Organization has a systematic process for follow-up and support of trainees after the training event
The systematic process for “follow-up” refers to the established mechanism that allows the training organization to locate and to communicate with the trainee at specified periods post-training (e.g., six months, one year). “Support of trainees after training” refers to mechanisms that allow the training organization to respond to questions, doubts, or problems that the trained providers experience in the service delivery environment. (Note: this process is part of the continuum of a transfer-of-training process that provides support before, during, and after training.) Refresher training is one mechanism for supporting trainees long after the training event.
Lists of persons trained; evidence of attempts to contact each individual post training, including the percentage actually reached, and the result of the contact
Program records provided by the staff in charge of this activity, to be reviewed by an external evaluator
The new norms for quality training require that organizations follow-up the persons trained in their system, in contrast to the “train and release strategy” used in the past. For example, the USAID-funded training programs stress “Performance Improvement”. This emphasis requires the training organization to assess gaps in the service delivery environment that hinder or prevent trained service providers from effectively performing their duties. In this spirit, the current indicator reflects the extent to which a training organization remains in contact with its trainees and attempts to identify and to address problems these employees face in the post-training period when they return to the service delivery environment.
Some organizations may prefer to develop a parallel or similar indicator, number of training programs linked to other performance support systems. A performance support system not only ensures such transfer of skills to the job, but also increases the potential for enhanced performance because it enables the provider’s work environment to support this transfer of skills. In the context of performance improvement, this link between training and subsequent performance support is essential to insuring a positive experience for the clients in the system. However, relatively little work has been conducted to date in measuring and evaluating this type of linkage. Thus, this indicator of number of training programs linked to other performance support systems is presented as an indicator under development and in need of further testing.