Monitoring and Evaluation of Labor Programs
MONITORING OF LABOR PROGRAMS
Monitoring of the labor program is a management task, but one that is often overlooked and neglected.
Monitoring differs from evaluation in that it is principally a management function, which typically involves both review of performance against target performance indicators and foreward-looking forecasts (see box 7.6). Effective monitoring of the labor program is integral to good management by the implementing agency. It provides the agency continuous feedback on implementation and identifies both successes and problems as early as possible to facilitate timely adjustments to project operation.
The potential benefits of monitoring assessments are large: one study in Tanzania found that the information from monitoring studies could have saved the government up to US$7 million during the course of retrenchment of about 5,000 state enterprise workers.
Given the potential scale of infrastructure work force adjustment programs (thousands of workers, perhaps tens of millions of dollars), making the case for monitoring should seem unnecessary. It is clear, however, that when the work force restructuring plan is in place, some governments fail to monitor it adequately.
Why is this so? Five possible reasons:
- Ownership: a general problem of all monitoring (and evaluation). If there is no customer for monitoring information, then monitoring systems are unlikely to work.
- An (incorrect) belief that implementation is the easy part: When the big decisions have been made on the severance package, the mechanism of restructuring, and the scope of restructuring, the implementing agency and government officials may feel that the main challenges have been resolved. Unfortunately, all the evidence suggests that effective work force restructuring needs strong, active ownership and strong monitoring during implementation.
- Compartmentalization within government: Institutional gaps between policy and implementation responsibilities for work force restructuring can result in a lack of policy coherence and coordination
- The desire for a clean break: There may be a concern that follow-up surveys can lead to raised expectations by workers of what government may be able-or willing-to do for them. Particularly if politicians have agreed generous severance terms, there may be a desire to minimize all contact with workers following severance.
- Exaggerated expectations: There is a tendency among politicians and government spokesmen to convey exaggerated expectations of what redeployment programs can achieve. Hence, there is little subsequent interest in monitoring or evaluation if doing so might reveal a different story.
Box 7.6: Monitoring and Evaluation Defined
Monitoring is the continuous assessment of program implementation in relationship to agreed schedules and the use of program outputs by beneficiaries.
Evaluation is the periodic assessment of the relevance, performance, efficiency, and impact of the program in relationship to stated goals of the program.
Where day-to-day implementation of some elements of work force restructuring is delegated to the enterprise or to other agencies, monitoring systems are particularly valuable. Here are some key steps that the implementing agency can take to help:
Governments commonly fail to monitor labor programs effectively.
- Define and promulgate a set of monitoring indicators, against which the implementation managers report, and indeed on which the implementing agency reports. Possible indicators are set out in box 7.7. These indicators on their own will not guarantee effective monitoring. But the selection of an indicator can help to ensure that progress is made in that area.
- Require regular staffing reports from the enterprise. These will be especially relevant where there are high risks of adverse selection or rehires or a history of labor hoarding, or where the PPI process is likely to be slow. A sample monitoring report provided on the accompanying CD-ROM illustrates a format for monthly or quarterly reporting of work force change due to natural retirement and attrition, soft options (such as transfers, administrative leave, and removal of ghost workers), early retirement and voluntary departure, rehiring, and new hiring.
- Clearly define the objectives and institutional responsibility for monitoring.This can include the creation of special units within the implementing agency to monitor compliance with labor (and other) conditions in PPI contracts. In Germany the privatization agency-the Treuhandstadt-set up a special department responsible for enforcing privatization contracts using penalties and legal action; when the agency was dissolved, those monitoring tasks were transferred to another government body.
Insufficient investment in monitoring can suggest that the size of the implementation challenge has been underestimated.
Box 7.7: Severance and Redeployment: Some Monitoring Indicators
The key objectives of monitoring are to assess overall progress and performance of the work force restructuring program, to identify the extent of adverse selection, and to reinforce accountability in the use of public funds. Examples of monitoring indicators are:
Severance Indicators
- Numbers of workers displaced by different mechanisms (early retirement, voluntary departure, mandatory departure, administrative leave)
- Disaggregation of displaced workers by age, grade, years of service, gender, ethnic group, region
- Disaggregation of displaced workers by skill/job description/operating unit
- Staffing ratios (based on relevant benchmarks, such as those described in module 3)
- Total wages and staff-related costs (from financial management reports)
- Total employment changes in the enterprise- inflows and outflows (monthly or quarterly reports).
- Time between workers' termination and receipt of monies
- Time between termination and receipt of audited accounts for disbursement
- Total and average severance payments
- Percentage of disbursements with queries/outstanding (sorted by reason)
- Numbers of appeals filed by workers against severance period.
Redeployment Indicators
- Numbers and percentages of displaced workers who receive counseling of different types, job-search assistance, training, or retraining
- Disaggregation of displaced worker by age, grade, years of service, gender, ethnic group
- Number (percentage) of dropouts from different training programs/percentage completing training
- Duration of training programs (training days per worker) disaggregated by type of training and by worker characteristics.
Not all of the above indicators are needed. In general, use as few indicators as necessary.
