Relevance, alignment and complementarity
The evaluation found much alignment with the overall UNITAR strategy and programme of work and relevance to learner and institutional beneficiary needs. The evaluation also found complementarity with the UN, regional and/or other international as well as national strategies and policies for the training sector.
Results frameworks and risk mitigation
Results frameworks and risk mitigation plans were found to be missing or inadequately developed. Consequently, project documents did not provide stakeholders with a common understanding how ToT initiatives would develop the capacities of learning centres and what potential risks could mitigate the achievement of planned outcomes.
Quality, client orientation, ownership and approaches to learning
The evaluation found ToT aspects related to quality, learning, client orientation, ownership, flexibility and knowledge-sharing were well established and widely acknowledged, yet a common UNITAR approach to ToT was lacking. While the projects in this cluster were distinct, all six comprised a clear ToT dimension with sessions, modules or entire workshops devoted to training needs analysis, instructional design. A review of documents revealed the lack of an overarching competency framework for trainers and that learning objectives from the ToT specific events uncovered many different learning objectives, some having a degree of commonality, yet were formulated differently.
Learner self-assessment
Except for one or two ToT specific events, achievement of learning objectives was based on subjective self-assessment by learners. While the results of self-assessments of learning clearly indicated an increase in knowledge and skills and while self-assessment provides certain advantages such as learner engagement, certifying training competency cannot be done using learner self-assessment alone.
Entry and exit strategies
One of the overarching objectives of ToT initiatives is the development of endogenous capacities of learning centres to respond to needs and to decrease reliance on training expertise from the outside. Enhanced capacities of learning centres should, ultimately, translate into decreased reliance on the capacities of external learning centres as service providers. In fact, in one of the projects of the cluster, one year following the delivery of the project, UNITAR was called back to deliver the training. None of the six projects included a clear entry or exit strategy which communicates a common understanding on the role of UNITAR and the partner, at project start up to project conclusion and follow-up. The lack of an entry and exit strategy could compromises the sustainability of results.
A promising “niche market”
UNITAR’s institutional mandate as a global service provider of training using both face-to-face and online delivery methods provides a promising backdrop to develop a ToT niche market. At the time of the evaluation, however, this market was very nascent from an institutional perspective, despite various ToT-related projects and stand-alone courses. UNITAR programme units have pursued ToT through their specific approaches in the absence of much knowledge-sharing or a coherent institutional approach.
Based on the above findings, the evaluation issued seven recommendations: