workplace-based learning (wbl) tracking and tracing … · 2020. 6. 17. · 04 tracer results 05...

WORKPLACE-BASED LEARNING

(WBL) TRACKING AND TRACING

RESEARCH STUDY

Introduction & Background01

Study Approach02

Reference Framework03

Tracer Results04

Employer Perceptions 05

Key Findings06

Recommendations07

M&E Framework08

Way Forward09

Presentation outline

Introduction &

Background

Introduction & Background

Study is in-line with NSDS III Objective: All 21 SETAs to undertake impact research (incl. tracer studies) and regularly produce findings

• Encourages better use of WBL skills development

Purpose:• Track & trace beneficiaries of PSETA & Sector funded and supported

WBL programmes

• Gauge impact and performance (individual and sector-wide)

Outcomes:• Short term: Statistical information on beneficiaries and status

• Long term: Impact of WBL programmes & recommendations for improvements

Study Approach

Project

ClosureResearch

FindingsData

AnalysisData

CollectionData

Collection

instrumentsData

CollationLiterature

ReviewInception

1

Inception reportLiterature Review

Report

Contactable

sample

Questionnaires

& interview

templates

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

OU

TCO

ME

Methodology

Completed

questionnaires

&

interviews

Populated

Excel

database

Draft

integrated

reports

Final

Reports,

Presentation &

M&E Framework

Reference Framework

Definition & Purpose of WBL

• Learning that occurs when people do real work.

• Experience-based learning (paid or unpaid)

• Work that leads to the production of real goods and services

Definition of Workplace-Based Learning (WBL):

Purpose of WBL:

Beneficiaries are prepared

for the labour market

Easier transition from school-

to-workStronger links between VET

and the labour market

Work experience sets the foundation for lifelong learning in 2 ways:

1. Beneficiaries learn to participate in organisational communities of practice; and

2. It is an opportunity for young people to develop the capability to mediate between different types of

knowledge and skills, akin to modern production systems

(Cedefop, 2004)

Benefits of WBL

For beneficiaries

Overall

• acquire hard skills, technical expertise and tacit knowledge

• Exposes and links beneficiaries to the labour market

• Increasing chances of employability

• keeps long-erm unemployed individuals motivated

• Strengthens links between VET and the real demands of the labour market

• Employers are involved in the design and management of VET

• WBL produces higher quality skills

• Costs are shared between employers and government

• Offers learning opportunities that many public VET institutions cannot afford

• A powerful way to develop generic and soft skills

For employers

Benefits of WBL:

WBL in South Africa• South African Policy considers WBL as a solution for both educational and economic growth

Purpose of WBLTo achieve a qualification To acquire professional

registration

To gain work

experience

Learnership Apprenticeship N Diploma

Internship

Student internship A

(Experiential

Learning)

Student internship B

(WIL)

Occupational

Qualification

Technical/

Vocational

Qualification

(National ‘N’ Diploma)

Vocational

Qualification:

National Diploma /

Diploma / Higher

Certificate /

Advanced

Certificate

Professional

Qualification

Graduate

InternshipCandidacy

Professional Designation Work experience

& improved

employability

WBL in South Africa• A total of 269 147 beneficiaries were registered for SETA-supported WBL programmes in 2017/18

PSETA funded WBL beneficiaries completion in 2017/18

• Learnerships: 113

• Apprenticeships: 10

PSETA supported/facilitated WBL beneficiaries completion in 2017/18

• 32 639 WBL opportunities as declared by Public Services Sector

A total of 144 531 (53.7%) were for skills

programmesA total of 111 681 (41.5%) were for

learnerships

A total of 12 935 (4.8%) were for

internships

• A total of 177 477 beneficiaries were certificated for SETA-supported WBL programmes in 2017/18

WBL Role-players

SETAHost

Employer

SDP Beneficiary

• Subsidise the cost of WBL programme implementation

• Conduct workplace verification for quality assurance (both initially and

throughout the programme)

• Comply with all labour

legislation

• Provide facilities and

resources required for the work experience

• Design the knowledge & practical

components for the WBL programme

• Provide beneficiary support

• Record and monitor beneficiary

training progress

• Periodically discuss training progress

with beneficiary and employer

• Carry out all related work experience

activities as specified in the WBL programme

• Comply with host employer policies & procedures

• Attend all knowledge, practical and

work-experience activities as part of the WBL programme

Expectations of role-players

• Conduct internal

assessment (knowledge & practical components)

• Issue statements of results

• Undergo the required

assessment (internal & external)

• Provide supervision and mentoring at work

• Allow beneficiaries to attend off-the-

job components of the programme

• Complete beneficiary work records

• Periodically discuss beneficiary

progress with learner and SDP

• Register the WBL programme with

DHET

• Facilitate, manage

and quality assurethe design, development and

implementation of the programme

Structures in place to ensure

successful implementation

Workplace Verification

Relevance of the work-experience

component to the qualification

Access to resources

related to the programme

Employers that wish to host beneficiaries

are subject to a verification process by the

PSETA:

Rationale for Tracer Study

• Standardised survey of graduates from an education institution/education programme

• Takes place sometime after graduation/completion

• Provides systematic and reliable information about study and subsequent employment

• Important monitoring and impact evaluation tool

• Topics surveyed include:

Economic/employment status

Transition to work

Work entrance and career outlook

Relevance of learned competencies (skills, knowledge, experience)

Subjective experience during programme

Definition of Tracer Study:

Most importantly, tracer studies can provide

feedback for improvements in TVET and higher

education. This is the main objective of such

studies in many cases and most certainly so in

the case of SETAs.

Rationale for Tracer Study

Provider to

PSETA

supported

learners

BENEFICIARIES

IMMEDIATE OUTCOME MEASURES

Qualification and Certificate

Imp

rove

d L

ab

ou

r

Ma

rke

t Po

ol

Imp

rov

ed

suc

ce

ssful c

om

ple

tion

or th

rou

gh

pu

t rate

s

IMMEDIATE IMPACT MEASURES

Self-employed, employed

or continued studies

Be

tte

r sk

ille

d w

ork

forc

e, im

pro

ve

d

pro

du

ctiv

ity

Co

nfid

en

ce

re p

rog

ram

me

offe

ring

sULTIMATE IMPACT MEASURES

Imp

rov

ed

co

mp

etitiv

en

ess

an

d p

rofita

bility

,

ec

on

om

ic g

row

th

Pro

vid

er o

f ch

oic

e, re

-ac

cre

dita

tion

Improved quality of life, positive impact on community,

lower unemployment, labour mobility

Research Question:

Main Research Question:

What are the outcomes of WBL programmes supported in

the Public Service sector?

Sub-questions:

What is the demographic profile of WBL beneficiaries?

What was the employment/activity status of beneficiaries

prior to taking part in WBL programmes?

How has the beneficiaries benefitted from the WBL

programmes?

What was the impact of the skills acquired through the

WBL programmes?

What is the employment/activity status of beneficiaries

after they have completed the WBL programmes?

What has been the change in the beneficiaries’ living

standard after completing the WBL programme?

How has the WBL programmes impacted the employers?

Reference Framework

Aspect Question

Demographic Profile

Race, Gender, Age and Disability

Location of beneficiary prior to, during and after WBL

Education background

Employment/Activity status prior to WBLEmployment status

Involvement in other/previous WBL programmes

WBL Programme information

WBL awareness

Motivation for taking part in WBL programmes

Highlights and challenges of WBL programme

Skills acquired

Application of skills during WBL programme

Mentorship

Promotion/securing employment

Employment/Activity after WBL

Employment/Activity status: Employed

Employment/Activity status: Unemployed

Employment/Activity status: Studying

Employment/Activity status: WBL programme

Future outlook/plans Future plans (2019/2020)

Employer perceptionsHighlights, challenges and impacts

Beneficiaries

Tracer Results:

Learnership Beneficiaries

Sample Frame & Data Analysis

Total Population

201

Sample reached 98

3Partially completed

2Untraceable

Refusals25

271Unsuccessful calls

Sample Frame

Data is

cleanedData is

organised

Data is

interpreted

1 2 3

During 2017 (POPULATION)• 52 PSETA funded beneficiaries

• 149 PSETA supported beneficiaries

Total sample reached (98):• 95% Confidence level and 7% margin of error

Data analysis through three key steps:

Demographic Background of Respondents

Coloured

African

10%

54%

3%

33%

More than half of

all respondents are

African females

Race & Gender

36%

64%

13%Coloured

87%

African

Place of Origin

EC

13%

FS

12%

GP

12%

KZN

3%

LP

15%

MP

13%NW

15%

NC

1%

WC

15%

9%Technical college

certificate

19%University

certificate

or diploma

16%University

Degree

55%Matric

2%

Secondary Education

Private

School

Former

Model C

School

3%

Non-former

Model C

School

95%

42% 58%

0% 50% 100%

Rural Urban

Location dynamics

Education

89% of

respondents

are youth

Age

89% 5% 6%

20-35 36-39 40-49

Pre-Learnership Activity

Employment Status

90% Unemployed

Employed/ Self-

employed

6%

Studying

4%

Was looking, but couldn’t find a job: 80%

Was not looking for a

job: 5%

Did not have the right

skills: 2%

Lack of jobs where

lived: 2%

Lack of required

education level: 1%

Other: 1%

Unemployment Characteristics• Reasons for unemployment

• Unemployment period prior to starting

the learnership programme

11%

22%

27%

21%

5%

12%

9%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

> 5 years

3 - 5 years

1 - 3 years

9 months - 1 year

6 - 9 months

3 - 6 months

< 3 monthsEmployment Characteristics• Place of employment

20%: Private80%: Government

Learnership Uptake

Internet 37%Personal/family contacts 35%Advertisements 18%Institution studying at 7%Employment agency 3%

Awareness

Respondents found out about the

learnership programme through:

Motivation

Reasons for doing the learnership:

For stipend

1%

To develop

skills

27%

To find a

job

29%

For

experience

43%

5%14%

40% 41%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

National Certificate:

Public Administration:

Leadership NQF 5

Public Administration

NQF 3

Immigration Services

NQF 5

Public Administration

Supervisory NQF 4

Learnership Titles & NQF levels

• 45% of programmes: NQF 5



40%

10%

10%

10%

10%

7%

6%

3%

1%

1%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

DHA

DBE

NWPG

FSPG

DHET

DRDLR

DoH

National Parliament

MPPG

SAPS

Host Employers

TRAINING PROVIDER %

The Department of Home Affairs Learning Centre 40%

Boland TVET College 15%

Ditseko Training and Development Services CC 10%

Mopani South East TVET College 10%

Twin Peak Technologies 9%

Khosithi Training Institute (Pty) Ltd 7%

Amandla Obunye Training Academy 6%

Amathuba Learning and Training Centre 1%

Josmap Training Institute 1%

Post-Learnership Activity & DestinationEmployment Status

90%

6%0%

4%

62%

31%

4% 3%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Unemployed Employed Learnership Studying

Pre Post

25% increase in

employment after

learnership ended

Pre & post activity comparison

46%

47%

54%

53%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Post

Pre

Location Dynamics

Rural Urban

EC

20%

FS

10%

GP

17%

KZN

10%

LP

20%

MP

3%NW

7%

NC

3%

WC

10%

Geographic Destination

of those employed post-

learnership

1% increased movement to

urban areas

after learnership

ended

Increase in monthly income

Experienced an income after learnership

30%

70%

Did not experience an increase in income

The majority if those

that found

employment (94%)

enjoy a higher

income than before

Absorption rate at host employer

30%

70%

Absorbed by host employer

Not absorbed by host employer

Post-Learnership: Employed Respondents

16% Within 6

months

Time elapsed from programme

completion to finding employment

Employed

Immediately

76%

4% Within 12

months

4% Within 18

months

3%

3%

3%

3%

7%

79%

0% 50% 100%

A newspaper advertisement

Going from place to place

to ask for work

Personal contacts

Other

Telephonic, fax, email

enquiries at workplaces

Through the Learnership

Way of finding employmentEmployer type

84%were employed by

the host employer after completing the

learnership

National,

Provincial or Local

Government

80%

16% Private

organisation

4%Government

controlled

business

Size of organisation

7%

28%

14%

52%

0% 20% 40% 60%

2-10

11-49

50-150

More than 150

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Nature of employment

3%Casual worker

17%Fixed-term

contract

80%Permanent

Post-Learnership: Employed RespondentsHours work per week

40 hours per week62%

31%More than

40 hours

per week

7% less than

40 hours

per week

Learnership relevance

83%

80%

30%

Respondents’ work is related to

learnership skills

Respondents’ work in the same

industry that the learnership took place in

Respondents’ position at work

has changed for the better (e.g. promotion or increase)

86%

Respondents’ believe that the

learnership definitely provided

them with a career pathway

86%Respondents’ feel that the

learnership prepared them for

their current job tasks

86%

Respondents’ feel that their

career expectations has been

met

11%

1 year

4% < 1 year

11%

Period Employed

> 2 years

2 years75%

8%

8%

12%

69%

4%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

R 1 601 – R 3 200

R 3 201 – R 6 400

R 6 401 – R 12 800

R 12 801 – R 25 600

R 25 601 – R 51 200

Monthly Income

Reasons for absorption:

52% HARD WORK & DEDICATION

39% HAD REQUIRED SKILLS & EXPERIENCE

10% THERE WERE VACANCIES

Post-Learnership: Unemployed Respondents

2%

10%

61%

12%

7%

8%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

More than 3 years

2 years - 3 years

18 months - 2 years

1 year - 18 months

6 months - 1 year

0 - 6 months

Duration seeking work

Activities to find work

29% sent CV to companies/ organisations

15% made enquiries at workplaces

10% asked friends /relatives for assistance

9% approached DoL employment office

9% approached recruitment agencies

7% used social media platforms

6% answered newspaper advertisements

5% registered at a private employment agency

3% placed newspaper ads looking for a job

3% approach labour broker

2% offered to work for free

2% gone from door-to-door looking for work

2% updated LinkedIn profiles

5%

Unemployed reasons

Not looking

for a job

Actively looking

for a job

95%

Post-Learnership: Studying Respondents

33%

Institution type

TVET College

67%

Private

College

33%

Field of Study

Education, training

or development

67%

Management

Reasons for studying

To find a better job

To earn more money

Due to an interest in the field

To increase knowledge

To achieve a higher

qualification

To improve chances to

find a job

There was a gap in the

industry

To expand career

Learnership reasons

To acquire

more

knowledge

25% 25%Had nothing

else to do

Due to a

lack of a job

25%

Repeat of

same

learnership

25%

Those currently doing another

learnership

Perceived Impact of Learnership ProgrammeSkills acquired

Of all respondents

were given the

opportunity to move

around the

organisation to learn

different skills

96%

Of all respondents were

given the opportunity to

work in different

units/directorates

90%

Benefit status of learnership

2%

The learnership was

beneficial

98%

The learnership

was not beneficial

Benefits listed by respondents

35%

25%

15%

10% 9%

3% 2%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Ga

ine

d k

no

wle

dg

e a

nd

sk

ills

Ga

ine

d t

ec

hn

ica

l e

xp

eri

en

ce

Ga

ine

d w

ork

pla

ce

ex

po

sure

Ga

ine

d e

mp

loy

me

nt

Ga

ine

d p

eo

ple

sk

ills

Ob

tain

ed

a c

ert

ific

ate

It p

rovid

ed

a c

are

er

pa

th

• The experience gained was too

specific/focussed

• The learnership did not lead to employment

Reasons for not being beneficial

Perceived Impact of Learnership Programme

2%6%

15%

76%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%D

isa

gre

e

Ne

ith

er

dis

ag

ree

no

r a

gre

e

Ag

ree

Str

on

gly

ag

ree

“The learnership developed your work

professional skills”

“The learnership improved your ability to

adapt to different work situations”

1% 1%

10%

20%

67%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Str

on

gly

dis

ag

ree

Dis

ag

ree

Ne

ith

er

dis

ag

ree

no

r a

gre

e

Ag

ree

Str

on

gly

ag

ree

“The learnership helped you to develop

necessary skills to find/secure

employment”

5%8% 9%

20%

57%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Str

on

gly

dis

ag

ree

Dis

ag

ree

Ne

ith

er

dis

ag

ree

no

r a

gre

e

Ag

ree

Str

on

gly

ag

ree

Perceived Impact of Learnership Programme

21%

Opportunity to apply skills

Occasionally

21%None

Adequate

76%

96%

Of all

respondents

had a

mentor at the

workplace

during the

learnership

1% 3%

16%

80%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Dis

ag

ree

Ne

ith

er

dis

ag

ree

no

r a

gre

e

Ag

ree

Str

on

gly

ag

ree

“You developed new skills in the learnership”“You learned more about public services,

government and related sectors”

1% 2%

14%

83%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Dis

ag

ree

Ne

ith

er

dis

ag

ree

no

r a

gre

e

Ag

ree

Str

on

gly

ag

ree

68%

23%

6%

2%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Very often

Often

Occasionally

Rarely

Mentor availability to provide support

Perceptions of the Learnership Programme

Positive aspects

Perceptions of the Learnership ProgrammeThings that did not work well in the learnership

• Course consist of too many modules

• Learning material were insufficient

• Programme not guaranteeing employment

• Certificates not delivered timeously

• Study materials arriving late

• Results not communicated timeously

• Stipends not paid on time

• Poor communication from management and/or HR

• Balancing work and academic responsibilities

• Coping with work pressure

• Lack of exposure to different departments

• Lack of support at work

• Lack of work/performance evaluation and feedback

• Were required to relocate for work-exposure component

• Exploitation of beneficiaries

• BCEA breaches (insufficient lunch time)

Proposed solutions for challenges

• Ensure greater integration of beneficiaries within the workplace

• Ensure organisations have the required capacity (resources & supervisors) to host

beneficiaries

• Ensure beneficiaries are not exploited for administrative tasks not related to the learnership

• Work tasks should be in line with learnership programme

• Limit travelling of beneficiaries

• Senior staff to treat beneficiaries with respect

• Ensure breaktime allowance is in line with the BCEA

• Ensure beneficiaries are first choice for vacant positions

• Ensure more beneficiaries are absorbed

• Support beneficiaries in finding employment after completion

• Enforce deadlines for issuing certificates

• Ensure greater coordination of programme

• Ensure payments are processed in time

• Ensure greater communication between SETA and employers

• Place beneficiaries closer to where they stay

• Ensure the programme contain more general public service skills

• Ensure facilitators are knowledgeable and experienced

• Extend the programme period

• Reduce the number of modules

• Allow for rewriting/supplementary exams

Wo

rk-r

ela

ted

C

ha

lle

ng

es

Pro

gra

mm

e &

Ad

min

istr

ativ

e

Ch

alle

ng

es

Ac

ad

em

ic

Ch

alle

ng

es

Perceptions of the Learnership Programme

Proposed improvements

Ensure greater rotation and

exposure within workplace

Greater support at the

workplace

Programmes to contain more

general public service skillsStipend to be increased

Ensure beneficiary

absorption

Facilitators to be adequately

qualified and experienced

Ensure adequate capacity ad

host organisations to

accommodate beneficiaries

Extend the programme

period/length

Coordinate theory and

practical at central place to

minimise travelling

Future Plans of Respondents

9%

23%

6%

41%

10%

4%

3%

5%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%

To study

To continue studying

To find a part-time job

To find a full-time job

To continue in my current job

To look for a new job

To set up my own business

To get a promotion

Tracer Results:

Internship Beneficiaries

PSETA Supported Internships & Sample Frame

INTERNSHIPS

(OFO)NQF1 NQF2 NQF3 NQF4 NQF5 NQF6 NQF7 NQF8 NQF9 TOTAL

Total 1 1 0 190 184 323 192 14 2 907

During 2017 (POPULATION)• 907 PSETA supported/facilitated

beneficiaries

• Category A, B & C internships

Total Population

907

Sample reached 329


214Untraceable

Refusals44


Sample Frame

Data is

cleanedData is

organised

Data is

interpreted

1 2 3


Demographic Background of Respondents

Race & Gender

37%63%

95%

African

1% White

3% Coloured

0.3%Asian

0.3%Unknown

Coloured

African

White

Asian

59% 36%

3% 0.3%

1% 0.3%

0.3%

More than half of all

respondents are

African females (59%)

Education Place of Origin

EC

3%

FS 1%

GP

49%

KZN

12%

LP

11%

MP

12%NW 1%

NC

1%

WC

11%

16%Technical college certificate

40%University certificate or diploma

31%University Degree

13%Matric

PLP0.3%

2%Secondary Education

Private

School

(Low

Cost)Former

Model C

School

31%

Non-former

Model C

School

63%4%Private

School

(Elite)

17% 83%

0% 50% 100%

Rural Urban

Location dynamics

Age

96% of respondents are

35 years or

younger20-35 36+

96% 4%

Pre-Internship Activity

99% of those that were

unemployed or

studying pre-

internship have

never been

employedbefore.

Employment Status

84% Unemployed

Employed/ Self-

employed

10%

Studying

5%

Employment Characteristics• Place of employment

18%: Government

82%: Private

91% of respondents that were employed

pre-internship, were not employed at the

host employer prior to the internship.

Lack of required

education level: 0.7%


• Unemployment period prior to starting the

internship programme

Was looking, but couldn’t

find a job: 95%Lack of jobs where

lived: 2%

Recently graduated:

1%

Lack of required skills:

1%

4%

6%

37%

19%

12%

15%

7%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

> 5 years

3 - 5 years

1 - 3 years

9 months - 1 year

6 - 9 months

3 - 6 months

< 3 months

Internship Uptake

Internet 46%

Personal/family contacts 10%Advertisements 39%

Institution studying at 2%Employment agency 1%

Awareness


internship through:

Organisation working at 0.6%

Motivation

Reasons for doing the internship

For stipend

0.3%

To develop

skills

21%

To find

a job

10%

For

experience

66%

For compliance

0.3%

15% 14%

44%

24%

2%0.3%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

NQF 4 NQF 5 NQF 6 NQF 7 NQF 8 NQF 9

Internship NQF levels Internship OccupationsOnly 0,3% of internship

programmes

completed by

respondents were

funded by a SETA (the

rest were industry

funded)

Post-Internship Activity & DestinationEmployment Status

84%

10%

0%5%

59%

35%

3% 3%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Unemployed Employed/ self-

employed

Learning programme Studying

Pre Post

25% increase in

employment after

internship ended

Pre & post activity comparison

The majority of

respondents are

now located in

GP, WC and MP

Location Dynamics

Geographic Destination

of beneficiaries

GP

LP

MP

KZN

EC

WC

NC

FS

NW

PrePost

3% 2%

12%11%

12%11%

1% 1%

1% 1%12%

9%49%53%

12%

11%

5% increased movement to

urban areas

after

internship

ended 12%

17%

88%

83%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Post

Pre

Rural Urban

1% 0.3%


Experienced an increase income after internship

14%

86%


The majority if those that found

employment (87%) enjoy a higher

income than before


14%Absorbed by host employer

86%Not absorbed by host employer

Post-Internship: Employed Respondents

5%

2%

24%

22%

24%

17%

4%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

Within 24 months

Within 18 months

Within 12 months

Within 6 months

Within 3 months

Immediately

Before internship

ended

Time elapsed from programme completion

to finding employment Employer type

35%were employed

by the host

employer after

completing the

internship

1% NPO

2%Government

controlled

businessNational,

Provincial

or Local

Government

56%

Private

organisation

41%

5%

2%

16%

23%

54%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Don't know

2-10

11-49

50-150

More than 150

Size of organisation Hours work per week

40 hours per

week

84%

11%

More than 40

hours per

week

5% less than 40

hours per

week

33%

23%

10%

8%

6%

5%

4%

3%

2%

2%

2%

1%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

Through the Internship

Telephonic, fax, email

enquiries at workplaces

Personal contacts

Social medial platforms

A newspaper advertisement

Department of Labour

employment services

A private employment

agency

Government Gazette

A labour broker

Going from place to place to

ask for work

Work-related experiential

learning

Relatives

Way of finding employment

Post-Internship: Employed RespondentsNature of employment

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Casual/

part-time

2%

Permanent74%

Fixed-term

contract

24%

7%

15% 6 months

– 1 year

Period Employed

< 6 months

2 – 3 years

36%

1 – 2 years

34%

7%> 2 years

2%

3%

11%

17%

53%

14%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Not paid for work

R 1 601 - R 3 200

R 3 201 - R 6 400

R 6 401 - R 12 800

R 12 801 - R 25 600

R 25 601 - R 51 200

Monthly Income

Reasons for absorption:

52% HARD WORK & DEDICATION

39% HAD REQUIRED SKILLS & EXPERIENCE

16% THERE WERE VACANCIES7% WILLINGNESS TO LEARN

Internship relevance

61%Respondents’ work is related to

internship skills

63%Respondents’ work in the public

services industry

36%Respondents’ position at work

has changed for the better(e.g. promotion or increase)

79%


internship definitely provided


87%Respondents’ feel that the

internship prepared them for

their current job tasks

68%Respondents’ feel that their


met

Post-Internship: Unemployed Respondents



6% updated LinkedIn profiles







1% placed newspaper ads looking for a job

1% offered to work for free

7% answered newspaper advertisements

2% approach labour broker


Unemployed reasons

No opportunities where live

Actively looking

for a job

94%

1%Unable to

work

2%Not looking

for a job

2%

2%

Other

8%

38%

21%

18%

15%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

More than 3 years

2 - 3 years

1 - 2 years

6 months - 1 year

0 - 6 months


Post-Internship: Studying Respondents

Field of Study

All those studying after

the internship, are

studying at an University

Office

administration

Education,

training &

development

22%

Business,

commerce &

management

44%

11%

11%

11%

Communication

Law

Reasons for studying

To earn more money

Due to an interest in the

field

To expand career

To improve chances to

find a job

To increase knowledge

To find a better job

There was a gap in the

industry

Improve promotion

opportunities

Those currently doing another learning

programme

Learning programme reasons

Due to a lack of

employment

70%

30%

To gain further

experience

Perceived Impact of Internship Programme

of all respondents

were given the

opportunity to move

around the

organisation to learn

different skills

67%

of all respondents were

given the opportunity

to work in different

units/directorates

45%

Skills acquired

• Beneficiaries not exposed to required

aspects

• Beneficiaries not used effectively at

workplace

• Internship did not lead to employment

• Beneficiaries did not receive any

internal/workplace training


Benefits listed by respondents

34%

29%

15%

6%5% 5% 4%

2%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Ga

ine

d k

no

wle

dg

e a

nd

sk

ills

Ga

ine

d t

ec

hn

ica

l/sp

ec

ialise

d

ex

pe

rie

nc

e

Ga

ine

d w

ork

pla

ce

ex

pe

rie

nc

e

Ga

ine

d in

terp

ers

on

al sk

ills

Ob

tain

ed

a q

ua

lific

atio

n

It p

rovid

ed

a c

are

er

pa

th

Oth

er

Ga

ine

d e

mp

loy

me

nt

Benefit status of internship

11%

The internship was

beneficial

89%

The

internship

was not

beneficial


“The internship developed your work


1% 1%5%

26%

68%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Str

on

gly

dis

ag

ree

Dis

ag

ree

Ne

utr

al

Ag

ree

Str

on

gly

ag

ree

“The internship improved your ability to

adapt to different work situations”

1% 1%

9%

30%

60%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Str

on

gly

dis

ag

ree

Dis

ag

ree

Ne

utr

al

Ag

ree

Str

on

gly

ag

ree

“The internship helped you to develop

necessary skills to find/secure employment”

4%

6%

27%25%

38%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Str

on

gly

dis

ag

ree

Dis

ag

ree

Ne

utr

al

Ag

ree

Str

on

gly

ag

ree


“You developed new skills in the

internship”

1% 2%4%

28%

65%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Str

on

gly

dis

ag

ree

Dis

ag

ree

Ne

utr

al

Ag

ree

Str

on

gly

ag

ree

“You learned more about public services,


0% 1%5%

20%

74%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Str

on

gly

dis

ag

ree

Dis

ag

ree

Ne

utr

al

Ag

ree

Str

on

gly

ag

ree

18%


Occasionally

4%None

Adequate

76%

70%

21%

8%

2%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Very often

Often

Occasionally

Rarely


92%

Of all

respondents

had a

mentor at the

workplace

during the

internship

Perceptions of the Internship Programme

Positive aspects

Perceptions of the Internship ProgrammeThings that did not work well in the Internship

Pro

gra

mm

e &

Ad

min

istr

ativ

e

Ch

alle

ng

es

• Contracts not being renewed/ not being absorbed

• Certificates not delivered timeously

• Internship period too short

• Insufficient communications from programme funders


• Stipend amount too smallW

ork

-re

late

d C

ha

lle

ng

es

• Inadequate resources to accommodate interns

• Exposure/ tasks not related to internship/ career path

• Exploitation of interns

• Conflict with colleagues

• Lack of exposure to different departments/ units

• Age discrimination and age bias

• Poor communication from HR and/or management

• Excessive workload

• Limited on-the-job training received

• Insufficient mentor support

• Lack of work/performance evaluation and feedback

Proposed solutions for challenges



• Support beneficiaries in finding employment after completion

• Enforce deadlines for issuing certificates

• Ensure greater coordination of programme

• Extend period of internship programme

• Stipulate the job descriptions of interns

• Ensure exposure to different departments

• Ensure interns rotate within the organisation

• Make sure that host organisations have the required capacity

and resources to accommodate beneficiaries

• Ensure that mentors are available to guide beneficiaries

• Align work exposure with qualification/ career path of intern

• Ensure greater integration of beneficiaries within the workplace

Perceptions of the Internship Programme


Ensure greater rotation and

exposure within workplace

Give interns official job

descriptions and job tasks

Ensure beneficiary

absorption

Extend the programme

period/length

Ensure job tasks are aligned

with qualification

Ensure on-the-job training

takes place

Ensure adequate capacity ad host organisations to accommodate

beneficiaries

Greater support at the

workplace

Stipend to be increased

Future Plans of Respondents

15%

14%

44%

14%

5%

2%

5%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

To study






To get a promotion

Tracer Results:

Apprenticeship Beneficiaries

Total Population

42

Sample reached 18


9Untraceable

Refusals8


Sample Frame

PSETA Supported Internships & Sample Frame

During 2017 (POPULATION)• 10 PSETA funded beneficiaries

• 32 PSETA supported/facilitated beneficiaries

Data is

cleanedData is

organised

Data is

interpreted

1 2 3


Trade name Trade ID Trade Code

Automotive Motor Mechanic 96266 DHET-2012-OFO-653101

Diesel Mechanic 96275 DHET-2012-OFO-653306

Fitter and Turner 96264 DHET-2012-OFO-652302

Plumber 96242 DHET-2012-OFO-642601

Demographic Profile of Respondents

Race & Gender

56%

44%

100% of

respondents are

Black African 94% of respondents are youth

Place of Origin

41% 59%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Rural Urban

78%

17%

6%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%100%

Non-former Model

C school

Former Model C

school

Private School

(Low Cost)

EC

6%

FS

0%

GP

33%

KZN

33%

LP

11%

MP

6%NW

11%

NC

0%

WC

0%

Secondary Education

Tertiary Education

Education

6%PLP

35%Technical college certificate

6%

53%Matric

University Degree

94%

6%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

20-35 36-39

Age

Pre-Apprenticeship Activity

Employment Characteristics• Place of employment

All respondents that were employed pre-

apprenticeship, were employed at the host employer

prior to the apprenticeship.

100% Were Employed at

Government Department


“I was looking for a job,

but could not find a job”

100%

• Unemployment period prior to starting the

apprenticeship programme

6%

0%

19%

19%

13%

6%

13%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20%

> 5 years

3 - 5 years

1 - 3 years

9 months - 1 year

6 - 9 months

3 - 6 months

< 3 months

Employment Status

Employed/ Self-

employed

11%

Studying

22%

67% Unemployed

94% of those that were

unemployed

or studyingpre-

apprenticeshi

p have never

been

employedbefore.

Apprenticeship Uptake

Institution studying at 33%

Advertisement 17%Internet 22%

Employment agency 17%Personal/family contacts 6%

Awareness


apprenticeship through:

Local municipality 6%

Motivation

Reasons for doing the apprenticeship

To develop

skills

61%

To find

a job

28%

For

experience

11%

35%

59%

6%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Automotive Motor

Mechanic

Diesel Mechanic Plumber

Apprenticeship Trades

Post-Apprenticeship Activity & Destination

67%

11%

0%

22%

44%

56%

0% 0%0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Unemployed Employed/ self

employed

Learning Programmes Studying

Employment Status

45% increase in

employment after

apprenticeship

ended

Pre & post activity comparison Location DynamicsGeographic Destination of

beneficiaries

24%

41%

76%

59%

0% 50% 100%

Post

Pre

Rural Urban

The respondents

are now located in

GP, KZN and MP

17% increased movement to urban

areas after

apprenticeship

ended

33%

GP

44%

NW

11%

0%MP

6%11%

33%

KZN

44%

EC

6%

0%

WC

0% 0%

NC

0% 0% FS

0% 0%

LP

11%

0%PrePost


33%

67%

Absorbed

by host employer

Not absorbed by host employer


Experienced an income after apprenticeship

33%

67%


All those that found

employment enjoy a

higher income than

before

Post-Apprenticeship: Employed Respondents

25%

50%

25%

0% 20% 40% 60%

Longer than 6

months

3 - 6 months

0 - 3 month

Time elapsed from programme

completion to finding employment Employer type

50%were employed by

the host employer after completing

the internship

National,

Provincial

or Local

Government

50%

Private

organisation

50%

10%

10%

20%

30%

30%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Don’t know

2-10

11-49

50-150

More than 150

Size of organisation Hours work per week

40 hours per week

80%20%

More

than 40

hours per

week

56%

11%

11%

11%

11%

0% 20% 40% 60%

Through my

Apprenticeship

DoL

employment

services

With the help of

a SETA

Relatives

A newspaper

advertisement

Way of finding employment

84%

86%

88%

90%

92%

94%

96%

98%

100%

Fixed-term

contract

10%

Permanent

90%

Nature of employment

Post-Apprenticeship: Employed Respondents

Apprenticeship relevance

80%

90%

10%

Respondents’ work is related

to apprenticeship skills

Respondents’ work in the

public service space

Respondents’ position at work

has changed for the better

(e.g. promotion or increase)

60%


apprenticeship provided


80%

Respondents’ feel that the

apprenticeship prepared

them for their current job tasks

60%Respondents’ feel that their


met

20%

2 - 3 years

11%

Period Employed

1 - 2 years

> 3 years70%

10%

10%

40%

40%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Refused to answer

R 3 201 – R 6 400

R 6 401 – R 12 800

R 12 801 – R 25 600

Monthly Income

Post-Apprenticeship: Unemployed Respondents

Unemployed reasons

Actively

looking for a

job

63%

Unable

to work

Unwilling

to

relocate

13%

13%

13%

No

opportunities

where live

25%

38%

13%

0%

25%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

> 3 years

2 - 3 years

1 - 2 years

6 months - 1 year

< 6 months











13% answered newspaper ads for jobs

13% waited at the side of the road

Perceived Impact of Apprenticeship Programme

Benefit status of learnership

17%

The apprenticeship

was beneficial

83%

The

apprenticeship

was not

beneficial

• The apprenticeship did not lead

to employment

• The training was not sufficient


40%

33%

13% 13%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

Ga

ine

d s

kills

& k

no

wle

dg

e

Ga

ine

d e

xp

eri

en

ce

Be

ca

me

a q

ua

lifie

d a

rtis

an

Ga

ine

d e

mp

loy

me

nt

Benefits listed by respondentsSkills acquired

of all respondents were

given the opportunity to

apply the skills they have obtained through the

apprenticeship

83%


0%

6%

11%

22%

61%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Str

on

gly

dis

ag

ree

Dis

ag

ree

Ne

utr

al

Ag

ree

Str

on

gly

ag

ree

“The apprenticeship improved your ability

to adapt to different work situations”“The apprenticeship developed your work


0%

6%

11%

22%

61%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%Str

on

gly

dis

ag

ree

Dis

ag

ree

Ne

utr

al

Ag

ree

Str

on

gly

ag

ree

11% 11%

17%

22%

39%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

Str

on

gly

dis

ag

ree

Dis

ag

ree

Ne

utr

al

Ag

ree

Str

on

gly

ag

ree

“The apprenticeship helped you to develop

necessary skills to find/secure employment”


0%

6%

0%

39%

56%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Str

on

gly

dis

ag

ree

Dis

ag

ree

Ne

utr

al

Ag

ree

Str

on

gly

ag

ree

“You developed new skills in the

apprenticeship”

6% 6%

11%

17%

61%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Str

on

gly

dis

ag

ree

Dis

ag

ree

Ne

utr

al

Ag

ree

Str

on

gly

ag

ree

“You learned more about public services,


24%

47%

24%

6%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Very often

Often

Occasionally

Very rarely


17%


None

22%Occasionally

Adequate

61%

94%

Of all

respondents

had a mentor

at the

workplace

during the

apprenticeship

Perceptions of the Apprenticeship Programme

Positive aspects


Things that did not work well in the Internship

Wo

rk-r

ela

ted

C

ha

lle

ng

es

• Poor communication from HR and/or management

• The burden of travelling to workplace/work sites

• Personal accountability when working with equipment

Pro

gra

mm

e &

Ad

min

istr

ativ

e

Ch

alle

ng

es

• Beneficiaries not being absorbed

• Delays in taking the trade tests

• Poor coordination between training provider and employer

• Theory and practical not aligned


• Training providers not paid on time, leading to beneficiaries not

receiving their results

• Host employers to assist with travel arrangements to work sites

• Ensure greater coherence between beneficiaries and

permanent staff



• Ensure mentors are available to guide beneficiaries

• Provide dedicated support/dedicated channel of

communication between PSETA & beneficiaries

• Ensure payments to training providers are made on time

• Ensure training providers are adequately qualified

• Ensure stipends are paid on time



Ensure that the quality and quantity

of equipment/tools are adequate

Ensure beneficiary absorption

Add more practical aspects to the

programme

Training providers to be adequately

qualified and experienced

Short-term Future Plans (2019-2020)

29%

3%

3%

23%

13%

16%

3%

10%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

To study


To find a part-time job





To build a career in the public service

sector

Tracer Results:

Employer Perceptions

Host Employers in Context

‘How has the WBL programmes impacted the employers?’• Undertook a series of in-depth, face-to-face interviews

• Purposeful sampling (as selected by PSETA)

THE RESULTS AND INSIGHTS REFLECT OVERALL FINDINGS FOR WBL

PROGRAMMES FOR HOST EMPLOYERS.

Gauteng Department: Treasury (GPT)

National Department: Tourism (DT)

Statistics South Africa (StatsSA)

National Department: Human Settlements (DHS)

National Department: Correctional Services (DCS)

Gauteng Department: Roads and Transport (GPDRT)

National Department: Public Works and Infrastructure (DPWI)

Gauteng Department: Infrastructure Development (GPDID)

National Department: Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation (DPME)

Director: Core Curriculum

Acting Director: Human Resource Management and Development

Deputy Director: Human Resource Development

Deputy Director: Career Development

Assistant Director: Human Resource Development

Assistant Director: Human Resources Management

Assistant Director: Skills Development

Chief Training Officer

Skills Development Facilitator

Senior Administration Officer: Career Development

The designations of the respondents are as follows:The following departments were interviewed:

WBL & Host Employer Background

24 25 36 50 80 100 124

1200

2342

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

GPT DT DPME DHS StatsSA GPDID GPDRT DPWI DCS

Average annual number of beneficiaries hosted

of host employers

interviewed indicated

that WBL beneficiaries

cannot expect absorption into the

organisation

56%

of host employers

interviewed indicated

that absorption is

vacancy, budget &

resource dependent

44%

0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

10%

29%33%

100%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

GP

T

DT

GP

DR

T

GP

DID

DP

ME

DH

S

DP

WI

Sta

tsSA

DC

S

Reported Annual Average Absorption Rate

Some host employers provide beneficiaries

with referrals to assist them with finding

employment

Experience as a WBL Host Employer

Reasons

discussed

in-text

Aspects lacking in WBL in providing

necessary skills

Some mismatches between

theory and practice

Mentors require training prior to intake of

beneficiaries

Training on professional

conduct and soft skills

Beneficiaries require

additional guidance during

work exposure

Greater assessment

required while on the job

Reasons

discussed

in-text

Positive aspects in WBL providing

necessary skills

Core skills required for the

job is transferred

Beneficiaries able to

bridge the gap between

theoretical knowledge

and practical application

Beneficiaries able to find

jobs after the programme

Beneficiaries obtain work

experience

Exposure to professional

environment

Skills are in line with departmental/

organisational needs

Reasons

discussed

in-text

Too few mentors

Time constraints in providing guidance

(managers especially)

Lack of space (office

space, work space etc.)

Lack of equipment (tools,

computers, PPE etc.)

Financial constraints (stipends, acquiring

equipment etc.)

Inability to absorb beneficiaries

Challenges in hosting

beneficiariesSatisfaction level in WBL

providing required skills

2 years75

%

11%

22%Somewhat

Satisfied

Satisfied

67%

Dissatisfied

Qualifications aligned with industry

competencies/skills needs

2 years75

%

11%

22%No

Yes

67%

Somewhat

Impact of WBL on Host EmployerPositive impacts

Reasons

discussed

in-text

Conflict between staff & beneficiaries (re. conducts

and approach to tasks)

Time that mentors/managers are required to set aside for

beneficiaries

Staff feel threatened by beneficiaries (job security)

Additional costs (stipends, acquiring equipment etc.)

Negative impacts

• Provides increased capacity

• Empowers youth

• Empowers unemployed beneficiaries

• Produces skilled, professional workforce

• Youth beneficiaries rejuvenate the workplace

• Provides relevant work experience

• Cultivates a culture of learning

• Organisation is kept abreast of best practices

of host employers would recommend

that other departments/

organisations take part

in WBL programmes

89%

of host employers would not recommend

that other departments/

organisations take part

in WBL programmes

12%

• Stipends are too small (exploitation of

beneficiaries)

• Time, effort and resources are invested in

beneficiaries that will not be absorbed (futile exercise for organisation)

• Organisations only take part due to

stipulated targets set, and not invested in the programmes

Host Employer – SETA Interactions

Reasons

discussed

in-text

Ensure greater alignment between industry needs and

programmes

Provide greater financial

support to beneficiaries & host employers

Improve turn-around time on

all admin & communication

Ensure greater geographical

presence of SETAs

Improve coordination between SETAs, Training

Providers & host Employers

Ensure better communication with host employers &

beneficiaries

Suggestions for SETA

Improvements

Intensify career guidance

and post-programme

support to beneficiaries

Culture, Arts, Tourism, Hospitality & Sports SETA

Construction SETA

Chemical Industries SETA

Energy & Water SETA

Relevant SETAs

Financial, Accounting, Management,

Consulting & other Financial

Services SETA

Food &

Beverage Manufacturing Industry SETA

Local Government SETA

Manufacturing, Engineering & Related Services SETA

Public Service SETA

Safety & Security SETA

Services SETA

Transport SETA

Level of satisfaction with SETA interactions

Satisfied

33% Dissatisfied

33%

22%Very

satisfied

11%Very

dissatisfied

Dissatisfaction reasons

Limited monitoring

General poor turn-

around time

Limited interaction &

poor communication

SETA targets are

unattainable

Payments not made on time

Poor administration

Payments made

on time

Regular

engagements &

support

Regular &

consistent

monitoring

Satisfaction reasons

Host Employer – Training Provider Interactions

33%

11%

Dissatisfied

Satisfied

56%

Very

satisfied

Level of satisfaction with Training Provider interactions

Dissatisfaction reasons

Level of efficiency of Training

Provider

Regular Contact

Constant assistance

& guidance

Delays in issuing certificates

SETA red tape negatively

affect the tasks of Training

Providers

Satisfaction reasons

Better monitoring of the

performance of Training

Providers

SETAs to ensure the quality

of the Training Providers

assigned

Issue certificates timeously

Ensure greater

involvement of host

employers & mentors

Greater integration

between SETAs, Training

Providers & host employers

are required

Suggestions for Training Provider

Improvements

Overall, the interactions between

Training Providers and Host Employers

has been positive

Perceptions & Details about Beneficiaries

Beneficiary proficiency improvement

All host employers were able to

notice improvement in

proficiency after completing the

WBL programme

100%

Observed improvements

Considerations for appointing beneficiaries

of host employers indicated

that no preference is given

to beneficiaries – they are

subject to the normal

recruitment process78%

Other considerations highlighted:

Assessment of beneficiaries

Three most common methods:

Quarterly performance

evaluation

Reporting by mentors

Formal examinations/

assessments as prescribed

by programme

Beneficiary feedback

Feedback received by Host

Employers were overall positive regarding the workplace exposure.

Beneficiaries were unhappy about:

• Stipends being insufficient

• Not being absorbed

Tracking of beneficiaries

by host employers

Knowledge about

whereabouts of those not

absorbed?2

years75

%

56%No

Yes

44%

Key Findings

Programme Impact on Beneficiaries

• WBL effectively facilitate entry into employment:

• Post-learnership: 25% increase in employment

• Post-internship: 25% increase in employment

• Post-apprenticeship: 45% increase employment

• WBL provides increased chances of accessing employment & career advancement

• WBL provide limited to no real facilitation into self-employment

• Positive impact on skills development:• Learnership: most post-employed immediately

• Internship: most post-employed within 6 months

• Apprenticeship: most post-employed within 6 months

• Employed post-WBL in Public Service Sector:• Learnership: 75%

• Internship: 63%

• Apprenticeship: 50%

• Employed post-WBL for 2 years or more:• Learnership: 75%

• Internship: 36%


• Positive impact on financial situation• Learnership: 30%

• Internship: 14%


• Income post-WBL employed: Earn over R12 801• Learnership: 22%

• Internship: 20%


• Outcomes objectively positive, although, subjectively, some beneficiaries felt less positive about the impacts

• Overall, WBL programmes seem to have improved skills and knowledge of beneficiaries

• Beneficiaries indicated that they learned more about the Public Services Sector:

• Learnership: 97%

• Internship: 94%


Programme Impact on Employers

• Overall positive impact

• Additional capacity gained

• Feel that taking part in WBL a social responsibility

• Feel proud to empower youth

• Acknowledge that WBL produce skilled workforce in the Public Sector

• Kept abreast of best practices, new approaches and emerging trends

• Cultivates a culture of learning –spills over to other staff members

• Those with limited capacity indicate that they cannot afford the time and resources to host beneficiaries

• Lack of physical space and equipment to host beneficiaries

Programme Particulars

Learnership

• Some beneficiaries not granted opportunity to move around the organisation

• Some beneficiaries taken advantage of – tasked with admin and/or non-relevant tasks

• Many not provided with required resources or facilities at host employer

• Mentoring and support provided not always sufficient:

• Time constraints (mentors/managers)

• Lack of familiarity with programme content and outcomes

• Administrative processes can be improved on:

• Delays in issuing certificates

• Delays in processing payments of stipends

Internship

• Some indicated delays experienced in taking trade tests

• Coordination between employer and training provider required improvements

• Some beneficiaries held accountable for potential damages and losses when working on equipment

• Many not provided with required resources or facilities







Apprenticeship

• Some beneficiaries not granted opportunity to move around the organisation

• Some beneficiaries taken advantage of – tasked with admin and/or non-relevant tasks

• Many not provided with required resources or facilities at host employer

• Some unsatisfied with quality and competency of facilitators

• Urge for continuous monitoring of facilitators throughout







Tracking & Tracing Aspects

• Average of four calls to achieve one successful survey

• 68% of contact details were invalid/not working

• Refusal rate of 21%

Learnership

• Average of four calls to achieve one successful survey



Internship

• Average of five calls to achieve one successful survey



• Required sample size was 150, population consisted of only 42.

• Deployed snowballing method to enhance chances

Apprenticeship

Overall

• In order to reach required sample, the sample frame should contain enough valid contact details

• The importance of ensuring beneficiary contact details are correct during this study • Need for constant contact and updating of beneficiary details during and after programme

• Host employers willing to be interviewed• In most cases, more than one individual of each organisation was interviewed together

• Importance of tracer studies was realised in establishing the impact of SETA funded programmes to inform

future programmes

Recommendations

Recommendations• Dedicated and on-going recordkeeping of

beneficiaries required by SETAs

• Include primary and alternative numbers and

email addresses

• Training provider contact details

• Host employer contact details

SETAs to ensure:

• Monitoring of facilitators and facilities to ensure best practice achieved

• Offer guidance to workplace on supporting

beneficiaries

• Ensure expectations of beneficiaries aligned

with programme outcomes

• SETAs to constantly follow-up with beneficiaries

throughout the programme (outlet for

concerns)

• Provide short-term post-programme support

• Establish a graduate network or alumni

programme• Serve as a networking platform

• Electronically distribute ‘mini-tracer’

• Undertake workplace mentoring training

sessions

• Aim to guide mentors and supervisors

on their roles

• Ensure familiarity with requirements and content

• Ensure rigorous workplace readiness assessment

• Verify required resources and adept working

facilities• Assist employers to achieve readiness

if they do not meet the standards

• Host forums or platforms to gather more insights

from the industry and employers to steer

programme direction and efficacy

• Improve implementation guidelines for training

providers and employers

• Host seminars to this effect to ensure

mentors and training provider efforts

meet the same objectives

• Ensure employers maintain records and

reports of beneficiary performance

• SETAs to ensure that training providers

are verified and up to standard

• Stricter quality assurance to be administered

• Adopt more integrated communication and

coordination• Training provider – Host employer – SETA

• Undertake continuous & ongoing tracer studies

• Assessment of programmes & destinations

beneficiaries

• SETAs to plan and set out budgets for this

• Undertake to trace same individuals over a set

period

• Review curriculum to ensure relevance

(especially for future outlook – 4IR)

• Ensure includes soft/transversal skills

• Use the National Occupational Curriculum

Content (NOCC) to guide WBL formulation

• Integrated approach to technical

training, soft skills and workplace

exposure

M&E Framework

Statistical requirements

• Before and during:

• Personal particulars

• Preferred contact information

• Alternative contact information

• Demographic details

• Educational details

• Employment status

• Programme particulars

• Upon completion:

• Completion status

• Certification details

• Employment status

Beneficiary

• Contact person particulars

• Preferred contact information

• Alternative contact information

• Institution details

• Programme details

• Facilitator experience and qualifications

Facilitator

• Employer details

• Contact person particulars

• Size of organisation

• Number of beneficiaries hosted

• Mentor details

Employer

• DETAILS TO BE CAPTURED ON APPLICATION

• TO BE CAPTURED ONLINE OR VIA ELECTRONIC PLATFORM

• TO BE CAPTURED IN LINE WITH THE LMIS

Monitoring Areas

Assessment Types:

• Pre-assessment (PSETA/SETA to assess various aspects)

• Self-assessment (facilitator and beneficiary to self-assess)

• Peer assessment (facilitator to facilitator)

• Satisfaction assessment (beneficiaries to assess facilitator or employer)

• Post-assessment (PSETA/SETA)

Assessment Scores:

• 1 = non-existent/no progress/unacceptable performance

• 2 = Somewhat/some progress/somewhat acceptable performance

• 3 = Acceptable progress/acceptable performance

• 4 = Above average progress/above average acceptable performance

• 5 = Excellent progress/excellent performance

• PROVISION TO BE MADE TO RECORD SCORES OVER TIME

• APPLICABLE FOR MULTI-YEAR PROGRAMMES

• TRACKING OF PERFORMANCE (PROGRESSION OR REGRESSION)

Monitoring Areas:

• Training Providers

• Employers

• SETAs

• NOCC

Thank You!

workplace-based learning (wbl) tracking and tracing … · 2020. 6. 17. · 04 tracer results 05...

Documents