What are the main challenges in measuring the true impact of skilling initiatives in India?

India has launched several skilling initiatives to address unemployment and improve workforce productivity. However, measuring the true impact of these programs is complex due to various systemic and practical challenges. Understanding these challenges helps in designing better policies and ensuring the effectiveness of skill development efforts.

• Lack of Standardized Metrics: Different programs use varied criteria to measure success, such as number of people trained, job placements, or wage increases, making comparisons difficult.
• Inadequate Tracking Mechanisms: There is often no robust system to track trainees after completion of the course, leading to insufficient data on long-term employment and career progression.
• Quality vs. Quantity Focus: Many initiatives prioritize the number of candidates trained over the quality of training, which can inflate success figures without real improvement in employability.
• Mismatch with Industry Needs: Curricula may not align with current market demands, so even after training, candidates may struggle to find suitable jobs.
• Informal Sector Employment: A large portion of India’s workforce is in the informal sector, where job placements and wage data are hard to capture and verify.
• Short-term Assessments: Impact is often measured immediately after training, ignoring long-term outcomes like sustained employment, career growth, or entrepreneurship.
• Regional Disparities: Skilling outcomes vary widely across states and regions due to differences in infrastructure, local industries, and socio-economic conditions.
• Socio-cultural Barriers: Gender, caste, and regional biases can affect access to skilling programs and subsequent job opportunities, making it harder to assess true inclusivity and impact.
• Underreporting and Overreporting: Data may be manipulated or inaccurately reported by implementing agencies to meet targets or secure funding.
• Lack of Feedback Mechanisms: There is limited input from trainees and employers about the relevance and effectiveness of the training, hampering continuous improvement.