Empirical data on follow-on training from BUILD initiatives can be hard to gather. It was therefore encouraging to be sent figures from efforts at AICMAR, described in an earlier post. 36 of 59 students who completed their BUILD-based diploma studies were sampled and the following figures were noted and observations made.
First, the training had been emphatic when it came to the importance of passing on learning to others. 100% of the sample followed through on this: every single one had trained others using BUILD materials or methods and a total of 423 individuals had been reached. If that figure is extrapolated for the 59, then a total of approximately 700 will have been reached, 693 being the estimate. One outlier showed extraordinary enthusiasm in passing on his training to 45 others. BUILD can have that effect. But if he is removed to normalise the findings and a new average is applied, the group remains responsible for equipping around 640 (637 the figure).
Second, students were assured that quality was as important as quantity and that follow-on training to a few peers was legitimate and to be encouraged. Against that background the lowest number reached by an individual was three (two individuals trained that number) and the highest 45, as we have noted above. If that exceptional individual is included the mean number trained per student is just under 12 (11.8), but even with the outlier removed the average is only reduced to just under 11 (10.8). These encouraging figures may well reflect local leadership development group sizes. In that distribution of leaders reached per trained trainer the person, apart from the individual who reached 45 others the next most prolific reached 24 others. The most frequent number reached was nine: six individuals reached out to that number with BUILD based training.
Third, the 59 BUILD graduates came from three distinct cohorts. 23 were part of a Church Workers Cohort made up of students in full-time ministry: priests, deacons, evangelists, lay readers and associate ministers. A further 15 were in a Chaplaincy Cohort, the majority of whom were early childhood development teachers and teachers from primary and secondary schools. Finally, there was a Regional Cohort, also with 23 graduates, drawn from the Western and Nyanza regions of the Anglican Church of Kenya, together with two students from Tanzania. Looking at those different types of leader, the Church Workers averaged just under 10 per person (9.7). The Chaplaincy members averaged a higher number: 15 (although the outlier was in their ranks and without him they averaged just under 11 (10.7)). Those from the Regional Cohort reached on average just over 14 others (14.3). That higher number may be due to the sustained focus on the incremental development of local leadership development groups in that group.
A final observation or comment is that it is impossible to quantify the more informal teaching and training that resulted. If the approximately 700 who were directly touched by the training (including the 59 themselves) were preaching to or praying for or sharing with just ten others on a week-by-week basis then the wider impact or influence is increased ten-fold. But of course many would be interacting and interfacing with much larger numbers in groups and congregations. The wider numbers of those influenced in some way by just 59 students in a single BUILD programme are then in the thousands.
