In a report published in the Canadian National Post in November 2018, highlights of how government funding of indigenous communities continues to underperform. In the report quoting findings from the Auditor General (AG) evaluation, the paper indicated that over an eight-year period (2010 to 2018), the Canadian government had spent a total of C$2.4bn on job-training Aboriginals. An additional C$300 million per year was spent on the governments “Skills and Partnership Fund”.  In its findings, the AG characterized the project’s outcome as an “incomprehensible failure”. In addition to stating that the government did not even know if its programs were helping Aboriginals find sustainable employment.

 

Is this unacceptable level of achievement in improving Indigenous community quality of life unique to Canada? Hold your breath!

In a feature on Australia published by the Economist Journal also in the same Month, Indigenous communities, significantly dismal outcomes in every single social services indicator when compared with the general population. These indicators included life expectancy, infant mortality rates, risk of kidney failure, school completion rate, access to meaningful jobs, household income, incarceration, child abuse and domestic violence. The featured report further states “ In 2016, the federal government and the states A$33.4bn helping Aboriginals”
Readers who have followed reports on our indigenous communities will easily resonate with these cases.
Statistic after statistic confirms the abominable and unacceptable levels of key social service indicators ranging from dismal morbidity rates to high education drop out rates to suicide rates and more in our aboriginal communities.

And that seems to be the easy part. It is easy in terms of problem identification. The difficult and continuously mind boggling part is finding an effective and sustainable solution. In our general population communities, there is a tendency to point fingers at these vulnerable settings and characterizing them with stigmatized overtones; all culminating to the same outcomes: social exclusion, dismay and indignation.

And that is why government efforts including these financial commitments by national governments continue to raise red flags, disapproval and polarization. Bureaucrats need a significant paradigm shift. An enhanced and more accountable approach needs to be their operating mantra. Tax dollars deserve more than what is being achieved.

 

Are we getting our money’s worth?
Reasons for these unacceptable outcomes vary from both the supply (contractors and implementing agencies) and the demand (beneficiaries) sides. What we are currently trying to address are simply the symptoms. A more effective strategy is to highlight compelling achievements relevant to the root causes.

In any Training environment that deserves any attention, efforts need to be made in establishing plausible Monitoring Systems. These Systems as a minimum need to include a baseline. Trying to develop these frameworks during or after Training sessions is not only unacceptable but a recipe for potential failure. Are there any lessons learned? For example at a personal and professional level, a few years ago, I was invited by a multilateral Agency to conduct an evaluation of its multi-million US$ five-year-program with an allocation of five Million Dollars over a-three-year period for training. This program had a broad number medical personnel (nurses, doctors, midwifes etc.) selected from 12 countries. At the central level where implementation was being monitored, everything seemed right: there was a trainee database managed by a well-qualified staff member. After reviewing this database, I raised many answered questions, ranging from frequency of updates, follow up etc. These reviews were all performed before I started my field visits. And what I saw in the field had NO relationship with the content of this database reviewed earlier. Most beneficiaries had either changed jobs, moved out of the country for greener pastures or even simply changed professions.

 

One common mistake in conducting training programs is that they are for the most part considered “isolated events”. And that is where the problem starts!  Training needs to be implemented as a Process. Follow up issues (as highlighted by one of the stakeholders in the Canadian training intervention) are more effective when incorporated at the design stage of the Training program and not after the event as indicated in this report. Oversight needs to be improved!!

 

Bongs Lainjo