This expert post comes from Lili-Marguerite Stern, Technical Advisor for Youth & Livelihoods at the International Rescue Committee and Co-Coordinator of the Economic Strengthening, Livelihoods and Child Protection Global Technical Group (GTG), a sub-group within the Care and Protection of Children in Crisis-Affected Countries (CPC) Learning Network.

I have just posted a presentation I gave a couple weeks ago at the Inter-Agency Network for Education in Emergencies (INEE) Global Consultation in Istanbul, Turkey in the working session on “Comprehensive Approaches to Vocational Education & Training (VET) & Youth Livelihood.” For those of you who were not able to attend, the presentation sparked debate around the strategic decision taken recently by the International Rescue Committee (IRC) to stop implementing VET programs directly, and transition to a more systems-based approach.

This paradigm shift, which represents a somewhat radical departure from our past programming affects the “who” in our work, as well as the “how” and the “what.” It means that instead of targeting our support to individual “at-risk” or vulnerable youth as direct beneficiaries, we are shifting our focus to strengthening weak or absent policies, institutions, processes and systems that should be supporting youth both directly and indirectly. It also means shifting our role from that of an implementer or direct service provider to that of a facilitator of things like VET curriculum reform, training of VET instructors, working with the private sector to establish apprenticeship and job placement schemes, improving accreditation and certification processes, and developing other public/private linkages.

This turning point reflects an acceptance that, under the old paradigm, certain obstacles and challenges may simply be insurmountable in conflict settings, not the least of which are the twin challenges of scale and sustainability. We are convinced that a systems approach will help us to overcome these. The burning question that remains is, “Can we sell it?” Do we have the evidence base we need to convince donors and policymakers to funnel resources toward these structures and systems, particularly when directly sponsoring or supporting young people seems so much more compelling and tangible? Following my presentation, this question was one of the principle challenges I heard. Another was, “This sounds great Lili, but can it really work in an emergency/post-conflict context?” Our answer to both is a resounding “Yes.” We have done it in Darfur where our efforts to build the capacity of the Ministry of Education are continuing to reach thousands of young people in North, West and South Darfur, even after IRC and other INGOs have been forced out of the country. Additionally, in other conflict-torn regions like Liberia and the tribal regions of Pakistan our work linking the private sector directly with Ministries of Education has resulted in VET programs that are more clearly aligned with private sector demand.

Debate was certainly not limited to the question of direct service provision versus a systems-level approach. Other questions included, “does life skills training really improve economic outcomes? (Many felt it does, but could not point to an evidence base to support their feelings),” “can we effectively link with the private sector and pursue ‘learning and earning’ strategies in areas of conflict?,” (A mixed bag of yeses and nos), “can youth create their own markets in these contexts?”, (Yes), and “can these programs really stem extremism?” (again, a mixed bag.) I will leave these questions for future posts or other bloggers but hope at this stage that you will join me in considering the implications of IRC’s new Youth & Livelihoods strategy, and our transition to a more systems-based approach.

Do you think we have the evidence we need? Do you think we can sell it? Do you think youth will be more secure economically as a result?