Training in Debt Recording: Have We Got It Right?

Training in debt recording: have we got it right? I mulled over this question as I contemplated training delivery in yet another debt recording workshop. The concern arises from IMF/World Bank reports and others about poor debt data quality and a lack of debt transparency across many developing countries.

But why is data quality so poor? Many reports speak to the lack of debt data accuracy. Recent studies indicate that when recording, debt managers are misclassifying debt, incorrectly interpreting terms and conditions, ignoring internationally accepted debt definitions, and applying inconsistent standards.

Of course, there is also the problem of data entry errors and lack of complete data. But for now, let's focus on data accuracy and debt recording.

Let’s assume that the persons who train in debt recording are excellent trainers. Let’s also assume that the debt managers who are being trained to record are highly competent. (We may debate this at another time). What else could explain? Consider these:

Training is too short: In the past there was a suite of modules related to debt recording, often delivered in two-week instalments and were chock-full of exercises and case studies.  In a year, one could expect to complete all the required modules. This luxury no longer exists. Debt offices argue that they don’t have the time to release staff for such a long period, and training providers argue that it is too costly to deliver training for so long. In the end, capacity building suffers.

Training is too generic: Training is often not tailored to specific country circumstances. Exercises are often generic and simplified so that they can be completed within the course time. Debt managers find that there is no time to discuss or work through the complex or odd country cases that impede their ability to record accurately.

No foundation training: Effective debt recording requires debt managers to first have a good understanding of public debt definitions, creditor practices, loan agreements, and basic financial calculations. Often, these foundation pre-requisites are not on standard offer. Training is therefore often occurring in a vacuum. How many training providers, as a prerequisite, provide training in understanding loan agreements and how to interpret their terms and conditions to enable accurate debt recording?

Limited follow-through: Formal training is just the beginning of building capacity; effective application is essential to ensuring debt data accuracy. Too often, the recently trained are not required to quickly apply what they’ve learnt. Often too, there is no on-the-job support to answer follow-up questions that arise. For training providers, there seems to be little time or resources to assess the short/medium-term impact of training delivery. What if training providers required a deliverable, such as a measurable improvement in data quality? Is this possible? Would it help measure success?

What are your thoughts? How do we get it right?