i 
Colombia-US Human Rights Law School Partnership 
Program 
Evaluation Report 
 Presented by 
Fernando Rojas, Catherine Romero 
and 
Françoise Roth 
July 2015
US-Colombia Partnership Program – Evaluation report Page ii
Table of content 
ABBREVIATIONS IV
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY V
FINDINGS V
RELEVANCE VI
EFFICIENCY VII
EFFECTIVENESS VIII
RESULTS IX
SUSTAINABILITY IX
MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS X
2. INTRODUCTION 1
OBJECTIVE OF THE EVALUATION 1
EVALUATION METHODOLOGY 2
APPROACHES OF THE EVALUATION 2
Comprehensive and systematic approach 2
Analysis to construct learning 3
Principles included in the analysis 3
DATA COLLECTION METHODS 3
Desk review of material 3
Semi-structured interviews and field visits 3
LIMITATIONS ENCOUNTERED DURING THE EVALUATION 5
PRESENTATION OF THE REPORT 6
3. OVERVIEW OF THE PROGRAM AND THE PARTNERSHIPS 6
OVERVIEW OF THE PROGRAM 6
OVERVIEW OF EACH PARTNERSHIP 9
ANTIOQUIA PARTNERSHIP 9
VALLE DEL CAUCA PARTNERSHIP 10
CARIBBEAN COAST PARTNERSHIP 11
4. EVALUATION FINDINGS 13
RELEVANCE OF THE PROGRAM 15
EFFICIENCY OF THE PROGRAM 20
EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PROGRAM 27
RESULTS OF THE PROGRAM 32
SUSTAINABILITY OF THE PROGRAM 34
5. CONCLUSIONS 35
6. RECOMMENDATIONS 38
7. ANNEXES 7-1
ANNEX 1. EVALUATION QUESTIONS GRID 7-1
ANNEX 2. LIST OF THE PERSONS INTERVIEWED 7-6
US-Colombia Partnership Program – Evaluation report Page iii
ANNEX 3. PARTNERSHIP LEVEL FINDINGS 7-13
ANTIOQUIA PARTNERSHIP 7-13
Relevance 7-13
Efficiency 7-14
Effectiveness 7-16
Results 7-18
Sustainability 7-21
VALLE DEL CAUCA PARTNERSHIP 7-21
Relevance 7-21
Efficiency 7-23
Effectiveness 7-25
Results 7-27
Sustainability 7-30
THE CARIBBEAN COAST PARTNERSHIP 7-31
Relevance 7-31
Efficiency 7-32
Effectiveness 7-34
Results 7-37
Sustainability 7-39
US-Colombia Partnership Program – Evaluation report Page iv
Abbreviations 
ACE American Council on Education
AU American University
CGR Center for Governmental Responsibility - UF
CLAS Center for Latin American Studies - UF
HED Higher Education for Development
HEI Higher education institution
LGBTI Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, Trans, Interex
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
NGO Non governmental organization 
PUJC Pontificia Universidad Javeriana de Cali 
RBM Results-based management
RFA Request for Application 
SOW Scope of Work
UCO Universidad Católica del Oriente 
UDEA Universidad de Antioquia
UDEM Universidad de Medellín
UF University of Florida
UM Universidad del Magdalena
UMN University of Minnesota-Twin Cities 
UN Universidad del Norte
UPB Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana
US United States
USAID US Agency for International Development
USC Universidad Santiago de Cali 
WCL Washington College of Law
US-Colombia Partnership Program – Evaluation report Page v 
1. Executive summary 
This report presents the findings of the external final evaluation of the Colombia-US Human 
Rights Law School Partnership Program (the Program), a three-and-a-half year initiative 
implemented by Higher Education for Development (HED) in Colombia. 
The Program was aimed at improving human rights education and training in regional law 
schools, and promoting a culture of acceptance and respect for human rights. Its specific 
objectives were to: 
1. Strengthen the institutional capacity of Colombian schools of law to train future legal 
practitioners in human rights by introducing or strengthening curriculum in human 
rights as well as experiential models of legal education, such as clinics and externships; 
2. Enhance the outreach capacity of regional law schools to better serve vulnerable 
populations with limited access to or knowledge of the legal system through the creation 
of cross-regional law school human rights networks; and 
3. Equip future legal professionals with an understanding of national and international 
standards of human rights and the skills to support human rights reform in Colombia. 
Funded by the US Agency for International Development Mission in Colombia 
(USAID/Colombia), it supported three partnerships between United States (US) and Colombia 
universities: 
 Antioquia Partnership: University of Minnesota (UMN) with Universidad de Antioquia 
(UDEA), Universidad de Medellín (UDEM), Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana (UPB), 
and Universidad Católica de Oriente (UCO); 
 Valle del Cauca Partnership: American University (AU) with Universidad Santiago de 
Cali (USC) and Pontificia Universidad Javeriana Cali (PUJC); 
 Caribbean Coast Partnership: University of Florida (UF) with Universidad del Norte 
(UN) and Universidad del Magdalena (UM).
The evaluation was conducted between March and June 2015. It considered the Program from a 
comprehensive and systemic performance programming perspective, as well as a prospective 
approach. The findings present the analysis according to the evaluation criteria: relevance, 
efficiency, effectiveness, results and sustainability (the findings for each of the three partnerships 
are separately analyzed in Annex 3 of the report). They derived from a detailed desk review of 
Program materials as well as the realization of more than 125 interviews in the three regions of 
implementation and in the US. 
FINDINGS 
The US-Colombia Partnership Program was a well-structured initiative, carefully managed and 
monitored, which has produced some noticeable results. As with most other educational 
programs, its final impact can only be judged in the medium term. For the time being, the 
US-Colombia Partnership Program – Evaluation report Page vi
assessment focused on the extent to which the Program achieved the products and outcomes 
expected from its three-year implementation. 
The Program had a rather complex structure and demanding operation: 
 Three regional US-Colombia partnerships, involving directly eleven partners that had 
little or no interaction prior to the Program, which implied huge logistical challenges in 
dealing with different management stability and capabilities, each institution having its 
own procedures, restrictions and opportunities;
 Asymmetry of context, mandates, vision, specialization, interests or opportunity 
costs among the parties involved; 
 Application of a results-based management for program design and program 
management to/by some organizations that were not familiar with performance 
programming or performance management;
 Different baseline per partner/partnerships, demanding different goals, strategies, 
support or resource per partner/partnerships. 
Relevance 
Relevance of the objectives. Undoubtedly, the Colombian context makes human rights 
relevant –even priority-- for Colombia’s higher education institutions (HEIs). Improving the 
teaching of human rights is relevant to train generations of lawyers to be more 
knowledgeable on the issues involved, and more motivated to pursue human rights-related tasks. 
Furthermore, after years of relative silence, Colombian universities have an important role to 
play in human rights debates.1 This is particularly true in regions other than the capital city. 
Design of the Program. The Program design reflected an overall strategy to deal with its 
complex structure, demanding operation and risk factors through: 
 flexible specific objectives per partnership within a wide-open menu of areas of 
intervention grouped under three general categories. This scheme allowed each partner 
to find its own interests and define its own roles within the partnership; 
 common overarching goals and expected impact for a shared, unifying concept and 
purpose of the Program;
 monitoring and mid-term evaluation tools that used a common set of indicators, yet 
allowed for customized indicators tailored to each individual partnership (or even 
partners within each partnership).
However, the Program operated as if it had been formulated from the activities rather than 
focusing first on the outcomes to consider all necessary preconditions to achieve them. To 
strengthen the capacity of law school to train in human rights, a project needs to start from this 
goal to consider its intermediate objectives, define its activities and define the essential inputs
required to attain its goal, such as ensuring sufficient and adequate resource and processes 
(including faculty and administrative staff, budget, financial management, decision-making
 
1
 During the last four decades, human rights issues have been intensively debated in Colombia among NGOs, 
the Executive, the Judiciary, Congress and independent monitoring and control organizations. 
US-Colombia Partnership Program – Evaluation report Page vii 
process, implementation capacity). A thorough analysis should have also identified the necessary 
preconditions for as well as the risk factors that may hinder the achievements of the Program’s 
outcomes. Otherwise, and it is what the development of the Program showed, a disconnect will 
appear between the activities implemented and their impact. HED Program management team, 
including its monitoring system, should have made every possible effort to bridge detected gaps 
for the success of the Program.
Additionally, the Program was clearly conceived to pursue its overarching goals through three 
different partnerships, not from a comprehensive perspective. Its results were reported 
accordingly, i.e. according to each partnership’s results, rendering the analysis of the Program as 
a whole a complex endeavor. 
Institutional arrangement. Institutional arrangements, such as partnerships, need to fit the 
perceived needs or opportunities of participating institutions as well as their awareness of the 
costs and benefits of engagement in partnerships. In Colombia, the choice of working 
through partnerships of universities was set by USAID/Colombia as a precondition for the 
execution of the Program; it did not result from a feasibility analysis or the request of the 
partners. Some conditions favored positive results in Antioquia, not so in the other two 
regions.
Gender perspective in the Program design. Isolated references were made to women and 
LGBTI persons as targeted populations, and to differential approaches, mentions that did not 
suffice to give a gender perspective to the initiative.
Efficiency 
The choice of the law schools as critical resource for the Program. The most critical 
resource for the success of the Program was the participating law schools. The selection of 
Colombian law schools appeared to have been made on the basis of the assessment of each 
school’s commitment to the specific objectives of the Program: (i) curriculum development; (ii) 
community outreach and service; (iii) faculty development; and (iv) institutional strengthening. 
According to these criteria, the choice of the targeted education centers was sound. It 
encompasses HEIs that have a great potential for improvement, and have the capacity to impact 
in their region. However, other aspects, critical for the implementation of the Program, 
appear not to have been assessed nor given significant weight, such as the institutional 
capacity and willingness to implement the above commitments; demonstrated achievements and 
commitment regarding the overarching goal of the project; commitment to combine actions and 
tools in order to create synergies among the three specific program objectives; or demonstrated 
experience and/or commitment to work together in partnership or otherwise capacity to work in 
a partnership. Consideration of these elements would have certainly allowed assessing some of 
the universities differently, appraise and foresee potential risks, and develop a mitigation strategy. 
The choice of working in partnerships to ensure major efficiency. The Program chose to 
have the universities in each region work in partnership. Partnerships were perceived as 
coverage and quality leverage to secure the expected regional impact of the Program. However, 
since neither Colombian law schools nor, more broadly, HEIs have much of an associative 
tradition to strengthen capacity and reach higher goals, the inclusion of the partnership as a 
US-Colombia Partnership Program – Evaluation report Page viii 
necessary element of the Program design had, at its onset, no clear relevance for most of the 
Colombian parties. The willingness of the Colombian universities to work in partnerships, the 
operative conditions of the consortium, and the criteria to choose them are not explicit in the 
design documents. Moreover, the choice of working through partnership introduced high 
risks to project efficiency and effectiveness together. 
The monitoring and evaluation system (M&E). HED M&E system is a very sophisticated 
and solid mechanism. Planning and reporting on activities and according to higher-level 
objectives was new for most of the Colombian universities. Virtues and benefits were 
recognized to the M&E system: it forced universities to plan and organize their activities, 
respond for them accordingly, make their results visible, and gather relevant information on and 
for their work. However, almost-unanimously, the M&E system (from the establishment of the 
baseline and indicators to the reporting requirements) was perceived as burdensome, time￾consuming and not the most adequate to reflect the outcomes or impact of the Program in 
terms of the changes the universities were realizing. 
The financial resource. Regarding the use of the Program financial resource, three issues are 
worth noting. First, the fact that, upon a USAID decision, the Program finally applied to eight 
Colombian universities, rather than five as initially planned, necessarily affected the distribution 
of financial resources. The second issue deals with the staffing of the partnerships. In 
Antioquia, part of the budget was allocated to pay the salary of three persons especially in charge 
of coordinating the partnership. This option contributed significantly to the efficiency of the 
implementation of the activities there. The last point concerns the contract with the security 
company Gardaworld: its approach appeared not to be necessarily the most adequate for human 
rights work; the company lost credibility with the Colombian partners, and was considered of 
very little use to them.
Effectiveness 
Undoubtedly, the Colombia-US Human Rights Law School Partnership Program proved 
that higher-level education partnerships could encourage and foster concrete results: a 
change of paradigm in faculty and students; joint work between universities on strategic issues; 
the inclusion of new methods for higher-education in human rights; the strengthening of 
professors’ knowledge and capacity; modifications in some university curriculum. Taking 
together, these achievements should have led to the completion of the Program objectives. 
However, not all of them were attained in each region –or at every law school -, and not all of 
them were reached at the same level of execution. 
Several factors that contributed to positive results within the partnerships can be identified: 
(i) the approach of the US universities and their relationship with their Colombian partners; (ii) 
their knowledge of the Colombian context, their capacity to adapt; (iii) the management scheme 
of partnership. However, the Program lost opportunities to foster its results. Most of the 
partners focused their work towards the implementation of activities, losing the sight of the 
outcome result. Furthermore, the Program did not encourage law schools to develop each one 
of its three areas of intervention in a balanced, much less a combined way.
US-Colombia Partnership Program – Evaluation report Page ix
Effectiveness of the Program depended largely on effectiveness of the monitoring exercise. In 
order to be effective, HED management and implementation teams (two separate teams) 
should have been guided by a prefigured implementation plan to guide the Program 
monitoring, taking into account its possible implementation risks and foreseeing risk-mitigation 
strategies. It would have allowed the partners to re-focus their work toward the outcomes.
Results 
Some concrete and very promising results were achieved through the Program. However, the 
delay incurred at the onset of the Program to establish the baseline and the indicators for 
each partnership, if necessary and perhaps unavoidable, led to the perception that results are 
just beginning to be seen –or are expected for some time later. This perception further 
jeopardized expected outcomes during the life of the Program. On the positive side, it protected 
the credibility of the Program by making it look more like the pilot-exploratory phase of a more 
ambitious and long-term initiative. 
When the magnitude of the Program’s risks is taken into account, the Program can at best be 
characterized as a high risk-high impact venture. However, this characterization for the entire 
Program veils the fact that results and impact were very different by regional partnership and –
above all—by law school. All in all, it was a risky Program with highly differentiated actors and 
results. In view of this overall finding, the most positive characterization that can be made of 
the Program is that of the first phase of an envisioned strategy towards strengthening 
engagement of law schools in and enhancing their impact upon human rights in Colombia. This 
first phase concluded with some unequal results. 
Sustainability 
Did the Program successfully institutionalize enough capacity to secure continuation 
after USAID resources are gone? Are law schools committed to continue supporting (or 
expanding) that precise capacity that has explained achievements leading to the higher-level goal 
of the Program? Some participating law schools have shown their interest and commitment at 
pursuing the efforts developed, for instance by securing the institutionalization of legal clinics 
and/or financing faculty to manage the clinics or train on human rights. However, 
institutionalizing human rights training in universities implies not only financial resources. It 
entails foremost the commitment and involvement of the HEIs leadership with human 
rights, as a fundamental piece to ensure the development and sustainability of an initiative of 
that sort. This involvement is clear in some universities, uncertain in others, absent in some
others. 
Did the Program produced outcomes whose benefits are guaranteed to extend beyond 
the closure of the Program? The Program has produced some interesting results, some of 
which might extend beyond the closure of the Program. However, it is too premature to assess 
their sustainability, since the Program is scarcely showing its first results. 
US-Colombia Partnership Program – Evaluation report Page x 
Is the relationship and collaboration between the partners sustainable? Sustainability of 
the core concept of the Program is heavily dependent on the initial selection of participating law 
schools. If partnership arrangements are seen as an essential component of future institutional 
arrangements, the process of selection should have essentially required experience and/or 
evidence of commitment of selected law schools to regularly or permanently work in 
partnerships. If sustainability of the Program objectives includes further institutionalization of 
partnerships, partnership-formation should have been seen as a goal by itself from the early 
design of the Program. 
MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS 
1. Bearing in mind that the present report is aimed at learning from the experience, the 
evaluation team strongly recommends that a validation process be conducted with the 
Program partners, in Colombia and in the US, in order to share the conclusions contained 
in the present report, and receive and discuss their comments.2
The evaluation team considers that the following recommendations could guide the 
implementation of future initiatives similar to the Partnership under consideration:
2. Projects this complex can be flexible indeed. Flexibility needs to be balanced with explicit, 
ex-ante (during planning phase) agreements on those arrangements that will be decisive 
for the outcomes and impact of the program. This entails: 
a. Criteria for school selection need to be structured in such a way that they help 
minimize predictable risks for reaching program outcomes and impact. 
Accountability for quality of program design and management is enhanced when 
one agent is fully responsible for selection of participating schools;
b. Engagement of the partners during program planning needs to explicitly include: 
a) criteria for selection of domestic law schools, b) alignment between the 
school’s mission and the Program’s expected outcomes; c) matching of interests 
and capabilities with other members of the partnership, d) selection criteria, 
commitments and expectation from participation of the US partners; 
c. If a partnership is either expected or required, the US partners need to know in 
advance the strengths and weaknesses, opportunities and restrictions of their
domestic partners and vice versa; 
d. Should participants lack direct experience in partnership formation and 
implementation, prior training is needed before the parties enter into the 
negotiation phase of each partnership;
e. The joint plan of action should consist of fully structured individual projects that 
mirror the interests of participating parties and produce benefits no individual 
party can attain by itself; 
f. Planning time should not be confused with implementation time; 
 
2 The focus of the proposed partners’ validation is this report’s global analysis, lessons learned and 
recommendations. Since no attempt has been made to prepare case studies --law school by law school, 
validation is not about the extent to which the report did/did not take into account individual interviews or 
every piece of evidence supplied to the evaluation team. 
US-Colombia Partnership Program – Evaluation report Page xi
g. Sustainability of the initiative is crucial and should be envisaged from the onset 
of the Program. 
3. Regarding the M&E system: 
a. Monitoring indicators should be discussed and agreed during the planning 
phase; 
b. Familiarity and acceptance of the costs and benefits of results-based 
management framework, including M&E, should be secured before the Program 
starts; 
c. Program goals can be adjusted over time –particularly in risky programs -, as 
long as new goals are negotiated and their monitoring and evaluation is agreed 
upon; 
d. Monitoring should be based upon pre-defined implementation trajectory –not 
just result matrices. 
e. Domestic partners need to be actively engaged in analytical monitoring, 
conclusions and subsequent commitments; 
f. Simple tasks need to be reported and analyzed in terms of their contribution to 
Program outcomes. 
4. Regarding roles and responsibilities: 
a. Comparative advantages of domestic partners should be identified at the 
beginning and be included as an essential component of the partnership. 
b. Flexibility and attention to the needs of the partners by US HEIs are key factors 
to favor a successful relationship;
c. Incentives for each participant need to be explicitly listed and accounted for. 
This is an essential part of any successful partnership; 
d. External support by an expert partnership formation and facilitator is desirable. 
Partnerships are neither processes nor results that can be left to initial 
commitment or Program inertia.
5. Regarding universities’ strategy to strengthen human rights training:
a. The work on the curriculum is essential but might require time. Alternative 
strategies should be encountered to pave the way to the required curricular 
modification. 
b. Before launching any outreach program (for example, in communities, in 
schools, in prisons), universities should ensure that: (i) the activities respond to 
the needs of the targeted population, and are prepared with them; (ii) professors 
and students have the sufficient knowledge to conduct the proposed activities 
(especially knowledge of popular education); (iii) the universities are aware of the 
work that might have been initiated by other entities in the same areas (such as 
NGOs or public institutions); (iv) the universities do not enter to compete with 
NGOs but complement their work. 
c. On the same token, it is essential that universities maintain a constructive dialog 
with the NGOs and civil society organizations in general in order to learn from 
their experiences, coordinate their initiatives, when possible work together, and 
avoid, to the extent possible, to enter into competition with one another. 
US-Colombia Partnership Program – Evaluation report Page 1 
2. Introduction 
Higher Education for Development (HED) is a Program of the American Council on Education 
(ACE) aimed at managing higher education partnerships that address global development 
challenges. HED is funded by a cooperative agreement with USAID, which provides the 
mechanisms through which USAID missions can use HED Program to manage the grants of 
higher education partnerships. 
Through the partnerships, United States (US) higher education institutions (HEIs) enter in 
partnership with peer entities in developing countries to improve their capacity to contribute to 
local and national development goals.
The Colombia-US Human Rights Law School Partnership Program (hereinafter “the Program”) 
is a three-year initiative implemented in Colombia. It is aimed at improving human rights 
education and training in law schools, and promoting a culture of acceptance and respect for 
human rights. Funded by the US Agency for International Development Mission in Colombia 
(USAID/Colombia), it supports three partnerships: in Antioquia, Valle de Cauca and in the 
Caribbean Coast. The Program has been managed, closely supported and monitored by HED.
HED foresaw the realization of a final evaluation during the last semester of the Program 
execution, which concludes in the field on June 30, 2015. HED appointed three external 
consultants for this purpose. The evaluation was conducted between March and June 2015. 
Objective of the evaluation 
According to its Scope of Work (SOW), the evaluation is to generate knowledge about how 
higher education partnership could contribute to addressing the needs of groups that are 
disproportionally affected by human rights violations in Colombia. To this end, the Program 
was analyzed according to the following criteria: 
(i) the relevance of its design; 
(ii) the efficiency of its management processes and systems; 
(iii) the effectiveness of its implementation; 
(iv) its results; and 
(v) the potential for its sustainability. 
At the request of HED, specific attention was drawn on the results achieved under Program 
Objective 2 (To enhance the outreach capacity of regional law schools to better serve vulnerable populations with 
limited access to or knowledge of the legal system through the creation of cross-regional law school human rights 
networks).
Regarding the management efficiency, the evaluation team focused on the quality of 
performance management process, including management efficiency where there was enough 
US-Colombia Partnership Program – Evaluation report Page 2 
information for cost/effectiveness analysis, and the use of monitoring progress and intermediate 
evaluation to secure achievement of development goals through better utilization of available 
resources. By primarily addressing management assessment through the lens of results￾framework (as proposed in the SOW), the evaluation team overcame the lack of information for 
cost-benefit analysis strictu sensu3 while expanding the efficiency analysis to more relevant 
Program management issues. 
Evaluation methodology 
Approaches of the evaluation 
The evaluation is approached from a comprehensive and systemic performance programming 
perspective and a prospective stance. 
Comprehensive and systematic approach
As outlined in the Internal Mid-Term Evaluation SOW, the Program is “specifically designed 
and is being implemented around the Program-level results framework”. This evaluation thus 
considers the Program from a comprehensive and systemic performance programming 
perspective, as having one overarching development goal, several components and intermediate 
results as well as synergies among components, and lower level products, processes and 
activities. This evaluation approach thus gives more weight to those Program features that have 
contributed to its overarching objective. 
The comprehensiveness of the approach entails (i) considering the Program as a whole, as 
opposed to considering the three partnerships in isolation; (ii) whenever possible, doing intra￾and inter-partnership analysis; and (iii) examining how the Program strategically took into 
account the context where it took place. The latter has to do with the way the Program 
capitalized on strengths and opportunities while minimizing the impact of context-restrictions 
and mitigating the risks. 
This analysis includes the particular review of each partnership in terms of design, management 
and results, taking into account the institutional and contextual differences existing between 
regions and universities. This analysis is developed extensively in annex 3. It also entails 
comparison of the way each partnership capitalized on its strengths to contribute to the 
Program’s development goal while securing relevance to and appropriation by each participating 
school. 
The main challenge of the evaluation is to account for the major structural achievements of the 
Program in terms of its development goal, i.e. how the Program contributes to the strengthening 
of the human rights culture and social changes in Colombia to create a democracy more 
inclusive and respectful of the rights of its citizens. Therefore, the present analysis keeps in 
mind at all times how leadership, activities, processes and intermediate results play a part in this 
 
3
 Which would have required specialized activity-product-result-benefits costing and comparative cost￾benchmarking. 
US-Colombia Partnership Program – Evaluation report Page 3 
overarching goal. In assessing the results achieved, consideration is also made of (i) the changes 
in individual learners; (ii) the changes in the work of learners’ organizations; and (iii) the changes 
in the state or condition of beneficiaries of the work, and in the broader community. 
Analysis to construct learning 
Evaluations ask simple questions: What are the results of the work? What is the contribution of 
the institution to that result? What does work and what does not? Why? What can be changed? 
It offers an institution an opportunity for improvement through the identification of 
innovations, lessons learned and good practices.
Although the Program is ending in June 2015, the evaluation had a prospective goal with the 
view of gathering knowledge for future programs of similar nature. It is oriented at (i) 
identifying key results, best practices and lessons learned; and (ii) formulating general and 
specific recommendations should there be, in the future, supplementary or similar programs, 
either in Colombia or elsewhere. 
Principles included in the analysis
The evaluation placed special emphasis on two main perspectives: i) the human rights-based 
approach, with particular emphasis on the principle of participation of stakeholders; ii) the 
gender perspective. 
Data collection methods 
Data and information were collected through two main methods: (1) a desk review of materials, 
which provided valuable information resulting from meticulous design recording and monitoring 
process; (2) semi-structured interviews carried out in the regions where the Program was 
implemented as well as in the US, with the persons in charge of the Program and Program 
Quality and Impact Team at HED, and with US participating universities. The evaluation team 
also discussed preliminary findings with USAID/Colombia officials. 
Desk review of material 
The Program has been meticulously recorded and reported on during planning and 
implementation phases. From the beginning of the evaluation exercise, HED put at the disposal 
of the evaluation team detailed and organized material on the Program’s design, management, 
monitoring and results. These documents provided helpful project concept background and
quantitative data (resulting from the reporting of results as well as from the survey carried out 
during HED mid-term assessment). Initial assessment reports, regular monitoring reports, and 
meeting notes from the three partnerships completed them from a qualitative perspective. 
The review of these documents allowed the evaluation team to develop preliminary hypothesis 
from which to prepare a detailed work plan, with emphasis on information gathering and 
hypothesis testing while in the field (see “Inception report”, April 2015). 
Semi-structured interviews and field visits 
The field visits to the three regions where the Program was implemented took place between 
April 23 and May 19, 2015. The evaluation team was divided into two sub-groups of two 
US-Colombia Partnership Program – Evaluation report Page 4 
persons: one sub-team conducted the visit in Antioquia (April 23-30), while the other went to 
Cali (May 4 to 7), Santa Marta (May 8 to 11) and Barranquilla (May 11 to 14). 
The main objective of these visits was to collect first-hand information to complement the data 
obtained through the desk review. Individual and group conversations were conducted 
according to a semi-structured interview method, based on the questions previously identified 
(see question grid in Annex 1). The triangulation of the information allowed perceiving 
similarities and/or discrepancies of the information. 
More than 125 interviews were carried out, in the three regions, in Bogotá and in the US (see list 
of the persons interviewed in Annex 2). Information was obtained from a wide range of 
stakeholders, directly involved in the Program or external to it:
 partnerships’ coordinators;
 deans of the law schools;
4
 faculty involved in the partnerships; 
 students that benefitted from the partnerships;
 individuals from the communities where the partnerships carried out outreach activities; 
 administrators of the universities part of the partnerships; 
 academics, external to the partnerships; 
 NGOs and other civil society members;
 leaders of law faculty networks focused on impact-driven law school community 
services; 
 experts on human rights legal teaching, action-oriented legal research and outreach 
services.
Additionally, the two sub-groups of the evaluation team met separately with USAID/Colombia 
(Office of Democracy and Human Rights) and HED coordinator in Bogotá. 
One focal group was organized in Antioquia5 with the coordination team (which consists of the 
coordinators of the Antioquia partnership and the universities’ focal points), following the 
method defined in the inception report. The discussion enabled to observe the group dynamic 
(what is said, what is silenced), and to take into consideration the priority given by the group to 
some issues. Positive feedbacks were obtained from some of the participants in the focal group: 
According to them, it gave them the opportunity to discuss issues they have not had the 
opportunity to reflect on collectively. 
In Antioquia, the evaluation team accompanied the Universidad Católica del Oriente (UCO) faculty 
and students to a prison visit to the municipal detention center of the city of Rionegro. It gave 
the evaluation team the opportunities to grasp the challenges students face while doing this sort 
of outreach activities. The team also visited Universidad de Antioquia (UDEA) section in 
Sonsón, where it met with students recipient of the courses provided through the partnership.6
They described their work in the Victims’ Attention Center (Centro de Atención a Víctimas), 
 
4
 Seven (out of eight) law school deans were interviewed. 
5
 Complicated logistical arrangements and limited time in the field prevented the evaluation team from having 
focus groups in Valle del Cauca and in the Caribbean Coast. 
6
 This visit was particularly relevant since it was the first time the students were interviewed in the framework 
of the Program’s monitoring. 
US-Colombia Partnership Program – Evaluation report Page 5 
established in the municipality, and with the resettled community of Arrayán, in the neighboring 
municipality of Nariño. 
In Valle del Cauca, the team met with members of the Cali archdiocese to obtain information 
with regards to the regional law schools outreach projects, in particular of the Pontificia 
Universidad Javeriana de Cali (PUJC) and Universidad Santiago de Cali (USC). 
In the Atlantic Coast, Universidad del Norte (UN or Uninorte) organized meetings with different
stakeholders, NGOs, and community leaders to discuss the role the Center of Humans Rights
and of the partnership play in the Caribbean Coast. In addition, the evaluation team met with
community leaders, students, the law school dean and UN staff. In Universidad del Magdalena
(UM), the team met with the Dean of the law school, UM Program Coordinator, its Department
of Anthropology Director and many students associated with the Program.
Finally, in the US, the partnerships’ directors in the three American universities involved 
(University of Minnesota – UMN-, American University –AU-, and the University of Florida –
UF-) were also asked to provide their analysis. Valuable inputs were also obtained from two 
separate meetings organized with HED, one with the Program Quality and Impact team the 
other with the Colombia Program coordinator, and meetings with HED representative based in 
Colombia. 
Despite the busy end-of-the-semester agenda and general workload, partners and other 
interviewees showed great disposition for sometimes-long interviews. These interviews gave rise 
to very honest and constructive reflections and dialog. 
The evaluation team greatly appreciated the disposition of all the interlocutors and the quality of 
their contributions. Without those, the analysis would have been partial. It also very much 
valued the work that HED and universities’ staff realized to allow for a smooth development of 
the evaluation activities. 
Limitations encountered during the evaluation 
In general, the evaluation team benefitted from a cordial reception and collaboration from 
partners in Colombia and in the US. It did not encounter very worrisome limitations, more so
some minor inconveniences –more related to logistical coordination under severe time 
constraints than anything else.
7 
Certain tiredness was perceivable among the partners with regards to the Program’s monitoring 
and evaluation processes,8 reinforced by the sensation that reporting requirements had not 
necessarily benefited the Program’s higher-level goals or the school’s vision. As a result, it was 
sensed that some interlocutors were reluctant to apart the time for the interview. Yet, 
interviewees recognized that the external evaluation was tackling issues they had not reflected on 
before.
Linked to the prior fact is certainly the insufficient knowledge and understanding by the partners 
in the field of project planning, monitoring and evaluation techniques. This situation might have 
 
7
 For example, competing agenda or absence of the main interlocutors obliged the evaluation team to last￾minute meetings reorganization 
8
 In fact, the field visit followed HED internal final evaluation by only few weeks. 
US-Colombia Partnership Program – Evaluation report Page 6 
entailed certain incomprehension of the evaluation reiterative interview practices, data collection 
methods and exceptional last minute requests to locate new interlocutors. A translation into 
Spanish of the evaluation methodology might have helped to overcome this inconvenience.9
Presentation of the report 
The report is divided into four parts. After a brief description of the Program and of the three 
partnerships, the analysis of the findings is presented according to the five evaluation criteria 
defined in the SOW: relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, results and sustainability. 
The Program is reviewed from a comprehensive perspective. The evaluation is based on a four￾step analysis:
(i) the analysis of the Program design;
(ii) the analysis of the intervention logic, including the examination of the strategy logic 
model, the thematic areas of intervention, the channels chosen for the intervention, 
the choice of the partners and of the supported projects; 
(iii) the analysis of the contribution of the intervention: It focuses on the results, 
achievements and quality of results-information; 
(iv) lessons learned and best practices. 
The characteristics and results of the Program cannot be understood without a look at each of 
the three partnerships, which ended to be very distinctive one from the other. For this reason, 
the three partnerships are analyzed separately. For space limitation, this analysis is presented in 
Annex 3. 
In the third part, drawing from the lessons learned provided by the implementation of the 
Program, the conclusions intend to provide reflective elements to answer the central question of 
the evaluation: how higher education partnership could contribute to addressing the needs of 
groups that are disproportionally affected by human rights violations in Colombia. The final 
part offers key recommendations that Program leaders at different levels could take into
consideration for the development of similar initiatives. 
3. Overview of the Program and the partnerships 
Overview of the Program 
The Program is a three-and-an-half-year initiative that started in December 2011 with the signing 
of an Associate Award agreement between HED and USAID/Colombia. It will conclude in 
September 30, 2015 (in June 30, 2015 for the sub-awards). 
 
9
 As discussed later, the Colombian partners were broadly unfamiliar with results or performance driven 
programs. In the absence of special training and demonstration, with emphasis on clear selection of higher 
level goals and corresponding indicators as well as the value of measuring, reporting and analytical monitoring, 
the Colombian schools could not appreciate effort to objectively register and report large amounts of 
information –often too detailed. 
US-Colombia Partnership Program – Evaluation report Page 7 
It is framed in the 2011-2015 USAID’s Education Strategy and contributes to its goal 2: improved 
ability of tertiary and workforce development Programs to generate workforce skills relevant to a country’s 
development goals. It also plays a part in USAID/Colombia Assistance Objective framework (in 
particular its objective 3: strengthened democratic and economic governance and respect for human rights), in 
its Human Rights Program, which focuses on enhancing the efforts of civil society and the 
government of Colombia to improve respect for human rights, and in its rule of law 
programming, which aims at promoting greater access to justice.10
The overarching purpose of the Program is to support national and local initiatives to improve 
respect for and protection of human rights. Its intermediate outcome is aimed at 
strengthening the capacities of Colombian regional law schools to provide formal and non￾formal training in human rights. The specific objectives of the Program are to: 
1. Strengthen the institutional capacity of Colombian schools of law to train future legal 
practitioners in human rights by introducing or strengthening curriculum in human 
rights as well as experiential models of legal education, such as clinics and externships; 
2. Enhance the outreach capacity of regional law schools to better serve vulnerable 
populations with limited access to or knowledge of the legal system through the 
creation of cross-regional law school human rights networks; and 
3. Equip future legal professionals with an understanding of national and international 
standards of human rights and the skills to support human rights reform in Colombia. 
The Program places special emphasis in law schools located in conflict-prone regions of the 
country, and in addressing the rights of the groups disproportionally affected by human rights 
violations. 
The following diagram illustrates the Program’s overarching logic. 
 
10 HED, Request for Application (RFA): Colombia-US Human Rights Law School Partnership Program, p. 4. 
US-Colombia Partnership Program – Evaluation report Page 8 
The identification of the Program’s partners followed a multi-phased process. During the first 
semester of 2012, a “design team” of four human rights education experts from US and 
Colombian law schools conducted an initial institutional assessment of 17 Colombian 
universities in five regions of the country.11 The assessment pointed out four programmatic 
areas to be prioritized through the Program: (i) curriculum development; (ii) community 
outreach and service; (iii) faculty development; and (iv) institutional strengthening.12 On the 
basis of the assessment, three partnerships were formed involving eight law schools.13 A 
Request for Application (RFA) was then launched on May 21, 2012, to which five US 
universities presented their proposal. Based on the recommendations of a Peer Review, the 
following partnerships were chosen:14
 Antioquia Partnership: University of Minnesota (UMN) with Universidad de 
Antioquia (UDEA), Universidad de Medellín (UDEM), Universidad Pontificia 
Bolivariana (UPB), and Universidad Católica de Oriente (UCO); 
 Valle del Cauca Partnership: American University (AU) with Universidad Santiago de 
Cali (USC) and Pontificia Universidad Javeriana Cali (PUJC);
 Caribbean Coast Partnership: University of Florida (UF) with Universidad del Norte 
(UN) and Universidad del Magdalena (UM).
The sub-award agreements between HED and the three US universities were signed in October 
19, 2012, initiating the Program implementation at regional partnership level. During the first 
 
11 USAID/Colombia pre-selected the 17 universities that would be reviewed. 
12 HED/USAID, Colombia-US Human Rights Law Partnership, Mid-term evaluation report, June 17, 2014, 
pp. 1 and 2. 
13 Initially, the Program was considered for five Colombian universities. 
14 It is important to note that USAID/Colombia made the final selection of the universities that would be 
involved. 
HIGHER LEVEL OBJECTIVE /FINAL 
OUTCOME
Prevent and remedy human rights 
violations
OUTCOME 1
Strengthen institutional 
capacity for human rights legal 
educacion
OUTCOME 2
Increase law school outreach 
capacity
OUTCOME 3
Equip future legal 
professionals with human 
rights training
INTERMEDIATE OBJECTIVE
Strengthen institutional 
capacity to provide formal and 
non-formal training in HR
US-Colombia Partnership Program – Evaluation report Page 9 
months, each of the US universities reviewed with their corresponding partners in Colombia 
their planning, and established the required baseline and indicators. Within the framework of 
the sub-award agreements, each partnership had the autonomy to decide on the priorities and 
implementation mechanisms, and to orientate its work. 
HED/Washington and its representative in Colombia closely monitored the implementation of 
the Program,15 ensured the administrative support the three partnerships required, and organized 
inter-partnerships meetings. An internal mid-term assessment was conducted in May 2014 that 
pinpointed key results and challenges of the three partnerships development. It was followed in 
2015 by a final internal evaluation. 
Overview of each partnership 
Antioquia partnership 
The Antioquia partnership is a complex partnership, which associates the UMN with four 
Antioquia universities (three in Medellin and one in the nearby sub-region of Oriente), different in 
size, reputation, capacity and visible impact on public policy issues. The sub-award agreement 
was signed between ACE/HED and the UMN for a total sum of US $ 1,250,000 with a cost 
share of US $670, 196.
16
After the 90-day initial phase, the UMN and its Antioquia partners agreed on defining their 
partnership’s objective as: to strengthen the capacities of the Antioquia law schools to teach, research, and 
provide legal representation toward the promotion of international human rights and the rule of law in Colombia. 
Specifically, the partnership is aimed at:
(1) Strengthening the institutional capacity of the Antioquia law schools to train future 
legal practitioners in human rights by expanding the curriculum and developing 
faculty expertise in human rights and the rule of law;
(2) Strengthening the capacities of the Antioquia law schools to better serve vulnerable 
populations in the areas of legal services and human rights litigation;
(3) Enabling students in Antioquia law school consortium to be better prepared to 
protect human rights in Colombia.
Many activities have been carried out under the partnership. Under objective 1, they have 
included short courses on specific human rights issues, faculty externships and visits to the 
UMN, the enrollment of faculty in UDEA Master in Law Program, the establishment of a 
curriculum committee focused on human rights to review and improve curriculum. Amongst 
objective 2 main achievements are the creation of a law clinic in UCO, and the institutional 
strengthening of UDEM legal clinic. Additionally, joint litigation cases, the creation of a clinical 
network between the universities, and outreach activities in prisons and marginalized 
communities are also reported. Under objective 3, short courses, externships for students in the 
 
15 The Program followed the same M&E system HED has developed for all its projects and programs. 
16 Sub-award agreement between American Council on Education and Regents of the University of Minnesota 
for the Higher Education for Development Program, 19 October 2012, Attachment B. 
US-Colombia Partnership Program – Evaluation report Page 10
UMN, and internship participation in the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights count 
amongst the experiential learning opportunities provided to the students by the partnership. 
HED mid-term evaluation highlighted the relevance of the Antioquia partnership, with a special 
emphasis on its objective 2, and underscored its progress towards output level results. It 
remarked though that the relatively limited engagement with external stakeholders reflected that 
the partnership had concentrated its efforts towards strengthening the relationships among the 
partner institutions. The progress made in the articulation between very distinctive institutions 
was featured as a key element to gain visibility in the region, and ensure the sustainability of the 
partnership objective. 
The mid-term assessment especially recommended the partnership to:
(1) Increase the number and diversity of experiential learning opportunities for students 
and faculty; 
(2) Advance work on curricular development and revisions at the four Antioquia 
partner law schools;
(3) Promote human rights as a cross-cutting theme to broaden the partnership’s scope 
within and across the partner institutions and engage more faculty and students; 
(4) Further engage with external stakeholders and developing more formal partnerships 
with local, regional, and international universities and organizations in support of 
human rights initiatives; 
(5) Introduce alternative ways of communicating human rights principles to the 
community, such as through the development of informational materials and more 
diverse outreach activities; 
(6) Develop a sustainability action plan. 
Valle del Cauca partnership 
The Valle del Cauca partnership comprises two private universities,17 with funding distributed in 
equal terms between the two of them. The sub-award agreement was signed between 
ACE/HED and American University for a total of US $1,000,000 with a cost share of US $153, 
848. 
The partnership in Valle del Cauca is focused on empowering the institutions and capacity of 
those communities most affected by conflict, and most vulnerable to human rights violations. 
 
17 Universidad Javeriana Cali’s law program was established in 2001. While many students from high-income 
families attend the university, it also provides few scholarships for students from marginalized populations. It 
also offered a graduate program in Human Rights and the Culture of Peace. La Universidad Santiago de Cali 
(USC) is a non-profit private academic institution founded in 1958. The law school primarily serves middle to 
low income students in Cali. Approximately 50 percent of the student body is Afro-Colombian. The Santiago 
de Cali Law School has been known throughout the years for its special emphasis on criminal law. As 
highlighted during the field visit, the university has been on and off in financial crisis during the last 10 years. 
Financial management is centralized (even for earmarked funds for special programs such as this); decision￾making is cumbersome as it involves different authorities or departments at the university level. Active 
lobbying is required from deans, professors or administrative staff to get decisions across. 
US-Colombia Partnership Program – Evaluation report Page 11
AU, PUJC and USC agreed to work collaboratively to promote and protect human rights in 
Colombia on a core project designed to address the expressed needs and aspirations of the 
partnering institutions. PUJC indicated the following specific needs and program focus:
• the development of a human rights legal clinic with expertise in submitting and litigating 
petitions through the Inter-American human rights system; 
• the establishment of a network with existing law clinics and teaching resources 
throughout Colombia and Latin America (especially the Red Latinoamericana de Clínicas 
Jurídicas); 
• the expansion of the impact and relevance of existing publications and the creation of an 
online human rights publication; 
• the strengthening of the Practice Law Center around LGBT issues and substantive work 
on displaced persons.
For its part, USC indicated the following specific needs and program focus: 
• the development of a human rights legal clinic with expertise in submitting and litigating 
petitions through the Inter-American human rights system; 
• the enhancement of their substantive understanding and teaching focus on human rights 
issues pertaining to the displacement and migration due to the armed conflict context; 
• the strengthening of the legal English capacity of the professors and students; 
• the strengthening of the Practice Law Center around issues of Afro-Colombian 
descendants. 
Similarly to the consortium of Antioquia, the partners agreed to establish as general objective to 
strengthen the capacities of the universities law schools to teach, research, and provide legal representation towards 
the promotion of international human rights and the rule of law in Colombia. 
The mid-term evaluation highlighted the limited progress achieved in relation to each school’s
specific program goals. It set out the importance of concluding the formalization of the human
rights legal clinic at USC. It also recommended expanding work with external stakeholders, and
develop more formal partnerships with local, regional and international universities and
organizations in support for human rights initiatives. Finally, it stressed the importance of
strengthening the relationship between PUJC and USC to include more opportunities for joint
work and collaboration. The report recognized the institutional and strategic gaps that explain 
limited change in law school curriculums for the purpose of incorporating a human rights 
perspective across law school courses. 
Caribbean Coast partnership 
The Caribbean Coast sub-award agreement was signed between ACE/HED and the University
of Florida (UF) for a total sum of US $760,000 with a cost share of US $304, 255. The primary
partnership goal was the creation of the Colombian Caribbean Human Rights Center (CCHRC) 
jointly between UM and UN. The long-term goal for this collaboration is to expand its
affiliations to other regional law schools, practitioners, and organizations. The vision for
CCHRC is to become a sustainable and renowned center for building capacity in human rights 
among the Colombian Caribbean law schools through rigorous interdisciplinary research,
excellence in formal and informal education, and effective community service with differential 
US-Colombia Partnership Program – Evaluation report Page 12
emphasis on serving vulnerable populations.18
During the implementation phase, the more challenging purpose of creating one common
Caribbean Human Rights Center was downgraded to the simpler and more doable creation of
two separate centers, one for each university.
A special feature of this partnership has to do with the differences between the two selected 
Caribbean universities. On the one hand, the UM’s
19 mission proudly commits the university to
working with the community, and has a high number of students. On the other, the UN20 is a 
private university with emphasis on commercial and other areas of corporate law. It does have
high capacity and has incorporated performance management, monitoring and evaluation as
essential parts of its management model. 
Another critical feature of the Caribbean partnership is the way the US partner, the UF, included 
most relevant units within its university in the support of Colombian law schools and
partnerships: the Center for Governmental Responsibility (CGR) from the Levin College of Law
(LCL) and the Center for Latin American Studies (CLAS). 
During the 90-day initial phase of the partnership, the UF and the Caribbean Coast partners 
conducted the baseline assessment (December 5-12, 2012), and agreed on defining the main 
objective for the partnership as follows: to strengthen the capacities of the Caribbean coast law schools 
toward the promotion of international human rights and the rule of law in Colombia. 
Many activities have been carried out under the partnership. Under objective 1, it is worth
noting the commitment of the UM to open two faculty positions in the human rights area. 
Likewise, UN signed a cooperation agreement with the CLAS. Regarding objective 2, the UM
structured, created and launched the Human Rights Center, and UM faculty defined a work plan
to work for the rights of detainees in the area. Meanwhile, UN created different lines of action 
with the community and community leaders. Under objective 3, the broad participation of UN
faculty and students at the UF programs and internships is highlighted. To a lesser extent, the
UM has failed to benefit from short programs of training and education because of language
difficulties. Finally, noteworthy is the visit by the deans of UM and UN to UF in 2015. 
HED mid-term evaluation recommended that UF and local universities conducted deliberate 
efforts to overcome the language barrier UM staff and students confronted, and offer incentives 
for collaboration among UM and UN. 
 
18 University of Florida, Building Human Rights Capacity in the Colombian Caribbean, Gran Proposal, page 10. 
19 The Universidad del Magdalena is a public higher education institution located in Santa Marta. It is one of the 
largest universities in the Caribbean Coast of Colombia. With six schools (Engineering, Humanities, Business, 
Health, Education, and Natural Sciences), the university offers approximately 21 undergraduate degrees, and 
has more than 9,000 students. 
20 Located in Barranquilla, the Universidad del Norte was founded in 1966 by businessmen. The university 
encompasses eight academic divisions including Engineering, Administration, Humanities, Social Sciences, 
Health, Legal, Basic Sciences, and Education. In total, the university offers 22 undergraduate degrees, 69 
professional specialization programs, 37 Master’s programs, and 6 doctoral programs. With 700 students, its 
law school emphasizes public service through mandatory courses on constitutional law, and public and private 
international law. The law school dean has run the program for more than 10 consecutive years with a 
management vision results. The faculty has mostly certified doctoral and benefits for being permanent 
employees of the University. 
US-Colombia Partnership Program – Evaluation report Page 13
4. Evaluation findings 
The findings of the evaluation are presented according to the criteria set forth in the SOW and 
the guiding questions annexed to the present report. Under each of the criteria, a systemic 
analysis of the Program as a whole is submitted. The findings regarding each partnership are 
submitted in a separate document joined in Annex 3.
The report examines the main achievements of the Program to explore what were the key
factors that participate, hinder or obstruct the attainment of its goal. The Program being a 
results-driven initiative, the same logic and the underlying premises guided the evaluation. It 
considers that: 
 Results are hierarchically organized. Lower-level results, such as activity, process or 
product results (outputs), have more value when connected to outcomes and higher￾level goals. Taken in isolation, lower-level results indicate formal compliance with each 
school/partnership contractual commitments under the program –but generally do not 
meet relevance, effectiveness, efficiency or sustainability criteria. 
 Sound results-based program design (planning relevant regional objectives, selection or 
partners, partnership formation) begins with optimizing goals to initially available 
(baseline) capacity as strengthened and improved by the program. Design also identifies 
risks along the program trajectory and proposes risk-mitigation action. 
 Setting unattainable goals is not sound program design; setting goals already achieved or 
achievable without program support minimizes or eliminates the expected value-added 
of the initiative.
 Effective and efficient management monitors risks and critical steps, adjusts and secures 
at all times the equation between enhanced capacity (as a results of program 
interventions) and highest achievable goals within program restrictions. 
US-Colombia Partnership Program – Evaluation report Page 14
The test is to demonstrate that the Program has impacted higher education institutions (HEIs) 
to the point that law schools add value to the present state of respect for human rights in their 
region. Otherwise, the Program may be targeting the right issue but it may be considered 
irrelevant. When the criteria of relevance and effectiveness are combined with efficiency, the 
test is to demonstrate that the Program has impacted HEIs to a point proportionate to the 
resources used and spent in the Program. When sustainability is also added, the test is to 
demonstrate that some of the main contributions of the Program will remain after the Program 
has been closed and/or that the Program results are sufficient to commit other actors to either 
maintain this initiative or develop related initiatives
improving human rights education and training in law schools have been improved and the regional culture 
of acceptance and respect for human rights has been enhanced. 
future legal professionals have 
been equipped with an
understanding of national and 
international standards of human 
rights and the skills to support 
human rights reform in Colombia
the outreach capacity of regional 
law schools to better serve 
vulnerable populations with 
limited access to or knowledge of
the legal system has been 
enhanced
curriculum in human rights as
well as experiential models of
legal education, such as clinics 
and externships, have been 
strengthened
Evaluation: program design, management and 
evaluation supported actions, processes, products that 
efficiently and effectively contribute to and develop 
synergies between the three outcomes of the 
periphery so that the overarching goal of the 
program(at the center) is best served
US-Colombia Partnership Program – Evaluation report Page 15
Relevance of the Program 
The concept of relevance is understood as “the extent to which the objectives of a development 
intervention are consistent with beneficiaries’ requirements, country needs, global priorities and 
partners’ and donors’ policies […] Retrospectively, the question of relevance often becomes a 
question as to whether the objectives of an intervention or its design are still appropriate given 
changed circumstances.”21 It thus includes an analysis of the adequacy of the initiative in 
relation to the targeted population, as well as of the design of the Program. 
Relevance of the objectives. The program is based on a double assumption: i) better training 
of lawyers in human rights will improve the respect for human rights in the country, and ii) 
strengthening law schools is either more result-efficient than –or at least is supplementary to—
other potential uses of resources geared to enhance the human rights situation in the country. 
Both assumptions are taken for granted for the purposes of this evaluation. What is analyzed 
here is the value added by the particular approach and the channels and instruments utilized by 
the Program to the strengthening of human rights via law schools. It should be noticed that the 
Program concept restricted the geographical area of influence to the regional level –not the 
entire country. 
Undoubtedly, the Colombian context makes human rights relevant –even priority-- for 
Colombia’s HEI. Many of them have adopted curricular reforms to introduce human rights￾related study areas, instituted post-graduate degrees specialized in human rights, and/or created 
experiential opportunities for students. Improving the teaching of human rights is relevant to 
train generations of lawyers more knowledgeable on the issues involved and more motivated to 
pursue human rights related tasks. Furthermore, after years of relative silence, Colombian 
universities have an important role to play in human rights debates. This is particularly true in 
regions. Even in universities more advanced in human rights, such as UDEA, there is still room 
for improvement to strengthen the institutional capacity of the universities. 
As per the Program development concept, benefits for US Human Rights environment and/or 
strengthening human rights in participating US Law Schools are not actively pursued nor 
reported or measured. Strictly speaking, those benefits will be considered irrelevant for the 
Program unless the weight of the proposed benefits appear to impinge on the quality of each 
individual partnership. 
Design of the Program. As with any other program, the higher-level purpose of the Program 
(to support national and local initiatives to improve respect for and protection of human rights) is not entirely 
controlled nor can it be entirely achieved by it. Since many factors do contribute to either 
fostering or hindering the higher-level objective, this evaluation has made an effort to separate 
the net effect that can be attributed to the Program. 
It should also be noticed that the Program did not meet any change in the human rights context 
of such magnitude that the higher-level objective or the expected outcomes had to be adjusted 
during the life of the Program. The entire Program took place in the pro-human rights 
environment of the 1991 Constitution. Twenty-four years after the adoption of the 1991 
 
21 OECD-Development Assistance Committee (DAC), Glossary of Key Terms in Evaluation and Results Based 
Management, 2002, http://www.oecd.org/dac/evaluation/2754804.pdf 
US-Colombia Partnership Program – Evaluation report Page 16
Constitution, the human rights culture has already permeated most dimensions of Colombian 
society to the point experts characterize the present Colombian legal system as “la 
constitucionalización del derecho.”
This is not to say that no new human rights issues appeared between 2012 and 2015 in 
Colombia. In some cases, like “transitional justice” for example, some of the participating
schools managed to take advantage of the Program to raise awareness and technically research 
those issues. But incorporating (some/most) new emerging issues is not considered essential to 
the success of the Program. 
Regarding its outcome (to strengthen the capacities of Colombian regional law schools in the outlying and 
frequently conflict-prone regions of the country to provide formal and informal training in human rights), the 
Program operated as if it had been formulated from the activities rather than focusing first on 
the outcome to consider all preconditions necessary to achieve it. In that sense, the activities 
might all contribute to the outcome, but might not be sufficient to attain it. As demonstrated by 
performance management experiences in different fields, the option to design the project from 
activities all the way to the expected result, rather than beginning from the expected result 
backwards until all necessary conditions, risks and risk mitigation strategies have been identified, 
is absolutely critical for the success of a project.22 
The Program might not have been conceived as described, but the final planning process of the 
partnerships made it appear to be conceptualized from the activities to the outcome. One of the 
reasons that could explain this situation is that each of the three partnerships was developed 
separately according to the guidelines provided in the RFA. The US universities submitted their 
proposal on the basis of their know-how, usually defined in the RFA in terms of activities. So 
they built their respective proposal according to these activities, which corresponded to a 
determined result, without necessarily making sure that the results and the outcome will be 
reached. 
From expected impact to program design
The Universidad del Norte is a notable exception to the Program tendency to focus on 
activities and products. Uninorte planned activities as a function of and with a strategic view 
to positioning human rights within the entire campus and across the region. Program areas 
and project initiatives were conceived as building blocks towards that end. Synergies between 
research, law courses, outreach activities and dissemination, both within and outside the 
university were secured to reach those higher level, overarching objectives. 
To strengthen the capacity of law school to train in human rights, a project needs to consider 
other types of essential results, activities and inputs, such as ensuring the sufficient and adequate 
resource and processes (in terms of faculty, budget, financial management, decision-making, 
 
22 Cf. Boyle, Richard (2009) “Performance Reporting: Insights from International Practice” (by Head of 
Research, Institute of Public Administration, Dublin, Ireland). IBM Center for the Business of Government –
Managing for Performance and Results Series, p 26. See in particular Appendix A. Also, Perrin, Burst (2006) 
Moving from Outputs to Outcomes: Practical Advice from Governments Around the World. Joint publication by the World 
Bank and the IBM Center for the Business of Government – Managing for Performance and Results Series 
(January) 
US-Colombia Partnership Program – Evaluation report Page 17
implementation capacity, other) to attain the goal. It requires also another time framework. The 
questions should have been: What is required to reach this outcome, i.e. to strengthen the 
capacity of HEIs to train in human rights in the regions targeted? How and why a change 
process will happen in a particular context? Will the chain of events lead to the expected 
outcome? 
Furthermore, a thorough analysis should have identified the necessary preconditions for the 
realization of the Program, as well as the risk factors that may hinder the achievement of its 
outcome. Otherwise, and it is what the current development of the Program shows, a 
disconnect will appear between the activities implemented and their impact. Many actions can 
be carried out without reaching the outcome, or doing it partially. Since it is human nature to 
focus on those issues each one of us is evaluated on, the law schools tend to focus on the 
activities, processes and products that are being required at the time of measuring and 
monitoring progress –not necessarily on the actions needed to accomplish the outcome. The 
problem is that the Program can only mobilize a certain amount of human, financial, 
management, technological of infrastructure resources. When resources are allocated to 
producing, registering and reporting on rather isolated individual activities, there will be no 
energy left for connecting and supplementing those key individual activities that guarantee the 
path towards expected outcomes.
In that case, it becomes necessary to filter down those activities that are essentially required for 
the expected outcome while minimizing those that are not –regardless of the intrinsic merits of 
each individual activity. A review of the outcome and the activities is required to ensure their 
causal relationship. As explained by UF, they made sure that each of the initiatives presented by 
their Colombia partners fit into the result and the outcome. This explains the reason the 
partnership has been successful to maintain the course of the Program.
In the field of human rights, a challenge remains to match the need for broad, long-term action 
with short-term, micro-focused funding cycles. One avenue is to consider the changes as both 
“products” and processes. But even then, activities need to be geared towards the realization of 
concrete results. In the end, performance evaluation requires evidence of robust indicators of 
progress towards broad or long-term goals. 
Strengthening the capacity of a law school implies moving it from the lower level capacity A to 
higher level capacity B. Since baselines showed high level of differentiation among participating 
law schools, the path towards and the expected level of achievement of the higher level purpose 
varies among participating law schools/regional partnerships. In some cases, sustainable 
institutional capacity strengthening of some sort was a significant value added by the Program –
regardless of the immediate impact of the Program on regional human rights culture. Still, this 
implicit substitution of the higher-level development objective by an originally unintended lower￾level objective is generally graded with a lower mark in this assessment. Such problem was 
probably due to the selection of law schools and/or the selection of goals for a given partnership
during the design phase of the Program. Nonetheless it remains an inconsistency between the 
Goals and Objectives of the Results Framework and the actual capabilities of the selected law 
school –even when enhanced capacity thanks to the Program’s contributions. 
Finally, the Program was evidently conceived to pursue its overarching goals through three 
distinct and separate partnerships, not as a single, unified set of actions towards a common goal -
US-Colombia Partnership Program – Evaluation report Page 18
-though mention is made of the achievement of the overall Program as such.23 Based on the 
proposal submitted by the US universities and modified during the 90-day initial phase with their 
Colombian counterparts, each partnership drew its own sub-program, defining its objectives, 
outcomes and outputs. No document put all the three sub-programs together to analyze the 
coherence of their logic to the Program framework. So, each sub-program is considered in a 
separate manner. The results of the Program have been reported accordingly, i.e., according to 
each partnership’s results. HED’s coordination (in Washington and in Bogota) mostly focuses 
on ensuring the oversight of the Program’s implementation by each partnership without 
analyzing the overall, encompassing achievement of the Program. 
Duration of the Program. The duration of the Program raises similar considerations. Some 
Program interlocutors claimed that objectives needed to be adjusted to the timing of the 
Program. In their view, the higher-level objectives were unattainable in the short life of Program 
implementation and delivery of results (in practice reduced to a 20-month execution period 
between the end of 2013 and the first semester of 201524). It is the view of this assessment that 
unsurpassable gaps between the higher-level development objective and either the duration of 
the Program or the actual capacity of selected schools cannot be legitimately solved by reducing 
the higher-level objective to whatever other objectives were achievable under the circumstances. 
For the purpose of this assessment, the higher-level development objective should have been 
preserved as the truly relevant objective; the Program management (in HED and in US 
universities), including monitoring, should have made every possible effort to bridge detected 
gaps for the success of the Program. 
The duration of the Program added risks at some law schools
At the end of the Program, the University of Magdalena appears to be requesting some
additional time to reach some of the Program objectives. The public nature of the university
slowed down some Program processes while internal management and administrative changes
delayed its implementation. Towards the end of the Program, the renovated management of
the law school, within a reinvigorated university, was mobilizing at high speed to make the most
out of the Program. Yet such preparedness might have come a bit late vis-à-vis the timetable of
the Program.
As a matter of fact, as sketched above and further discussed below, at least one school kept in 
mind all along and largely demonstrated attainment of the higher-level development objective 
for the Program. It then raises questions about either selection of those schools / partnerships 
that did not reach the development objective or the Program management that did not bring 
other schools to a level of commitment and capacity similar to that of the high achiever. Indeed, 
some of those “unsurpassable” constraints could and should have been dealt with in the design 
phase of the Program, for instance at the time of school selection and strategic partnership
formation. Adjustments to the Program may indeed be introduced at the time of project 
implementation –but there is only so much management can do to improve the design of a 
program through analytical monitoring and corrections of program deviations.
 
23 See for example, Colombia Kick-off meeting notes: “Emphasis on facilitating collaboration among the 
partners and partnerships to work toward overall Program objectives.”
24 Furthermore, internal constraints at some of the participating schools reduced such effective period to a year 
or less. 
US-Colombia Partnership Program – Evaluation report Page 19
Institutional arrangements. Institutional arrangements, such as partnerships, need to fit the 
perceived needs or opportunities of the participating institutions. Such perception can be 
reinforced at the time of program negotiations with sponsors and partners. Since partnerships 
are living creatures, those perceptions can also be strengthened during the program execution or 
even when planning sustainability post-program. In any case, it is generally considered essential 
that all parties in a partnership identify jointly produced benefits as something none of the 
individual parties can achieve by itself. 
In the absence of those perceptions, partnerships are usually perceived as irrelevant, and it 
becomes oftentimes necessary to devote program resources to actively foster understanding of 
potential benefits for every party involved. On the other hand, efforts to promote partnership
during the life of a program run the risk of introducing an additional objective at a later point in 
the design –creation and consolidation of partnerships tend to become an end in itself, 
supplementary to yet different from other program objectives. The overall logic of the program 
is weakened by competing objectives between, for instance, fostering a partnership at the cost of 
reducing potential impact of the program at/by an individual law school. 
Antioquia offers a good example of this dynamic. The partnership of the four universities did 
not result from their own initiative. It came as a condition of the Program. Various factors have 
contributed to its overall success as a partnership: among them, the dynamism of the persons 
involved in each university, the coordination team put into place in Antioquia, the joint 
administration of resources. This success has its downside: the activities of the partnership in 
itself have overshadowed the results and the remaining challenges in each university taking 
individually. 
Imposed partnerships are contrary to the voluntary nature of these institutional arrangements 
and are generally seen as counterproductive for the purpose of reaching higher-level program 
goals. If a party to the partnership does not clearly perceive benefits other than financial 
resources for its participation, such an arrangement matches better the model of (traditional) 
hierarchical technical assistance than the partnership or the partnership model. Efforts to 
develop/maintain a mix-model (partnership, hierarchical) is usually confusing and unsustainable: 
the senior party is not truly accountable for creating an equal level or developing initiatives of 
shared responsibility; neither is it accountable for engagement and commitment towards the 
creation of a sustainable partnership with junior partners. At the same time, the expectation of 
the junior party is to have an equal partner in terms of individual benefits, contributions and 
responsibilities, accountability, etc. This dual perception can of course be amended by either 
developing joint initiatives of mutual interest and benefit. Reducing the hierarchical role of the 
senior party can also alleviate the confusion. 
In the US-Colombia partnership program, the choice of having Colombian universities work in 
partnership did not come from an analysis of its feasibility or a request from the interested 
parties. It was set as a pre-condition for the implementation of the Program. Some conditions 
favored positive results in Antioquia, not so in the other two regions. 
Gender perspective in the Program design. In the different design documents of the 
Program, mentions were made to women and LGBTI persons as target populations. Allusion 
was also made to the differential approaches that should be adopted, and some indicators were 
sex-disaggregated. However, these elements do not give a gender perspective to the initiative. 
Explicit analysis and programming would have ensured that gender equality be considered in the 
US-Colombia Partnership Program – Evaluation report Page 20
Program goals and its implementation steps, and would have avoided to be transformed into 
isolated actions. 
Efficiency of the Program 
Efficiency is understood as “the measure of how economically resources/inputs (funds, 
expertise, time, etc.) are converted to results.”25 It encompasses the analysis of the means put 
into place to guarantee that the project be carried out with coherence, expertise and organization. 
The criterion of efficiency refers to a ratio between costs and results or expected benefits. There 
is efficiency in allocation when a particular use of resources is reasonably expected to contribute 
more to the development goal than alternative uses of the same resources. The guiding 
efficiency questions for the purpose of this report are: were Program resources used in an 
efficient way? Could have they been used in a more efficient way? Of particular relevance for 
this analysis is the choice of the law schools as critical resource, the partnership as the 
operational model, as well as the functioning and implications of the monitoring and evaluation 
(M&E) system. 
The choice of the law schools as critical resource for the Program. The most critical 
resource for the success of the Program was the participating law schools. Did the selection of 
law schools created the best potential for efficiency in allocation and production of the same 
amount of resources? 
The selection of Colombian law schools appeared to have been made on the basis of the 
assessment of each school’s commitment to the specific objectives of the Program: (i) 
curriculum development; (ii) community outreach and service; (iii) faculty development; and (iv) 
institutional strengthening.26 The selection encompassed the combination of public and private 
universities,27 big and small education centers,28 institutions with different political vision,29
mission, areas of emphasis,30 and diverse types of student bodies.
31 It was also clear from the 
beginning that the potential leading role of some HEIs was considered as a motor for the 
partnerships.32 The final selection of the grantee universities was based on the Initial Institutional 
Assessment Report and made by USAID/Colombia. 
According to these criteria, the choice of the targeted education centers was sound. It 
encompasses HEIs that do have a great potential for improvement, and have the capacity to 
 
25 OECD-Development Assistance Committee (DAC), Glossary of Key Terms in Evaluation and Results Based 
Management, 2002, http://www.oecd.org/dac/evaluation/2754804.pdf
26 HED/USAID, Colombia-US Human Rights Law Partnership, Mid-term evaluation report, June 17, 2014, 
pp. 1 and 2. 
27 Except in Cali where both universities are private. 
28 For example, in Antioquia, the UDEA, established in 1804, has 1,400 law students in its branch in Medellin, 
while UCO has currently about 400 law students. 
29 For example, the “widely different ideologies” between UDEA and UDEM was highlighted. 
30 For instance, UN has a clear emphasis on business law. 
31 For example, UPJC gathers an elite population while USC concentrates students coming from a more 
modest economic background. 
32 For example, UPJC in Valle, and UN in the Caribbean Coast appear to have enough institutional capacity to 
take advantage of the Program. 
US-Colombia Partnership Program – Evaluation report Page 21
impact in their region. A more daring selection might have also included universities in more 
remote areas, like Chocó, but might not have been recommendable for a first attempt. 
However, other aspects, critical for the implementation of the Program, appear to not have been 
sufficiently assessed nor have given significant weight to: 
 the institutional capacity and willingness to implement the commitments;33
 demonstrated achievements and commitment regarding the overarching goal of the 
Program, especially concerning structural changes, such as curriculum reforms; 
 commitment to combine actions and tools in order to create synergies among the 
three specific Program objectives; 
 demonstrated experience and/or commitment to work together in partnership or 
otherwise capacity to work in an partnership; 
 correspondence or harmony between each school’s distinctive mandate or niche 
and/or present strategic objectives, on the one hand, and the program specific 
objectives. This is particularly important for large universities with long planning and 
programming cycles.
Some considerations of these elements were made in the Initial Institutional Assessment Report, but a 
more careful attention to them would have certainly allowed assessing some of the universities 
differently, appraise and foresee potential risks, and develop a mitigation strategy. The selection 
was made following the exploratory visit. However, the chosen Colombian universities did not 
participate in the early conception of the Program. It entails that, after the definition was made 
about the Program’s possible lines of action (as described in the Initial Institutional Assessment 
Report and reproduced in the RFA), these universities were not consulted about the concrete 
feasibility for them to be involved in such a Program. Their active participation would have 
certainly contributed to better evaluate their definite suitability (from an administrative, political 
and substantial points of view), and the possibility for sustained efforts (essential considering the 
overarching objectives of the Program). 
Finally, it does not seem that the US universities that eventually got involved in the Program 
were fully aware of the potential risk factors. Since they did not have the possibility to acquaint 
with their prospective partners before presenting their initial proposal, they could not include 
mitigation strategies in it. The 90-day initial phase of the Program did not suffice to palliate the 
situation: the selection was already made, and the essential action lines identified. Moreover, 
some of this time was consumed establishing the basic programming documents and indicators, 
and in some cases, already trying to mitigate some of the negative risks of the partnership.34
The process for the selection as well as for the drafting of the proposals did not enable a genuine 
participation of the partners or a meticulous analysis of the universities as the main Program 
resource. 
 
33 For example, the personnel assigned by some universities to work in the Antioquia Partnership was 
insufficient to accomplish the partnership’s objectives. Possible reticence to work with a US university was not 
fully analyzed either. 
34 It is clear that in Antioquia most of the 90-day period was spent defining the baseline and establishing trust 
between UMN and its Colombian partners. 
US-Colombia Partnership Program – Evaluation report Page 22
The choice of working in partnerships to ensure major efficiency. The Initial Institutional 
Assessment Report explored multiple scenarios of partnerships between the US and the Colombian 
universities, with their positive and negative implications: “one to consortium”, “one to several” 
or “one to one”. Finally, working in consortium/partnership was opted for in all the regions by 
USAID: in Antioquia, the US university would work with a partnership of four universities, 
administratively led by UDEM; in each, the Caribbean Coast and in Valle del Cauca, the two 
Colombian universities would work together with their corresponding US partners. 
Nonetheless, the universities in the Caribbean Coast were not ready for a partnership between 
themselves, and, in the case of Valle del Cauca, the Program did not demand a real partnership 
approach between the local universities and AU –nor did the US law school made the extra￾effort to stimulate such collective approach. 
Partnerships were perceived as coverage and quality leverage to secure its expected regional 
impact of the Program. There appears to be some –yet no sufficient-- international evidence to 
back the claim that partnership formation is a powerful tool to strengthen human rights 
institutional capacity, human resources or outreach services of law schools.35 Furthermore, it 
also responds to a practical concern: for the US universities, working with two to four 
universities at the same time required a certain level of coordination and collaboration, to avoid 
duplication and enhance the efficiency of the partnership. 
However, since neither Colombian law schools nor, more broadly, HEIs have much of an 
associative tradition to strengthen capacity and reach higher goals, the inclusion of the 
partnership as a necessary element of the Program design had, at its onset, no clear relevance for 
most of the Colombian partners. 
The basic requirements for partnership negotiation, impact and sustainability involve: i) common 
interest; ii) transparent accounting of costs and benefits; and iii) an external facilitator. They are 
represented in the following diagram:36
 
35 There is sufficient evidence of the value of partnership and networking for the protection of human rights 
among Latin American NGOs, either from the same country or among countries. There is also a positive 
experience with networking among Latin American legal clinics –which has taken roots and is dynamically 
operating in Colombia. 
36 Cf. Castells, M. (2009). The rise of the network society, Wiley-Blackwell. Emirbayer, M. and J. Goodwin 
(1994). 'Network analysis, culture and the problem of agency', The American Journal of Sociology, 99, pp. 
1411-1454. Entwistle, T., G. Bristow, F. Hines, S. Donaldson and S. Martin (2007). 'The dysfunctions of 
markets, hierarchies and networks in the meta-governance of partnership', Urban Studies, 44, pp. 63-79. 
Faulconbridge, J. (2008). 'Exploring the Role of Professional Associations in Collective Learning in London 
and New York's Advertising and Law Professional Service Firm Clusters', SSRN eLibrary. Granovetter, M. 
(1983). 'The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited', Sociological Theory, 1, pp. 201-233.Mische, A. 
(2003). Cross-talk in movements: Reconceiving the culture-network link. In: M. Diani and D. McAdam (eds.), 
Social movements and networks: Relational approaches to collective action. pp. 258–80. Oxford (UK): Oxford Univesity 
Press Newman, M., A. Barabasi and D. Watts (2006). The structure and dynamics of networks, Princeton Univ 
Press.Nonaka, I. (1994). 'A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation', Organization Science, 5, pp. 14-
37.Nonaka, I., R. Toyama and N. Konno (2000). 'SECI, Ba and leadership: A unified model of dynamic 
knowledge creation', Long Range Planning, 33, pp. 5-34.
US-Colombia Partnership Program – Evaluation report Page 23
The particular interests or goals of the partnerships, their operative conditions, choices and 
implications are not explicit in the design documents. For instance, given overwhelming ex-post 
evidence of the lack of conditions for partnership formation between AU and PUJC, on the one 
hand, and USC, on the other, it comes as a surprise that “the three agreed to work 
collaboratively to promote and protect human rights in Colombia on a core project designed to 
address the expressed needs and desires of the partnering institutions.” The Caribbean Coast 
partnership does not appear to have been carefully assessed to meet the necessary conditions for 
a regional partnership capable of creating “the Colombian Caribbean Human Rights Center 
(CCHRC)” jointly between UM and UN with the support of UF. In Antioquia, the 
establishment of the consortium of the four universities was considered a “daring” initiative, 
whose results owe more to the convergence of a series of factors rather than a sound planning 
process.
It is compatible with the nature of the partnership to produce different benefits or charge 
differential costs to each participating party. What is essential for the performance and 
sustainability of the partnership is that every party involved has a perception a positive balance 
of net individual benefits (including financial support) less monetary and other transaction costs. 
Program management can, of course, help develop such perception. In any case, efficiency 
ratios from joint initiatives are expected to be different from one party to the other. Indeed, 
engagement in a partnership is greatly helped when the mandate and objectives of participating 
institutions either include or assume partnership formation –as it is usually the case, for instance, 
with centers for Latin American Studies based at US universities.
Unless program management and participating US school heavily insisted on the partnership, as 
in the case of UMN with the Antioquia partnership, each participating law school felt that most 
Common interest in a goal that 
cannot be equally achieved by each 
individual partner.
Benefits are likely to be different --
yet better if each participating 
school clearly lists expected benefits 
above the table
Transparent 
accounting of costs 
and benefits and 
facilitating individual 
management systems
Leaders or external 
facilitators - Incentives 
for each law school´s 
champions of the 
partnership (at least 
equal to incentives for 
leading actions within 
each individual school)
US-Colombia Partnership Program – Evaluation report Page 24
of the Program specific objectives could be achieved by each individual university; at the end, 
there was little incentive for partnership formation. In any case, high commitment of the US 
partner to stimulating the domestic partnership was essentially voluntary –at least in the eyes of 
the Colombian schools participating in the partnership. The Colombian schools did not 
participate in the discussion of the RFA for the US school neither did they know of the weight 
that support for the partnership might have in the agreement between HED and the US 
partners. 
Moreover, the choice of working through partnership introduced high risks to the Program 
efficiency and effectiveness together. Those risks – and the corresponding mitigation strategies 
that should exist - can be summarized as follows: 
 the opportunity-cost risk, meaning valuable resources (financial, management, faculty, 
time, coordination, monitoring) had to be devoted towards partnership building rather 
than individually advancing the goals of the Program with each school; 
 the risk of adding resistance from administrations, faculty or students to the idea of 
working in partnership, for either ideological or practical reasons. 
Those two risks were partially mitigated through at least two strategies: i) common strengthening 
activities, which served both individual schools and partnership climate; ii) letting members of 
each partnership work individually as much as they chose. 
There is also a management, evaluation and accountability risk to the establishment of the 
partnership: for all practical purposes, negotiations, specific goals and actions, performance, 
registries and reporting were all issues pertaining primarily to the level of individual schools –not 
partnerships. However, the Program design often made (artificially) the partnership the key 
subject of action. For example, the monitoring matrix of indicators were filled in by individual 
schools, then added by the US law partner to construct a combined matrix at the partnership 
level. Such an addition entails the risk of combining in a single indicator two activities or 
products that appear to be the same –yet may have a very different meaning depending on which 
school performed the task. For instance, for the Valle partnership, the scope and meaning of 
apparently similar outreach community services were indeed very different between PUJC and 
USC.
The monitoring and evaluation system. Following USAID directive, HED is guided by a 
strong emphasis on results-based management (RBM)37, and has developed a monitoring and 
evaluation system (M&E) to follow and report on all its programs worldwide, according to a 
RBM approach. 
To be efficient and contribute to the efficiency of a project or program, monitoring needs to be 
selective and monitoring information needs to be organized, analyzed and presented in such a 
way that it is relevant for the attainment of the project’s higher goals. Above all, the relevance of 
monitoring reports depends on the utilization of the monitoring reports to correct deviations, 
prevent further ones, or define new critical goals, and propose resource strengthening if needed. 
In the absence of a monitoring exercise with those features and capabilities, any multi-year and 
multi-layer program is likely to fail in reaching its higher purposes. 
 
37 See, for example, Colombia Kick-off meeting notes. 
US-Colombia Partnership Program – Evaluation report Page 25
In the case of the Program, planning and reporting on activities and according to higher-level 
objectives was new for most of the Colombian universities, or at least for the persons involved 
in the Program. It introduced a different paradigm to the way they work. In hindsight, virtues 
and benefits were recognized to the M&E system: it forced universities to plan and organize 
their activities, respond for them accordingly, make their results visible, and gather relevant 
information on and for their work. 
The relevance of the monitoring exercise depends on the capacity to document design and 
implementation weaknesses that may have become evident soon after the school selection and 
the configuration of the partnerships. The first exercise consisted on the establishment of the 
Program’s baseline and indicators for each region. It resulted for some partners in a time￾consuming, confusing and laborious process, which required the mobilization of efforts and 
many human resources (HED/Washington and Colombia, US partners), delayed the launching 
of the Program, and created tensions between partners. In Antioquia, one of the partners 
defined it as “a horrible process.” Finally, figures were inserted into the system.38 This laborious 
process should have alerted HED on at least two different aspects. First, in view of the time 
consumed for the identification of the baseline, HED should have offered the partners 
alternative solutions to allow the activities to start, taking into account the ambition of the 
Program, its complexity and its short period of implementation. Second, it was a clear sign of 
the potential difficulties of the partners’ capacity to handle a rather complicating reporting 
system, which should have indicated a need to take actions about it. 
The usefulness of a monitoring system depends on the relevance and quality of its indicators. 
The partners interviewed were concerned that the indicators finally established were not able to 
relate to the Program achievements. Although each partnership was in charge of selecting some 
indicators, HED seems to have defined others (some of them seem to be more for worldwide 
across-project comparative purposes than for reporting results of the Colombia Program 
specifically) and others were USAID standards indicators. The indicators for the Program were 
mostly quantitative, and not considered to be necessarily appropriate to reflect the results 
obtained, especially when it came to non-tangible results. It is to the point that HED decided to 
use another approach, rather more qualitative, to carry out its last monitoring visit in April 2015. 
As indicated in the HED notes of the Santa Marta meeting, “the indicators established for the 
partnerships limit the view of the results obtained thus far.” Securing results is identifying those 
critical factors that account for most or all of the expected results, preferably outcomes and 
impact. Too many indicators end up being primarily low-level indicators –which are hard to 
connect with expected impact of a Program. Finally, the evaluation team could sense that some 
activities were carried out by the partners for the sake of showing results, “to fill in the box,” not 
necessarily because of their feasibility or relevance, which constitutes a perversion of the system. 
More information is not better when following a performance management approach to project 
concept and evaluation. First, producing, processing and analyzing information is expensive. 
Second, too many reporting requirements, to the point of micro-management, are usually a waste 
of valuable management time, leading to high opportunity costs and inefficiency. Furthermore, 
fatigue with filling in extended reports is usually one of the main explanatory factors for gaming 
and creaming, two of the worst enemies of performance management. 
 
38 An interlocutor told the evaluation team that they finally ended trusting what the figures the universities 
provided without double-checking their validity. 
US-Colombia Partnership Program – Evaluation report Page 26
Almost unanimously, HED M&E system was perceived as burdensome, time-consuming and 
not the most adequate to reflect the changes the universities were realizing. As one of the 
interlocutors affirmed, “it bureaucratized the system.” 
Under-utilization of monitoring reports is another usual source of inefficiency when doing 
performance management. For example, HED internal mid-term evaluation, by pinpointing key 
challenges and making recommendations by partnership, provided the opportunity to reorient 
the Program. But, as stated by an interlocutor, it “did not put to dialog quantitative elements 
with the reality in the region,” and it was not sufficiently analyzed and used.
It is noteworthy that HED teams in Washington and in Colombia were perceived to have 
contributed very positively to the management of the Program. They were attentive to the 
Partnership’s needs and requests (especially regarding the definition of the baseline), and eased 
the way of their partners in the administrative maze. The positive role of USAID/Colombia 
officers and their ability to understand that the M&E was a roadmap that should accommodate 
the needs of the universities were also highlighted.
In sum, HED M&E system is a very sophisticated and solid mechanism aimed at reporting on a 
wide range of projects implemented worldwide, while allowing for a certain margin of flexibility 
according to the specificity of each of them. In Colombia, it certainly introduced organization 
into the work of the universities, requiring them to plan their actions and respond accordingly. 
Nonetheless, instead of being a useful tool for the Program implementation, the system, for its 
complexity and its level of exigency, was converted into a burdensome, time-consuming, and 
cost greedy formal demand. The system is certainly very advanced; it was simply not adapted 
either to the beneficiaries or to the characteristics of the Program. 
The financial resource. The sharing of the budget between the US universities and their 
Colombian partners did not result as being an issue between the partners. The cost of US 
universities might be a relevant question to explore but it did not appear be a subject of 
preoccupation. 
Regarding the use of the financial resource of the Program, three issues are worth noting. 
First, the fact that the Program finally applied to eight Colombian universities, rather than five as 
initially planned, necessarily affected the distribution of financial resource. It is not clear if that 
shift was based on a sound analysis of its consequences. The selection of fewer universities 
might have optimized the use of resource and contributed to a more centered implementation. 
Looking retrospectively, it is plausible to argue that efficiency in the Program’s resource 
allocation might have increased by: optimizing allocations as a function of the risks and capacity 
of each participating school; reducing the number of participating universities, and devoting 
more time and resources for planning on the basis of in-depth knowledge of each 
candidate/participant university. 
The second issue deals with the staffing of the partnerships. In Antioquia, part of the budget 
was allocated to pay the salary of three persons especially in charge of coordinating the 
partnership and supporting the legal clinic and the curricular modifications. Without any doubt, 
this option participated in the efficiency of the implementation of the activities there. It certainly 
had its downsides as well (see below) but responded to a clear vision that the partnership could 
not work without persons in the field especially dedicated to it. 
US-Colombia Partnership Program – Evaluation report Page 27
The last point concerns the contract with Gardaworld. At the beginning of the Program, 
USAID and HED were concerned about the security of the persons involved in it, assuming that 
working on human rights in Colombia might put staff, faculty and students at risk. HED 
contracted the Canadian-based security company Gardaworld to train Program staff, and 
regularly inform and assess them regarding the security situation. Interlocutors acknowledged 
that the training was useful to consider basic security tips (especially for foreigners, and persons 
not accustomed to work in conflict zones and in human rights). However, overall, this contract 
did not turn to be very useful for several reasons. First, being native for the regions and for their 
own experience, local faculty and staff usually know how to manage their security. It is true that 
some basic reminders and recommendations are always useful. But, second, the approach 
Gardaworld adopted was not adequate to deal with persons working on human rights. For 
example, one of its recommendations to lower the risks was “not to assume controversial 
positions” or “to avoid sensitive subjects.”39 To evaluate the risk of clinical work, its forms also 
included information on the contact persons in the community, information that cannot easily 
be divulged in a context like the Colombian one.
40 As a consequence, the company lost 
credibility with the Colombia partners, and was considered of very little use to them. 
Effectiveness of the Program 
The concept of “effectiveness” relates to the “extent to which the development intervention’s 
objectives were achieved, or are expected to be achieved, taking into account their relative 
importance.”41 It involves the analysis of the extent an initiative has attained (or is expected to 
attain) its objectives in an efficient and sustainable manner. 
The analysis of the achievement of the Program’s objectives is obviously influenced by its 
design. Effectiveness is usually the key criteria for program success under performance 
evaluation methods. When effectiveness is read in terms of the expected impact, not any result 
attributable to the program is proof of program impact. For instance, a program can deliver lots 
of activities and products, such as training seminars or growing number of students in human 
rights courses. Such program can, at best, be considered effective only for the money spent in 
courses and seminars, and for the number of those seminars or students attending courses. Such 
an indicator would still be far from the higher-level development objective. It is only when 
those seminars and courses do make a dent in the demonstrated capacity of the 
school/partnership to positively impact the regional human rights environment that such a result 
will meet the effectiveness criteria guided by the outcomes or the higher level indicators of the 
Program. 
To draw the analysis of the achievements of the Program, the interventions contributed to reach 
its objective, i.e. if the Colombia-US Human Rights Law School Partnership Program 
strengthened the capacities of regional law schools to provide formal and informal training in 
human rights, and through that to impact on regional human rights dynamic. What kind of 
activities allowed it to reach this goal? What conditions allowed for these results? 
 
39 See for example, Guía personal de seguridad para trabajos en campo.
40 See Formato de información sobre clínicas.
41 OECD-Development Assistance Committee (DAC), Glossary of Key Terms in Evaluation and Results Based 
Management, 2002, http://www.oecd.org/dac/evaluation/2754804.pdf
US-Colombia Partnership Program – Evaluation report Page 28
Undoubtedly, from a global analysis, the activities carried out by each of the partnerships have 
responded to the Program outcomes and find themselves in its logic. Each outcome can report 
concrete results.42
Outcome 1.
 modifications in some university curriculum. Curriculum changes could be more 
easily attained in smaller education centers, like in UCO, than in bigger ones, where 
curriculum reforms respond to more complex processes. However, interesting initiative 
such as the constitution of inter-university curriculum committee, like in Antioquia, has 
proven to be useful to foster further changes. In other universities, human rights classes 
have been introduced as elective or as areas of concentration, such as in PUJC, UDEM, 
UM or USC.
 institutional changes: Various initiatives can be mentioned: PUJC has guaranteed the 
coordinators of the human rights area more dedication and incentives to conduct 
research on human rights; PUJC has generated dialog with other program of the 
university to mainstream human rights; UM has opened two faculty positions in the 
human rights area. Noteworthy is the creation in UM of the human rights center as a 
space of debates and knowledge sharing. 
 the strengthening of faculty’s knowledge and capacity through short courses on 
specific human rights issues, faculty externships to US university, the participation of 
faculty in Master’s Degrees. These courses have opened them to the regional and 
universal human rights protection systems. 
 a change of paradigm in faculty and students: the inclusion of a human rights-based 
approach to outreach activities implemented by faculty and students in communities has 
brought substantial modifications, such as the inclusion of the beneficiaries or them 
being considered as rights-holders (this is clearly the case in UDEA and in UCO).
Outcome 2.
 strengthening of the legal clinics. The Program has allowed for the creation (in the 
case of UCO) or the strengthening of existing legal clinics,43 as well as the application of 
new methodologies to strategize their intervention.
 more focused attention to persons in vulnerable conditions through the application 
of methodologies to serve victims, the publication of materials to disseminate knowledge 
on human rights,44 or agreements with private offices to position socio-legal work in the 
communities (USC).
 creation of alliances with civil society actors, such as with the PUJC and UM, and to 
a lesser extent the Antioquia partnership (on children’s rights).
Outcome 3.
 
42 The list provided is not exhaustive. Although the evaluation team intended to highlight the main 
achievements, some of them might have been omitted. 
43 The Program allowed to create the UCO legal clinic, now part of the Consultorio Jurídico, and to strengthen the 
work of UDEM’s one. 
44 For instance, UCO students have produced pamphlets destined to persons in detention on criminal 
procedure. 
US-Colombia Partnership Program – Evaluation report Page 29
 the inclusion of new methods for higher-education in human rights, especially 
through the legal clinics. The exchange of experiences between the legal clinics in the 
US and in Colombia contributed to strengthening their practice. The use of other 
methods (such as radio stations, promotion of human rights through theater groups in 
UDEM or the establishment of an observatory and a web page in PUJC or in UM) is 
also to be noted. 
 the strengthening of students’ knowledge and capacity through, in particular, short 
courses on human rights issues, externships to US university, internships to the Inter￾American Commission on Human Rights, or the participation of students to moot court 
competitions. The inclusion of law students from semi-rural or rural population, such as 
in Sonsón and Rionegro-UCO, is also key to impact regions further from capitals. Many 
of the students who participated in the activities organized under the Program declared 
having experienced an internal transformation, and being motivated to dedicate their 
career to human rights or social issues.45 
Additionally, the Program has showed that joint work of different HEIs on strategic issues is 
beneficial. For example, the partnership in Antioquia was able to present a shadow report to the 
Committee on the Rights of the Child and participate to its subsequent advocacy work with 
NGOs, as well as leading an audience on resettlement before the Inter-American Commission 
on Human Rights. The coordination between the universities has also benefitted the students, 
allowing them to participate in classes or activities organized by other HEIs and to share 
experience with their peers. However, although the Program foresaw to “encourage 
communication and substantive exchanges among the three US partners and the 8 Colombian 
partners,”46 very few opportunities were developed for inter-partnership relationships although 
identification of opportunities for communication between partnership. Some initiatives to 
coordinate and promote networking between the Universities have been carried out (such as the 
Santa Marta meeting, video conferences between the three US universities), and were received 
with interest. However, they have not sufficed to give the Program a global identity or to give 
partners ownership of the Program as a whole. 
Taking together, these achievements should 
lead to the completion of the objective of the 
Program. Nonetheless, not all of them were 
attained in each region, and not all of them 
were reached at the same level of execution. 
The Program did not force law schools to 
develop each one of the three areas of 
Program intervention in a balanced, much less 
a combined way.47 The relevance of the Program was almost guaranteed by a flexible Program 
concept where practically every school could potentially see itself in the mirror of its own 
interest. Some Colombian schools took advantage of the Program to reinforce the pre-existing 
law school focus / specialization and basis of comparative advantage. PUJC, for instance, 
differentiated itself based on a focus on corporate lawyer training –and was able to maintain this 
focus while taking advantage of the Program. The Program’s value added for PUJC did not 
 
45 It should be noted that many of the students interviewed seemed unsure regarding what a career in human 
rights is, means and implies. 
46 Colombia Kick-off meeting notes 
47 See above discussion on combined indexes. 
The design and management of the 
partnerships were conceived individually, 
losing opportunities to generate alliances in 
both research and national incidence projects 
in common areas, such as on the rights of 
persons in detention, victims’ rights or 
LGTBI’s rights. 
US-Colombia Partnership Program – Evaluation report Page 30
consist on developing new areas of interest but consolidating their interest in competition 
training (including the moot court with American University) and experiential training. In turn, 
the Program recognized that the priority needs and the interests of each regional partnership
were likely to differ from one another. Indeed, one of the Program’s strengths was its flexibility 
to accommodate particular interests within an overarching goal and broadly defined specific 
objectives. 
Several factors contributed to positive results within the partnerships. The approach of the US 
universities and their relationship with their Colombian partners played a critical role. The 
knowledge of the Colombian context, the capacity to adapt, their cultural sensitivity as well as 
their flexibility constituted key factors to adapt to 
the regional context and comprehend the needs of 
each education center and the population.
The management scheme of the partnerships also 
contributed to better results, allowing for time and 
dedication that could be provided to the Program. 
As already underlined, Antioquia functioned with 
a local coordination team (integrated by 
professionals who know the universities very 
well). UF put into place a multi-disciplinary 
follow-up team that allowed for a closed collaboration. 
To the contrary, other factors played against the effectiveness of the Program in some regions or 
during some periods of time, such as administrative inconvenience linked to the public nature of 
the universities, administrative changes and staff turn-over, time required to adapt to the M&E 
system, and time-consuming trust-building between Colombian and US universities.
In sum, the Program ended up summing up many activities, but in many instances, these 
activities, often scattered over sub-programs, did not necessarily entail the attainment of higher￾level objectives. In many instances, partners lost track of the latter. One exception can be 
mentioned. 
A particular success story –and the main explanatory factors of success
The Universidad del Norte seems to shine above all other partners for its appreciation and 
capitalization of the Program as a major opportunity to consolidate its vision of university￾community interaction for learning and servicing on critical social and economic issues 
throughout the Caribbean Coast.
Uninorte utilized every field of action to benefit from the Program: 
- It promoted and capitalized the willingness of UF to support the vision of Uninorte 
to make human rights a dominant theme across the entire campus. UF facilitated 
active involvement of its own Latin American Center for context analysis and human 
rights issues of particular interest to the Caribbean Coast and the entire country
- It expanded research to some of the most visible and deeply felt cases of violations of 
human rights in the region
- It understood and taught human rights as a comprehensive issue, including gender, 
One of the main success factors that 
increased the level of effectiveness of the 
Program was the level of knowledge and 
commitment of the US universities to 
adjust the activities to the logic of the 
Colombian universities, taking into 
account the local context, and thus 
generating strategies of institutional 
training and attention to the communities.
US-Colombia Partnership Program – Evaluation report Page 31
The criterion of effectiveness is intimately linked with the quality of monitoring as well as 
management’s capacity to adjust implementation trajectory during the life of the program. As 
discussed below, the criteria of program effectiveness should not be lost during its 
implementation or conclusions. It cannot either be substituted by action or process deliverables, 
no matter how many products of this sort the program may have contributed to. A program’s 
analytical monitoring and intermediate evaluations need to differentiate between activity or 
process effectiveness and program effectiveness.
The Program missed opportunities to foster its results. Most of the partners focused their work 
towards the implementation of activities, losing the sight of the outcome result. In order to 
guarantee the Program’s effectiveness, HED and US universities management and the 
implementation teams should have been guided by a prefigured implementation trajectory that 
oriented monitoring to the riskiest and most important steps of the Program. Such an 
implementation plan should also have pre-proposed risk-mitigation strategies and have allowed 
the partners to re-focus their work toward the outcomes. Risks would not be limited to 
technical risks or the availability of highly specialized skills. As demonstrated time and again in 
low and middle income countries, the single most important risk of an ambitious Program is 
management capacity, including governance, procurement, timely financing, hiring and finding 
the right technical skills. Those capabilities cannot be taken for granted; they should be secured 
from the beginning as part of the Program implementation design. 
 
48 Leadership level commitment. 
ethnicity, and the environment. 
- It involved in the human rights program some of its most talented researchers, 
professors and managers
- It was open to collaboration with other schools, particularly UM
- It took the guiding principles of experiential training and legal clinics very seriously 
and developed capacity to further consolidate both
- It anticipated ways to secure sustainability of the Program, particularly in partnership 
with UM
And the factors that made all the above possible at Uninorte? Some of the key factors of 
success this team found:
- Top level support48
- Good systems management and familiarity with results programming
- Willingness to invest and commit resources of its own for the Program specific 
objectives –as defined by Uninorte—do correspond to the university’s vision and 
strategy for development
- A prestigious school and high reputation in the region and elsewhere
- Exposure to international experience, commitment to engaging international experts 
and learning from them
- Level of English of students and faculty
- Commitment of the law school to work with other schools, both in campus and at the 
UF or the UM
- Full time teachers – Full time commitment of the Program’s administrative staff 
US-Colombia Partnership Program – Evaluation report Page 32
Results of the Program 
With “results” comes an analysis of the “output, outcome or impact (intended or unintended, 
positive and/or negative) of a development intervention.”49 Did the Program transform each 
partnership and/or law school to the point it is having an impact on the regional human rights 
environment? 
Some concrete and very promising results have been achieved through the Program. However, 
the delay incurred at the onset of the Program to establish the baseline and the indicators for 
each partnership, if necessary and perhaps unavoidable, led to the perception that results are just 
beginning to be seen –or are expected for some time later. This perception further jeopardized 
expected outcomes during the life of the Program. On the positive side, it protected the 
credibility of the Program by making it look more like the pilot-exploratory phase of a more 
ambitious and long-term initiative. 
Which assessment standard fits better this type of Program? When the magnitude of the 
Program’s risks is taken into account, the Program can at best be characterized as a high risk￾high impact venture. However, this characterization for the entire Program veils the fact that 
results and impact were very different by regional partnership and –above all—by law school. 
All in all, it was a risky Program with highly differentiated actors and results. In view of this 
overall finding, the most positive characterization that can be made of the Program is that of the 
first phase of an envisioned strategy towards strengthening engagement of law schools in and 
enhancing their impact upon human rights in Colombia. This first phase concluded with some 
unequal results. 
Such characterization of the Program design, implementation and results gives the Program an 
innovative/exploratory nature, the sort of risky programs created to either try new avenues or 
test or raise hypothesis. The key question for assessing this type of Program is “what did we 
learn from….”? rather than which are the Program major achievements and immediate impact. 
Instead of an impact evaluation of the most rigorous scientific type, assessment of this sort of 
Programs follows a case study like methodology. Evaluation teams are then called in not so 
much to assess results but to dig in through interviews and documents with a view to identifying 
lessons learned –even if originally unintended by the Program. As demonstrated in the previous 
sections of this report, this is in large part the prevailing approach followed by this evaluation 
team through this exercise.
Under such an approach, the question of “How much/how many results is satisfactory to judge 
the Program a success worth extension or replication” is superseded by the selection of partial 
success stories (by law school, by partnership) we can draw lessons from. Even small progress, 
like learning to greet the first-time client at the point of entry of the legal clinic, might take 
precedence over ambitious attempts to reform the entire (and usually rigid) basic law curriculum. 
 
49 OECD-Development Assistance Committee (DAC), Glossary of Key Terms in Evaluation and Results Based 
Management, 2002, http://www.oecd.org/dac/evaluation/2754804.pdf
US-Colombia Partnership Program – Evaluation report Page 33
In consequence, this assessment proposes that one or two cases of demonstrated success by law 
schools/partnerships in a given criterion is sufficient to declare the Program successful. The 
standard adopted here is based on the consideration that its very ambitious higher development 
objective makes the Program highly risky. Given the state of the theory in terms of the 
connection between law school capacity and the culture of human rights in the region, this is 
indeed an exploratory Program. As it is usually the case, high risk is justified when there is a 
potential for high rewards. In this case, the demonstration effect of one or two successful cases 
provides sufficient basis for further research, adjustment and replication. This assessment already 
draws conclusions that can be considered lessons from this experience. Further analysis of 
success stories should expand the accumulated knowledge basis to reduce the risks of future 
projects. 
Universities Promising Practices
Universidad Católica de Oriente Establishment and creation of a legal clinic with strategic
lines of action.
Universidad de Antioquia The human rights training students in conflict zones and
rural impact of violence.
Universidad de Medellín The multidisciplinary approach to investigations and
prosecutions of the Legal Clinic. For example:
electromagnetic engineering and human rights.
Partnership Joint work on strategic litigation in human rights.
Universities Promised Practices
Universidad Santiago de Cali Strengthening partnerships with law firms that do pro
bono human right practices
Universidad Pontificia Javeriana Developing manuals and statutes of the Legal Clinic.
Universities Promised Practices
Universidad del Magdalena The inclusion of students from other faculties of human
sciences in human rights training.
Expanding the offer in superior studies to audiovisual
programs and anthropology education.
An internationally-supported and assisted human rights
program that further stimulates reorganization of the law
school and consolidation of a public institution.
US-Colombia Partnership Program – Evaluation report Page 34
Sustainability of the Program 
The sustainability analysis examines the probability of the continuation of the results coming 
from the development of an initiative. Is the impact of this Program sustainable? Will the value 
added continue after the Program is closed? 
When monitoring is guided by a result-driven implementation trajectory, such trajectory usually 
includes provisions to secure sustainability. That is to say, sustainability is made part of the 
expected result of the Program –not a last minute addendum at the point of Program closure. 
The proposed type of monitoring leads to supplementary actions and propose utilization of 
resources with a view to secure sustainability. Sustainability is usually defined in terms of 
extended capacity to deliver outcomes beyond the life of the Program. In the case of 
partnerships, monitoring should include those essential factors that can make the partnership
sustainable. In the case of the Program, sustainability was not foreseen at the onset of the 
Program. In fact, HED mid-term assessment requested to all the partners to establish a 
sustainability plan. 
Three elements can be sustainable: (1) the institutional systems developed to achieve the 
objectives; (2) the results obtained; (3) the relationships and collaboration between partners 
(1) Did the Program successfully institutionalize enough capacity to secure 
continuation after USAID resources are gone?
Sustainability usually depends on relevance of project outcome and suitable institutional 
arrangements from the point of view of the recipient country. Are law schools committed to 
continue supporting (or expanding) that precise capacity that has explained achievements leading 
to the higher-level goal of the Program? 
Some participating law schools have shown their interest and compromise at pursuing the efforts 
developed, for instance by securing the institutionalization of legal clinics and/or financing 
professors to animate the clinics or train on human rights. However, institutionalizing human 
rights training in universities implies not only financial resources but foremost the compromise 
with human rights of university leaders. The involvement of the universities’ leadership is 
fundamental for the development and sustainability of an initiative of that sort. Working on 
human rights implies more than the simple opening of a study area. Reaching the goal of 
promoting the role of universities in the field of human rights necessarily requires the existence 
of an institutional political positioning as well as the involvement of all its components, in 
particular its faculty. The active involvement of the deans of the law school as well as the rectors 
of the universities is key to securing the sustainability of an institutionalization. Not all of the 
leaders of the universities involved have shown the same interest and motivation towards the 
project. 
(2) Did the Program produced outcomes whose benefits are guaranteed to extend 
beyond the closure of the Program? 
As we saw above, the Program has produced some interesting results, some of which might 
extend beyond the closure of the Program. However, it is too premature to assess their 
sustainability, since the Program is scarcely showing its first results. 
US-Colombia Partnership Program – Evaluation report Page 35
(1) Is the relationship and collaboration between the partners sustainable?
Sustainability of the core concept of the Program is heavily dependent on the initial selection of 
participating law schools. If partnership arrangements are seen as an essential component of 
future institutional arrangements, the process of selection should have essentially required 
experience and/or evidence of commitment of selected law schools to regularly or permanently 
work in partnerships. If sustainability of the Program objectives includes further 
institutionalization of partnerships, partnership-formation should be seen as a goal by itself from 
the early design of the Program. Rather than taking them for granted, the Program should 
include strategies, resources, actions and performance measurement for the creation of the 
necessary pre-requisites for a partnership. In any case, the insistence on partnerships as a pre￾requisite for the Program sustainability adds substantial risks to sustainability strategies and 
initiatives. Likewise, if the sustainability of the Program includes further institutionalization of 
partnerships, the Program might have included working together with more consolidated 
networks, partnerships or partnerships of proven effectiveness. The existent network of legal 
clinics is an example of such collective action in Colombia. 
Sustainability of the Program would be more likely should managers let schools in Colombia and 
in the US find the best way to further pursue their relationship for the higher goals of the 
Program. Bilateral agreements between US universities and Colombian counterparts are likely to 
be developed in the future, which could also work to the benefit of the Program objectives.
5. Conclusions 
The US-Colombia Partnership Program is a well-structured initiative, carefully managed and 
monitored, which has produced some noticeable results. As with most other educational 
programs, final impact can only be judged in the medium term. For the time being, the 
assessment is focused on the extent to which the Program did produce the products and 
outcomes expected from its three-year implementation. 
The Program had a rather complex structure and demanding operation: 
 Three regional international and domestic partnerships, involving directly eleven 
partners that had had little or no interaction prior to the Program;
 Asymmetry of context, mandates, vision, specialization, interests or opportunity costs 
among parties involved. Human rights are a matter of passion, debate and ongoing 
action in Colombia. Participant laws schools and universities, especially Colombian 
participants, grew up and live in an environment that calls for engagement through 
policy and action, participatory research, training, community services;
 Huge logistical challenges in dealing with 11 institutions with different management 
stability and capabilities, each one with its procedures, restrictions and opportunities; 
 Application of a results framework for program design and program management to/by 
some organizations that are not familiar with performance programming or performance 
management;
 Different baseline per partner/partnership, demanding different goals, strategies, 
support or resources per partner/partnership. 
US-Colombia Partnership Program – Evaluation report Page 36
Program strengths. The Program design reflects an overall strategy to deal with those challenges and 
risks through: 
 flexible specific objectives per partnership within a wide-open menu of areas of 
intervention grouped under three general categories. This scheme allowed each 
participant to find its own interests and define its own roles within the partnership; 
 common overarching goals and expected impact for a shared, unifying concept and 
purpose of the Program;
 monitoring and intermediate evaluation tools that use a common set of indicators 
yet allow for customized indicators tailor-made to each individual partnership (or even 
partners in each partnership). 
The above factors taken together appear to guarantee a balance between individual creativity, on 
the one hand, and a unifying purpose and common format, on the other. In addition to its 
flexibility, the Program had some strengths that were evidently taken into account at the time of 
design and implementation: 
 it relied on HED’s demonstrated experience in fostering and operating development 
programs with partnerships among higher education institutions as well as HED 
management and monitoring capabilities; 
 it relied also on the demonstrated capacity to deliver of distinguished US academic 
institutions that applied to the Program and have selected their partnership-partner in 
Colombia; 
 the sensitivity and dynamics of the topic in Colombia practically guaranteed the 
relevance, commitment to effectiveness and efficiency as well as promising sustainability 
perspectives for the Program in Colombia. 
Program weaknesses. Those strengths notwithstanding, the Program did not appear to have 
sufficiently anticipated the potential damage of some critical risks to the quality of activities or 
products –not to speak of outcomes or expected impact. The design did not include either 
sufficient attention to risk management and risk mitigation strategies of the following factors 
that limited results of the Program:
 The lack of a predefined linkage between specific objectives of each individual 
partnership and higher level goal allowed for inclusion of particular goals that had no 
certain substantive impact on the overarching goal of the Program. Leaving specific 
objectives to remain open for negotiations within each particular partnership threatened 
the consistency and the impact of the Program. Furthermore, there were no clear 
indicators for supporting the partnerships’ specific objectives. Neither was there an 
explicit elaboration on the causal relations between each partnership’s specific objectives 
and the Program overarching objectives (upward) or specific objectives and the actions 
leading to them (downward). Indeed, the quality of each partnership’s specific objectives 
differed between one partnership and the other.
The Program did not include an explicit gender perspective. Isolated initiatives 
regarding women’s and LGBTI’s rights were implemented by some partners and gave 
rise to interesting results, such as those at Uninorte. In other opportunities, a gender 
US-Colombia Partnership Program – Evaluation report Page 37
analysis would have contributed to better outcomes or analysis. A gender perspective 
goes further than sex-based differentiation; it allows understanding of how a society is 
organized along gender roles, rules and stereotypes, and acts upon this reality. The 
integration of a gender perspective in a human rights Program should have been explicit 
from its onsets. 
 Given the weak connections between specific objectives and the common, unifying 
goals and purposes, practically any activity that pertains to the Program’s areas of 
intervention is justifiable. The selection of action-priorities was not necessarily 
done in terms of expected contribution to the Program’s impact. As evidenced in 
some cases, selection of actions rather followed each school’s tradition or more broadly, 
a position of comfort rather than creatively making the most out of the resources and 
guidance available for the Program. The value added of the Program to the regions or 
to Colombia has no longer a necessary reference for planning, reporting or monitoring. 
 Given those initial weaknesses in the Program design, M&E could not help 
much to re-focus the partnerships on the overarching goals of the Program. First, 
because there were neither clear criteria nor indicators to assess the contribution of 
processes and products to outcomes and overarching objective. Second, because the 
whole exercise of M&E was necessarily pre-committed to extended results-matrices, 
enriched by some analysis, as required by USAID. It is true that there was room for 
customization; but customization under those circumstances would have required a 
disproportionate amount of time and energy, either for formulating adequate indicators 
or for assessing the quality of such indicators and the causal connections between 
actions and impact. 
In practice, the focus and utilization of M&E was narrowly defined at HED and US 
subcontractors as having to do primarily with actions, processes and products. Such 
emphasis further fatigued and discouraged most Colombian partners –which did not 
clearly see the relevance of the exercise. The solution found was to give the US law 
schools the role and responsibility for organizing and assessing the data, filling in the 
forms and submitting to HED. Reports prepared in that manner are too distant from 
the concerns and interests of the Colombian schools.
 The rather large number (8) of participating Colombian schools and –above all--
the selection of schools increased unnecessarily the risk of deviation from 
Program focus at the time of its implementation. This additional risk was 
compounded by the Program’s insistence not only on regional partnerships but also on 
making the partnership the unit of action and assessment at each region. In two 
countries where law schools have little precedent of and have shown no particular 
appetite for such partnerships, it can hardly be expected that law schools will mobilize 
with interest to suddenly adjust their mandates, business or management models or will 
quickly learn the intricacies of partnership formation, implementation, monitoring and 
control. Attention was deviated from bilateral path towards achieving impact at the 
regional level. Even achievements in terms of learning how to and developing interest in 
sustaining the partnership are in high risk of collapsing if you take into consideration 
that universities are accustomed to work individually or bilaterally. 
US-Colombia Partnership Program – Evaluation report Page 38
 Some concrete and very promising results have been achieved through the Program. 
However, the delay incurred at the onset of the Program, if necessary and perhaps 
unavoidable, led to the perception that results are just beginning to be seen –or are 
expected for some time later. This perception further jeopardized expected outcomes 
during the life of the Program. On the positive side, it protected the credibility of the 
Program by making it look more like the pilot-exploratory phase of a more ambitious 
and long-term initiative.
6. Recommendations 
1. Bearing in mind that the present report is aimed at learning from the experience, the 
evaluation team strongly recommends that a validation process be conducted with the 
Program partners, in Colombia and in the US, in order to share the conclusions contained 
in the present report, and receive and discuss their comments. 50
The evaluation team considers that the following recommendations could guide the 
implementation of future initiatives similar to the Partnership under consideration:
2. Projects this complex can be flexible indeed. Flexibility needs to be balanced with 
explicit, ex-ante (during planning phase) agreements on those arrangements that will be 
decisive for the outcomes and impact of the program. These agreements cannot be left 
open for each individual or partnership to shape the program at the time of partnership￾negotiations and decision on specific objectives, lest the Program is derailed or Program 
outcomes and impact can be minimized. This entails:
a. Criteria for school selection need to be structured in such a way that they help 
minimize predictable risks for reaching program outcomes and impact. Criteria 
should include not just substantive but administrative and financial capabilities 
as well. Demonstrated implementation experience is desirable. Accountability 
for quality of program design and management is enhanced when one agent is 
fully responsible for selection of participating schools; 
b. Engagement of the partners during program planning needs to explicitly include: 
a) criteria for selection of domestic law schools, b) alignment between the 
school’s mission and the Program’s expected outcomes; c) matching of interests 
and capabilities with other members of the partnership, d) selection criteria, 
commitments and expectation from participation of the US partners;
c. If a partnership is either expected or required, the US partners need to know in 
advance the strengths and weaknesses, opportunities and restrictions of the 
domestic partner and vice versa;
d. Should participants lack direct experience in partnership formation and 
implementation, prior training is needed before the parties enter into the 
negotiation phase of each partnership;
 
50 The focus of the proposed partners’ validation is this report’s global analysis, lessons learned and 
recommendations. Since no attempt has been made to prepare case studies --law school by law school, 
validation is not about the extent to which the report did/did not take into account individual interviews or 
every piece of evidence supplied to the evaluation team. 
US-Colombia Partnership Program – Evaluation report Page 39
e. The joint plan of action should consist of fully structured individual projects that 
mirror the interests of participating parties and produce benefits no individual 
party can attain by itself. The joint plan of action should be discussed and 
approved before committing funds and other resources to either party;
f. Planning time cannot be confused with implementation time. As a general rule, 
planning should include consensus building, verifying incentives for each key 
participant, negotiations, joint plans and overall implementation trajectories. If 
any of these planning-phase steps is left for later, delays can be expected and 
implementation will be at risk. Furthermore, delays during implementation 
usually bring about frustration among parties that feel ready to start going; 
g. Sustainability of the initiative is crucial and should be envisaged from the onset 
of the Program. Strengthening human rights teaching in universities could be a 
long process and require commitment from the head of the institution. Short￾term projects will not guarantee the sustainability of such an objective. 
3. Regarding the M&E system: 
a. Monitoring indicators should be discussed and agreed upon during the planning 
phase. Discussion of validation criteria, performance indicators and expected ex￾post evaluation among all key parties should include not only individual school 
performance but also performance indicators for the entire Program and 
program management;
b. Familiarity and acceptance of the costs and benefits of results-based 
management framework, including M&E, should be secured before the Program 
starts. Parties not familiar with results framework need to know its benefits and 
be willing to pay its costs;
c. Program goals can be adjusted over time –particularly in risky programs-, as long 
as new goals are negotiated and their monitoring and evaluation is agreed upon; 
d. Monitoring should be based upon pre-defined implementation trajectory –not 
just result matrices. Implementation trajectory starts with the expected outcome 
and goes back to starting line, with identification of moments of risks and risk 
mitigation. Common administrative procedures, such as timely budgeting and 
disbursement should often be included among risks –especially in cases of low 
management capacity;
e. The role of domestic partners in the monitoring exercise should not be limited 
to passively filling in forms. Domestic partners need to be actively engaged in 
analytical monitoring, conclusions and subsequent commitments;
f. Simple tasks need to be reported and analyzed in terms of their contribution to 
Program outcomes. Routine exercises need not only substantial capacity from 
the senior partners but logistical and incentives planning as well as follow up and 
institutional commitment. This is true of activities such as training of professors 
or curriculum review or outreach programs.
4. Regarding the roles and responsibilities: 
a. Comparative advantages of domestic partners should be identified at the 
beginning and be included as an essential component of the partnership. It is 
also the basis to identify learning benefits to US partners, other than monetary 
basis. Such comparative advantage often includes context knowledge, better risk 
identification;
US-Colombia Partnership Program – Evaluation report Page 40
b. Flexibility and attention to the needs of the partners by US HEI are key factors 
to favor a successful relationship;
c. Incentives for each participant need to be explicitly listed and accounted for. 
This is an essential part of any successful partnership; 
d. External support by an expert partnership formation and facilitator is desirable. 
Partnerships are neither processes nor results that can be left to initial 
commitment or Program inertia. 
5. Regarding universities’ strategy to strengthen human rights training:
a. The work on the curriculum is essential but might require time. Alternative 
strategies should be encountered to pave the way to the required curricular 
modification. For example, an immediate step could be to carry out a substantial 
training on human rights for all the law school’s faculty and faculty from other 
schools, in order to promote a culture of human rights and to ease the way 
towards human rights mainstreaming. 
b. Outreach Program. Some interlocutors recognized several advantages in 
partnering with universities in community work: in a polarized country like 
Colombia, universities are considered neutral and open, and could easily gain the 
trust of the targeted population; they also offer a better guarantee of continuity, 
since they are not contingent on financial support. The validity of these 
arguments evidently depends on the context and on the institution. What is 
clear however is that, before launching any outreach Program (for example, in 
communities, in schools, in prisons), universities should ensure that: (i) the 
activities respond to the needs of the targeted population, and are prepared with 
them; (ii) professors and students have the sufficient knowledge to conduct the 
proposed activities (especially knowledge of popular education); (iii) the 
universities are aware of the work that might have been initiated by other entities
in the same areas (such as NGOs or public institutions); (iv) the universities do 
not enter to compete with NGOs but complement their work. Thus, a thorough 
reflection is required before intervening to mitigate the risk to do harm. There is 
also a need to psychologically prepare the students for the work in communities. 
Not all of them have the knowledge and the preparation to be confronted to 
sensitive issues (example: prison work);
c. On the same token, it is essential that universities maintain a constructive dialog 
with the NGOs and civil society organizations in general in order to learn from 
their experiences, coordinate their initiatives, when possible work together, and 
avoid, to the extent possible, to enter to compete to each other. 
7-1 
7. Annexes 
Annex 1. Evaluation questions grid
Criteria Sub criteria Guiding Questions Specific questions applied to the US-Colombia partnership 
Program
Efficiency
Management Systems How did the partners make use of 
results-based management 
systems? 
• How was the Program designed at different level (Program, 
partnerships)?
• How were the partners chosen? 
• Did the base-line identify policies, role of strategic actors and 
critical actions for the protection of human rights in Colombia? 
Or else, was the base-line essentially focused in activities and 
products internal to the law schools human rights Programs?
• What were the main foreseeable risks of the Program? Was there 
a risk-mitigating strategy? Which? Were security risks addressed? 
How?
• Do current result indicators capture the essence of the 
contribution of the Program? Are there supplementary indicators 
that could capture more of the richness of the Program and its 
impact?
• Does the data disaggregation as established allow to adequately 
register the expected results in terms of targeted population?
• How was the Program management system foreseen to operate? 
• Did the monitoring/evaluation system operated to the benefit of 
the Program? Why? Did the monitoring practices effectively 
detect deviations from expected Program trajectory? Did the 
monitoring practices alert to adjustments needed to keep the 
Program on track to final results? Which alerts were sent?
US-Colombia Partnership Program – Evaluation report Page 7-2
Criteria Sub criteria Guiding Questions Specific questions applied to the US-Colombia partnership 
Program
Decision Making 
processes
How did the partnership make 
decisions regarding 
implementation? Did decision￾making processes contribute to 
efficient Program 
implementation? 
• How did the Program management system operate in reality? 
Did it contribute to the efficiency of the Program 
implementation? Why?
• How did the cooperation between the universities operate in 
reality? 
• To what extent was the rights-holders (such as students,
communities) part of the decision-making process?
• Was the language a barrier in the management of the 
Program/partnership?
• Did the resources affected to the Program implementation 
enough? Why? Were they efficiently used? Why?
Relevance
Contextualization To what extent were Program 
activities and interventions 
adapted for the local context? 
• Is there evidence of the causal link or the impact between 
strengthened institutional capacity and reduction of human rights 
violations? In Colombia? Elsewhere?
• Did the Program respond to specific needs of the identified 
Colombian universities? 
• Did the Program respond to specific needs of human-rights 
holders? How was it established?
• Policies towards reduction of violation of human rights in 
Colombia appear to engage primarily other actors (government, 
NGOs, communities, international organizations). How do 
university human rights Programs contribute to the effectiveness 
of such key players? Where does the training of effective human 
rights defendants take place and how much do universities HR 
Programs contribute to such training? 
• Was the country-specific knowledge of US partner schools 
sufficient to approach the specifics of violations of human rights 
in Colombia? 
Logic Did Program design consistently 
link activities and outputs logically 
• Were the expected contributions from the schools (in terms of 
activities and output) geared towards the overall success of the 
US-Colombia Partnership Program – Evaluation report Page 7-3
Criteria Sub criteria Guiding Questions Specific questions applied to the US-Colombia partnership 
Program
to Program outcomes and 
objectives?
Program? 
Effectiveness 
Results To what extent have the intended 
outputs and outcomes been 
achieved or are likely to be 
achieved? How were the results 
affected by Program fidelity? 
(Program fidelity may be defined as the 
extent to which delivery of an 
intervention adheres to the protocol or 
Program model originally developed.)
• Did the schools carried out the foreseen activities and meet 
those expected results? Indicators/metrics? To what extent? Why?
• How did the division and complementarity of expertise between 
Colombian and US schools work, in practice? Who did what? 
Who helped the most to reach xx key Program result? 
• Did the schools benefit from capacity from or lessons learned by 
other participating schools? In the region? In Colombia? 
• Are there alternative approaches for reaching the expected 
results of the Program (for example, individual work, partnerships 
among Colombian schools, partnerships between Colombian 
universities, communities, NGOs. or partnerships with courts or a 
ministry or the police, etc)?
• Did security issues affect the development of the Program?
Impact
Outcome level results What were the outcome results of 
implementation?
To what degree are the outcome 
results attributable to 
implementation?
• What were the (intended or unintended, positive or negative) 
results of the Program? What results can be directly attributable to 
the Program?
• What were the (expected, unexpected) benefits of partnering the 
schools with the US universities? What did US universities bring 
to their Colombian partners? 
• What are the benefits that could only be reached through this 
partnership (those that could not be reached by individual school 
alone nor by the regional consortium of Colombian schools)?
• Would the schools invest (time, resources) again in the 
formation of a similar partnership? Would they advise other 
Colombian schools to invest in the formation of such 
US-Colombia Partnership Program – Evaluation report Page 7-4
Criteria Sub criteria Guiding Questions Specific questions applied to the US-Colombia partnership 
Program
partnerships? Why (yes/no)?
• Were the conditions for the success of the partnership approach 
effectively met? Was each party aware of and committed to 
reaching the additional benefits of the partnership approach (i.e., 
those benefits that cannot be reached individually by each 
partner)? 
• What were the benefits to be part of the Program? 
Expansive effects Is there evidence that outcome 
level results had a wider effect 
than anticipated? Consider 
strategic partnerships, i.e., host 
country higher education
institution -private sector 
partnerships
• Have the schools experienced any change (capacity or otherwise) 
as a result of the Program? Which one? 
• What is the (expected or unexpected, positive or negative) 
impacts of the Program in the identified regions, and in the 
country? 
• Are there alternative approaches for reaching the expected 
outcomes of the Program (for example, individual work, 
partnerships among Colombian schools, partnerships between 
Colombian universities, communities, NGOs. or partnerships 
with courts or a ministry or the police, etc)? What results did the 
Program have that could not be achieved by other entities?
Sustainability
Program effects
Do you think that Program 
effects (development results 
and/or host-county and U.S. 
higher education partnership) are 
likely to continue over time after 
funding has ceased? If so, what 
aspects of the Program have the 
best chance of continuing? In 
• What parts of the Program contribute to the sustainability of its 
objectives?
• Do the schools expect to continue the engagement they had 
during the Program with protection of human rights in Colombia? 
Why? How?
• What initiatives have the partners taken to ensure the 
sustainability of the Program?
• Does the Program continue to be relevant in the Colombian 
context? Why? Is there any change that should be introduced to 
US-Colombia Partnership Program – Evaluation report Page 7-5
Criteria Sub criteria Guiding Questions Specific questions applied to the US-Colombia partnership 
Program
your opinion, what would be the 
major factors that would influence 
these lasting effects?
such a Program?
US-Colombia Partnership Program – Evaluation report Page 7-6
Annex 2. List of the persons interviewed 
Nombre (Name) Institución (Institution) Posición/Cargo (Title)
Antioquia Max Gil Corporación Región
Olga Xiomara López Flores PNUD Asistente Técnica
Pablo Emilio Angarita Universidad de Antioquia Profesor 
Dora Saldarriaga Universidad Autónoma Latinoamericana Profesora
Alexandra Martínez Ramírez PNUD Asistente Técnica
Lina Estrada Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana Profesora Experta en NNA
Gildardo García Pastoral Social, Rionegro Coordinador Delegación de Promoción 
Humana
Rubén Darío Jaramillo UCO Decano
Zeller Álvarez Alianza Antioquia/UMN Coordinador de Proyecto
Sandra Gómez Alianza Antioquia/UMN Coordinadora del Proyecto
Astrid Osorio Consorcio Antioquia/UMN Coordinadora de Proyecto
Maribel Ocasiones UCO Coordinadora Alianza 
Ana Milena Montoya UDEM Profesora de la Clínica Jurídica
Catalina Rojas UCO Coordinadora Alianza
Martín Palacio Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana Estudiante 
Verónica Cadavid Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana Estudiante 
Isabel González UDEA Profesora Antropología/Experta en Conflicto
US-Colombia Partnership Program – Evaluation report Page 7-7
Carlos Morillo UDEA: Sonsón Estudiante 
Dina Paula Marín UDEA: Sonsón Estudiante 
Edgar Suárez UDEA: Sonsón Estudiante 
Cecilia Redondo UDEA: Sonsón Estudiante 
Jesús Antonio Bravo UDEA: Sonsón Estudiante
Verónica Vega UDEA: Sonsón Estudiante
Silvia Redondo UDEA: Sonsón Estudiante
Ana María Sánchez UDEA: Sonsón Estudiante
Alirio Sánchez UDEA: Sonsón Estudiante/Egresada 
Alex Mesa UDEA: Sonsón Estudiante
Luis Fernando Álvarez Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana Decano
Cathalina Sánchez Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana Coordinación de la Clínica
Laura Zambrano Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana Experta en redes y gestión de proyectos 
académicos de la UPB
Cesar A. Molina Saldarriaga Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana Director Clínica Constitucional
Ángela María Mesa Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana 
Juan Carlos Vásquez Universidad de Medellín Decano
Erika Castro Universidad de Medellín Directora Clínica Jurídica 
Catherine Vega Universidad de Medellín Semillero DDHH
Carolina Londoño Universidad de Medellín Estudiante/Egresada 
Nelson Arango Universidad de Medellín Estudiante 
US-Colombia Partnership Program – Evaluation report Page 7-8
Jaime Jiménez Universidad de Medellín Estudiante
Ángela Vanegas Universidad de Medellín Estudiante 4 semestre. Clínica asuntos de 
género y derecho. 
Lina Estrada Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana Directora Proyecto El Pinar 
Oswaldo Gómez Universidad de Antioquia Gerente Administrativo Alianza 
Diana Carolina Sánchez Universidad de Antioquia Profesora, experta en clínica. 
Agustín Vélez Universidad de Antioquia Coordinador del Proyecto
Clemencia Giraldo Universidad de Antioquia Decana
Juliana Vélez Universidad de Medellín Egresada
Zara Marin UCO: Clínica Penitenciaria. Cárceles 
Oriente antioqueño.
Estudiante
Marta Lucía Gorgia Rendón UCO: Clínica de niños Estudiante 
Arley Díaz UCO: Clínica Penitenciaria. Cárceles 
Oriente antioqueño.
Estudiante (9 semestre de derecho) 
Estefany Castro UCO: Clínica Penitenciaria. Cárceles 
Oriente antioqueño.
Estudiante (9 semestre de derecho)
Celenia Osorio UCO: Clínica de niños y clínica de 
personas de la calle 
Estudiante (10 semestre de derecho) 
Paula Marcela Valencia Pérez UCO: Clínica penitenciaria Estudiante (9 semestre de derecho) 
Alejandra Orozco UCO: Clínica Penitenciaria. Cárceles 
Oriente antioqueño.
Estudiante (10 semestre de derecho) 
Zunibeth Manco Torres UCO: Clínica Penitenciaria. Cárceles 
Oriente antioqueño.
Estudiante Fundadora de la clínica 
US-Colombia Partnership Program – Evaluation report Page 7-9
Zara Magdali Gallo Castrillón UCO: Clínica penitenciaria Estudiante (7 semestre de derecho) 
Sergio Rodríguez Universidad de Antioquia Director zona Sonsón 
Jaime Agudelo Universidad de Antioquia Director Clínica Jurídica
Agueda Torres Universidad de Antioquia Directora Consultorio Jurídico
Jhon Jairo Castañeda Comunidad Granizal Edil/Líder Comunitario
Diana Salcedo Comunidad Granizal Lidereza 
Valle del Cauca Laura Giraldo Universidad de Santiago de Cali Estudiante de Derecho
Diana Fernández Universidad de Santiago de Cali Docente Profesora de DDHH y DI Público
Juan Batero Universidad de Santiago de Cali Estudiante de Derecho
Ana Inés Lopéz Ramírez Universidad de Santiago de Cali Estudiante de Derecho
Gustavo Jaramillo Universidad de Santiago de Cali Profesor Procesal Civil
Sofía Quintero Universidad de Santiago de Cali Estudiante de Derecho
Hermes Gregorio Araujo España Universidad de Santiago de Cali Abogado Litigante
Leonardo Sabogal Universidad de Santiago de Cali Profesor
Diana Quintero ICESI Profesora
William Rodriguez Universidad del Valle Fundación Esperanza por Colombia.
Jésus Darío González Experto Observatorio de Realidades. Obispo Cali
Carlos Fernando Torreros Universidad Santiago de Cali Profesor
Diana Marcela Bustamante Universidad de Santiago de Cali Coordinadora de Proyecto
Emma Peña Universidad Pontificia Javeriana de Cali Estudiante 
US-Colombia Partnership Program – Evaluation report Page 7-10
Adriana Tenorio Ocampo Universidad Pontificia Javeriana de Cali Psicóloga
Sigifredo Toro FENCOSER Representante Legal
Modesto Martínez Cardona FENCOSER Vocal
Raúl Núñez Universidad Pontificia Javeriana de Cali Coordinador DDHH
Luis Edison Bertinni Universidad Pontificia Javeriana de Cali Grupo Focal
Alejandro Ariza Universidad Pontificia Javeriana de Cali Grupo Focal
Sebastian Canal Universidad Pontificia Javeriana de Cali Grupo Focal
Costa Caribe Jesús Fuemayor UniMagdalena Asistente Centro DDHH
Lybni Pacheco UniMagdalena Estudiante de Derecho
Andrea Méndez UniMagdalena Estudiante de Cine
Álvaro Padilla UniMagdalena Representante estudiantil
Raquel García UniMagdalena Coordinadora Programa Opción Legal
Pablo Vera Salazar UniMagdalena Vicerrector de Extensión
Funcionario UniMagdalena Vicerrector de Docencia
Rito Pineda UniMagdalena Estudiante Programa de Derecho
Noe Segundo Saavedra Director de Cárcel Judicial Director Cárcel Judicial de Santa Marta
Herminia Puche UniMagdalena Docente programa de Derecho
US-Colombia Partnership Program – Evaluation report Page 7-11
Hans Rangel UniMagdalena Suplente Representante estudiantil ante el 
Consejo Académico
Iván Amaya UniMagdalena Ayudante Facultad de Humanidades
José Baena UniMagdalena Estudiante proyecto Carcelario
Eduardo Vélez Soto Defensa Civil Comandante Defensa Civil Colombiana
Milton Montes Fonseca UniMagdalena Estudiante proyecto Carcelario
María Toloza UniMagdalena Rectora IED Aluna
Ledys Buelvas Ojeda Defensa Civil Psicóloga Defensa Civil
Laura Cera Uninorte Asistente Centro DDHH
Viridiana Molinares Uninorte Profesora/Directora Derechos Constitucional
Juan Pablo Sarmiento Uninorte Profesora Investigadora
Silvia Gloria Uninorte Decana 
Laura Briceño Uninorte Coordinadora del Proyecto
Wilson Castañeda Caribe Afirmativo Director
Ariel Cáceres KUSUTO Director
Paúl González Uninorte Profesores de Consultorio Jurídico
Edenia Orozco Uninorte Profesores Consultorio Jurídico
Katherine Sanchez Alcaldía de Barranquilla Programa de Mujer y Género
Silvana Insinares Uninorte Directora Aérea de Comercio Exterior
Shilrley Llain Uninorte Directora de Moot Court
Javier Tous Uninorte Profesor
US-Colombia Partnership Program – Evaluation report Page 7-12
Judith Echevarria Uninorte Profesor
Grupo de Estudiantes de 
Consultorio (10 estudiantes)
Uninorte
Otras personas Néstor Raúl Correa Experto Derechos Humanos Magistrado CSJ
Beatriz Londoño Red Colombiana de Clínicas Jurídicas Universidad del Rosario
Adriana Benjumea Corporación Humanas Directora Ejecutiva
HED Diana Paez-Cook HED Program Officer, Latin America and the 
Caribbean
Omri Malul HED Senior Specialist, Program Quality and Strategy
Anne Guison Dowdy HED Senior Specialist, Monitoring, Assessment, and 
Reporting
María Consuelo Ramírez HED HED/Colombia
Jaimie Salazar HED Program specialist
Universidades 
estadounidenses
Barbara Frey UMN Directora Proyecto UMN
Melissa Aguilar AU Directora Adminsitrativa AU
USAID/Colombia Andrea Guardo USAID Human Rights Specialist, Democracy, Human 
Rights and Governance
Donald Chisholm USAID Deputy Director, Office of Democracy and 
Human Rights
Todd Sloan USAID Director, Office of Democracy and Human 
Rights
US-Colombia Partnership Program – Evaluation report Page 7-13
ANNEX 3. Partnership level findings 
Antioquia partnership 
Relevance
The choice of Antioquia as one of the regions for the implementation of the Program is
unequivocally ascertained. Antioquia is economically and politically a pivotal region in
Colombia. It has been particularly affected by the different waves of violence that hit the 
country over the last decades, both in urban centers (like in the Valle de Aburrá where Medellin
is located) and in rural areas. It has been the scenario of appalling cases of violence, and many 
people have been caught between varieties of armed groups that deployed their brutality in the
region. It has been the center of expulsion, reception and resettlement of large number of
population. One of its public universities, University of Antioquia (UDEA), was singularly
targeted during the peak of violence (including through the assassination of faculty and students,
threats and violent repression). 
Other than interesting but stand-alone initiatives, universities have not played a critical role in
human rights debates in the region. Strengthening their capacity to train in human rights is
undoubtedly pertinent, taking into account the relevance of Antioquia’s higher education
institutions as one of the seedbeds of future influential professionals countrywide. 
The choice of the universities that form the consortium enabled the Program to reach not only
the city of Medellin but also the nearby Oriente antioqueño, a region particularly victimized during 
the internal armed conflict.51 The involvement of the recently established UCO law school as
well as of UDEA rural extension in Sonsón has provided the schools with the possibility to
foster their human rights focus, and the students with the opportunity to learn about human
rights and participate in the opportunities offered by the Program.
There is no doubt that, as underlined in HED mid-term assessment report, the three objectives
defined by the Antioquia partners were relevant. In particular, regarding objective 2, Antioquia
universities have developed some still limited initiatives in the communities. In that sense, 
promoting the development of outreach activities with the population from the universities is a 
positive initiative: not only does it allow them to be closer to reality, and motivate their students 
to learn about and get involved in their immediate surroundings, but it also encourages the 
schools to continue, resume or initiate their work with the communities. Some external 
counterparts also found in universities the guarantee for long-term commitment to the
community (different from NGOs that depend on projects), and for less radical views. 
 
51 This aspect was underlined in the Initial Institutional Assessment Report, p.7.
US-Colombia Partnership Program – Evaluation report Page 7-14
Furthermore, developing or strengthening the law clinics from a human rights perspective and
using methods that increase their learning purpose benefit the universities as relevant actors in
human rights debates as well as reinforce their capacity to adequately prepare future lawyers. 
At results levels (objectives and outcomes), the Antioquia partnership planning is logical and
does not present critical issues. Some aspects could be debatable, but overall the planning makes 
sense. A certain disconnect exists, however, between the outputs and activities foreseen and the 
results. For example, expanding the curriculum on human rights would entail a different focus
of the activities, and would have implied going much further than the anticipated actions. The
process the Program followed to establish the partnerships might explain this situation, since it
oriented US universities to focus their contributions in terms of activities and resources, and did 
not stimulate the realization of serious analysis of the needs and preconditions of the universities. 
In Antioquia, the partnership focused the first part of its implementation towards clinical work,
probably based on UMN strength in that area rather than as a strategic path to strengthen 
institutional capacity. 
Although they recognize the relevance of the partnership’s objectives, Antioquia partners seem
to have been involved very late and insufficiently in the design of the Program, situation that
provoked resistance in some universities and delayed the implementation. Furthermore, the 
choice of working through a consortium of four universities was never really explained to them
and came as a surprise. Some interlocutors defined the Partnership as “daring”, “adventurous”. 
If the Partnership triggered interesting outcomes, they did not come as a result of a previous
analysis of its feasibility. Studies of each university were carried out during the prior assessment, 
but it did not cover the possibility of universities working together. 
Efficiency
As the survey and interview respondents indicated during the mid-term assessment, most
challenges were related to developing a concrete and functional community among a diverse 
array of institutions and individuals, ensuring continued commitment at the institutional level, 
and managing changes to adapt to new processes and procedures. The daring gamble to
associate four very distinct universities in Antioquia ended up being an efficient mechanism to
ensure the implementation of the partnership. 
The establishment of a three-member coordination team for the consortium (composed of a 
Clinical Director, a Human Rights Professor and an Administrative Coordinator) was key to
coordinating the Antioquia Partnership, and organize and carry out all the activities: short
courses (52 training sessions were reportedly given), joint strategic litigations, and externships in
UMN. The Program management team counterbalanced the slim (human) resource dedicated 
by the participant universities to the Program. 
US-Colombia Partnership Program – Evaluation report Page 7-15
These many activities would not have been feasible with the resources the Antioquia universities
put at the disposal of the partnership. As recognized in the mid-term assessment: “With
balancing teaching, partnership, and other responsibilities seen as a necessity, respondents
indicated that the time allotted to faculty participating in and implementing partnership activities 
was a challenge” (p.12). First of all, only in UDEM and in UCO, professors could dedicate most 
of their time to the partnership. In the rest of the universities, the availability of the professors
was much more reduced. Second of all, turnover among the focal points for the partnership in
the universities represented a real challenge for the activities’ sustainability. 
The coordination team played an essential role in ensuring the coordination between all the 
partners for the realization of the activities. A weekly operative meeting that gathers dedicated 
faculty at each partner law school allowed for building trust, keeping the partners up-to-date 
regarding the activities, ensuring their active participation, and strategically plan the activities. 
The Antioquia partnership involved the operation of a complex and multilayered management
system that included the universities, the coordination management team, UMN,
HED/Colombia, and HED/Washington. Financially, UDEM has to be added since it managed
(not without difficulties) the funds for the four Antioquia universities. It certainly guaranteed the
implementation of the activities, and a strict control over it. Such a burdensome mechanism did 
function owing to the efficiency that characterized many Antioquia professionals, but also to the
institutional adjustments that took place in the administration of partner institutions to facilitate
partnership implementation. These adjustments reflect important institutional efforts to adjust 
their structures to achieve the partnership’s intended results. 
However, it implied an overload of administrative work for the coordination team to the 
detriment of substantive initiatives. Two of the members of the coordination team were 
assigned the task to substantially support the universities in clinical work and curriculum
modifications. They contributed to building the joint cases as well as working with universities
on curricular modifications. However, the organization of so many activities and the Program’s 
administrative demands took over a lot of their time to the detriment of more substantial tasks. 
The pressure to show concrete results also contributed to losing the sight of the Program’s
overarching goals. 
The staffing model of the Antioquia partnership has two different effects. On one side, it
enabled to booster the coordination of the activities, and thus improving the efficiency of the
partnership between the four universities. The approach seems logical and strategic to ensure 
the work with four universities at the same time. Exceeding simple coordination, it also 
promoted joint work between the universities. It went to the point that the Partnership as such 
seems to have gained a proper life beyond each of the universities. On the other side, the 
Partnership might have overshadowed the results each university has individually achieved 
through the partnership. 
US-Colombia Partnership Program – Evaluation report Page 7-16
Effectiveness 
The UMN did have a previous experience working with Latin American Universities (especially
in Mexico). However, it did not have knowledge of the Colombian context nor of the operation 
and idiosyncrasies of Colombian universities. Although the situation was ameliorated owing to
the patience, persistence, arduous work, and flexibility of UMN’s representatives, who regularly 
visited Antioquia and maintained regular contacts with all the partners, this situation caused 
some starting hiccups and initial mistrust. For instance, some of the partners expressed the view 
that their previous human rights initiatives were not taken into consideration and that the project
was initiated as if they had not worked previously on the matter. They also regretted that UMN
did not have enough knowledge of the work and operation of Colombian law clinics. 
Despite these initial misconceptions, the UMN quickly overturned the situation and was able to
constructively work with its partners to adapt the partnership to their mutual needs. One of the 
key examples repeatedly highlighted is the substitution of one scholarship for a faculty to do a 
LL.M. at the UMN by four scholarships to complete a Master Degree in UDEA. 
The UMN played a key role in providing new knowledge, networking opportunities, and
accompaniment to its Colombian counterparts. The importance and experience of UMN in
human rights is recognized, the quality of its professors undisputedly acknowledged, and the
externships considered as unique opportunities for faculties and students. If the role of UMN
was clear training wise, it does not seem so discernible regarding its participation in the selection
and writing of the clinic cases, apart from the two joint cases. It is also regrettable that UMN 
never accompanied university faculty and students in their outreach activities. It would have 
given them the opportunity to adequately tailor their clinic teaching.52
Taking advantage of UMN’s expertise, the core of Antioquia partnership’s activities was geared
towards the strengthening (or establishment in the case of UCO) of the universities’ legal clinics. 
It was achieved through training to the professors and the students, externships, and the
identification of cases that could be jointly advocated. 
Following that logic, results were achieved at two levels. At the individual university level, UCO
and UDEM took extensive advantage of the partnership: UCO created its legal clinic (that is
now institutionalized), and UDEM was able to significantly strengthen the work carried out on
its own.53 The partnership achieved some but less visible results in UDEA and UPB.
 
52 For example, it would have been important that UMN accompany UCO in its prison visits to be able to 
assist them better with tailored methodologies and training. 
53 However, in UDEM, the law clinic has not yet been linked to the legal practice center, possibility that would 
have allowed it to be permanent. In the universities where the legal clinic is inserted in the consultorio jurídico, a 
better degree of degree of effectiveness could be observed. To the contrary, in universities where they were 
separated, they missed an opportunity to achieve greater effectiveness in training students. 
US-Colombia Partnership Program – Evaluation report Page 7-17
At the partnership level, two joint initiatives were developed: a shadow report directed at the
Committee of the Rights of the Child, and a joint presentation of the situation of communities
resettlement in Antioquia. Both actions required a great level of coordination, which was 
possible owing to the steady work of the coordination team, as well as the dedication of some of
the universities’ focal points. It is undeniable that these two litigation processes allowed the 
achievement of many different results: working jointly; strengthening legal clinic work;
introducing new training methods; motivating the students; improving the knowledge of the
faculty and the students involved; opening new networking possibilities; influencing public
policies. As such, these very positive initiatives could be pursued. The question remains: would
the development of joint litigation processes in human rights contribute to strengthening law 
schools capacity to train human rights? Is this a backdoor strategy? If so, what conditions are 
required to make it an effective backdoor strategy? 
The focus of the first part of the project was geared towards clinical work, leaving aside 
curricular modifications. The mid-term assessment made a specific recommendation to that 
respect, and triggered a major concentration of the work in that respect with some small and
concrete results. For example, in UCO, the curriculum reform is going to initiate in July 2015, 
and took advantage of the assistance of the Partnership, through the human rights professor
assigned to this task. However, the modification of the curriculum is not an objective that can
be attained so easily. Each university has its own process, conditions and objectives. For 
example, UDEA was finishing a seven-year process it was difficult to impact on. On the other 
hand, mainstreaming human rights into the curriculum, as is UCO wish, entails structural
modifications and training that cannot be reached through a short project. The work on the 
curriculum would have required conducting a previous assessment of the needs and conditions
in each university, and much more dedication than the project allowed for. 
Regarding the work with communities, each of the universities has developed outreach activities
within the framework of the partnership. Some strengthened the initiatives they were already
carrying out (like UDEA and UDEM). The partnership allowed them to introduce a human 
rights-based approach to their actions, involving better the community, implementing new
analytical methodologies, and increasing their focus on accountability mechanisms. However, 
the implementation of some of the outreach activities seems to have responded to Program 
demands rather than to universities goals. As a result they were either built on pre-existing 
activities (such as the training in the Granizal community in Bello) or implemented without 
much preparation or reflection (such is the case for the training in the school of El Pinar), 
beyond good intentions. The intervention of UMN in the preparation and implementation of
outreach activities is not clear. Its implication through the accompaniment of its partners in the
field would certainly have enabled its teachers to tailor specific training sessions to the reality
students and professors meet (for example, on popular education), and to assist in reflecting on
the role of the university and its expected and unexpected impact in the population. 
US-Colombia Partnership Program – Evaluation report Page 7-18
In Antioquia, the Partnership has limited, even scarce relationships with local civil society
organizations. Isolated attempts exist. For instance, UDEM has been participating in an
initiative led by Corporación Humanas on sexual/domestic violence and strategic litigation. 
UCO is the secretariat of Mesa de Derechos Humanos del Oriente, an inter-institutional
mechanism that gathers official institutions, the Church, and different sectors of civil society 
(including UCO, NGOs and business representatives). The persons interviewed from
universities and NGOs coincided in highlighting the relevance of an interrelation between two 
sectors that have a crucial and complementary role to play in human rights promotion and
protection. However, they continue to act separately and in parallel. Afar from the discourse, a 
constructive dialog between the universities part of the Partnership and NGOs has not been 
undertaken. 
Finally, gender equality has not been absent of Antioquia partnership activities: specific courses 
have been dedicated on women’s rights, the UDEM law clinic has developed a specific line on
this thematic area. However, they still remain isolated initiatives with restricted scope. On
another topic, the lack of a gender specific perspective might have limited the results of the 
efforts deployed. For example, some parts of the CRC shadow report adopted a clear family￾oriented vision, discussable from a gender perspective. The effort was there; the expertise might 
not.
In sum, the Antioquia partnership carried out many activities, certainly achieved concrete results, 
and definitively was important to strengthen the knowledge of the persons involved. These 
results depend greatly upon the characteristics of the universities (with greater impact in a small 
university, such as UCO, than in a much bigger university, such as UDEA). It provided the 
opportunity to all the partners to explore the opportunities and understand the challenges that 
exist to strengthen the training on human rights of their law schools. Its results correspond to a 
good exploratory process. As underlined by the mid-term evaluation, “more time is needed for 
the partnership to fully achieve its objectives – the type of systemic changes the partners would
like to see in their institutions are considered long-term and will require additional time to take 
root.”
Results
The “daring partnership” between the four Antioquia universities showed that common interest 
could lead to joint work with substantial results. The idea of working through a consortium of
four universities did not come from the universities, but was imposed on them.54 For a small
 
54 The evaluation team was unable to find a written document explaining the reason the consortium was 
established (the Initial Institutional Assessment report does not mention the consortium; it analyzed each of the four 
universities). No one could provide an explication either. 
US-Colombia Partnership Program – Evaluation report Page 7-19
educational institution, such as UCO, a partnership with larger universities and a US university
provided it with the possibility to position itself, to network, and to gain a strategic vision. In the
words of its dean, the participation in the Partnership “enormously renovated the school.”55 The
work Antioquia universities were able to jointly conduct will benefit from future collaborative
efforts. A “truly collaborative relationship” has developed between the Antioquia universities
and the UMN. 
The Antioquia partnership has allowed to: 
 strengthen the faculty capacity (in human rights and education methodology), through 
short courses, externships, training from international experts – including from Latin 
America-, contribution to joint litigation. Short courses involved other faculty from the
law schools and faculty. 
 “internationalize” the universities: The universities recognized that the partnership 
provided them with the possibility to open up internationally. The partnership with an
American university with the experience and trajectory of UMN provided them with
opportunities that they would not have had without the Program. 
 strengthen the legal clinics. The strengthening of the legal clinics (especially through the
time allocation for professors, new and specialized knowledge) has contributed to
strengthen the importance of human rights education in the participating schools;56 it
contributed to the pertinence of the clinics within the universities; and it motivated the
students to work on human rights issues. 
 provoke evident changes in students that took part in the activities (enthusiasm, 
motivation, passion, possible career in human right). 
The possibility to influence the revision of the university curricula was possibly overstated,
especially in bigger universities (such as UDEA). This long-term endeavor requires a clear 
commitment from the university leaders. A better knowledge and more consultation with the
identified universities might have enable to define this work better.
 
55 Interview with UCO Dean, April 22, 2015.
56 “UDEM faculty indicated that before the partnership the clinic had a fundamentally local approach to 
strategic litigation, and through the capacity building activities made available by the partnership they have been 
able to look beyond the local venues for human rights protection (such as through their work with the Inter￾American Commission on Human Rights), to strengthen their work with the community, and to change their 
perspective on the teaching of human rights. They now realize that they are able to engage in human rights 
advocacy and litigation at the international level.” (monitoring document)
US-Colombia Partnership Program – Evaluation report Page 7-20
Noticeable Antioquia Activities, Products and Intermediate Results
--Objective by Objective of the Program--
Under Objective 1, Antioquia results included short courses on specific human rights issues; faculty
externships in and visits to the UMN, the enrollment of faculty in UDEA Master in Law Program,
the establishment of a curriculum committee focused on human rights to review and improve the
curriculum; mainstreaming of the human rights perspective in the curricular reform of the UCO;
creating university learning processes in human rights, in the rural zones of Antioquia that have been
affected by conflict (Sonsón and Rionegro); strengthening the training of teachers in human rights
with an approach to the mechanisms of regional and universal systems of protection of human rights;
creating spaces of support and discussion of the human rights agenda in the academia, between
partner universities; the UDEM provided contractual guarantees so that the coordinators of the clinic
could be devoted to research and to directing the human rights clinic. Particularly, UDEA
accomplished the involvement of other schools of the university in research and clinical work.
Under Objective 2, the main achievements are the creation of a law clinic in UCO, and the
institutional strengthening of UDEM’s legal clinic as well as the creation of processes and
methodologies for training in the attention and defense of human tights, through a statute of rules to
participate in the clinic by the students, and creating sustainable processes. Additionally, joint
litigation cases and advocacy strategies in the universal and regional human rights systems in order to
position issues; mobilizing strategies of international advocacy in order to effect the course of judicial
processes at the national level, in charge of judicial clinics such as the ones of UDEM and UDE;
creating methodologies for serving victims of the conflict; position the universities as centers of
socio-legal attention in zones traditionally affected by conflict. Creating alliances by the UCO with
the Diocese of the East, as one of the most influential and visible stakeholders in the protection of
human rights. It is also relevant to note that the UDEM and the UPB accomplished institutionalizing
an office within the law schools, which allowed the offices to be a space of reference to discuss
human rights in the universities.
Under Objective 3, short courses, externships for students in the UMN, and internship participation
in the Inter American Commission on Human Rights, where amongst the experiential learning
opportunities provided to students. Furthermore, the UCO and the UDEA encouraged students to
combine the obligatory practice of the legal clinic with the cases and project of the clinic, with a
human rights approach; new spaces were created and strengthened in the UDEM, regarding culture
and human rights, with the support of the students from the clinic; for example, the radio station of
the university, and the theatre and singing groups for the dissemination of the contents of
fundamental rights; publication of materials created by the students in order to promote and care for
the rights of the prison population, women and victims. The possibilities for training abroad for
students were amplified, and new abilities of training were created too, such as orality and research.
US-Colombia Partnership Program – Evaluation report Page 7-21
Sustainability 
It is undisputable that the Antioquia universities welcomed the partnerships with US universities,
such as with UMN, and have already entered into agreement with other foreign universities
regarding other programs. These types of partnership provide regional universities with 
international recognition, greater weight at national level, and better and greater opportunities for
their students. In fact, some universities, such as UDEA, have expressed their interest in
furthering the relationship with UMN through a bilateral agreement. 
Regarding the partnership between the Antioquia universities, it is not clear to what extent the 
partners involved are interested in pursuing the efforts, and to what purpose. Interestingly, the 
evaluation team obtained contradictory answers from the persons interviewed. Joint strategic 
litigations or the strengthening of a regional law clinic network constituted some of the ideas
flagged during the interviews for continuing the partnership. Joint litigation could also give rise 
to training opportunities for prosecutors and judges. 
However, it is doubtful that the Partnership can be maintained with the actual structure. 
Furthermore, apart from UCO57 (and maybe UDEM – but for other reasons), it is not clear to
what extent university leaders are committed to engaging financial and human resources in a
human rights program. A clear commitment of the deans and the rectors is a requisite to allow
for the sustainability of any inter-universities efforts.
Valle del Cauca partnership 
Relevance
The choice of the Valle del Cauca region is also quite justified. The region is usually understood
to comprise the Department of Valle del Cauca and the Northern part of the Cauca department. 
Situated in the southwest of Colombia, between the Andes and the Pacific, the region counts
eight different indigenous peoples and a large Afro-descendent Colombian population. In spite
of insufficient information on and investigation of human rights violations in the region, there is
enough evidence to argue that a critical human rights concern is the number and type of
 
57 UCO took two important measures to guarantee the continuity of the Partnership’s results: it compromised 
itself to pay the salary of the two persons in charge of the law clinics; and the law clinic is now officially 
established as part of the consultorio jurídico. 
US-Colombia Partnership Program – Evaluation report Page 7-22
violations against indigenous people.58 Furthermore, according to the United Nations, in 2014,
9.63 % of the internal displacement for the entire country occurred in Cauca region.59
The selection of law schools did not adequately capture their immediate concerns, and does not
seem to have had sufficient analysis of the administrative risks of the universities. 
The choice of USC appears to owe to its high number of Afro-descendent students and the
socio-economic background of the student body; the prior existence of a “semillero” in Afro￾descendent matters; and the school’s focus on criminal law. However, other aspects, such as
logistical deficiencies, fragile legitimacy or administrative and financial limitations, that could
present some risks for the implementation of the Program, do not seem to have been duly taken
into account, or at least were not reported. They ended up affecting the level of relevance of the
partnership for the school and for the Valle del Cauca, and later restricted the individual and
overall results of the project. Additionally, USC’s recruitment and hiring practices were not
considered: the inexistence of full time teachers in the law school severely limited the intensity of
their commitment and jeopardized the Program’s sustainability. Similarly, the university’s
complex, slow, centralized and often unpredictable decision-making process weakened its
effectiveness and deviated the immediate attention of faculty and administrative staff to
deciphering the way to secure decisions necessary to the partnership.
The relevance of the Program to the local universities and its overall regional impact in Valle del 
Cauca were also restricted by the lack of familiarity of AU with the local context. As we
mentioned in Program-level analysis, the relevance of the Program is determined, largely, by the
context and situation of human rights in the country. In this sense, this section of the evaluation
must determine to what extent the partnership in this region was relevant to confront and 
address the specific needs of the region. Therefore, field questions were aimed to show how the
logical design of the Program by each university was relevant and appropriate to address the 
situation of human rights in the Valle del Cauca. The law school services to the communities did 
not appear to target some of the most visible and influential cases of human rights violations in
the region. Though it can be argued that any potential violation of human rights makes a good
entry point for law school training and institutionalization, a weak linkage between most urgently
needed community demands and law school service-practices also weakens relevance and
potential interest and commitment from faculty, students and regional communities. 
The design and initial proposal of the partnership were focused on the goal of institutional
strengthening and enhancement of the capacity of faculty and students. To this effect, a series of
workshops and legal trainings to teachers, community and beneficiary students were organized.
The training was of high quality and appreciated by participants. Still, it left out of the roadmap
other dimensions of the objectives as institutional strengthening or securing improved capacity
 
58http://cms.onic.org.co/2015/03/balance-situacion-de-vulneracion-de-ddhh-e-infracciones-al-dih￾subcomision-de-ddhh-garantias-y-paz-informe-de-seguimiento-0101-0803-2015/
59 Source DPS/Unidad de Atención y Reparación Integral a las Víctimas by year of expulsion cut-off date: Jan
1, 2015, report date: February 5, 2015.
US-Colombia Partnership Program – Evaluation report Page 7-23
to meet the human rights needs of the community. Still, the effectiveness and efficiency of
workshops were conditioned by oversized participation. Perhaps more importantly for relevance
purposes, the design of the workshops did not take into account either the obvious differences 
between the two Valle law schools or the specific demands of the local population in terms of
human rights violations. 
The Valle partnership counted on the support of the installed capacity of the law school at AU. 
AU did offer the Valle law schools initial training or consolidation in some of AU’s recognized
areas of competitive advantage, including English summer courses, the moot court competition
and the academy of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law. Yet there appears to be little effort
to capture the particularities of the regional human rights context or the capability differences 
between the two selected Valle schools. It seems that the Project design did not require –nor did 
management supervise-, effort by the US partner School to: i) think about the design and
implementation of the Project as a function of the needs of the local partners; ii) document the 
human rights situation in the region so as to offer creative strategies, or adequate training and
litigation addressed and tailor-made to local reality; iii) draw lessons from successful, domestic 
strategies for the protection of human rights in the country. 
That void in the design allowed the universities to initially focus the Program on those areas in
which they already had greater extent capacity and in which they wanted to excel –with or
without Program support. In the case of PUJC, the design of the partnership was essentially 
circumscribed to training and strengthening existing activities. A clear example of this is the high
number of hours, time and resources dedicated to training and participation of students and
teachers from PUJC in the moot courts led by AU. The results framework for the project allows 
for this sort of trade-off in emphasis. A more closely defined higher-level objective might have 
further stimulated the partners to supplement training with other specific objectives of the
Program while developing synergies among project components and pursuing a common higher 
level objective –as proposed in the overarching objective of the Program. 
Efficiency
Efficiency and effectiveness were both increased and limited by: i) the selection of law school in
the early phase of program planning and implementation and, ii) management during 
implementation at full scale. 
USC
The selection of the universities did not take into account the institutions’ management gaps and
capacity. The facts showed that efficiency in the management of resources could hardly be
expected, and therefore conditioned the level of effectiveness and impact of activities and
deliverables. For example, in USC payment of project coordinator fees appeared to be some 
US-Colombia Partnership Program – Evaluation report Page 7-24
months late. The evaluation team was also informed that management and administrative delays 
had forced the suspension of law school services in the field as well as the “semillero” brigades.
On one level, built baselines focused on a series of training activities and visits to the
Washington College of Law (WCL) summer school without realizing the shortcomings to be
overcome and the strengths to leverage. Additionally, the support of AU in the report and 
review of the indicators and activities was merely an exercise in gathering quantitative
information sent by the national coordinators, which does not convey the reality of the
difficulties of implementing the partnership.
At first glance, one might say that the agreement between USC and AU for the preparation and
reporting of quarterly reports was efficient as it was left at the head of the AU coordination the 
collection of information. This mechanism of cooperation was limited to account for the 
activities from a purely quantitative approach, leaving aside the identification of the causes of
delay in the implementation, cost-benefits of activities, the impacts of the “semillero” activities and
the conceptual needs of the initiatives.
In relation to risk management as a factor of efficiency of the Project, it is important to mention
that the USC team was the only one who informed that the selection of areas and topics to cater 
for the brigades were limited by recommendation of security contractor. 
Finally, in the costs of investment of resources and time of the visits by teachers and AU team,
there was a lost opportunity for the international team to have a deeper knowledge about the
fieldwork of the University, the difficulty and scope of the brigades, and the adjustment of the 
necessary activities to redefine the project implementation. In particular, participants observed 
that more days in the field were needed if the AU team is to have direct observation of
communities’ needs and potential. 
PUJC
As mentioned, the design of the Program lost degrees of efficiency by focusing on the training of
teachers in the academic offerings of the WCL, and especially, in activities designed for summer
in the city of Washington. In that sense, the Program missed the opportunity to develop creative
projects in other areas, which impact on the effectiveness and results of the alliance with PUJC. 
Additionally, the initial logic of the Program sought to create a consortium, as happened in
Antioquia. However communication difficulties and differences of views, which were not
originally identified during the selection process, affected the level of efficiency in the first year,
and led to a review of activities by University. This process caused a loss of effort and time in
management and results. 
The administrative relationship between the PUJC and AU coordinators assumed that teachers
were interested, but PUJC did not assumed their duties as part of quarterly activities report. 
Although AU facilitates such management, it was not compensated for the AU academic support 
US-Colombia Partnership Program – Evaluation report Page 7-25
coordinators. Therefore, there was not an efficient discharge without compensation report of
the academic support. 
In addition, the support of AU was focused on gathering information without an analysis of the 
effects of the reported activities on the results.
During the interviews, the evaluation team was informed that the mid-term evaluation did not
meet the expectations of the local partners to be a space for self-reflection, diagnosis and 
adjustments of activities to achieve the objectives of the Program, and therefore the opportunity
was lost to define new academic program and proposed methodological strategies. 
Effectiveness
Assessing the level of effectiveness of the partnership of Valle del Cauca requires starting out 
with a reading of expected impacts for this region. So, it is reiterated that, according to the initial
proposal of American University, results were expected as a consortium between the three
universities as equal parts. However, as reported by AU, since the construction of the baselines
it became evident that it was necessary to design a separate work for each university; otherwise,
the execution of the activities and objectives of the Project ran the risk of not being 
implemented.
In that sense, it is worth asking whether the selection itself of the two universities in Cali and the
initial Program implementation efforts decreased or pushed the effectiveness of each
partnership. A first deeper question is whether the vision of partnering the USC and PUJC (on
the one hand, the USC with a view of formation of political actors and an emphasis on criminal 
law, and, on the other hand, PUJC with a training mission in private law) conditioned the
effectiveness of the overall objectives of the Program. 
Emphasis or specialization on criminal or corporate law is not by itself restrictive of the potential
of the Program. Those strengths can be and have been capitalized elsewhere in favor of the
penetration of human rights in institutional arrangements and human resource capacity at the law
schools. What is needed –and was not present in either Valle del Cauca cases-, was a deliberate 
strategy to build bridges between those areas of specialization and the culture of human rights
within the law school: for instance, bridges between the new two human rights faculty at PUJC 
and the curriculum, the constitutionalization of other legal areas or the rest of the faculty. 
One is the impact of having a solid yet relatively isolated human rights curriculum, another is the
impact of permeating the human rights imprint in every dimension and at every corner of the
law school. The comparison, for instance, between PUJC and UN is telling in this regard. While
the PUJC program remained relatively restricted to one area of law (human rights) plus 
experiential training in competitive contests and the legal clinic, Uninorte imprinted every action
US-Colombia Partnership Program – Evaluation report Page 7-26
with a human rights perspective, be it the curriculum, research, the clinic, other extension and
dissemination activities that cut across all faculties of the university. 
Additionally, it is worth noting that each university selected began the execution with different 
capabilities, institutional and human strengths and weaknesses. However, expectations and 
Program goals were set equally for the two partnerships despite the difference in the realities 
they came from. 
There was of course room for customization. Within the general standardized framework,
schools could creatively introduce customized indicators for intermediate goals of their own. 
But creativity requires not only talent but also relevance and ownership. When a school, such as
USC, is submerged in larger institutional risks and inefficiencies, the priority is survival at all
costs, including protecting the mere survival of the Program. 
USC
From the evaluation of the USC, it is evident that there was the investment of a high level of
effort in time, planning, monitoring for the implementation of activities, particularly training of
teachers, students and community, without achieving concrete results in strengthening of human
rights culture in the region, better services to the community or sustainable institutional capacity.
Regarding internal management of the Program, the benefits were limited by a lack of ownership
by the leaders and teachers of the law faculty and of the University (which is highly centralized).
The level of effort rested on few individuals –not with the institution. It went to the point that 
some of the initiatives of the legal brigades were carried out under the initiative and direction of
a private law firm dedicated to pro bono activities in the defense of human rights. There was no
guidance from the law school leadership on selection of priorities, linkages with regular
curriculum or research or any other university activity. Neither there was participation of the
school in monitoring or providing feedback to this firm’s pro bono services.
The lack of logistical backing and coordination to support the work of the coordinator of the
Program’s activities was also a restricting factor to the Program’s effectiveness at USC. As a 
matter of fact, the Program coordinators at USC had to do everything by themselves, from the
smallest details of each activity to reporting and evaluation. Administrative and substantive
functions were too heavy a burden –especially when the individuals involved are not full time
employees of the university. It also reduced the hours dedicated to assess context, actions and 
dimensions of impact of their actions with the community regarding the results expected from
the partnership. 
PUJC
In the case of the PUJC and AU partnership, a key success factor for the effectiveness of the
results can be linked to the creativity and time commitment of those faculty members in charge 
of the Project. As a matter of fact, the University provided the necessary incentives and support 
when it created two full time positions for human rights (there were none before) and appointed
US-Colombia Partnership Program – Evaluation report Page 7-27
program leaders to these two academic positions. That action is, by itself, a contribution to the
strengthening of the culture of respect for human rights in the region. 
On the other hand, personalizing the Program and, more broadly, human rights activities within 
the school in the two recently appointed faculty members, without strong linkages to the rest of
the law school, limited the effectiveness of the achievements of results. For example, the
Program coordinators imprinted their (restrictive) view of the legal clinic to primarily self￾awareness and training of students, and thus they lost sight of the broader options of the human
rights legal clinics –as promoted, for instance, by the Colombian Network of Legal Clinics. 
The particular focus of the assistance of AU also limited the vision and the range of results at
PUJC. Since the AU teamwork focused on quantitative data collection for submission of reports 
and offering training spaces at WCL, those were the brand of the Program most developed by
PUJC. No wonder PUJC had little visibility and weak connections with other institutions –even
other Catholic church institutions-- devoted to the protection of human rights in the region, 
such as the Archdiocese of Cali.
Results
The impacts of Valle del Cauca Partnership should be viewed as two sides of the same coin: on
one side the regional impact of the Project and, on the other side, the impacts in the universities. 
Regionally, internationalization of both universities in the framework of the activities and
summer programs at WCL is highlighted. Additionally, PUJC law program geared towards 
strengthening the skills of its students in oral presentations, briefs writing and moot court skills 
(as tool of experiential education) is also recognized. Additionally, international training at AU
and the internships at the IACHR and Inter-American Court generated great opportunities for 
all beneficiaries of the Project. 
Although the importance of training within the framework of the Project is recognized as an
exercise to strengthen the students’ skills, the emphasis and dedication during the three years in
the activity crowded out other potential activities with more direct and more visible impact on
the enhancement of human rights in the region. The selected initiatives had limited scope of
training for a group of students, and are restricted to the university area. Therefore, the 
universities appeared to have lost sight of the formulation of relevant actions to achieve
institutional strengthening and care of the problems of human rights. 
During the fieldwork, the evaluation team had the opportunity to meet with other law professors
and key players responsible for working with communities of Cali on human rights issues, who
underscored the disconnection of the universities from the social reality in the region. In
particular, the participating universities underestimated the social reality; they worked on projects 
and issues with little demonstration or precedent effect. The Program as such had little or no
US-Colombia Partnership Program – Evaluation report Page 7-28
visibility for those entities, such as church service units, whose mandate is to enhance human
rights in the region.
In that sense, the internationalization of both universities reflects the academic and political 
strength and value-added of AU, in particular regarding the inter-American human rights system. 
It expanded the strategic capacity of teachers and students in the design of litigation strategies
and legal action, and allowed them to refine their national and international litigation.
However, overweighting the importance of the globalization has also the potential to reduce the
level of impact at national and community level. Therefore, the approach on training and
activities in the inter-American system reduced the possibility for local universities to expand 
their networks with NGOs, leaders and key players in the region to strengthen the specific needs
of the Valle del Cauca on national actions regarding human rights.
US-Colombia Partnership Program – Evaluation report Page 7-29
Noticeable Valle Activities, Products and Intermediate Results
--Objective by Objective of the Program—
In reference to objective 1, the teachers in USC integrated in their law pedagogy, the
methodology of practical solution of cases and experiential training. Moreover, the USC
extended the teaching of human rights to students that live in rural zones. Both universities
accomplished offering the human rights courses in the first semesters of law school as an
elective subject. In particular, the PUJC created an area of concentration in human rights,
which is offered to the law students.
The PUJC strengthened the institutional capacity by appointing as full time professors the
coordinators of the human rights area, including more dedication and incentives to research in
this area, as well as the creation of a physical location for the office of the human rights clinic
in the university.
Regarding objective 2, the USC made agreements with private offices to position their socio￾legal work in the communities; the PUJC consolidated the “consultorio jurídico” through the work
of the legal clinic, which generated internal processes of training for the students, in caring for
victims of and research on human rights, as well as developing internal regulations in order to
differentiate between the work in the clinic and the “consultorio jurídico”.The PUJC has generated
some trust with some sectors of the community, in order to position the “consultorio jurídico”
and the clinic as a center of legal aid and conciliation. The same university has generated spaces
of dialogue and assistance with the social responsibility program at the university, as means of
mainstreaming the human rights approach. The PUJC has created its own methodology; its
legal clinic has developed methods to train law students through experiential training. It’s also
important to note the development of an observatory and an online portal on human rights
that allows for the dissemination of news, events and research on human rights in the region,
all at the PUJC.
Under objective 3, the students have generated their own fundraising strategies to participate in
international training scenarios, such as competitions and internships; enhanced oral capacities
of the students from both universities that actively participate in research centers and human
rights competitions. The students of the USC have learned to analyze the contents of the areas
of criminal law with a human rights approach, which allows vivid discussions in the
classrooms. An important amount of students of both universities have had the possibility of
training in the summer courses of the international law school of the American University. The
students of the universities understood that the practice of human rights implies risks that
should be valued in every case and project.
US-Colombia Partnership Program – Evaluation report Page 7-30
Sustainability 
The sustainability of the Project in USC is very limited. The University and the law school, while
having a high interest in continuing with the Project, did not create incentives to ensure adequate 
human and financial resource for it. 
There is a high interest in the new deanship to expand international relations through agreements
with foreign universities. However, when the Dean was asked about the ultimate goal to expand 
networks, it appeared for him to be a measure of positioning of the University outside the
general and specific objectives of the agreement. 
The level of sustainability of the“semilleros” research program and implementation of the legal
clinic is very weak due to: i) the high level of hierarchy and bureaucracy for the decision-making
and implementation of such projects; ii) the small number of university students who are part of
the “semillero”; iii) the lack of full-time faculty to internally lead the activities carried out so far; iv)
the low positioning of the USC to solve the demands of the community, since the University is
not positioned as a center for conflict resolution and advocacy.
According to one of the coordinators, it is highly unlikely that the topics of research in human 
rights developed by the Program continue without the USAID support. This emphasis comes at
a very inopportune time Program wise because, until now, the institution has not yet realized the
dimension and benefits of the partnership.
For PUJC, the following institutional results are recognized as sustainable effects: 
• The construction and institutionalization of processes of experiential legal training;
• The expansion of the human rights approach with the Social Responsibility Program of
the University and other university programs, which is an important discussion for the
region in terms of the role of the business sector in human rights;
• The strengthening of human rights in faculty and the law curriculum.
US-Colombia Partnership Program – Evaluation report Page 7-31
The Caribbean Coast partnership 
Relevance
The Colombian Caribbean region is composed of eight departments.60 Its population consists in
a blend of indigenous people, Afro-descendants and persons coming from various waves of
migrations (especially from Europe and the Middle-East). The situation of human rights is of
great concern because of the presence of military forces, paramilitary forces and the guerrilla. It
particularly relates to political persecution, misfeasance and social intolerance.61 Human rights
defenders, trade unionists, displaced persons, students and teachers, LGBTI persons are
amongst the most affected categories of persons. The lack of information, investigation and
data on human rights constitutes, in that regard, a particular concern.
The design of the Caribbean Coast partnership62 appeared to be adequate, affecting positively 
the level of impact and benefits of activities and partnerships built from both Colombian
universities. The clarity of its objectives translated into actions by the three universities (the two 
Colombian universities and the University of Florida) allowed achieving the overall objective of
strengthening human rights in the region. Various factors contributed to it: first, the process of
selection and design of the proposed partnership of the Caribbean Coast made evident the needs 
of each university and the situation of human rights in the region; second, UF previous 
knowledge of the region, and its recognition of the different installed capacities between UM and
UN to leverage them during the term of the contract; third, a multidisciplinary vision of the
partnership that integrated three units at UF: CGR, CLAS and UF COE. 
UM
There was a high level of relevance of the partnership between UM y UF to the ultimate goal of
strengthening the culture and protection of human rights. On the one hand, it responded to the
absence of a human rights culture in the communities and the need to foster a culture of peace,
reconciliation and respect for the fundamental rights. The partnership is even more relevant in
the context of a peace process. Additionally, the legal clinics tackled relevant issues for the 
context: rights of detainees, including minors, or the rights of conflict-related victims. 
Verbatim, faculty emphasized that the agreement with the UF allowed addressing the situation of
human rights from the methodology of popular education to address the situation of conflict 
victims and prison conditions. The Program showed from different angles how a HEI could 
 
60 Departments are one of the administrative territory subdivisions.
61http://www.cederhnos.org/home/documentos/violacion-a-los-derechos-humanos-en-el-caribe-colombiano￾incidencia-al-interior-de-la-universidad-publica
62 In this part, “partnership”, “Program” or “Project” are used to refer to the sub-award betwen UF, UM and 
UN. 
US-Colombia Partnership Program – Evaluation report Page 7-32
generate strategies for promotion and attention in a community greatly affected by stereotypes
and needs in the areas of discrimination, gender and violence. 
UN
The partnership in UN presents a number of special features that increases its relevance. First,
its political influence transformed the school in a human rights think tank on human rights and a 
legitimate actor to influence public policy. During the visit, all groups working with the law 
program concluded that working with UniNorte legitimizes the work of local impact and may
have potential impact on legislation and public policies. A second aspect was determined by the
relevance of the investigations carried out under the Partnership and its outreach initiatives.63
Efficiency
The UF took the time to getting to know the context and the reality of each of the universities it
would work with, which greatly contributed to the success of the Program in the Caribbean
coast. It allowed orienting and potentiating the activities and results from the strengths of each 
university, as well as modulating resources and investments. 
The nature of the selected public university, UM, was a foreseeable risk that, as in Antioquia, was
not properly valued and that could have affected the management efficiency and results of the
Partnership. However, despite the difficulties, UM management was able to circumvent the
university’s cumbersome administrative procedures and reduce the risk and uncertainty of
budget and faculty decisions. 
While the baseline was built with similar characteristics of the other Program regions, this 
partnership, especially UniNorte, managed to successfully implement the three broad objectives
of the Program. The main mechanism that positively articulated all activities for a common 
purpose was the research activities. In that sense, the information collected in different studies 
allowed the training of the students, managed to justify the actions of legal action from the
center of human rights for better decision-making process, and strengthened the knowledge of
teachers on the human rights-based approach. This effort was supported by UF assignment of
an expert professor in each line of research at the UN human rights center.
 
63 NGOs and community leaders acknowledged the great impact of the actions carried out by the Human
Rights Center. For instance, the presence of five students in Kusuto NGO office has increased the services
offered to the population. On the other hand, Caribe Afirmativo asserted that the partnership between this
minority group and UniNorte allowed to include the agenda of LGBTI rights in national law regarding victims
of the conflict.
US-Colombia Partnership Program – Evaluation report Page 7-33
In relation to the resources invested in the mid-term evaluation, the evaluation team had the 
perception that the methodology used, the time and the findings of this evaluation were not 
adequate to produce a significant review and/or an adjustment of the Program activities.
Likewise, it did not meet their expectations to be a space for strengthening regional and national 
partnerships. In any case, the ongoing high priority and the quality of thematic investigation
were likely to trigger the expected Program impact. 
UM
Concretely, for UM, it is worth emphasizing that the coordinators had a perception of the lack of
support by UF to the concrete actions from the human rights center and its brigades. However,
they recognized that the monitoring and the activities UF team conducted were very effective in
promoting some initiatives that were temporally frozen. It gave confidence to the university
leaders and a reason to students, teachers and the law school dean to achieve the planned 
activities in the best possible way.
During the fieldwork, it was stressed to the evaluators that the level of detail, time, complexity
and lack of training in the preparation of reports by activities reduced the ability of the law 
program in planning strategically for results management. This generated high levels of stress,
which limited the time for the coordination of brigades and curriculum strengthening. However,
the dean and coordinator acknowledged that, after being part of this Program, they had more 
tools to measure their own goals, so they had acquired a monitoring capacity as the result of
participation. Finally, the coordinator acknowledged the efficiency of the relationship and 
support that UF team had to improve evaluation reports. 
According to the dean, his visit and stay in the UF in the first semester of 2015 was one of the
activities that gave a strong boost to the project because: i) it strengthened the relationship with 
UniNorte; ii) it allowed strategically plan activities of law program for strengthening human 
rights within and outside the university campus; iii) it allowed an assessment of achievements and 
future challenges. 
During field interviews, it was felt that the support of the Red Colombiana de Clinicas Jurídicas and
especially the legal clinic of the Universidad del Rosario (Bogotá) was a boost that benefited and
supported program activities. Finally, the staff of UM reiterated that the midterm evaluation
process did not meet their expectations and therefore missed an opportunity to re-conceptualize
activities, partnerships and goals for the final project. 
UN
During meetings in UN, it was informed to the evaluation team that although management of
reports was a dimension of project implementation, such activity was headed by the coordinator
to ensure that the teachers and the dean were devoted to the overall objective and were not 
limited to conducting and reporting activities or processes. In addition, it was highlighted that
the monitoring matrix did not allow for accounting for the process and key steps to achieving
US-Colombia Partnership Program – Evaluation report Page 7-34
overall objective. Therefore, they often stopped reporting those creative activities leading to
high level, qualitative achievements. 
For the Program team, the level of complexity of the monitoring matrices was made manageable
owing to the experience in the coordination of monitoring and evaluation, as well as to the
understanding of the dean and the whole team that the activity report was a measurement tool 
but not a roadmap for the main goal of positioning the human rights program within and outside
the university. 
Effectiveness
The high level of effectiveness of the Caribbean coast partnership was largely explained by:
 The level of commitment by UF to capture and analyze the regional context and human
rights situation. It allowed UF to weight and stimulate priority activities leading to the
achievement of overarching Program objectives. Additionally, it allowed building a very
close partnership to advance relevant research among US and Colombian teachers. 
 The high level of commitment of the partnership’s coordinators is evident in the quality 
and time devoted to students and project’s activities. 
 The high level of understanding and vision of the coordinators to implement the 
Program from its three dimensions: institutional strengthening, human resources and 
community outreach work as a single unit to reduce levels of inequality in the region and
improve the situation of human rights in Santa Marta, Barranquilla and the surroundings. 
 The ability to capitalize on an experienced team of teachers and researchers. 
 The particular research capacity, knowledge and professional experience of the teams of
professors at the law clinic. 
UM
Regarding UM, it is worth mentioning that the level of effectiveness was very low in the first year
of the Program for two reasons. The first one was very predictable: the selection and design of
the partnership. The second one is that coordination was unlikely from the onset. It entails that,
during the startup phase, implementation and management were conditioned by the timing and
lengthy procedures typical of a public university. The low capacity of the initial coordinating
groups to run the activities of the sub-award was solved with the arrival of the current 
coordinator, who is known for her commitment, dedication and ability to generate internal and
external alliances for the life of the partnership.
Once the UM overcame these obstacles, several factors permitted to reach better results.
US-Colombia Partnership Program – Evaluation report Page 7-35
First, the composition of the school of humanities of the University and its integration with the 
programs of law, anthropology and cinema, were factors that potentiated the partnership. This
multidisciplinary vision and training of students allowed: i) to extend the training of graduates in
human rights to students of disciplines other than law with high awareness of and impact on 
community work; ii) to use audiovisual tools to encourage discussion and culture of human
rights beyond the classrooms and legal discussions into the University; iii) to develop inter￾disciplinary visions through the discussion of “semillero” projects to grant students great skills to
face human rights debates in the region, and iv) to enrich legal approaches with anthropology
research methods such as participatory observation.
Second, the commitment, knowledge and vision of the teachers in charge of the research 
“semillero”, legal brigades, and legal clinic research increased the effectiveness towards the
overarching goals of the Program. This was made evident by the quality of each teacher’s plan
of action with a baseline, indicators and expected community impact. It was further exemplified
by the level of investigation about the community needs in the prison of Santa Marta, the
students’ strategic prioritization of human rights violations that led to selection of the best
alternatives for advocacy and legal strategy to improve the lives of women in the prison of Santa
Marta. Other results can be cited: the partnerships that were generated with key actors in the
city; the legitimacy of the law program in the community; the creation of a strategy of
comprehensive care in prisons with emphasis on health, and short literacy legal courses for
prisoners; diagnosis of the situation of prison overcrowding with the possibility of addressing
public policy at the local level. The human rights center of the UM did an excellent job for the
attention of persons deprived of their liberty, which led it to identify the main human rights
violations in the Santa Marta prison. As the result of its advocacy work, women detainees were
transferred to another penitentiary center, as a means to secure their health rights and due
process rights.
A third success factor is constituted by the ability of the coordination team to build relationships 
outside the Program, specifically with the Rosario clinic and the Red Nacional de Clinicas Jurídicas. 
During the interviews with students, they repeatedly said that they felt supported by the Rosario 
Clinic and recognized the benefits of this collaboration. 
It is also worth mentioning that, towards the end of the Program, UM was strengthening joint 
actions with Uninorte and the partnership with UF was also moving upwards. For example, the 
evaluation team was informed that the University of Magdalena would make the proper follow￾up of a Uninorte legal action files in a court in Santa Marta. Such relationships and concrete 
support generated very positive links between teams of teachers and students. 
UN
UN proved that by planning in a combined way the three areas of Program intervention it is
possible to begin to change the human rights environment in the region of influence of the
US-Colombia Partnership Program – Evaluation report Page 7-36
university. To this effect, the law school committed itself to goals in each one of the areas of the 
Program, and combined those goals to reach the overarching expected impact from the
Program. For instance, the law school institutional capacity included policy- and action-oriented 
multi-disciplinary research to protect the environment and the right to life in the Ciénaga Grande
de Santa Marta. Quality research involved research training for students in the legal clinic, led by
seasoned faculty with a commitment to utilize research results towards preparing precedent￾setting legal cases before the courts. Their research and outreach services were balanced
between student training and community priorities in such a way that the human rights￾community issues remained at the center of university action. Those activities were then actively
disseminated and discussed with the entire academic community and potential stakeholders,
thereby enhancing awareness and sensitiveness within the entire campus. Since Uninorte is a 
pro-business school, managers from main corporations in the region quickly become aware of
the issues and approaches led by the law school and expanded their views on corporate social 
responsibility. Furthermore, young graduates from Uninorte Law School keep their ties with the 
clinic and action-research for pro-bono activities even after they have become practicing lawyers
in prominent positions in the area. Since the student body of the law school comes from all
social strata, low-income communities are also aware of university priority policies pertaining to
positioning human rights issues throughout the region. 
Uninorte exceeded the expected effectiveness of the Program in the areas of language,
curriculum, research, activities and awareness-raising throughout the university. 
This law school has a human rights vision that was advanced by the Program. It also combined 
the Program components in unifying strategies. For instance, each action of the human rights
center was linked to the training of teachers, students and change of the traditional teaching 
approach. 
Additionally, the division of functions within the law school team and the high level of expertise 
of each team member allowed individuals to foster a specific area of the Program while 
contributing to the common, higher results. In particular, the full time dedication of the
Program coordinator, as well as her managerial ability strengthen the coordination and 
collaborative approach of teachers, researchers and directors at the law school and within the
entire university. 
US-Colombia Partnership Program – Evaluation report Page 7-37
Results
The impact of the Program on the Caribbean coast appears to be broad and far-reaching because
of the dynamics of management and effectiveness towards the strengthening of culture and
promotion of human rights in the region.
The future impact on the national agenda can be linked with the possibility that the partnership
has to position their research in debates at the national level as well as within city and the 
Caribbean region. 
More broadly, the following results are worth highlighting
• The high level of legitimacy of the human rights centers in the two universities, including 
the recognition of their impact by NGOs, victims groups and local leaders who defend 
human rights, especially in issues such as the rights of detainees; LGBTI; population of
the Ciénaga Grande de Santa Marta; Afro-Colombian population and victims of the 
conflict.
• The positioning of the Universidad del Norte as a prominent think-tank and center of
regional advocacy regarding the human rights issues of the most vulnerable population.
• The positioning of the Universidad de Magdalena as a center of education for peace and 
human rights training for children and adolescents in high-risk areas of Santa Marta and
around.
• The positioning of the research and academic programs inside the UN law and human
rights including the lectures and seminars on human rights for the entire community. 
• The depth and immediate relevance (policy and action oriented) of the research 
conducted at the two universities: in the specific case of UM research on the situation of
persons deprived of liberty; in the case of UN, the investigations related to violations
committed by the warring parties on the Caribbean LGBTI population. These 
investigations have the ability to be unique documents that can elevate regional issues to
national policy debates.
US-Colombia Partnership Program – Evaluation report Page 7-38
Noticeable Caribbean Coast Activities, Products and Intermediate Results
--Objective by Objective of the Program--
Under objective 1, it is worth noting the commitment of the UM to open two faculty positions
for the human rights area; courses were consolidated (specialized courses) in order to offer
human rights training throughout the university as well as to external participants; human
rights obligatory courses were opened, for the students of the faculty and also elective courses,
for all the students of the UM.
Likewise, UN signed a cooperative agreement with the CLAS of the UF to support research on
human rights; human rights issues have been positioned in university events, teacher’s visits
and in areas belonging to private law; the consolidation of an institutional web page to position
and disseminate the research on human rights; books and articles were published, which
position the areas of research in human rights as a crucial matter for the faculty.
Regarding objective 2, the UM structured, created and launched the human rights center as a
space for discussion and meeting for the students interested in issues such as prison rights,
LGTBI, peace processes, among other topics led by the human rights center. UM teachers
have defined areas of attention and research in key matters to the population, such as: human
right education; protection of the rights of persons deprived of liberty; the rights of LGBTI
rights. It has strengthened the popular/civic education among adolescents and socio-economic
marginalized groups. Alliances were built between the UM’s human rights center and social
leaders.
Meanwhile, UN strategically defined the different lines of action in the human rights center
and consolidated the relations with key stakeholders for the promotion of rights.
Under objective 3, the center of human rights of the UM has attracted interest and
participation of anthropology and film students in human rights issues; the skills in oral
argumentation and research have been improved among the students of the UM and UN.
Methodologies for training in interviewing and caring for victims of violence, were identified
and disseminated. Students’ publications in human rights issues have been encouraged in both
universities. The spaces of support for students have been generated by both universities.
US-Colombia Partnership Program – Evaluation report Page 7-39
Sustainability 
There is enough evidence to expect sustainability of some/most features of the Program at the 
two universities. Some factors that can threaten sustainability are briefly presented below. 
Because of the high level of relevance and impact of the work of two legal clinics, the
sustainability may be threatened by potential risks to the safety of students and teachers project 
leaders in the territories; possible pressure from economic groups, state agents and the
Ombudsman; the graduation and subsequent employment and professional career of those
students that have benefited from and have enthusiastically participated in the Program. 
UM
Concretely, the progress made with “semillero” and the human rights center of UniMagdalena can
be threatened by the withdrawal of funds from the Project, especially because the financial
capacity of a public university in Colombia is limited for purposes of compensating Program
coordinators or full time teachers. In this regard, it appears that an opening of two positions for
full-time professors in the human rights area is a sine qua non condition for the sustainability of
the Program in the medium term.
Additionally, the persistent barrier of language and cumbersome management of a public 
university make it more unlikely that UM can receive supplementary funding from USAID or
other development cooperation agency. 
It should be underscored that, at this point in time Program, sustainability appears to depend 
largely on the decisions the “Vicerrectoría de Extensión” since this office of the University has 
funding resources from private companies who may be interested in the project’s objectives. 
Regarding the future partnership with UF, it was said that, if a second stage is conceived, it
would be essential to rethink the areas of support and funding. Supplementary partnerships may 
be sought with the support of the “Red Colombiana National de Clínicas Jurídicas” or of the
UniNorte.
UN
The Uninorte is at a higher level of individual sustainability compared to other national
partnerships (Antioquia and Valle del Cauca) due to availability of a full time Program 
coordinator and this person’s high capacity in the areas of program management and financial
resource management. At the closure of the Program, the evaluation team was informed that an
assistance agreement was reached between the UN law school and UF Latin-American Studies 
Center, which clearly constitutes an indicator of f the excellent relationship built between the two
institutions. 
US-Colombia Partnership Program – Evaluation report Page 7-40