Nongovernment providers of training tend to take on the characteristics of the informal sector, in that they are difficult to define, identify, and regulate. In some countries, many nongovernment providers are not registered and some operate illegally. The IIEP study characterized Senegal’s nongovernment sec-tor as an “iceberg, in that the submerged part is not well known but repre-sents a considerable volume” (Atchoarena and Esquieu 2002, pp. 25, 134).
Nongovernment sources of training often eclipse public sources. The IIEP review concluded that “there is enough corroborating evidence today to affirm that the nongovernment TVE sector occupies a significant and growing position in Sub-Saharan Africa”2(Atchoarena and Esquieu 2002, p. 133). In some countries, the majority of trainees are enrolled in non-government institutions. This includes Mali, where nonnon-government train-ing makes up two-thirds of all TVET, Tanzania with 90 percent (figure 4.2), and Zambia with 82 percent (figure 4.3). Bennell found that private training was a “mass phenomenon” in Zimbabwe and estimated that at least 180,000
Other 4%
Company 22%
Public 8%
Church/NGO 31%
For-profit 35%
Figure 4.2. Tanzania: Vocational Training Places by Ownership
Source:Haan 2001, p. 76.
persons, or 5 percent of the economically active population, received train-ing from private sector traintrain-ing institutions (Bennell 1993, pp. 37–8).
In Ghana, 20 public technical institutes enroll about 15,000 trainees com-pared with more than 370 nongovernment institutions enrolling an esti-mated 100,000 trainees. In Yaoundé (Cameroon) a survey of 682 informal sector operators found that almost half had received some kind of pre-employment vocational training. Two-thirds of those got their training in nongovernment institutions (58 percent nongovernment for-profit and 9 percent NGOs, as compared with 24 percent in government institutions) (Haan and Serriere 2002, p. 122).
Moreover, the importance of nongovernment training seems to be grow-ing. In Côte d’Ivoire, for example, the number of nongovernment institu-tions increased from 45 to 77 between 1984/85 and 1987/88 and from 15,000 to 17,000 students, while public provision declined from 89 to 69 institutions and from 16,400 students to 10,600 students. In Madagascar, the growth of nongovernment training has been more dramatic. Between 1990 and 1996, enrollment in nongovernment vocational institutions increased by 70 per-cent as public enrollment decreased. At the end of the period, 255 non-government training institutions enrolled 75 percent of all trainees.
At the technical level, expansion was also substantial, increasing from 7,550 students in 1990 to 32,000 students in 1999 in 730 registered
non-Company 7%
Foundation 7%
Community 14%
Public 18%
Church/NGO 18%
For-profit 36%
Figure 4.3. Zambia: Training Institutions by Ownership
Source:Kitaev with others 2002, figure 2.
government technical institutions. In Senegal, nongovernment training providers enroll almost half of all vocational training students. Between 1995 and 2000, nongovernment enrollments increased by 84 percent. In Mali, the number of nongovernment training providers rose from 11 in 1993 to 71 in 2000. Enrollments exploded at the end of the 1990s, increasing by 86 percent in just two years, between 1997 and 1999. Today, nongovernment training providers account for two-thirds of total enrollments in TVET.
The prevailing assumption going into the review was that most non-government training providers concentrate on “light” vocational skills such as business, commercial, and service skills, because of the high capital costs involved in providing more industrial-type skills. This assumption by and large was confirmed. Haan found that most of the recent nongovernment training providers in Uganda, mostly church based, focus on office qualifi-cations and various business skills that require only limited investment (Haan 2001, p. 99). In Mali and Zambia, however, about 20 percent of stu-dents in nongovernment training were enrolled in courses that require cap-ital investment. Perhaps because of the tendency toward commercial courses, nongovernment training providers in some countries tend to enroll more women than men. In Ghana, women make up 76 percent of total enrollments in nongovernment training institutions, and in Tanzania and Zimbabwe women make up 60 percent of the total nongovernment training enrollment. The survey of 28 nongovernment technical-vocational schools in Senegal found young women in the majority, with 55 percent of total enrollments. Moreover, NGOs and denominational schools typically have philanthropic purposes and enroll a significant number of low-income stu-dents. In contrast, for-profit training providers tend to target higher income groups because fees are virtually their only source of income.
Geographical concentration is another characteristic of nongovernment providers, especially for-profit institutions (church-based providers are often found in rural areas.) The IIEP surveys in Ghana and Zambia both found most of the institutions to be concentrated in a few regions. In Ghana, the institutions were most prevalent in the south of the country, probably due to the concentration of industrial and commercial activities in those areas. In Zambia, the nongovernment providers tended to concentrate in Lusaka and the Copperbelt region.
In terms of student entry, nongovernment training institutions often are at a disadvantage compared with public institutions. Nongovernment train-ers tend to get students who were unable to gain places in public institu-tions. Public institutions may be preferred because of lower fees and better reputations in the mind of parents.
Associations of nongovernment training providers have been formed and are active in a few countries (for example, Uganda, Tanzania, and Zam-bia). They are usually small (the one in Uganda has only 20 members), but represent an important group to focus attention on issues that concern them and advocate fair treatment from government.
An unfortunate characteristic of nongovernment training organizations is their often complex and uneasy relationships with the government. In some countries a socialist past shapes the present generation of civil ser-vants for whom state control over TVET is the norm. For-profit TVET is often viewed with disdain and suspicion. Nonprofit training is regarded as insignificant. In turn, operators of nongovernment institutions often do not trust the government bureaucracy as they get little or no support from it.
This kind of mutual distrust runs counter to the cooperation required if overall skills development is to progress in a partnership.