climate change (F), National Programmes of Action (NAPAs) and Nationally appropriate mitigation

action (NAMAs) (G), Civil society's role in addressing climate change (H), Indigenous peoples rights and their

importance in addressing climate change (I), Climate sceptics and associated interest groups (J), Technologies for

reducing carbon footprints (K), International networks for sharing ideas and stories (L), Awareness raising and

combating climate fatigue: associating climate change to personal stories locally (M), Information sources for

climate change issues (N), Writing about climate change in plain language (O).

3.3.6 Conflict Management 2010 As shown in Figure 11 the course "Conflict Management 2010" scores high on both dimensions. The average competence level score is 4.6, while the average contribution from the course is 4.9. The course thus seems generally to have a very positive effect on competence in the subject area. Figure 11 also indicate a positive linear correlation between skill level and course contribution.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

3,5

3,7

3,9

4,1

4,3

4,5

4,7

4,9

5,1

5,3

4,2 4,4 4,6 4,8 5 5,2 5,4 5,6

Contribu

tion from

cou

rse training

Level of competence


Figure 11: Correlation between perceived level of competence and contribution from the training for the course: Conf lict Management 2010

Figure 12 is an enlargement of Figure 11 and indicates that the lowest level of competence with the lowest contribution from the course is the module "Conflict management mechanisms and structures incl. human rights, democratisation and constitutionalism" (G), while the highest level of competence with high contributions from the course is the module "Applying analytical, process" (A). Figure 10 also shows that the ability of all the modules never drops below 4.4, while the contribution from the course never drops below 4.4.

Figure 12: Correlation between perceived level of competence and contribution from the training for the course: Conf lict Management 2010

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5

5,0

5,5

6,0

1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5 4,0 4,5 5,0 5,5 6,0

Contribu

tion from

cou

rse training

Level of competence

A

B

C

D

E F

G

H

I

J

K

4,4

4,6

4,8

5

5,2

5,4

5,6

4,4 4,5 4,6 4,7 4,8 4,9 5

Contribu

tion from

cou

rse training

Level of competence


29

Modules: Applying analytical, process (A), Strategic and managerial decisions on preventing or managing

destructive societal conflict and promote peace building (B), Facilitation of intra (C), Understanding and applying

different approaches to conflict (D), Methods of inter (E), Applying conflict analysis tools (F), Conflict

management mechanisms and structures incl. human rights, democratisation and constitutionalism (G), Methods

of community conflict management and prevention incl. dialogue and forum theatre (H), Training others in

conflict management and peace building (I), Strategic conflict prevention and peace building tools (J), Applying

conflict management tools to own activities (K).

3.3.7 Corporate Social Responsibility March 2010 As shown in Figure 13 the course "Corporate Social Responsibility March 2010" scores high on both dimensions. The average competence level score is 4.9, while the average contribution from course is very high at 5.2. The course thus seems generally to have a positive effect on competence in the subject area. Figure 13 also indicate a positive linear correlation between competence level and course contribution.

Figure 13: Correlation between perceived level of competence and contribution from the training for the course: Corporate Social Responsibility March 2010

Figure 14 is an enlargement of Figure 13 and shows that the lowest level of competence with the lowest contribution from the course relate to the module "Push and pull factors for CSR" (K), while the highest level of competence with the highest contribution from the course of the module "Applying Strategic CSR in business" (N). Figure 14 also shows that the competence level within all the modules never drops below 4.2, while the contribution from the course never drops below 4.7.

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5

5,0

5,5

6,0

1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5 4,0 4,5 5,0 5,5 6,0

Contribu

tion

from

cou

rse training

Level of competence


By excluding the module "Push and pull factors for CSR" (K), which is rated significantly lower than the other modules, the figures would increase to 4.4 and 5.0 respectively.

Figure 14: Correlation between perceived level of competence and contribution from the training for the course: Corporate Social Responsibility March 2010 (Enlarged)

Modules: The key aspects of Corporate Social Responsibility (A), The use of UN Global Compact (B), The use of

Human Rights instruments (C), Aspects of ILO and SA8000 on labour rights, working conditions and OHS (D),

Key environmental challenges and performance (E), Effects, causes and combat of corruption (F), Difference

between reactive and proactive approach to CSR (G), International standards for sustainability including different

sector specific standards (H), Content and importance of the different steps of stakeholder dialogue and

involvement (I), Concept and tools for capacity development on CSR (J), Push and pull factors for CSR (K),

Content and importance of sustainable supply chain management (L), Analysing key challenges and opportunities

in business (M), Applying strategic CSR in business (N), Importance of negotiation and communication (O).

3.3.8 Entrepreneurship and Innovation 2009-2011 As shown in Figure 15 the course "Entrepreneurship and Innovation 2009

high on both dimensions. The average competence level score is 4.5, while the average contribution from the course is 4.8. The course thus seems generally to have a positive effect on competence in the subject area. Figure 15 also shows that there seems to be a positive linear association between skill level and course contribution.

A

BCD

E F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

4,7

4,8

4,9

5

5,1

5,2

5,3

5,4

5,5

5,6

4,2 4,3 4,4 4,5 4,6 4,7 4,8 4,9 5 5,1 5,2 5,3 5,4

Contribu

tion from

cou

rse training

Level of competence


31

Figure 15: Correlation between perceived level of competence and contribution from the training for the course: Entrepreneurship and Innovation 2009-2011

Figure 16 is an enlargement of Figure 15 and demonstrates that the lowest level of competence with the lowest contribution from the course relate to the module "Competitor analysis and the drivers (K), while the highest level of competence with the highest contribution from the course is the module" Business plan development" (I). Figure 14 also shows that the competence within the modules never drops below 3.7, while the contribution from the course never drops below 4.1.

Figure 16: Correlation between perceived level of competence and contribution from the training for the course: Entrepreneurship and Innovation 2009-2011(Enlarged)

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5

5,0

5,5

6,0

1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5 4,0 4,5 5,0 5,5 6,0

Contribu

tion from

cou

rse training

Level of competence

AB

CD

EF

G

H

IJ K

L

M

N

O

4

4,2

4,4

4,6

4,8

5

5,2

3,7 3,9 4,1 4,3 4,5 4,7 4,9

Contribu

tion from

cou

rse training

Level of competence


Modules: Innovations of products and services (A), Analysing the business inside competencies and asset(B),

Practical use of SWOT analysis (C), Market research, drivers and market driven development (D), Business idea

development (E), Market and products (F), Tools for screening a business (G), Network as a mean to improve

business development (H), Business plan development (I), Red and blue ocean strategy (J), Competitor analysis

and the drivers of competition (K), Market economy and SMEs (L), Tools to economics in business planning (M),

The value curve (N), Sources of financing business development (O).

3.3.9 Environmental Mainstreaming As shown in Figure 17 the course "Environmental Mainstreaming" scores high on both dimensions. The average competence level score is 5.0, while the average contribution from course is 5.1. The course thus seems generally to have a positive effect on competence in the subject area. Figure 17 also indicate a positive linear correlation between competence level and course contributions. An increase in the course's contribution will therefore result in an increase in competence level or vice versa.

Figure 17: Correlation between perceived level of competence and contribution from the training for the course: Environmental Mainstreaming

Figure 18 is an enlargement of Figure 17 showing that the lowest level of competence with the lowest contribution from the course is the module "Knowledge of Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)" (F), while the highest level of competence with the highest contribution from the course relate to the modules "Waste (e.g. from households), industries, power "(K) and" Development and implementation of Environmental Mainstreaming Action plan (EMAP) "(M). Figure 14 also shows that the competence level never drops below 4.5, while the contribution from the course never drops below 4.7.

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5

5,0

5,5

6,0

1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5 4,0 4,5 5,0 5,5 6,0

Contribu

tion from

cou

rse training

Level of competence


33

Figure 18: Correlation between perceived level of competence and contribution from the training for the course: Environmental Mainstreaming (Enlarged)

Modules: Ability to identify environmental issues (A), Ability to discuss and analyse environmental issues

(problems and opportunities) (B), Personal opportunities, in your daily life, for improving the environment

(reducing negative impact) (C), Opportunities for reducing negative environmental impact / improving the

environment during work in home organisation (D), Knowledge of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) (E),

Knowledge of Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) (F), Knowledge of Environmental management

Systems (EMS) (G), Use of Ecological / carbon footprint (H), Use of Google Earth as a tool in environmental

planning (e.g. in watershed management) (I), Institutional capacity assessment (in relation to Environmental

mainstreaming) (J), Waste e.g. from households), industries, power (K), Access to environmental information (L),

Development and implementation of Environmental Mainstreaming Action plan (EMAP) (M).

3.3.10 Farmer Managed Advisory Course 2010 As shown in Figure 19 the course "Farmer Managed Advisory Course 2010" scores high on both dimensions. The average competence level score is 4.9, while the average contribution from course is 5.0. The course thus seems generally to have a positive effect on competence in the subject area. Figure 19 also shows that there seems to be a positive linear association between skill level and the contribution from the course.

AB

CD

EFG

H

I

J

K

L

M

4,6

4,7

4,8

4,9

5

5,1

5,2

5,3

5,4

5,5

5,6

4,5 4,6 4,7 4,8 4,9 5 5,1 5,2 5,3 5,4 5,5 5,6

Contribu

tion from

cou

rse training

Level of competence


Figure 19: Correlation between perceived level of competence and contribution from the training for the course: Farmer Managed Advisory Course 2010

Figure 20 is an enlargement of Figure 19, showing that the lowest level of competence with the lowest contribution from the course relate to the module "Discuss if and how some components of the management systems and farming system could be used in other climatic, economic or cultural conditions" (J), while the highest level of competence with the highest contribution from the course module relates to "Apply participatory extension Methods for the transfer of information and technology" (H). Figure 20 also shows that the competence level never drops below 4.2 for any module, while the contribution from the course modules never drops below 4.0.

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5

5,0

5,5

6,0

1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5 4,0 4,5 5,0 5,5 6,0

Contribu

tion from

cou

rse training

Level of competence


35

Figure 20: Correlation between perceived level of competence and contribution from the training for the course: Farmer Managed Advisory Course 2010 (Enlarged)

Modules: Be able to plan, organise and implement an advisory service based on the demands expressed by the

farming community being their employer (A), Account for the factors which determine the profitability in running

a farm enterprise (B), Describe the factors that influence the farmer's choice of what and how to produce in a given

situation (C), Account for the instruments required for analysing a farming system, and as facilitators, use the

results for assisting the farming community (D), Plan, implement and monitor programmes for agricultural

advisory services (E), Organize, recruit and train staff for an agricultural advisory service (F), Change from supply

driven to demand (G), Apply participatory extension methods for the transfer of information and technology (H),

Key features of extension methods which are promoting the involvement and adoption be farmers (I), Discuss if

and how components of some of the management systems and farming systems could be used in other climatic,

economic or cultural conditions (J), Prepare and conduct a Training Needs Assessment or training intervention for

staff and farmers (K), Practicable financial management systems (L), Account for the strategy for implementation

and convince an audience that the proposal will have the stipulated effect and will be practicable (M).

3.3.11 Food Safety and Traceability 2009-2010 As shown in Figure 21 the course "Food Safety and Traceability 2009-2010" scores high on both dimensions. The average competence level score is 4.7, while the average contribution from the course is 4.8. The course thus seems generally to have a positive effect on competence in the subject area. Figure 21 also shows that there seems to be a positive linear association between skill level and contribution from the course. The figure indicates a somewhat higher variation in competence level (3.8 to 5.6) than observed in many other courses.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

4

4,2

4,4

4,6

4,8

5

5,2

5,4

5,6

5,8

4,2 4,4 4,6 4,8 5 5,2 5,4 5,6 5,8

Contribu

tion from

cou

rse training

Level of competence


Figure 21: Correlation between perceived level of competence and contribution from the training for the course: Food Safety and Traceability 2009-2010

Figure 22 is an enlargement of Figure 21 showing that the lowest level of competence with the lowest contribution from the course of the module "Global GAP" (E), while the highest level of competence with the highest contribution relate to the module "HACCP principles" (C). Figure 22 also shows that the competence level related to the modules never drops below 3.8, while the contribution from the course never drops below 4.4.

Figure 22: Correlation between perceived level of competence and contribution from the training for the course: Food Safety and Traceability 2009-2010 (Enlarged)

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5

5,0

5,5

6,0

1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5 4,0 4,5 5,0 5,5 6,0

Contribu

tion from

cou

rse training

Level of competence

A

B

C

D

E

F

GHI

JK L

M

4,3

4,5

4,7

4,9

5,1

5,3

5,5

3,6 3,8 4 4,2 4,4 4,6 4,8 5 5,2 5,4 5,6

Contribu

tion from

cou

rse training

Level of competence


37

Modules: Food safety standards (A), EU rules and regulations (B), HACCP principles (C), Biological, physical

and chemical hazards (D), Global GAP (E), Control, audit and certification (F), Principles and process for

accreditation (G), Product development, sales and marketing (H), Product added value (I), Traceability in the food

chain (J), Interaction between food safety systems and retailing in Europe (K), Food safety and traceability in a

value chain perspective (L), Certification of food safety systems (M).

3.3.12 Gender Mainstreaming As shown in Figure 23 the course "Gender Mainstreaming" scores very high on both dimensions. The average competence level score is 5.3, while the average contribution from course is 5.1. The course thus seems generally to have a positive

Figure 23: Correlation between perceived level of competence and contribution from the training for the course: Gender Mainstreaming

Figure 24 is an enlargement of Figure 23 demonstrating that the lowest level of competence with the lowest contribution from the course relate to the module "Gender and Environment" (I), while the highest level of competence with the highest contribution from the course is found in the modules "Strategies and policies to national level" (A) and "Gender equality focus" (D). Figure 24 also shows that the competence level within the modules never drops below 4.0, while the contribution from the course never drops below 4.0.

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5

5,0

5,5

6,0

1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5 4,0 4,5 5,0 5,5 6,0

Contribu

tion from

cou

rse training

Level of competence


Figure 24: Correlation between perceived level of competence and contribution from the training for the course: Gender Mainstreaming (Enlarged)

Modules: Gender strategies and policies at national level (A), Key Gender concepts and perceptions (B), Gender

Equality in International Framework (C), Gender equality focus (D), Gender and Poverty (E), Gender equality in

Health (F), Gender equality in Health (G), Gender and Water and Sanitation (H), Gender and Environment (I),

Gender and aid modalities, harmonisation and alignment and budget support (J), Gender Analysis (K), Gender

action plan at programme level (L).

3.3.13 Green Energy and Carbon Markets 2010 As shown in Figure 25 the course "Green Energy and Carbon Markets 2010" scores high on the competence dimension and medium on the contribution dimension. The average competence level score is 4.6, while the average contribution from the course is 4.3. The course seems generally to have a positive effect on competence in the subject area.

A

B

C D

E

F

G

HI

JK

L4

4,2

4,4

4,6

4,8

5

5,2

5,4

5,6

5,8

6

3 3,5 4 4,5 5 5,5 6

Contribu

tion from

cou

rse training

Level of competence


39

Figure 25: Correlation between perceived level of competence and contribution from the training for the course: Green Energy and Carbon Markets 2010

Figure 26 is an enlargement of Figure 25 showing that the lowest level of competence with the lowest contribution from the course relate to the module "Enhanced eligibility for smart funding sources" (G), while the highest level of competence with the highest contribution from the course is within the module "The Challenge of green energy and low-emission development "(B). Figure 26 also shows that the ability of all the modules never drops below 3.5, while the contribution from the course never drops below 3.8.

Figure 26: Correlation between perceived level of competence and contribution from the training for the course: Green Energy and Carbon Markets 2010 (Enlarged)

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5

5,0

5,5

6,0

1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5 4,0 4,5 5,0 5,5 6,0

Contribu

tion from

cou

rse training

Level of competence

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

3,6

3,8

4

4,2

4,4

4,6

4,8

5

3,5 3,7 3,9 4,1 4,3 4,5 4,7 4,9 5,1 5,3 5,5

Contribu

tion from

cou

rse training

Level of competence


Modules: Awareness of the global response to climate change (A), The challenges of green energy and low

emission development (B), The strengths and weaknesses of key green energy technologies (C), The energy

market (D), Capable of performing feasibility assessments and cost (E), Improved entrepreneurial capacities (F),

Enhanced eligibility for smart funding sources (G), Familiarity with carbon markets and knowledgeable of the

CDM project cycle (H), Capable of formulating a Project Idea Note (PIN) and familiar with the contents of a PDD

(I), Assess carbon financing in a financial plan (J), Able to present an investment opportunity (K), Formulate a

business plan for a specific green energy and low (L).

3.3.14 HIV/AIDS Mainstreaming January 2010 As shown in Figure 27 the course "HIV / AIDS Mainstreaming January 2010" scores very high on both dimensions. The average competence level score is 5.4, while the average contribution from course is 5.6. Among all courses in the 2010 portfolio, this course is obtaining the highest score.

The course thus seems generally to have a positive effect on competence in the subject area. Figure 27 also shows that there seems to be a positive linear association between skill level and the course contribution.

Figure 27: Correlation between perceived level of competence and contribution from the training for the course: HIV/AIDS Mainstreaming January 2010

Figure 28 is an enlargement of Figure 27 showing that the lowest level of competence with the lowest contribution from the course is found within the module "The Role of CSO's in HIV / AIDS mainstreaming and Engaging in partnerships" (M), while the highest level of competence with the highest contribution from the course relate to the modules "Stigma and Discrimination" (C), "Aim of internal mainstreaming" (H) and "The use of indicators to assess HIV / AIDS work" (O). Figure 28 also shows that the competence level within the

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5

5,0

5,5

6,0

1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5 4,0 4,5 5,0 5,5 6,0

Contribu

tion from

cou

rse training

Level of competence


41

modules never drops below 4.8, while the contribution from the course never drops below 5.2.

Figure 28: Correlation between perceived level of competence and contribution from the training for the course: HIV/AIDS Mainstreaming January 2010 (Enlarged)

Modules: Drivers of the epidemic in different parts of the world (A), Target groups for HIV measures (B), Stigma

and discrimination (C), Barriers for effective prevention, treatment, care and support (D), Applying the Rights

Based Approach to HIV/AIDS and recognising the rights of PLWHA (E), Differences of susceptibility and

vulnerability (F), Applying the 'cause and consequences' model (G), Aim of internal mainstreaming (H),

Opportunities to take pre (I), Components of an ideal workplace policy (J), Differences between sex and gender /

equity and equality (K), Content and importance of the different steps of sector mainstreaming (L), The role of

CSO's in HIV/AIDS mainstreaming and engaging in partnerships (M), Entry points for organisational anchoring

(N), The use of indicators to assess HIV/AIDS work (O).

3.3.15 A Human Rights Based Approach to Development Programming 2010

As shown in Figure 29 the course "A Human Rights Based Approach to Development Programming 2010" scores high on both dimensions. The average competence level score is very high at 5.4, while the average contribution from course is 5.0. The course thus seems generally to have a positive effect on course

to be a positive linear association between skill level and the course contribution.

A

B

CD E

F

G H

I J

KL

M

N

O

5

5,1

5,2

5,3

5,4

5,5

5,6

5,7

5,8

5,9

6

4,6 4,8 5 5,2 5,4 5,6 5,8 6

Contribu

tion from

cou

rse training

Level of competence


Figure 29: Correlation between perceived level of competence and contribution from the training for the course: A Human Rights Based Approach to Development Programming 2010

Figure 30 is an enlargement of Figure 29, showing that the lowest level of competence with the lowest contribution from the course relate to the module "Ability and skills to use HRBA in the programming and implementation of own projects" (E), while the highest level of competence with the highest contribution from the course is found within the module "The core concepts in the Human Rights system and its implications for HRBA to development" (A). Figure 30 also shows that the competence level within the modules never drops below 5.0, while the contribution from the course never drops below 4.6.

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5

5,0

5,5

6,0

1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5 4,0 4,5 5,0 5,5 6,0

Contribu

tion from

cou

rse training

Level of competence


43

Figure 30: Correlation between perceived level of competence and contribution from the training for the course: A Human Rights Based Approach to Development Programming 2010 (Enlarged)

Modules: The core concepts in the Human Rights system and their implication for HRBA to development (A),

Human Rights instruments and mechanisms at national, regional & international level (B), Applying the Human

Rights Based Approach Principles as described in PANEL (C), Methods to find and compile relevant Human

Rights information to conduct HRBA programming (D), Ability and skills to use HRBA in the programming and

implementation of their own projects (E), Applying the steps in the HRBA programming circle (F), Able to

include, protect and empower vulnerable groups while designing and implementing development projects (G).

3.3.16 Natural Resource Management for Sustainable Development 2010

As shown in Figure 31 the course "Natural Resource Management for Sustainable Development 2010" scores high on both dimensions. The average competence level score is 4.7, while the average contribution from the course is 4.9. The course thus seems generally to have a positive effect on participants' competence in the subject area. Figure 31 also indicates a positive linear association between skill level and the course contribution.

A

B

C

DE

F

G

4,6

4,7

4,8

4,9

5

5,1

5,2

5,3

5,4

4,8 4,9 5 5,1 5,2 5,3 5,4 5,5 5,6 5,7 5,8

Contribu

tion from

cou

rse training

Level of competence


Figure 31: Correlation between perceived level of competence and contribution from the training for the course: Natural Resource Management for Sustainable Development 2010

Figure 32 is an enlargement of Figure 32 showing that the lowest level of competence with the lowest contribution from the course relate to the module "Use of GIS for Natural Resource Management" (K), while the highest level of competence with the highest contribution from the course relate to the module "Using Information, Education, Communication to raise awareness "(L). Figure 26 also shows that the competence level within the modules never drops below 3.8, while the contribution from the course never drops below 3.9. By excluding the significantly lower performing module "Use of GIS for Natural Resource Management" (K) the results improve to 4.5 and 4.2 respectively.

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5

5,0

5,5

6,0

1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5 4,0 4,5 5,0 5,5 6,0

Contribu

tion from

cou

rse training

Level of competence


45

Figure 32: Correlation between perceived level of competence and contribution from the training for the course: Natural Resource Management for Sustainable Development 2010 (Enlarged)

Modules: Environmental degradation as a market failure (Payment for environmental services) (A), Management

of the commons (B), Approaches and tools for stakeholder analysis (C), Features of forest resources management

(D), Key approaches in Integrated River Basin Management (E), Food security (F), Analysing and assessing

Ecological Footprint (G), Climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies (H), Climate change policy

measures (I), The role of indigenous peoples in natural resources management (J), Use of GIS for natural

resources management (K), Using Information, Education, Communication to raise awareness (L), Participatory

working processes, engaging stakeholders (M).

3.3.17 Organic Agriculture and Products 2010-2011 As shown in Figure 33 the course "Organic Agriculture and Products 2010-2011" scores medium on the competence dimension and high on the contribution dimension. The average competence level score is 4.4, while the average contribution from the course is 4.7. The course thus seems generally to have a positive effect on competence in the subject area. Figure 33 also indicates a positive linear correlation between skill level and course contributions.

A

B C

D

EF

G

H

I

J

K

LM

3,8

4

4,2

4,4

4,6

4,8

5

5,2

5,4

5,6

3,6 3,8 4 4,2 4,4 4,6 4,8 5 5,2 5,4

Contribu

tion from

cou

rse training

Level of competence


Figure 33: Correlation between perceived level of competence and contribution from the training for the course : Organic Agriculture and Products 2010-2011

Figure 34 is an enlargement of Figure 33 showing that the lowest level of competence with the lowest contribution from the course relate to the module "Commercial promotions, the access to services and political lobbying" (M), while the highest level of competence with the highest contribution from the course relate to the module "Certification of organic products "(K). Figure 34 also shows that the competence level within the modules never drops below 3.2, while the contribution from the course never drops below 3.3. Module M on political lobbying, however, is barely above the arithmetic average 3.0. By excluding this significantly lower performing module "Commercial promotions, the Access to Services and Political lobbying" (M) the figures increase to 4.3 and 4.3 respectively.

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5

5,0

5,5

6,0

1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5 4,0 4,5 5,0 5,5 6,0

Contribu

tion from

cou

rse training

Level of competence


47

Figure 34: Correlation between perceived level of competence and contribution from the training for the course: Organic Agriculture and Products 2010-2011 (Enlarged)

Modules: Why organic (A), Market strategies and analysis (B), Consumer trends (C), Practical implementation of

organic agriculture (D), Natural pest control (E), Challenges to organic production (F), Innovation and

entrepreneurship in organic production (G), Sustainability and biodiversity in organic production systems (H), EU

rules and regulations for import/export (I), Integration of crop and livestock production (J), Certification of

organic products (K), Corporate setup and management (L), Commercial promotion, access to services and

political lobbying (M).

3.3.18 Public-Private Partnership As shown in Figure 35 the course "Public-Private Partnership" scores high on both dimensions. The average competence level score is 5.1, while the average contribution from course is 5.1. The course thus seems generally to have a positive effect on the subject area. Figure 35 also indicate a positive linear association between skill level and course contribution.

ABC

D

E

F

G

HI

J

K

L

M

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5

5,0

5,5

3,2 3,4 3,6 3,8 4,0 4,2 4,4 4,6 4,8 5,0 5,2 5,4

Contribu

tion from

cou

rse training

Level of competence


Figure 35: Correlation between perceived level of competence and contribution from the training for the course: Public-Private Partnership

Figure 36 is an enlargements of Figure 35 showing that the lowest level of competence with the lowest contribution from the course is the module "Promote and support the active use of the methods and approaches by counterparts and other partners in national development" (E), while the highest level of competence with the highest contribution from the course relate to the module "Raise awareness of the skills and conditions needed to create and manage sustainable public-private cooperation" (C). Figure 36 also shows that the competence level within the modules never drops below 5.0, while the contribution from the course never drops below 4.9.

1,00

1,50

2,00

2,50

3,00

3,50

4,00

4,50

5,00

5,50

6,00

1,00 1,50 2,00 2,50 3,00 3,50 4,00 4,50 5,00 5,50 6,00

Contribu

tion from

cou

rse training

Level of competence


49

Figure 36: Correlation between perceived level of competence and contribution from the training for the course: Public-Private Partnership (enlarged)

Modules: Understand the complexity that public (A), Understand tools available to support public (B), Raise

awareness of the skills and conditions needed to create and manage sustainable public (C), Make strategic and

managerial decisions on how best to strengthen public (D), Promote and support the active use of the methods and

approaches by counterparts and other partners in national development (E).

3.3.19 Small and Medium Sized Enterprises As shown in Figure 37 the course "Small and Medium Sized Enterprises" scores high on both dimensions. The average competence level score is 4.6, while the average contribution from the course is 4.9. The course thus seems generally to have a positive effect on competence in the subject area. Figure 37 also indicate a positive linear association between skill level and course contribution.

A

B

C

D

E

4,8

4,9

5,0

5,1

5,2

5,3

5,4

4,8 4,9 5,0 5,1 5,2

Contribu

tion from

cou

rse training

Level of competence


Figure 37: Correlation between perceived level of competence and contribution from the training for the course: Small and Medium Sized Enterprises

Figure 38 is an enlargement of Figure 37 showing that the lowest level of competence with the lowest contribution from the course relate to the module "Production Management and Performance" (H), while the highest level of competence with the highest contribution from the course is the module "Marketing and Branding" (E). Figure 38 also shows that the competence level within the modules never drops below 4.4, while the contribution from the course never drops below 4.7.

Figure 38: Correlation between perceived level of competence and contribution from the training for the course: Small and Medium Sized Enterprises (Enlarged)

1,00

1,50

2,00

2,50

3,00

3,50

4,00

4,50

5,00

5,50

6,00

1,00 1,50 2,00 2,50 3,00 3,50 4,00 4,50 5,00 5,50 6,00

Contribu

tion from

cou

rse training

Level of competence

A B

C

D

E

FG

H

I

J4,7

4,8

4,9

5,0

5,1

5,2

5,3

5,4

4,3 4,4 4,5 4,6 4,7 4,8 4,9 5,0

Contribu

tion from

cou

rse training

Level of competence


51

Modules: Strategic management and leadership (A), Monitoring and improving business performance (B),

Building capacity for change (C), Human resource management (D), Marketing and branding (E), Value chain

management and supplier management (F), Measuring value chain effectiveness (G), Production management and

performance (H), Managing costs in production (I), Quality management in production (J).

3.3.20 Public Sector Leadership Course 2010 As shown in Figure 39 the course "Public Sector Leadership Course 2010" scores high on both dimensions. The average competence level score is 4.9, while the average contribution from course is 4.7. The course thus seems generally to have a positive effect on competence in the subject area. Figure 39 also indicate a positive linear correlation between skill level and course contribution.

Figure 39: Correlation between perceived level of competence and contribution from the training for the course: Public Sector Leadership Course 2010

Figure 40 is an enlargement of Figure 39 showing that the lowest level of competence with the lowest contribution from the course relate to the module "Apply selected parts of the coaching techniques" (K), while the highest level of competence with the highest contribution from the course relate to the module

Figure 40 also shows that the competence level within the modules never drops below 3.9, while the contribution from the course never drops below 4.0.

Figure 40 demonstrates that the performance of the training modules falls in two

Apply selected parts of the

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5

5,0

5,5

6,0

1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5 4,0 4,5 5,0 5,5 6,0

Contribu

tion from

cou

rse training

Level of competence


coaching techniques" (K) all are rated with a marginally lower level of competence and a lower level of course contribution whereas the remaining modules perform significantly better on the two dimensions.

Figure 40: Correlation between perceived level of competence and contribution from the training for the course: Public Sector Leadership Course 2010 (Enlarged)

Modules: Enhancing Aid Effectiveness as expressed in the Paris Declaration and Accra Agenda for Action (A),

Effect of harmonisation and alignment in your national organisations (B), Pros and cons of different approaches to

decentralisation (C), Approaches to enhance governance and accountability in home organisation (D), Analyse

capacity needs through external and internal capacity assessment of their organisation (E), Assess drivers of and

constraints to change both inside their organisation and in the context (F), Develop basic elements of a change

strategy and plan reflecting assessed needs in their organisation (G), Assist superiors in assessing needs and

options for change (H), Lead and manage change in the units they manage (I), Dialogue effectively with external

stakeholders to form coalitions for change (J), Apply selected parts of the coaching techniques (K), Use capacity

analysis approaches as basis for selecting topics for their Individual Implementation plan (IAP) (L), Presenting

IAP linking course modules to home organisation in form of an action plan (M).

3.3.21 The Role of Media in the Democratic Process As shown in Figure 41 the course "The Role of Media in the Democratic Process" scores average on both dimensions. The average competence level score is 3.8, while the average contribution from the course is 3.7. The effect of the course on

the 2010 portfolio.

AB

C

D

EF

GH

IJ

K

LM

3,8

4,0

4,2

4,4

4,6

4,8

5,0

5,2

5,4

5,6

3,6 3,8 4,0 4,2 4,4 4,6 4,8 5,0 5,2 5,4

Contribu

tion from

cou

rse training

Level of competence


53

Figure 41: Correlation between perceived level of competence and contribution from the training for the course: The Role of Media in the Democratic Process

Figure 42 is an enlargement of Figure 41 showing that the lowest level of competence with the lowest contribution from the course relate to the modules "Local media survival (J

the highest level of competence with the highest contribution from the course of the module "Interviewing Techniques"(H). Figure 42 also shows that the competence level within the modules never drops below 3.4, while the contribution from the course never drops below 3.2. Results are still positive although approaching the arithmetic average.

1,00

1,50

2,00

2,50

3,00

3,50

4,00

4,50

5,00

5,50

6,00

1,00 1,50 2,00 2,50 3,00 3,50 4,00 4,50 5,00 5,50 6,00

Contribu

tion from

cou

rse training

Level of competence


Figure 42: Correlation between perceived level of competence and contribution from the training for the course: The Role of Media in the Democratic Process (Enlarged)

Modules: Do's and don'ts for parliamentarians in the democratic process (A), The role of journalists/media in the

process of law (B), The function of local governance structures (local democracy) (C), Global climate change

issues (D), Script writing techniques (E), Digital photo editing techniques (F), Digital audio/video editing

techniques (G), Interviewing techniques (H), Blogging and website construction (I), Local media survival

strategies (J).

3.3.22 Export-oriented Small and Medium Sized Enterprises As shown in Figure 43 the course "Export-oriented Small and Medium Sized Enterprises" scores high on both dimensions. The average competence level score is 4.2, while the average contribution from course is 4.7. The course thus seems generally to have a positive effect on competence in the subject area. Figure 43 also shows that there seems to be a positive linear association between skill level and course contribution.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

3,2

3,3

3,4

3,5

3,6

3,7

3,8

3,9

4,0

3,4 3,5 3,6 3,7 3,8 3,9 4,0 4,1 4,2 4,3

Contribu

tion from

cou

rse training

Level of competence


55

Figure 43: Correlation between perceived level of competence and contribution from the training for the course: Export-oriented Small and Medium Sized Enterprises

Figure 44 is an enlargement of Figure 43 showing that the lowest level of competence with the lowest contribution from the course relate to the module "Roadmap to the European market (EU Directives, CE labelling, etc.)" (B), while the highest level of competence with the highest contribution from the course is within the module "The export marketing plan" (F). Figure 42 also shows that the competence level within the modules never drops below 3.6, while the contribution from the course never drops below 4.4.

Figure 44: Correlation between perceived level of competence and contribution from the training for the course: Export-oriented Small and Medium Sized Enterprises (Enlarged)

1,00

1,50

2,00

2,50

3,00

3,50

4,00

4,50

5,00

5,50

6,00

1,00 1,50 2,00 2,50 3,00 3,50 4,00 4,50 5,00 5,50 6,00

Contribu

tion from

cou

rse training

Level of competence

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

4,3

4,4

4,5

4,6

4,7

4,8

4,9

5,0

5,1

5,2

3,5 3,7 3,9 4,1 4,3 4,5

Contribu

tion from

cou

rse training

Level of competence


Modules: Trade instruments for SME (A), Roadmap to European market (EU directives, CE labelling etc.) (B),

Market trends and market preferences (C), Analyse and diagnose export opportunities (D), Key elements of an

export strategy (E), The export marketing plan (F), Business innovation and management (G), Approaches and

tools for Quality Management (H), Monitoring and improving business performance (I), Financial management in

an export (J), Corporate Social Responsibility for SMEs (K).


57

4 Conclusion Measuring and evaluating effect of training is considered necessary in order to document and verify the productivity of funds and budgets reserved for training. Measurement can be done on different levels:

On response level immediately during or after actual training, where participants feedback is collected,

On learning level, where measurement can be based on self assessments before and after, using for example web-based approaches, and

lans and behavioural change as gauged by the superiors of the participants.

This analysis of the 2010 cohort is somewhere in between. It is a learning level assessment, based on participants self assessment and consequently measuring perceived results, but not measure individual improvements.

With these limitations it is, however, evident that the training activities organised

Participants are confident and now - up to 1.5 year later - assess their competence level within the course topics at a relatively high level.

There are variations among the results for the courses in the 2010 portfolio, but the general picture documents that the training courses have provided a valuable contribution to the competences of the fellows.

There is a huge variation in topics covered by the 2010 courses and given the self assessed high competence level it is likely that fellows also in the long term are able to contribute to the development of their countries.


Appendix A : Predicted and Expected Competence and Contribution

Course provider

Course Average Competence

Average Contribution

Predicted Expected Deviation

Capacity Trust Public Sector Leadership Course 2010

4.9 4.73 4.82 expected -‐0.090

Carl Bro (Grontmij)


4.7 4.65 4.77 Below -‐0.112

HIV/AIDS Mainstreaming 5.4 5.56 5.42 above 0.143

COWI

Financial Management and Good Governance

4.8 4.74 4.83 expected -‐0.088

Corporate Social Responsibility

4.9 5.21 5.16 expected 0.043

Gender Mainstreaming 5.3 5.08 5.07 expected 0.009 Small and Medium sized Enterprises (SMEs) within Productive Industries and Services

4.6 4.93 4.97 expected -‐0.033

Export-‐oriented Small and Medium sized Enterprises (SMEs)

4.2 4.71 4.80 expected -‐0.097

Anti-‐Corruption/Curbing Corruption

4.8 5.02 5.03 expected -‐0.008

Danicom


4.7 4.52 4.67 Below -‐0.151

Conflict Management 4.6 4.94 4.97 expected -‐0.031 The Role of Media in the Democratic Process

3.8 3.66 4.05 Below -‐0.392

Sociability Public-‐Private Partnership

5.1 5.10 5.09 expected 0.014

Niras

Addressing Climate change in Development countries

4.3 4.87 4.92 expected -‐0.050

Environmental Mainstreaming

5.0 5.07 5.07 expected 0.005

Organic Agriculture and Products (2010 û 2011)

4.4 4.74 4.83 expected -‐0.088

Farmer Managed Advisory Course 2010

4.9 5.00 5.01 expected -‐0.016

NIRAS/Nordeco

Natural Resources Management for Sustainable Development

4.7 4.88 4.93 expected -‐0.047

The Danish Institute for human rights

A Human Rights Based Approach (HRBA) to Development Programming

5.4 4.95 4.98 expected -‐0.028

UNEP/Risoe Green Energy and Carbon Markets 2010

4.6 4.28 4.50 Below -‐0.218

VIDENCENTRET FOR LANDBRUG

Entrepreneurship and Innovation (2009 -‐ 2011)

4.5 4.80 4.87 expected -‐0.071

Food Safety and Traceability (2009 -‐ 2011)

4.7 4.84 4.90 expected -‐0.060


59