Training for peer educators

[Guest guest]

Dear All

There is a roll out of training for peer educators from NACO in all the States

and such training is conducted by respective SACS through STRCs and other

resource centers (where STRC has not been finalized).

The training sessions run for a period of four days at a stretch in a location

specified by the STRC. Peer educators from all TIs are invited to the location

for participation.

This method creates field level problems that need to be addressed.

a.  Peer educators spend six days for attending training sessions (considering

one day each way for travel) without any recompense for the time they provide

(except reimbursement of travel cost which is borne by the TI) coupled with loss

of income for the days they cannot sell sex.

b.  The training is oriented towards work required by TIs and projects informing

participants what to do and not necessarily how to do.

c.  Peer educators come from different districts and have varying levels of

skills and knowledge as all projects have been in implementation for varying

periods of time – so having a standardized training manual would result in

disinterest among peer educators as most of them either feel they are already

doing it; that it does not apply to their field situation, or feel the sessions

are repetitive in nature.

I personally feel while building capacities of peer educators is a non

negotiable part of HIV prevention interventions, unless it is done in a manner

that it can be put into implementation by such peer educators, it will be wasted

efforts.

Alternatively if such training is conducted in the TI locations with teams of

trainers drawn from STRC who could travel to the locations to provide technical

assistance, it will not take away livelihood of peers. It will also allow

discussions on field level issues faced by peers in the site for which the

trainers can provide assistance through field level handholding.

Further, the training curriculum can evolve based on site related issues on

which such capacity building is required instead of going with a one size fits

all thinking.

STRCs can plan their sessions through communication with the TI on their

training requirements rather than based on NACO/SACS mandate.

I am sure the cost of a few trainers traveling would be more economical than all

peer educators coming together to one location.

What could possibly be missed out in this is cross-learning through sharing of

experiences.

But at the same time it will ensure that peer educators who are active sex

workers would be able to take part in the training. Else, we may end up getting

only elderly peer educators who are willing to provide six days of their time at

a stretch to training.

Active sex workers who are also peer educators will find ways of skipping such

sessions on one pretext or the other.

It is important to provide thought on the current training methodology and modus

operandi.

In solidarity

Sreeram

Sreeram Varadadesikan

E-MAIL: <setlurs01@...>