Cost and time intensity 

The cost and time intensity of supporting RPL is high, because it is a multi-stakeholder participatory process. 

• Establishing the institutional framework and guidelines required a series of training sessions, consultations and validation exercises.
• Building up human resources to support RPL processes requires qualifying assessors, administrators and facilitators, and delivering professional training on developing assessment tools and, in particular, how to gather and check evidence of skills and competencies.
• For training institutions and bodies, there is also the cost of setting up practical scenarios for the demonstration of skills, in addition to organizing classroom exams to test theoretical knowledge.
• There are costs involved, too, in sending assessors to conduct assessments in alternative venues, particularly where geographical access is a factor.

Tips

• Use digital platforms and self-assessment tools, where applicable.
• One possible solution to geographical and access challenges is to train and empower refugees to become assessors. However, without documentation and nationally recognized ID, or acceptance by national institutions that refugees can be trained and certified as assessors, this remains aspirational.
• There may be instances where requests for RPL come directly from the employers. These can be good opportunities for piloting and scaling up RPL.

Financial barrier for applicants 

The costs for RPL applicants, such as assessment fees and the cost of transport to examination centres, can be a barrier for refugees and host community members with limited financial resources.

Tips

• Offer scholarships or subsidies to support refugees and host community members taking up RPL assessment.
• Partner with employers to subsidise or cover RPL assessment costs for job applicants or employees.
• Coordinate with other donor-funded programmes to certify graduates from their training programmes using RPL.

Hands-on support for RPL applicants 

RPL assessments do not just involve written examinations, but also individual assessment and demonstration of skills. Depending on the sector, applicants may need to prepare a portfolio of work, evidence of credentials they may have and a resumé. The way these items are presented will also vary from sector to sector. The process can take several months to complete. In cases where the applicant’s portfolio is deemed below standard, they are typically given an option to rework and resubmit it, which prolongs the process and, potentially, the costs involved.

Language and literacy 

Language accuracy can be lost in translating technical terms from one country to another. While greater weight is given to observation of practical skills, in some countries, a written theory test must be completed before the practical assessment. This can be problematic for population groups with low literacy rates or poor language skills, thus impacting their successful certification.

Digital skill profiling tools are helpful but still require time investment 

While agile skills profiling tools can play a role in targeting career services, they are no substitute for national recognition processes. The fact that SkillLab is a digital tool was also somewhat problematic for the PROSPECTS target group. In Egypt, following the piloting of the tool, a survey among refugee and host community job-seekers revealed that, while the tool was useful in capturing skills, it required an investment of time. Users reported taking between three and six hours to complete their profiles independently. They also felt the tool was of limited use in their own job-search process, with less than a third of users reporting that it helped them find a job. More intensive support and follow-up were needed from career counsellors, particularly for people who were less digitally literate.