Optimizing Scholarships from Pork Barrel Funds to Address Skills and Manpower Gaps
One of the most common strategies implemented by legislators in their respective constituency areas to address unemployment and underemployment is the allocation of certain amounts from their pork barrel funds (officially called Priority Development Assistance Fund or PDAF) for TVET scholarships.
This is one of the most common constituency programs of legislators for several reasons. First, scholarships are perceived by the public as "clean" programs, meaning, they are not usually associated with cases of graft and corruption; second, it has long-term and multiplier effect; and third, it has direct and personal impact on the constituents or their loved ones. However, if these scholarship funds are not directed towards employment, their implementation can have the opposite effect, and can damage the reputation of the concerned elected official or his party more than build it.
"Clean" Program
One of the difficulties for congressmen and senators in implementing projects out of their PDAF is the management of public perception of those projects. PDAF usually falls under two broad categories: "soft" and "hard". Soft PDAF is intended to address social, non-major infrastructure and relatively low-cost projects. These can include assistance to indigent patients, assistance to government hospitals in the purchase of medical equipment, distribution of PhilHealth insurance to poor constituents, livelihood programs, assistance to electrification programs, provision of fire trucks to local government units, construction or rehabilitation of irrigation facilities, and yes, provision of scholarships to poor but deserving constituents. Hard PDAF, on the other hand, usually deals with construction and similar projects.
There had been various scandals and accusations of corruption in all these projects but what seems to be mostly associated with anomalies in the mind of the public are the construction and construction-related ones. (Corollary to this, the Department of Public Works and Highways, the primary implementing agency of construction projects, has been tagged at various times as one of the most corrupt government agencies.) Thus, to avoid the complications of negative public perception, many legislators support non-construction projects with their soft PDAFs, and indeed one of these is scholarship.
Aside from the lack of negative perception in the mind of most constituents in general, the agency that implements these--the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA)--has not been associated with major scandals involving congressional funds. (TESDA has been haunted by issues of unpaid scholarship slots implemented during the previous administration, but the damage seems to have been largely confined within TVET institutions that accepted the scholars; the scholars themselves were able to finish their courses without much trouble.)
Long-Term and Multiplier Effects
Filipinos generally put much value on education, even if the sole proof of that education is the diploma that hangs on the wall. Because of this, many families will willingly sacrifice concerns such as clothing, housing and sometimes even health so parents can send their children to school. With this mindset, most constituents will put much value to free training or schooling provided by a congressman or senator. Because training can last for months and constituents could indeed find productive work as a result of it, the scholarship assistance sticks to their minds for long. Also, because an employed person in a family can--and usually do--help the whole family sustain itself, scholarship programs have multiplier effects. They can translate into a favorable entry in the ballot not only from one voter but from several in the family, thus making the cost efficiency of the program very high.
Personal Impact
Ultimately, the decision to vote or not vote for a congressional or senatorial candidate is a personal one. Thus, for candidates that implemented programs that had personal impact on the most number of people, the decision of voters to maintain them in office is an easy one (barring election-time crimes such as vote-buying, intimidation, threats or illegal detention). Out of the premium that most Filipinos put on training and education, the personal impact of scholarship programs is high.
Connecting Scholarship with Employment
While, as mentioned, most Filipinos value training and education, more and more of them now understand that these things only become truly valuable to them when they result to employment (and income). The past administration seems to have already realized this; thus, when TESDA implemented massive government scholarship programs just before the election year, it demanded from recipient schools that the employment status of the scholars be reported as well.
The same policy continues to be implemented today. However, due to the tenuous nature of the global economic recovery, employment remains likewise tenuous and most companies still employ only for the short-term, with very little chance of renewal of employment contracts. This labor market reality needs to be considered when implementing scholarship programs from legislative allocations or pork. If most scholars of the program do not get employment or were only employed for very short period or find it hard to find work again after his initial employment, the intended positive effects of the program could easily translate to resentment or constituent frustration. And because most legislators put their names on the line in these scholarship programs through massive media exposure, the association of these programs with them becomes direct.
Several things can help put scholarship programs from pork barrel funds in their most efficient use, and thus continue to put their sponsoring legislators in best possible light as intended. However, the most important among these is the effectiveness of the program in helping the beneficiaries find employment. To attain these, it may be most helpful if concerned sponsoring public officials ensure freedom of the implementing and beneficiary agencies on the ground to determine the specific area of discipline or qualification (roughly, occupation or trade) based on labor market signals; and encourage conduct of tracer studies of the graduates.
Market-Driven Courses
Although legislators can specify the courses they want to be included in their scholarship programs, this should only be done if prior research and staff work had been done to ascertain that market demand is really along these courses. Without these, the scholarship program will probably just contribute to more skills mismatch and unemployment. A better approach--and one that is used by most legislators--is to only identify in broad terms the course areas of scholarship program based on broad market signals or government priorities. With this, the implementing agency will have the freedom to identify specific courses with real demand for graduates and avoid complications during the audit of funds.
Graduate Tracers
A good feedback mechanism for improving future scholarship programs is the conduct of tracer studies. Although the course offerings may have been based on solid labor market data, the employment rate of the graduates can still be affected by the quality of training they received, their personal intentions for taking the course and even internal decisions of key employers (especially in areas with limited industry players). To help legislators fine-tune the directions of their scholarship programs, it may be helpful if legislators are also provided with the results of these tracer studies.
Making scholarship programs from pork barrel funds facilitate jobs is of utmost importance both for improving the quality of life of constituents and preserving or enhancing the political value of any legislator. Thus, it is always necessary that they be directly connected to the requirements of the labor market and a mechanism for tracing the program outputs should be sustained and that data generated from this mechanism should be shared to the sponsoring official.
This is one of the most common constituency programs of legislators for several reasons. First, scholarships are perceived by the public as "clean" programs, meaning, they are not usually associated with cases of graft and corruption; second, it has long-term and multiplier effect; and third, it has direct and personal impact on the constituents or their loved ones. However, if these scholarship funds are not directed towards employment, their implementation can have the opposite effect, and can damage the reputation of the concerned elected official or his party more than build it.
"Clean" Program
One of the difficulties for congressmen and senators in implementing projects out of their PDAF is the management of public perception of those projects. PDAF usually falls under two broad categories: "soft" and "hard". Soft PDAF is intended to address social, non-major infrastructure and relatively low-cost projects. These can include assistance to indigent patients, assistance to government hospitals in the purchase of medical equipment, distribution of PhilHealth insurance to poor constituents, livelihood programs, assistance to electrification programs, provision of fire trucks to local government units, construction or rehabilitation of irrigation facilities, and yes, provision of scholarships to poor but deserving constituents. Hard PDAF, on the other hand, usually deals with construction and similar projects.
There had been various scandals and accusations of corruption in all these projects but what seems to be mostly associated with anomalies in the mind of the public are the construction and construction-related ones. (Corollary to this, the Department of Public Works and Highways, the primary implementing agency of construction projects, has been tagged at various times as one of the most corrupt government agencies.) Thus, to avoid the complications of negative public perception, many legislators support non-construction projects with their soft PDAFs, and indeed one of these is scholarship.
Aside from the lack of negative perception in the mind of most constituents in general, the agency that implements these--the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA)--has not been associated with major scandals involving congressional funds. (TESDA has been haunted by issues of unpaid scholarship slots implemented during the previous administration, but the damage seems to have been largely confined within TVET institutions that accepted the scholars; the scholars themselves were able to finish their courses without much trouble.)
Long-Term and Multiplier Effects
Filipinos generally put much value on education, even if the sole proof of that education is the diploma that hangs on the wall. Because of this, many families will willingly sacrifice concerns such as clothing, housing and sometimes even health so parents can send their children to school. With this mindset, most constituents will put much value to free training or schooling provided by a congressman or senator. Because training can last for months and constituents could indeed find productive work as a result of it, the scholarship assistance sticks to their minds for long. Also, because an employed person in a family can--and usually do--help the whole family sustain itself, scholarship programs have multiplier effects. They can translate into a favorable entry in the ballot not only from one voter but from several in the family, thus making the cost efficiency of the program very high.
Personal Impact
Ultimately, the decision to vote or not vote for a congressional or senatorial candidate is a personal one. Thus, for candidates that implemented programs that had personal impact on the most number of people, the decision of voters to maintain them in office is an easy one (barring election-time crimes such as vote-buying, intimidation, threats or illegal detention). Out of the premium that most Filipinos put on training and education, the personal impact of scholarship programs is high.
Connecting Scholarship with Employment
While, as mentioned, most Filipinos value training and education, more and more of them now understand that these things only become truly valuable to them when they result to employment (and income). The past administration seems to have already realized this; thus, when TESDA implemented massive government scholarship programs just before the election year, it demanded from recipient schools that the employment status of the scholars be reported as well.
The same policy continues to be implemented today. However, due to the tenuous nature of the global economic recovery, employment remains likewise tenuous and most companies still employ only for the short-term, with very little chance of renewal of employment contracts. This labor market reality needs to be considered when implementing scholarship programs from legislative allocations or pork. If most scholars of the program do not get employment or were only employed for very short period or find it hard to find work again after his initial employment, the intended positive effects of the program could easily translate to resentment or constituent frustration. And because most legislators put their names on the line in these scholarship programs through massive media exposure, the association of these programs with them becomes direct.
Several things can help put scholarship programs from pork barrel funds in their most efficient use, and thus continue to put their sponsoring legislators in best possible light as intended. However, the most important among these is the effectiveness of the program in helping the beneficiaries find employment. To attain these, it may be most helpful if concerned sponsoring public officials ensure freedom of the implementing and beneficiary agencies on the ground to determine the specific area of discipline or qualification (roughly, occupation or trade) based on labor market signals; and encourage conduct of tracer studies of the graduates.
Market-Driven Courses
Although legislators can specify the courses they want to be included in their scholarship programs, this should only be done if prior research and staff work had been done to ascertain that market demand is really along these courses. Without these, the scholarship program will probably just contribute to more skills mismatch and unemployment. A better approach--and one that is used by most legislators--is to only identify in broad terms the course areas of scholarship program based on broad market signals or government priorities. With this, the implementing agency will have the freedom to identify specific courses with real demand for graduates and avoid complications during the audit of funds.
Graduate Tracers
A good feedback mechanism for improving future scholarship programs is the conduct of tracer studies. Although the course offerings may have been based on solid labor market data, the employment rate of the graduates can still be affected by the quality of training they received, their personal intentions for taking the course and even internal decisions of key employers (especially in areas with limited industry players). To help legislators fine-tune the directions of their scholarship programs, it may be helpful if legislators are also provided with the results of these tracer studies.
Making scholarship programs from pork barrel funds facilitate jobs is of utmost importance both for improving the quality of life of constituents and preserving or enhancing the political value of any legislator. Thus, it is always necessary that they be directly connected to the requirements of the labor market and a mechanism for tracing the program outputs should be sustained and that data generated from this mechanism should be shared to the sponsoring official.
Comments
Post a Comment