EVALUATION OF THE CAIRO INITIATIVE SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM [April 2015] This publication was produced at the request of the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared four independent evaluators: Valerie Haugen (CISP Evaluation Team Leader). Mona Zikri (Higher Education Specialist), Nemat Guenana (Social Equity and Institutional Development Specialist) and Reuben Hermoso (Quantitative Research Methods Specialist). Photo credit to1Valerie Haugen, CDM staff Feb. 17, 2015 A PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE CAIRO INITIATIVE SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM (CISP) FINAL REPORT April, 2015 [Evaluation Mechanism Number: AID-263-O-15-00009] DISCLAIMER The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government. Project Data Table Program Name Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program (CISP) Region/Country Middle East/North Africa/ Egypt Government of Egypt Counterpart Ministry of Higher Education Funder United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Prime Managing Contractor Ministry of Higher Education Implementation Unit Central Department of Missions (CDM) – CISP Implementation Unit Contracting Mechanism Government to Government (G2G) Fixed Amount Reimbursement Agreement (FARA) FARA Number No. 1. CI Scholarship (263-286) Milestones Milestone 1: Development of financial and administrative structure to effectively manage the scholarship program Milestone 2: Development of technical structure to effectively manage the scholarship program in accordance with international best practice and USAID Policies and Regulations for U.S. based participant training and academic education. Milestone 3: Developing agreements/MOUs with U.S. Universities or Host Institutions. Universities chosen based on appropriate criteria acceptable to USAID, and agreements/MOUs with universities or host institutions signed. Milestone 4: Completion of the pre￾departure paperwork package and preparation of part of the First Cohort of Students with a November start date for travel. Milestone 5: Transparent and cohesive strategy developed for advertising CI scholarship program. Milestone 6: Monitoring and Evaluation improved of Scholarship Program and Completion of the Pre￾departure paperwork package and preparation of the second part of the First Cohort of students, with Milestone 11: Technical structure developed in the First year and Second year endures to effectively manage the scholarship program in accordance with international best practice and USAID Policies and Regulations for U.S. based participant training and academic education. Milestone 12: Completion of the pre-departure paperwork package and Preparation of the Third Cohort of Students for travel. Milestone 13: Adequate Support for effective integration of new ideas and methods that have been obtained by students during their study in the U.S. into their home institutions. Milestone 14: Institutional Strengthening of the internal audit section and continued effective Monitoring and Evaluation of the Scholarship Program. Milestone 15: Measure the effect and success of the CI program. Milestone 16: Enhancing the capacity of the MOHE Central Department of Missions (CDM) to effectively administer the scholarship program. Milestone 17 (was M16 in #2): Systems developed through CI program are institutionalized into CDMs normal processes and December start date, for travel. Milestone 7: Technical structure developed in the first year endures to effectively manage the scholarship program in accordance with international best practice and USAID Policies and Regulations for U.S. based participant training and academic education. Milestone 8: Completion of the pre￾departure paperwork package and preparation of the Second Cohort of Students for travel. Milestone 9: Transparent and cohesive strategy developed for advertising CI Scholarship Program. Milestone 10: Systematic Monitoring and evaluation of Scholarship Program. operations, including Monitoring and Evaluation of the Scholarship Program. Milestone 18 (was #17 in #2): Development of a Strategic Plan for CDM to integrate CI and HCID principles and other lessons learned into their worldwide normal business practices and continue to enhance the capacity of the MOHE Central Department of Missions (CDM) to effectively administer the scholarship program. Milestone 19: Successful completion of the Scholarship Program and Strategic Plan developed based on lessons learned. Project Implementation Letters IL 04 IL 03 IL 02 IL 01 IL 07 IL 06 IL 05 Key Program Dates Final Evaluation Mission Est. March 2017 Mid-Term Performance Evaluation February 1 - 27, 2015 CISP Implementation Period September, 2011 to March, 2017 Total Contract Value (September, 2011-March, 2017): US$21,979,011 Evaluation Provider DevTech with The QED Group Evaluation Team Members Nemat Guenena (Social Equity and Institutional Capacity Building Specialist) Valerie Haugen (Team Leader) Mona Zikri (Higher Education Specialist) Key Participant Interviews Alexandria University, Cairo University, Zigazig University Evaluation Mission Site Visits Ain Shams University; University of Sadat City – GEBRI; Ministry of Health (Headquarters); Ministry of Scientific Research, Opthamalogy Research Institute,; Academy of Research, Science, and Technology; and Ministry of Higher Education. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The evaluation team would like to thank the personnel of the Government of Egypt, in particular those individuals in the Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program implementing agency, the Central Department of Missions (CDM) under the Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE). Professor Doctor SayedTag El Din (Undersecretary - Ministry of Higher Education Central Department of Missions) took time from his demanding schedule to share the CDM’s strategic vision for scholarship programming and management and Mr. Hisham Hassan (Executive Director - CDM CISP Implementation Unit) provided ongoing guidance, support and practical assistance to the evaluation team. Last, but most certainly not least, the team would like to heartily thank the administrators and scholars from the CISP institutions who gave so generously of their time and who provided the team with excellent and candid commentary on the processes, experiences and results associated with CISP. All these individuals who were interviewed expressed a genuine interest in ensuring that the benefits derived from CISP are expanded and sustained. The team would like to thank our USAID/Egypt colleagues, Ms. Pamela Strong (CISP Evaluation Contracting Officer’s Representative), Mr. Nader Ayoub (CISP Program Manager), and Ms. Soad Saada (Development Program Specialist) who provided ongoing advice, guidance and assistance. Finally, the team benefitted from ongoing conversations with Mr. Thomas Crehan (Director, Education and Training Office) and Dr. Arturo Acosta (Deputy Director, Education and Training Office) about strategic directions and aspirations. CONTENTS Acronyms ...................................................................................................................... 1 Executive Summary ...................................................................................................... 2 Evaluation Purpose And Questions .............................................................................. 1 Project Background ...................................................................................................... 2 Evaluation Methods and limitations ............................................................................... 4 Findings and Conclusions ............................................................................................. 7 Question 1: To what extent is the CISP on track to achieving its capacity building objectives? ................................................................................................................... 7 Question 2: What factors enabled or constrained implementation and its results? ....... 9 Question 3: How effective is the program in selecting, placing, timing, and transparency? ............................................................................................................ 10 Question 4: What actions can be taken to improve women’s participation in CISP? . 22 Question 5: Based on the evaluation findings, what (conclusions and) actionable recommendations should be considered in Phase II of the CISP design? .................. 28 Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 29 Annexes Annex I: Statement of Differences to the CISP Evaluation Report Annex II: Evaluation Statement of Work Annex III: Evaluation Methods and Limitations Annex IV: Data Collection Instruments Annex V: Sources of Information Annex VI: Data Annex Annex VII: Dissemination Strategy Annex VIII: Additional PossibilitiesGender Annex IX: Milestones Annex X: Detailed Recommendations Annex XI: Presentation (with cycle) ACRONYMS CISP Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program USAID United States Agency for International Development CDM Central Department of Missions G2G Government to Government FARA Fixed Amount Reimbursement Agreement MOU Memorandum of Understanding MOHE Ministry of Higher Education CI Cairo Initiative HCID Human Capacity and Institutional Development SMART Specific, Measurable, Attainable/Achievable, Realistic and Time Bound CDM-CIU Central Department of Missions CISP Implementation Unit FTE Full-Time Equivalent HICD Human and Institutional Capacity Development MBA Master of Business Administration PhD Doctor of Philosophy PIL Program Implementation Letters IL Implementation Letter GoE Government of Egypt ICT Information and Communication Technology HCUI Home Country Implementing Unit HC Host Country MTE MIS Mid-Term Evaluation Management Information System MOSRT Ministry of Science, Research and Technology EOI Expression of Interest GEBRI Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology Institute NAQQAE National Authority for Quality Assurance and Accreditation of Education OD Organizational Development PD Partnership Development GMAT Graduate Management Admission Test TOEFL Test Of English as a Foreign Language CV Curriculum Vitae ECEB Egyptian cultural and Educational Bureau NCW National Commission for Women NGO Non-Governmental Organization UN United Nations EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background The Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program (CISP) was established and has been operating since November, 2011, despite the challenges of the post revolution transition and the changes in leadership of many public institutions during a time of extreme instability in Egypt. The end of Hosni Mubarak’s 30- year period of leadership and two revolutions (the first on January 25, 2011 and the second on June 30, 2013) has brought significant challenges due to ongoing changes in leadership and general uncertainty among staff in many organizations. This project conforms to the development hypothesis that increased scholarship opportunities will result in an educated workforce that responds to the capacity needs of home institutions as identified in the human capacity and institutional development strategies of those institutions. Evaluation Purpose and Questions USAID/Egypt contracted DevTech in partnership with The QED Group, LLC to conduct a mid-term evaluation to answer the following questions: 1. To what extent is the CISP on track to achieving its capacity building objectives? 2. What factors enabled or constrained implementation and its results? 3. How effective is the program in selecting, placing, timing, and transparency? How can these processes be improved? 4. What actions can be taken to improve women’s participation in the CISP? 5. Based on the evaluation findings, what conclusions and actionable recommendations should be considered in phase II of the CISP design? Evaluation Methods The Team used both qualitative and quantitative research methods to collect and analyze primary and secondary source data. The methods consisted of (i) a literature review (including project documentation and literature derived from Internet searches), (ii) key informant interviews (face￾to-face and over the telephone or skype), group discussions, and (iii) an opinion survey. Data were triangulated and the team ensured that primary data took account of a set of variables (e.g., type of organization, type of award, sex, and region). The evaluation team interviewed 97 current and returned scholars from a range of CISP target organizations and stakeholder organizations. The team visited four targeted organizations including two universities (one in Cairo and one in Upper Egypt) and two ministries. In addition, the team invited all alumni and current CISP scholars to respond to an online survey. 3 Findings and Conclusions A total of twelve Conclusions were generated to answer the Evaluation Questions. These twelve conclusions are supported by twenty (20) Findings distributed across the Evaluation Questions. Although there are five evaluation questions, due to the nature of the last question (which elicits recommendations) there are neither findings nor conclusions per se but rather the recommendations required for the evaluation. Below a few important Findings/ Conclusions are reflected; the full report has an exhaustive list of the Findings and Conclusions. Based on these Findings/ Conclusions the next section presents the Recommendations (seven in total). Recommendations Recommendation 1: Redesign the HICD to reflect a more realistic approach (see recommendation section of the report for a step by step guide). Recommendation II: Appraise the short-term overseas training program for 20 CDM personnel and 100 English Language training program personnel. Include the appraised training program in the CDM’s overall development strategy. Recommendation III: Recruit and hire at least five new CI staff to fill much needed administrative roles and higher level positions, including a CI Liaison. The Liaison should be tasked with solving problems that arise between the US and Cairo. Recommendation IV: Improve the Scholar Action Plan (see recommendation section of the report for a step by step guide). Recommendation V: Be highly selective in providing masters degrees for MBA programs, select thirty percent female and only those with the highest marks and language skills. Please see Annex for fleshed out gender recommendations. Recommendation VI: Use the break between Phase 1 and Phase II to improve existing processes; specifically do the following: Develop a long term cost plan, and Create Committees (see more detail in Recommendation section). Recommendation VII: Improve the equitable distribution of opportunity to the scholarships; a few options towards reaching this goal include: a statement in the annual advertisements regarding women to allocating a percentage of awards to organizations in underserved regions. 1 EVALUATION PURPOSE AND QUESTIONS Purpose CISP has been implemented for the past 3.5 years and has 2 years remaining in its project life cycle. Accordingly, USAID/Egypt issued a request for proposals to carry out a mid-term performance evaluation (MTE) of the project. The evaluation contract was awarded to DevTech in partnership with The QED Group, LLC and a four-member team carried out the evaluation between February 1 and February 24, 2015. Team members included one international consultant, Dr. Valerie Haugen (Team Leader) and two Egyptian consultants, Dr. Mona Zikri (Higher Education Specialist) and Ms. Nemat Guenana (Social Equity and Institutional Capacity Building Specialist). The technical team was supported by Ms. Laila Kamal (Logistics Coordinator). The purpose of the evaluation was to:  Identify the Cairo Initiative’s strengths and weaknesses and make any corrections needed. In addition, the evaluation recommendations and lessons learned will be used to design the next scholarship program under the Higher Education Initiative;  Review, analyze, and evaluate the USAID-funded Cairo Initiative in terms of achieving program objectives; and  Provide findings and recommendations to be used by the Government of Egypt and USAID to help in future designs of human capacity-building projects. Questions The evaluation team was asked to address five evaluation questions:  To what extent is the CISP on track to achieving its capacity building objectives?  What factors enabled or constrained implementation and its results?  How effective is the program in selecting, placing, timing, and transparency? How can these processes be improved?  What actions can be taken to improve women’s participation in the CISP?  Based on the evaluation findings, what conclusions and actionable recommendations should be considered in phase II of the CISP design? Audience The evaluation report will be used by the USAID/Egypt Mission, specifically the education team, and USAID/Washington. USAID/Egypt will share the report with the Government of Egypt, specifically, the Ministry of Higher Education Central Department of Missions, the Ministry of International Cooperation, and the Ministry of State of Administrative Development. The evaluation report will be accessible to the public via USAID’s Development Experience Clearing House (DEC). 2 PROJECT BACKGROUND Context Egypt’s population at the 2014 census was approximately 88 million (depending on the source). Over 97% of the country’s population is settled in the narrow strip of the Nile Valley and in the Nile Delta, just 5% of Egypt’s total land mass. Some 23 million (31.7%) of Egypt’s population are under 15 years of age. The youth share of the population has fallen from 40% in 1990. Egypt’s gross domestic product (GDP) per capita in 2014 was USD 3154 (United Nations Statistics Division) and there are wide socio-economic disparities across regions. Since the early 1990s, Egypt has been managing a major transition from a state￾controlled economy to a model of internationally integrated competitive development. Concurrently, Egypt has advanced steadily in achieving the Millennium Development Goals related to water and sanitation, infant and child mortality, and maternal mortality. However, Egypt’s two recent revolutions that resulted in the removal of President Hosni Mubarak in February 2011, and the removal of President Mohamed Morsi in June 2013, have resulted in political transitions that have taken a heavy toll on the country. Between 2000 and 2010, the absolute number of Egyptian poor increased from 60 million to 63 million. According the UNDP,1 economic growth does not seem to have benefitted individuals living in rural areas and in Upper Egypt. The probability of being extremely poor in Egypt is nearly four times higher for people living in rural areas than for those in urban areas. About 6.7 percent of the population of Egypt is extremely poor, defined as unable to afford basic necessities -- 2.6 percent for urban areas and 9.6 percent for rural areas. Egypt currently sits low on various indices that consider countries’ innovation capacity. For example, on the 2014 Global Competitiveness Index, Egypt ranked 118 out of 128 countries and 4th out of 48 countries at the same stage of development. In relation to doing business in Egypt, the third most serious problem identified, after access to finance and inefficiency of bureaucracy, was an inadequately educated workforce. Higher education and training, technological readiness and innovation were identified as competitive disadvantages for Egypt. Egypt has 217 public and private universities or other higher education institutions (such as technical colleges). Technical colleges offer two-year programs leading to a diploma. Universities offer programs of at least four years leading to a bachelor’s degree, as well as graduate degrees. The three largest public universities are Cairo University, Alexandria University and Ain Shams University. Most students are in governmental universities. Western aid is small relative to the size of the Egyptian economy and relative to the massive financial flows from the Persian Gulf oil producers. According to a recent Brookings Institution publication, “…western aid needs to be used strategically and be combined with knowledge sharing and technology-transfer to support democratization and help achieve the Egyptian people’s dream of ‘bread, liberty, social justice and human dignity.” 2 As has been shown to be the case following periods of conflict and/or crisis, the subsequent transition period offers opportunities as well as challenges. The Government of Egypt has expressed an interest in moving from its highly centralized structure to a devolved structure that would enable greater decision-making authority beyond the central level and increased decision-making authority within ministries by personnel in middle management positions. 1 UNDP. (2010) Egypt Human Development Report – Youth in Egypt: Building Our Future. UNDP: Cairo, Egypt. 2 Brookings Institution. (2015) Egypt’s Difficult Transition: Why the International Community Must Stay Economically Engaged. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. 3 Project Description According to an October 2011 USAID/Egypt publication,3 “In his June 2009 Cairo speech, President Obama announced a new direction in American engagement with the Muslim world with a vision to strengthen and build human capacity building enhanced exchange, training and scholarship programs, as well as by promotion of science, technology, and entrepreneurship. The resulting Cairo Initiative focuses on the USAID/Egypt partnerships in five critical areas that offer opportunities for the Egyptian people.” Specifically regarding CISP, the publication notes that, “The Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research and USAID signed a $22 million agreement to provide…scholarships to the U.S. for Egyptians to obtain Master’s, Doctorate, and Post-Doctorate degrees. Scholars are selected based on their ability to fill crucial skill-gaps needed to increase ministry efficiency and facilitate overall economic growth. Upon their return to Egypt, the scholars have committed to serve their ministries in positions pre-identified and defined as needing their newly acquired expertise.” CISP is implemented by the CISP Implementation Unit that sits within the Ministry of Higher Education’s (MoHE) Central Department of Missions (CDM) and the Egyptian Cultural Exchange Bureau (ECEB). Program implementation began in September 2011 and will end in March 2017. The CDM-CIU operates out of an office located within the Central Department of Missions headquarters in Cairo. Currently, the CDM-CIU is managing 247 awards, predominantly for post-doctoral studies and master’s degrees. There are three doctoral degree awards. The last batch of scholars under the fourth (and final) cohort will be mobilized by mid-2015. A second phase of CISP is planned and the two governments have signed the agreement for this phase to be implemented under a continuation of the FARA mechanism. The program is implemented under a Fixed Amount Reimbursement Agreement (FARA) between the MoHE and USAID-Egypt. Under the FARA, the MOHE is reimbursed for specific amounts for milestones (activities) accomplished in accordance with previously agreed upon specifications or standards. The amount of reimbursement is fixed in advance based upon reasonable cost estimates approved by USAID. The mechanism focuses on institutional capacity building of the scholarship unit of the MOHE and also introduced the practice of targeting scholarship programs to improve the human capacity and human resource practices of key Egyptian institutions and ministries. According to USAID documentation, CISP “conforms to the development hypothesis that increased scholarship opportunities will result in an educated workforce that responds to the capacity needs of the home institutions, as identified in the human capacity and institutional development strategies of those institutions.”4 It is intended that CISP scholarships will:  Build friendship and understanding between the United States and Egypt5  Provide new opportunities for the Egyptian population in the areas of workforce development and human capacity building 3 USAID. (2011) USAID-Egypt Factsheet. USAID: Cairo, Egypt. 4 USAID. (2014) Request for Proposals. USAID: Cairo, Egypt. 5 Outcomes one and two appear to have been drawn from the comments made by U.S. President Obama during his 2009 trip to Egypt. Outcome three evolved over time. 4 EVALUATION METHODS AND LIMITATIONS Type of Evaluation The mid-term evaluation (MTE) was a performance evaluation undertaken by an external, independent team. The team made an effort to introduce a semi-collaborative approach in order to enhance the implementing agency’s understanding and ownership of the MTE findings and conclusions as well as engender a commitment to implement the proposed recommendations. CISP middle and senior personnel attended some roundtable discussions, although they did not threaten objectivity nor influence the findings nor conclusions. The MTE utilized a combination of qualitative document review, key informant interviews, and a survey to collect the data used to inform the findings, conclusions, and recommendations presented in this report. These methods were chosen to enhance the quality of the data collected because each method emphasizes a contextual approach. The MTE team emphasized qualitative data collection to ensure that differences across organization types, types of awards and types of scholars and gender were captured. The team also triangulated emerging findings using primary and secondary data from a range of data sources. ( see Annexes attached). Participants The team visited four of CISP’s 34 target organizations, including two universities (Ain Shams and University of Sadat City) and two ministries (Health and Science and Technology), and met with individuals from various faculties and research institutes. The team interviewed 97 individuals during the course of the MTE, including 35 women and 62 men and one individual with a disability. The majority of the MTE scholars and organizations’ committee members who were in Egypt and who participated in the evaluation were from target organizations located in or around the Cairo metropolitan area. However, current scholars and two alumni who participated in telephone and face-to-face interviews with the evaluation team represented the range of CISP target organizations. Table 1 below provides a breakdown of the data on MTE participants, a detailed list can be found in the Annexes. Table 1: Profile of Mid-Term Evaluation Participants Alumnus /Alumna Current Scholar Unsuccessful Candidate Institution Committee Member Institution Colleagues MoHE (non￾CISP) or other GoE Ministry CDM Staff Memb er Egyptian Cultural Exchange Bureau Personnel (USAID?) US University Personnel F M 22 29 4 10 1 1 15 2 12 1 35 62 Data Primary Source Data Collection and Analysis Qualitative and quantitative data were collected and analyzed. These data were gathered using a variety of research methods including group discussions using a semi-structured questionnaire and individual participant interviews using a semi-structured questionnaire. A Findings Matrix was developed and populated based on these categories. This Findings Matrix formed the basis of an in-depth pattern analysis to identify the Key Findings included in this report. The MTE collected quantitative data through an 5 online opinion survey that was distributed to all past and current scholars to gain their perspectives on CISP implementation and human and institutional capacity development dimensions were obtained. The team attempted to collect data on gender and social equity considerations using a Gender and Social Equity questionnaire, however, for various reasons including the lack of available data within organizations and some sensitivities around provided such data to an evaluation team, this instrument was not utilized. All instruments were field-tested and revised accordingly. Secondary Source Data and Analysis The MTE team reviewed a wide range of secondary source materials including, but not limited to: those specific to the project (e.g., USAID request for proposals, DevTech/The QED’s technical proposal, the Fixed Amount Reimbursement Agreement attachments and Project Implementation Letters, documents specific to each of the 19 milestones under the FARA); studies and documentation produced by other donors and development partners; documents produced by the Government of Egypt (GOE); and international literature on human and institutional capacity development including the performance of Egypt in innovation, science and technology, and entrepreneurship and the gender and social equity dimensions of these areas, adult education, distance/open/blended learning, evaluation and higher education sub-sector and systems development. In addition, the MTE team cleaned and re-interrogated the data derived from TraiNet and provided to the team in two spreadsheets. The MTE team also utilized the Central Department of Missions’ analysis of its scholar survey data from 2014. Analyses from other years were not provided. Validity and Reliability The MTE team captured data in written and oral forms with strict attention paid to recording the informant’s speech exactly. Where the speech or the meaning was not clear, the team sought clarification with non-leading, non-evaluative follow-up questions. Data were triangulated and qualitative data were subjected to an intensive pattern analysis to identify key findings that could form the basis of the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report. The MTE team cleaned (to the extent possible) the quantitative data, then analyzed and represented the data in graphs, charts and tabular form. Research Ethics All participants in the MTE were adults and informed consent was obtained verbally from each participant. In some instances, individuals did not want audio recordings to be made of interviews. The evaluation team respected these requests. Care has been taken to protect individuals’ privacy as well. No characteristics are included in this report that might enable an individual MTE participant to be identified. Limitation 1: Access to essential data and documents was constrained. For example, due to political sensitivities, the team was unable to obtain a full view of the CISP databases including complete data sets for scholars, as well as the CDM scholarship operations manual. In addition, various documents were provided late in the evaluation or well after the fieldwork. . The memos to the Mission Director underpinning those letters were mentioned by USAID during the presentation at the end of the evaluation mission. The evaluation team requested copies of the memos, but the memos were not provided. . Limitation 2: There were ongoing challenges with setting up site visits to the organizations that had been selected based on a set of criteria. In the end, the team did not meet with the number of organizations anticipated and in some cases other organizations that had not been targeted for site visits were used as stand-in organizations. Gaps in data through site visits were compensated for through key participant interviews conducted by telephone and through the data from the online survey. 6 Limitation 4: The response rate of 51 percent to the online survey did not enable a 90-95 percent confidence level, despite ongoing efforts by the evaluation team to encourage all scholarship recipients to respond to the survey. In approximately 5 cases, the team was faced with incorrect email addresses. The difficulties obtaining correct email addresses also meant that the survey was distributed at different points in time to some scholars so the cut-off point for responding had to keep shifting. Limitation 5: The evaluation questions do not cover all dimensions of a standard scholarship programming cycle. Consequently, the evaluation team presented a draft report outline that included all dimensions of the cycle (it is included as an Annex). This report outline was agreed to by USAID. On submission of the draft report, the evaluation team was requested to re￾organize the report around and to only address the evaluation questions. As a result, dimensions of a scholarship programming cycle that are beyond the scope of the five evaluation questions have not been addressed in the report. 7 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS This section presents the Findings and Conclusions by evaluation question. Question 1: To what extent is the CISP on track to achieving its capacity building objectives? Finding 1. CDM personnel are proud of the fact that they have provided awards to 247 scholars, 77 awards over the minimum target of 170 awards set at the start of the program. This is positive because it reflects the flexibility in the FARA to make changes based on what is and what is not working. In addition, they have been able to find cost savings and adjust the program as needed. CDM-CIU staff and leadership note that this has been accomplished through elimination of two of the five doctorate awards, and ECEB efforts that include negotiating with colleges and universities for reduced rates in financial requirements – tuition, health insurance, etc., and cost-saving measures such as scaling back on advertising costs. The return rate of the CISP alumni is around 98-99 percent, well above the roughly 80 percent return rate for other CDM scholarships.6 91 percent out of 112 survey respondents felt that CISP was critical (42%) or very important (49%) to his/her career and home institution (according to the CDM 7 survey). CDM-CIU personnel are also proud of the savings in effort and the improved efficiency that has come about through using electronic versus paper-based documentation, particularly between CDM-CIU in Cairo and the ECEB in Washington, DC. Other achievements, such as generating interest among a wide range of public sector organizations, have been discussed in earlier sections of the report. Certainly, from the perspective of senior leadership in the CDM, CISP is viewed as a success story and they express full support for and ownership of the program. Finding 2. A particular dimension that was emphasized by many individuals who were interviewed concerns the difficult operating environment in Egypt over the past several years. For example, CDM and CDM-CIU leaders and USAID-Egypt leadership and program management staff note that the program was mobilized and has survived through nine changes of Ministry of Higher Education ministers – each of whom became convinced of the value of the program and two of whom are seen as its champions. CDM report that the they have been requested to manage scholarships for other ministries that have little experience or internal channels to utilize scholarships as an HICD instrument (although there are differences in viewpoint regarding the effectiveness of CISP’s aspirations in this area). Looking across the 19 milestones, the CDM-CIU has been able to meet its contractual obligations and 6 CDM leadership and CDM-CIU management mentioned the 20 percent figure during interview sessions. 7 Ministry of Higher Education Central Department for Missions. (2014) CISP Survey Results. Electronic copy provided by the CDM-CIU. Unfortunately, the structure of the question makes it impossible to differentiate between the importance of CISP to the scholar’s career and to the scholar’s home organization. The coordination between ECEB and CDM has worked very well because there is constant communication regarding scholarship operations – such as applying, negotiating with colleges and universities, placement of scholars, and monitoring. The CISP has the best systems and processes among all the scholarships he has handled in all his years in the ECEB. (ECEB Washington, DC staff member) 8 has received payment for outputs. Four milestones and the respective outputs associated with these are still in progress with the completion date for the final milestone, number 19, in June 2016. Seven program implementation letters (PILs or ILs) have been issued since CISP inception. These PILs affect the target dates of all but three milestones (6, 9 and 10). Certain PILs, specifically PILs 1, 2 and 3, address changes in the time frame for milestones 1 to 8 with most of the adjustments occurring in 2011 when the program was starting up. Most of the timeline extensions were for one to three months. These milestones had to do with establishing the functional dimensions of CISP internally within the CDM. Each milestone has been allocated a percentage of the total cost of the program as a disbursement value, based on the percentage of the overall program that was accomplished by that milestone. When the relative percentages for milestones were set, it was assumed that there would be three cohorts of students, with minimum enrollment numbers of 170 scholars. As noted above, the CDM has exceeded this figure. The MOHE financial management functions were deemed capable of effectively implementing the Cairo Initiative Scholarship program through the CDM systems. The assessment provided several recommendations and the CDM has adapted its internal systems to comply with these recommendations. The CDM-CIU conforms to USAID rules and regulations relating to implementation of scholarship and/or participant training programs and ensures that students abide by USAID rules. Finding 3. CDM-CIU personnel whom the team interviewed appear to know how to carry out their specific administrative functional tasks well. Staff pointed out that the way that the CDM-CIU works is very different from the way the rest of the CDM works. For example, within the CDM￾CIU, there is an integrated approach to the two main functional areas of the CDM– the academic and the financial. Within the CDM-CIU, the siloes between these two functional areas are bridged and the fulltime staff is able to undertake tasks in both functional areas. The part-time personnel (who work across the CDM but who have specific time allocated to the CDM-CIU) note that they can work more efficiently and effectively with the CDM-CIU than with the silo-ed structure of the CDM overall. Written documents produced under the FARA and provided to the evaluation team show variations in the quality of the presentation and content. Some documents that were available to the evaluation team reveal a level of thoughtfulness and are fairly detailed. Conclusion 1. The intention in the FARA that modifications to CISP would continue in tandem with the implementation of the program and building the institutional capacity of CDM is an integral part of CISP seems to have been borne out, given the development nature of CISP to date. CISP has managed to produce results that conform to the strategic constructs and the targeting criteria outlined in the section above. The predictable and highly process-driven nature of scholarship programming and the iterations of these processes between 2011 and 2014 have been advantageous to improving program administration. The government-to-government relationship between USAID/Egypt and the Government of Egypt through the MOHE Central Department of Missions and the relationships between individuals from the two organizations both lend themselves to further progress under a FARA. The peculiar nature of a FARA necessitates a delicate balancing act on the part of USAID-Egypt to maintain the government to government relationship, but also to ensure that CISP generates policies, “An important factor for the success of a FARA is good coordination with the HCIU, other donors, and among the USAID team. The time spent in designing a FARA and in clearly defining the role of each of the parties is crucial. It is better to resolve disagreements before starting a FARA program, than having to deal with disputes during implementation.” USAID 2010 9 products and processes that conform to an agreed level of quality (at this point in time, the quality level expected should probably be “good enough”). The lack of a visual and documentation that clearly articulates the relations, roles and responsibilities is problematic and makes understanding difficult for all but a small group of involved individuals. However, the ambitions for the human and institutional capacity development of the CDM more broadly and the CDM-CIU specifically are not underpinned by a structured approach that is based on and informed by a sound organizational assessment and needs analysis. Ironically, if the MOHE CDM as the CISP implementer is unable to couch its own investment in human resource development in a strategic human resource development plan that feeds into a structured approach to organizational development and change management, it is unrealistic to ask that CISP beneficiary organizations demonstrate their capacity to do so. Personnel within the MOHE more broadly or the CDM more specifically would benefit from participating in an organizational change process – an experience that would deepen their understanding of what USAID and the CDM is asking CISP beneficiary organizations to undertake. Conclusion 2. The current CISP focus is predominantly centered around a very specific set of largely administrative processes, procedures and products. While the administrative processes, procedures and products that relate mainly to stage one (soliciting and selecting organizations and selecting and placing scholars) are now established, they require further fine-tuning. There are also other requirements that are needed by a program that aspires to contribute to organizational capacity development and to ensure a development impact from scholarships. The CISP focus on these other HICD dimensions needs to be sharpened and needs to become more systematic and systemic. These dimensions cut across all stages in the scholarship programming cycle. The underlying assumption of some stakeholders is that if enough CDM personnel have their capacity enhanced (English language proficiency, knowledge of US higher education institutions, etc.), this enhanced capacity will translate into positive change within the CDM and potentially even the MOHE more broadly. As the program now stands, it is unlikely that it will build the capacity of the CDM personnel or transform the CDM itself to the extent desired or needed. Question 2: What factors enabled or constrained implementation and its results? Finding 4. There is clear evidence that some practices and products developed under CISP have had an effect beyond the small number of CDM-CIU personnel. Stakeholders and CDM personnel feel that a major success story is the development and introduction of the management information system and its associated databases, although there is still work to be undertaken on the MIS. CDM-CIU personnel are hopeful that connectivity issues that have hindered effective and efficient functioning using ICT will be resolved in the next six months. At present, there are two existing management information systems available to the CDM and the ECEB. CDM-CIU personnel interviewed believe that the databases are useful. It does not appear that the MIS or the databases allow for tracking efficiency in tasks or sending out alerts – with the exception of those elements that directly link to or are part of USAID’s TraiNet system. ECEB personnel describe these systems in the following way: “The CDM MIS is for performance monitoring while the ECEB MIS is for case management/operations. To date, 162 CISP scholars (out of 188) are in the system. Each scholar file contains the standard identification information – name, Egypt school and degree, US school and degree, etc. The system is designed to track and record various activities concerning the scholar. Now the personnel use the TraiNet system for their internal management/ operations. 10 Finding 5. In the CISP FARA mechanism, USAID-funded scholarships have been integrated within the CDM’s existing well-established administrative system. Implementation of CISP through Egyptian government systems has required some variations in processes to accommodate a fundamentally different approach and rationale to scholarship award. HICD activities have largely consisted of informal coaching and mentoring of CDM-CIU personnel by several USAID/Egypt personnel, primarily the CISP program manager. This role has required a significant investment of time on the part of USAID personnel. The Egyptian scholarships are typically awarded on the basis of a scholar’s rank and years of service.This standard approach has been modified to include a focus on organizations in order to target institutional capacity building through a competitive selection and awards process. Again, this reflects the flexibility of the FARA. Beyond the mentoring and coaching of CDM-CIU personnel by USAID-Egypt personnel and the learning-by-doing approach that has characterized CDM-CIU capacity development thus far, 100 CDM personnel are participating in English language courses at the American University in Cairo and 30 personnel will spend several weeks at a US university learning about student affairs management. For example, the proposal from the US university that will be providing the specialized training program for the 20 CDM personnel is three pages long and does not provide a detailed training plan in a standard format. This is not a critique but serves to illuminate the case regarding the use of structured plans. At present, there is no structured HICD strategy based on an agreed organizational assessment instrument. Such instruments do exist and have increasingly been taken up by public sector organizations seeking to improve their efficiency and effectiveness (Lean SixSigma, for example). Finding 6. While the FARA mechanism is intended to build the human and institutional capacity of the MOHE scholarships unit, the CISP itself is intended to be a vehicle for realizing institutional development in CISP target organizations by providing personnel with enhanced capacities. The evidence that institutional development has occurred in any substantive manner that signals institutional transformation is limited. At this point in time, these efforts are not located in a strategic approach to organizational change management and organizational development with specific aims and objectives. The findings on CISP as an HICD mechanism for Egyptian organizations are found throughout the subsequent sections of the report and will not be addressed in depth here. Conclusion 3. Now that the CDM-CIU is better versed in USAID system requirements and processes, there should be less need for USAID-Egypt personnel to take on the role of mentor/coach with CDM￾CIU personnel. Nonetheless, there are ongoing issues with effectiveness and efficiency – some within CDM-CIU control; some are not. However, there are no available data to use to determine whether the ICT upgrade is cost-effective or whether it might be better designed to ensure built-in safeguards for data quality and design features that enable monitoring of and reporting on efficiency for all CISP administrative processes, not just those associated specifically with USAID’s TraiNet, time-use studies and report generation. Despite ongoing issues with effectiveness and efficiency discussed in other sections of the report, if CISP is able to sharpen and monitor the effects of strategic targeting criteria and improve the quality of its current processes (and assuming the optimal level of staff are present), administration of organization selection and scholar selection and management in Phase II should be able to be conducted more smoothly and with greater ease. The CDM-CIU should be able to identify results (beyond the input and output-based indicators). Question 3: How effective is the program in selecting, placing, timing, and transparency? Finding 7. In CISP, “selection” has several dimensions – there is the strategic targeting dimension that provides a set of parameters that the Steering Committee and the Selection Sub-Committee use for 11 selecting home institutions and for selecting scholars. There are the internal selection parameters that are used by the various home institutions to identify and select candidates to put forward to CISP. Strategic targeting criteria are not specifically articulated in any documents that were available to the evaluation team. However, information from interviews with CDM and CDM-CIU senior personnel and several USAID-Egypt personnel indicate that there is a set of targeting criteria that currently underpin CISP selection of organizations and individual scholars. These targeting criteria are specific to:  Beneficiary Organization Targeting - the full spectrum of public and private sector organizations including ministries and private sector companies (for profit and not-for-profit) are intended to be able to benefit from CISP.  Sector Targeting - scholars can focus their studies on fields that are found within the traditional sectors of education and health and the development streams of economic reform and science and technology. These sectors and development streams are included as focus areas in the Cairo Initiative and the Government of Egypt development plans.  Degree Targeting – at present, CISP scholarships predominantly target master’s degrees and post-doctoral studies. This targeting criterion has shifted over the years of CISP implementation for a range of reasons including the lessons that: 1) ministries are reluctant to release personnel for the several years it takes to complete a doctoral degree; 2) the years it takes to complete a doctoral degree means that the scholar is unable to return to Egypt and help build the capacity of her/his home institution in a timely manner; and 3) females are reluctant to take up long term study, especially if they have family responsibilities.  Leader Targeting – CISP scholars must show leadership skill and talent.  Marginalized Groups Targeting – females are currently the only marginalized group targeted. Finding 8. Traditionally, only public universities that are under the oversight and management of the Ministry of Higher Education have benefitted from scholarships provided by the CDM. CISP aims to open up access to scholarships for less traditional beneficiary organizations including other ministries and private sector organizations including for profit companies and not-for-profit organizations. Based on numbers of alumni and current scholars (up to set A of Cohort 4), CISP has awarded roughly equal numbers of awards to ministries (48%) and universities (47%) and less to other types of organizations (5%). Figure 1: Organization Type 12 CISP has awarded scholarships to 15 ministries with line ministries being particularly successful in capturing awards and central ministries being less successful. Since the evaluation team did not have access to analyses of data on organizations that submitted proposals but were rejected, it is not clear whether the success of the line ministries is due to 1) their greater number overall, 2) line ministries submitting proposals with greater frequency and volume than central ministries or 3) some other undiscovered reason. Two line ministries – the Ministry of Health (21 awards) and the Ministry of Scientific Research and Technology (19 awards) - have captured the bulk of the awards. CISP has been less successful in reaching private sector organizations. Several senior level stakeholders at the CDM and USAID-Egypt who were interviewed noted that this limited representation of the private sector is largely due to reluctance on the CDM’s part to engage with these types of organizations because of concerns about ensuring accountability (which is less problematic with government organizations). CISP has awarded scholarships to 13 universities. One university, Al Azhar-Assuit branch, has captured three awards Four public? universities captured the bulk of the awards: Cairo University (30 awards), Ain Shams University (24 awards), University of Sadat City (9 awards) and Alexandria University (8 awards). Three of these universities – Cairo, Ain Shams and Alexandria - are considered to be among Egypt’s most renowned tertiary institutions. In the Other Organizations category, the Central Audit Organization under the Office of the President has received 8 awards and two private sector organizations have received one award each.8 Finding 9. CISP has been successful in the last 3.5 years in increasing the pool of organizations that have submitted and been selected for awards. CISP has broadened the playing field for a range of public sector organizations that extend beyond the Ministry of Higher Education and the public universities that fall under its’ authority; and the Ministry of Scientific Research and Technology and its various research institutes. The potentially well-founded concerns around engaging with private sector organizations needs to be explored and possible solutions found. Other scholarship providers, such as the Deutsche Akademische Austausch Dienst (DAAD/German Academic Exchange Service) and the European Union, have made some attempts in this regard and may have lessons to share. Based on the evidence available to the evaluation team and described in detail in subsequent sections of this report, the use of the FARA mechanism as a vehicle for helping the GOE to build the institutional capacity of the targeted beneficiary organizations has not been particularly successful in real terms. Conclusion 4. At the grossest level, sector targeting is sensible and CISP data show that there is some clustering of awards around earmarked sectors. The lack of an obvious sector locus for nearly 10 organizations is problematic and runs contrary to the USAID-Egypt emphasis on preferred development assistance sectors. Given the scale of the issues surrounding any possibility for generating observable change in a given sector (for example, in order to contribute to economic growth), a much more targeted and selective approach to sector targeting might result in more significant development gains overall. The approach suggested by the OECD and World Bank that focuses specifically on selected fields within sectors rather than on any field within a given sector provides a worthwhile approach. Degree Type Targeting The original target for CISP was 170 scholarships and the total CISP award was calculated on this basis.  116 master’s degrees (2-year study program) 8 These figures are based on data provided by the CDM-CIU for Scholar Cohorts 1, 2, 3 and half of Cohort 4. 13  3 doctoral degrees (4-year study program)  128 post-doctoral study awards (no time designated). Over time, CISP has determined that the wisest investment is in post-doctoral studies and master’s degrees and now there are roughly equal numbers of master’s degree and post-doctoral study awards. Doctoral degrees have not factored into the program’s strategy due to cost and length of time needed to complete the degree. Three doctoral degree awards have been made to date and there are no plans to award more. Based on data available to the evaluation team, 48 percent of awards are for master’s degree studies and 46 percent of awards are for post-doctoral studies. Table 2. (below) provides an illustration of the number of awards by the organization type and degree type. Table 2: Number of Awards by Organization Type by Degree Type Degree Home organization type PD Master’s Degrees Doctoral Degrees University 28% 19% 0% Ministry 18% 29% 1% Other 0% 5% 0% % of total awards Decisions around degree types have centered on value for money considerations and perceptions on the part of the CDM and CDM-CIU decision-makers about the length of time ministry personnel are able to invest in overseas study. Consequently, doctorate degrees are no longer included (unless there is an exceptional case). Although CISP decision-makers indicated that ministries find it challenging to have personnel be absent for long periods of time, the data on the degree types show that 29 percent of ministry awards are for master’s degrees (two year study period) compared to 19 percent for universities and only 18 percent of post-doctoral study (six month study period) awards went to ministries compared to 28 percent for universities. None of the scholars or organization selection committee members interviewed expressed the view that longer study timeframes were a particular issue for ministry personnel. The evaluation team made an effort to understand patterns within the types of degrees, particularly master’s degrees. Overall, master’s degree awards have covered all types of master’s degree concentrations: Master of Arts (MA), Master of Science (MS) and Master of Business Administration (MBA). The spreadsheet data provided to the evaluation team show the lack of a consistent system of categorizations for degree types, lack of correspondence between the types of master’s degrees (Master of Arts – MA, Master of Science – MS, Master of Business Administration – MBA) and the field of study. For example, the master’s degree type might be listed as “MA,” however, the field of study/discipline is listed as business administration. In this instance, it is highly likely that the degree is actually an MBA, not an MA). Master’s degree scholars who were interviewed noted that their degrees were largely by coursework rather than by a combination of coursework and research. Having higher demand Masters and Post Docs is discussed in the recommendations. Conclusion 5. Where there are clusters of scholars from a given institution, it appears that there is an underlying strategy or vision for enhancing some part of the home organization. In addition, there is a potentially greater likelihood that a cluster of scholars can start to make a difference, particularly when they are clustered in the same part of the home organization, and/or where there is strong senior level leadership to ensure that the greatest benefits are derived from awards. In those instances where there 14 is a cluster of award types but no common or thematic orientation, strong senior level leadership is essential for success. In these instances where there is no common technical orientation, it would be sensible to ensure that scholars gain knowledge and skills in managing and marketing their knowledge/products and collaborating with other (private sector) organizations. On their return, they may form a cluster that understands the triple helix9 and other research, and development and marketing approaches. Aside from the very basic cost benefit considerations around the three award types and views about the appeal or necessity of a doctoral award for a ministry, there is no evidence of a deep or macro level understanding of the HRD needs within Egypt and a coherent articulated strategy for using degree types to fill these gaps. Currently, the strategizing regarding degree needs is placed in the hands of the target organizations, with some editorial work by the CISP selection committee. Yet, the evidence is not strong that these organizations have the capacity for strategic HRD/HRM. These characteristics of CISP implementation may create challenges for demonstrating short and medium term outcomes as well as longer-term impact. Conclusion 6. Post-conflict/crisis periods typically result in a window of opportunity for change; however, the windows do not necessarily remain open for extended periods of time. Such openings can be used to accelerate positive change, provided individuals are positioned to contribute in the areas of greatest strategic need. CISP has an opportunity to help ensure that any investment made in individuals actually does result in tangible products that contribute to Egypt’s economic development at this particular juncture in time. In addition, the GoE has indicated an interest in moving forward with a devolution agenda (a process that inevitably brings a period of confusion and challenges as the parameters of roles and responsibilities and lines of authority are clarified). The move toward devolution would also bring opportunities for CISP to contribute in a strategic way, provided the program is able to be forward-looking. This opportunity can be realized by investing in individuals who are interested in understanding organizational change management and gaining proficiency in the tools and practices that are used in such change efforts. Based on the available data, it was not possible to determine what fields/disciplines of study actually correspond to “Development Objective 3 Workforce Response to Labor Market Demands Improved” and the higher order goal to “Tangibly Improve the Lives of Ordinary Egyptians During a Period of Transition.” 10 Given the range of disciplines and fields of study being undertaken by scholars and a review of available scoring documents, it appears that there was not an underlying strategy or specific explicit criteria that were used to link the discipline with the sector. Selecting the Organizations CISP selection starts with an advertised call for proposals from organizations and ends with the finalization of proposed candidates. CISP has a structure for carrying out the selection of organizations that will be asked to submit a package of proposals and the number of scholarships that will be allocated to a given institution. The program also has a structure for selecting the successful individual applicants 9 See, for example, the Stanford Triple Helix Research Group. http://triplehelix.stanford.edu/3helix_concept. 10 USAID. (No Date) Draft Results Framework. USAID: Cairo, Egypt. USAID. (2010) USAID Economic Assistance Program in Egypt. USAID: Cairo, Egypt. 15 and their respective proposals. These structures and the specific elements within the structures have evolved over time since 2011 and are described below. Solicitation of Organization Proposals. CISP advertises the award opportunity for organizations once a year in national newspapers. Senior CDM personnel also make presentations at various organizations about the opportunity and make personal calls to senior personnel in organizations to encourage them to consider responding to the advertisement. Some CDM-CIU senior personnel feel that CISP is now well known and it may not be necessary to advertise through newspapers. The evaluation team did a quick Internet search and found that several universities – for example, Minia University11 - have a CISP page that includes the CISP advertisement in English on their web site. Selection of Organizational Proposals. In brief, the selection process occurs as follows from the CDM-CIU perspective:  CDM receives the annual strategic parameters, compiles and advertises for proposals. (The CDM-CIU follows an administrative call process for CISP that is the same as the CDM’s standard process for scholarship administration, with slight modifications.):  An announcement is made through different media. Universities send in official letters with disciplines and the projected numbers of scholarships they have determined they need to fill their gaps. The dissemination of calls follows an established channel. Less widespread announcements, according to CDM Executive Director, are now undertaken due to the assumption that CISP is well known and also as a way of saving on costs. The CDM-CIU makes an effort to reach out on a personal level to administrators of various organizations, particularly new ministries.  An informational workshop is held by CDM-CIU for interested organizations in order to introduce the concept of institutional capacity development and the submission process.  The CI Steering Committee (consisting of representatives from USAID, CDM, Ministry of Administrative Development and Ministry of International Cooperation) undertakes a review and scoring of the organizations’ proposals. Organizations are notified informally about their awards. Within the potential beneficiary organizations, the process is thus:  Organization faculties, research units, other authorities, single individuals or a group of diverse individuals prepare EOIs according to the CISP (proposal) template. In reality, most scholars interviewed by the evaluation team indicted that they and other potential scholars developed their organization’s EOI.  These EOIs must be framed around a capacity ‘gap analysis’.  Organizations submit the EOIs to the CDM-CIU.  Beneficiary organizations’ potential scholars move ahead on their individual proposals. Finding 10. Selection criteria seem to be more implicit than explicit. It is not evident why EOIs are accepted or rejected. Some EOIs have parts missing and are rejected, while other EOIs also have parts 11 http://www.minia.edu.eg/English/Cultural%20Affairs/Scholarships/News/Pages/The-Cairo-Initiative-Program￾Scholarships-for-Masters,-Doctoral,-and-Postdoctoral-studies-in-the-United-States.aspx 16 missing but the submitting organization is asked to address the gaps and to re-submit. Staff members at beneficiary organizations believe there is an underlying scholarship quota distribution process underpinning CISP (that reflects the usual CDM scholarship award process) but they do not understand the criteria for arriving at quota designations. USAID staff explain that the CISP does not have pre￾determined quotas. Organizations’ CISP committee members stated that there are telephone or face-to-face discussions with CISP personnel about the overall numbers of awards that will be provided. In several instances, the organization knew the numbers of awards prior to announcement to individual scholars.. One organization’s CISP coordinator stated that the institution is asked to propose the number of scholarships they need and the acceptance letter from CISP ultimately tells the organization how many awards they will actually receive, based on their EOI. The coordinator and two other administrators did not know the reasons for allocating a certain number of awards or for not receiving any awards. They speculated that it might have been because there was an issue with one or two scholars. Personnel said they thought it might be because the CDM-CIU was unhappy with the organization. The organization management did not receive any written documentation from the CDM-CIU that indicated the reason(s) no awards were being provided. At GEBRI, the coordinator explicitly stated that the institution asks for a number and the acceptance letter informs them of less. They did not know a reason for this determination other than that they may have had issues with their participants. CISP personnel confirmed this and gave an example of a problematic ministry that may have its award quota reduced or eliminated for a year. Finding 11. Selection is based on a culling process where organizations’ expressions of interest are vetted for conformity to a set of criteria that relate to organizational development features. If an organization meets the criteria to the satisfaction of the CISP Selection Sub-Committee, the organization is “awarded” under CISP, and requested to put forward its package of proposals from individuals or groups That number of individuals is suggested by CISP, based on the EOI. Then, the institutions puts forth specific individuals, targeting the institutional strategic development goals as linked to its EOI. The process has variations among institutions, particularly non-MoHE ones that do not have established channels for responding to scholarship awarding. Moreover, the strategic underpinning for both institutional and individual proposals is not well reflected within the selection process. Finally the CDM carries the burden of the entire pre-departure logistical process that leads to complexities for individuals who are requested to carry out their own in- country and US processes. There is a lack of clarity and accuracy in communication. In fact, CDM’s four permanent staff and director confirmed that even issues confronting scholars and modes of addressing the issues are the same for CISP and non-CISP scholars. CDM is not comfortable dealing with the ministries and is even less comfortable with private sector organizations. Personnel in beneficiary organizations are unclear about how to develop their organization’s or unit’s strategic goals and how to link these with human resource development and management. At GEBRI, for example, the leadership asked the evaluation team for advice about how best to develop OD strategies that could in turn result in successful EOIs. No personnel interviewed by the team mentioned organizational development or human resource development explicitly and only one organization - the Ministry of Health – had a human resources department. USAID-Egypt personnel noted that the MoH scholars were selected because they were in managerial positions and the awards would enable them to acquire skills they could use on their return. Conclusion 7. Targeted institutions need more guidance on the institutional capacity development rationale and the competitive mode of award. The organizational EOIs that are developed by individuals are not always institutional or strategic, and there are generally no adequate gap analyses on which these EOIs are based. There are no merit-based and explicit selection criteria that distinguish applicants in 17 terms of quality. There is often limited institutional commitment to ensuring that the USAID CISP strategic goal will be achieved. Personnel at targeted organizations are not clear about why they were successful and why certain numbers are assigned to them. They surmise that because they had a “fair” share of numbers before, it was time for others to get an opportunity. This clearly shows there are no selection criteria that identify need and intervention. Practices still indicate that distributions are done on simple number allocations. An EOI that is developed by interested individuals but presented as “institutional” will not lead to buy-in or commitment by organizations since there is no internal institutional accountability. Selecting the Scholars There are two dimensions to the selection of scholars. First, the organization must identify and select the CISP candidates it will put forward. Second, CISP itself undertakes a type of validation interview aimed at ensuring that the candidate put forward by the organization has a core set of characteristics. Finding 12. In brief and in theory, the solicitation and selection of individual scholars is as follows. Variations in the assumed approach are discussed.  Organizations that have been successful in the organization selection process then solicit proposals from individuals or groups. Announcements are made in different ways in different organizations. For example, in universities, the faculties follow their regular information dissemination process where information flows from senior leaders to departments in well￾established and well-known formal bureaucratic channels via electronic communication. Informal channels include hand-written notes or letters; face-to-face communication; or by telephone. Despite the formal established communication channels, five of the scholars interviewed noted that they found out late about the CISP opportunity. For example, one current scholar from a university found out by chance four days before the CISP deadline for organizational packages of individual proposals. A ministry team found out from a friend at USAID. A scholar from an authority was informed by his dean. At another university, the dean called scholars he knew would be interested and formed their team.  Interested individuals are required to self-nominate and write a proposal – an action plan – that specifies how their proposed plan aligns with the human resource development needs of the organization. The candidate also prepares all other required documents and ,must identify US institutions and professors, obtain acceptance letters, and obtain scores for TOEFLand/orGMAT, and.  Internal interviews are held. Candidates are selected by the organization and proposals endorsed by a senior level administrator.  An organization package of proposals along with the names of the nominated candidates is provided to the CDM-CIU.  The candidates are interviewed by a committee convened by the CDM-CIU and successful candidates are directed to CDM-CIU. The CDM-CIU process to select the final candidates is as follows:  CDM compiles files and sends to the Steering Committee;  The Steering Committee screens and ranks proposals. Most proposals are approved, some require modifications, and a few are rejected. The criteria for such selection appear to be more eligibility than merit- and relevance- based.  Candidates are interviewed and ranked based on discussion of Action Plans and reintegration plans; and examination of English language proficiency, especially for the PD 18 nominees who are not required to have a TOEFL scores.  Candidates are selected and again the quality-based selection criteria are not evident. Some are required to add or modify parts of their applications ? as distributed in templates.  CDM and candidates are informed of selections. CDM takes over the next phase of procedures for departure. Finding 13. Each potential scholar develops her/his own action plan. In some instances, the organization wanted to establish a critical mass of scholars in particular disciplines (master’s of business administration, for example) or a team from the same faculty wanted to progress a project. Regardless of either of these approaches, the scholar applied individually (although nominally was under a project umbrella). In the case of PD scholars, there is an attempt to conform to a department plan. In the case of master’s degree scholars, conformity is less structured. A scholar may or may not have received advice from a superior. This situation makes the appropriateness or relevance of the learning experience somewhat hazy. The individual’s proposal is approved by her/his supervisor/coordinator and signed off on by a senior administrator (for example, in the case of a university, the relevant dean). In the majority of cases, the process is largely an individual initiative that is not embedded in or guided by a strategic institutional human resource capacity development plan and the proposal is based on individuals’ own interests and benefits. Fields/disciplines of study may or may not be strategic to HICD. Conclusion 8. Organizations have shown that they can submit well-written Expressions of Interest, scholars can provide action plans and organizations can submit reintegration reports that consist of a report by the leadership and individual scholars’ reports. CISP has the chance to build on these positive developments. However, it will be some time before public sector organizations and even private sector organizations are at the level of organizational maturity to utilize the scholarship modality as an effective and essential tool in the HICD toolkit. Recognition of this fact will help CISP to adopt an approach that is better aligned with the context and the enabling environment within organizations and more broadly. PLACING The original disbursement breakdown of award type by time period is illustrated in the tables (below) Table 3: Cohort Number by Candidate Number by Award Type – Original Figures The actual achievement of CISP in placing scholars is reflected below. Table 4: Cohort Number by Candidate Number by Award Type – Actual Figures as of March 2015 Degree Type Cohort 1 Cohort 2 Cohort 3 Cohort 4 TOTALS Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013 Fall 2014 Mid-2015 F M ALL Post-Doctoral Study 11 (4F/7M) 18 (4F/14M) 30 (6F/24M) 33 (8F/25M) 36 (11F/25M) 33 95 128 Doctorate Degree 0 (0F/0M) 2 (0F/2M) 1 (1F/0M) 0 (0F/0M) 0 (0F/0M) 1 2 3 Master’s Degree 4 (1F/3M) 27 (6F/21M) 29 (9F/20M) 38 (12F/26M) 18 (5F/13M) 33 83 116 Degree Type Cohort 1: Fall 2011 Cohort 2: Fall 2012 Cohort 3: Fall 2013 Cohort 4: Fall 2014 TOTALS Master’s Degree 4 27 102 TBD TBD Doctoral Degree 0 2 3 TBD TBD Post-Doctoral Study 11 18 5 TBD TBD Totals 15 47 110 26 188 19 TOTALS 15 (5F/10M) 47 (10F/37M) 60 (16F/44M) 71 (20F/51M) 54 (16F/38M) 67 180 247 CDM-CIU involvement in placing scholars is limited. The typical process described by scholars who were interviewed is that the master’s degree scholar provides an acceptance letter from a US institution and she/he is informed whether she/he can attend the institution. In several cases, scholars said that they provided two or three acceptance letters and the CDM-CIU informed them of which institution they should attend. At least 15 scholars interviewed were unhappy with the institution in which they had been placed and felt that the quality of the institution was not high or the institution was not particularly well known or respected in the scholar’s particular field of study. Post-doctoral fellows provide an endorsement letter from a US professor. The six-month post-doctoral period is considered by nearly all post-doctoral scholars to be inadequate. All but two of the scholars interviewed noted that the six-month period leaves little time to work out how they can be involved most productively, begin to work productively, and complete their research plan or the additional work foci that their professor has assigned to them. Most complete writing up their research in Egypt. Scholars gave numerous examples of the challenges to work continuity and contribution to their US institution and their home institution that have arisen due to the current structure of the post-doctoral approach. For example, an Ain Shams University scholar is collaborating with an international team to advance the practice of evidence-based medicine. This scholar was put in charge of developing a curriculum for a master’s degree program at her US university and this curriculum will also be used in a new program at Ain Shams. However, her fellowship ended before the curriculum could be finalized and piloted. She and her US colleagues are now trying to complete the work virtually. Discussions with post-doctoral scholars show that all but a few of the post-docs have developed collaborative projects between their home institutions and US institutions. This finding from interviews is also borne out by a quick review of reports submitted by organizations and scholars once the scholars have returned to Eqypt. Some post-doctoral scholars would like to include visiting professorships as part of the CISP approach. They felt that this possibility would enable them to gain valuable teaching and curriculum development skills that could be utilized on their return to Egypt (most researchers in Egypt have classroom teaching duties as well as their lab work). All in all, the scholars suggested the CISP provide greater flexibility in the approach to the post-doctoral studies such as the possibility to extend beyond the six-month timeframe (either while still in country or to return at a later point), or split the six-month timeframe into two shorter periods, and so on. Conclusion 9. CISP has successfully mobilized and placed nearly 200 scholars in US institutions and, for the most part, quantitative data indicate that scholars are satisfied with the institution they attend/ed. The issues around identification of appropriate institutions and professors have affected many scholars and resulted in costs (money, time) and less than ideal placements in US institutions. These issues could have been avoided if a support mechanism existed for scholars to use to obtain high quality, informed guidance on the US higher education landscape in general and their fields in particular. It is important to note that some issues? are in the control of the CDM-CIU and some are not. Addressing the inefficiencies that are within its control should be paramount for the CDM-CIU over the next two years. Advocating for efficiencies and inclusion- and family-friendly USAID policies - should be paramount for USAID/Egypt, especially since these issues create reputational risks for both USAID/Egypt and the CDM. 20 TIMING Finding 14. There is a great deal of variability in the efficiency of the various CISP dimensions and processes. For about half of the scholars interviewed, most of the CISP processes went smoothly; for the other half, there was a range of issues with timing of various CISP dimensions. CDM-CIU management noted that when scholars had all of their documentation and had these documents presented correctly, the overall process went quickly and smoothly – barring obtaining the visa, which was beyond the control of the CDM-CIU. Two key stakeholders noted that there have been concerns expressed by the US government contact in Washington, DC, who ultimately processes the visa applications. These concerns have apparently centered on delays in provision of documents and the quality of documents provided. The evaluation team did not interview any individuals in the consular section of the US embassy in Egypt or in Washington, DC, so their viewpoint is not known. Survey responses12 regarding scholars’ perspectives on the efficiency of the CDM-CIU show the following:  37% of 112 survey respondents were very satisfied with the effectiveness of the CDM in providing enough information about the USAID program through the orientation sessions and other means of communication and 63% were somewhat satisfied to extremely dissatisfied  41% were very satisfied with the effectiveness of the CDM regarding paperwork (including visas) and 59% were somewhat satisfied to extremely dissatisfied. Scholars and CISP committee members from organizations all noted a range of issues with timing associated with various dimensions of CISP. Awareness of CISP annual awards: Some candidates only found out about CISP just before the proposal submission deadline. Letters from US institutions or professors: Many of the scholars and committee members noted that it took a great deal of time to obtain acceptance letters from US institutions or endorsement letters from US professors. All scholars interviewed provided several examples of individuals who did not go to the US at all or who were delayed in going because they lacked these essential documents. Visas: The applicant completes visa documentation which includes university certificates, letter of nomination, copy of passport, host university approval letter, three reference letters, CV, and CDM language certification. The file is then compiled by the CDM-CIU and sent to the consular section at the US Embassy. The individual applies for a J1 visa. Once the visa is issued, the CDM provides the scholars with a ticket and organizes an orientation meeting to inform them about procedures upon arrival to the US, and their rights and obligations as CISP scholars. There were issues with the efficiency of the visa process for most of the scholars interviewed. Visas are often delayed and/or issued with the same date as the Regulation 3 (R3) which causes a host of problems for scholars, such as:  Arriving in the US after the semester has begun or arriving after class registration is closed  Visa ending before student has finished program  Scholar signing apartment lease and then required to leave because the visa will expire which means having to pay remaining duration of the lease from their own finances  Having to delay departure until the following semester and applying for a new visa 12 CDM 2014 Survey results. 21 Conclusion 10. The results of the 2014 CDM survey, the online MTE? survey, and the interview findings, are similar – around half of scholars are satisfied with CDM-CIU’s efforts and around half are not so satisfied. The issues that individual scholars mentioned are apparently not unique to CISP. However, without specific data available to track the efficiency of all the various processes related to CISP implementation, it will be challenging for the CDM-CIU to make improvements in timing. TRANSPARENCY Transparency has two dimensions – the transparency of the CISP strategy, implementation and monitoring and evaluation of the implementation and the results and the transparency of the processes utilized internally by organizations to select and propose candidates. CISP does not provide guidance to or oversight of organizations’ internal selection processes. Finding 15. With regard to transparency, CISP is underpinned by several strategic constructs that have developed over time, however, these constructs are not articulated, documented, or advertised and are held by a few individuals. Based on interviews with several key stakeholders and a review of marketing materials, it is apparent that the CISP concept and strategic elements have developed progressively over time. USAID/Egypt info sheets reveal the evolution. Survey data show that 91% out of 112 scholars recognized that CISP “…is intended to help the Egyptian USAID candidates to fill crucial skill-gaps needed to increase efficiency and economic growth in Egypt.” However, based on qualitative data from interviews with scholars and other stakeholders, aside from a small inner circle of individuals integrally involved in CISP implementation, the strategic constructs and targeting criteria are not well understood. It is intended that CISP scholarships will:  Build friendship and understanding between the United States and Egypt13  Provide new opportunities for the Egyptian population in the areas of workforce development and human capacity building  Develop the capacity of selected beneficiary organizations.14 All of the CISP committee members interviewed by the evaluation team understand that CISP is intended to develop the capacity of selected beneficiary organizations. No individuals interviewed mentioned building friendship and understanding between the US and Egypt. Currently, there is no clear way to monitor and evaluate the success (and appropriateness) of these strategic constructs and the targeting criteria. For example, the type of analyses undertaken by the evaluation team regarding: fields of study and their linkage to specific sectors: the selection of some organizations over others: and the allocation of numbers of awards to a given organization are not well-understood by the individuals interviewed during the evaluation. Outside of a small inner circle that is immersed in CISP implementation, most stakeholders interviewed are not aware of the targeting criteria for organizations and individual scholars. 13 Outcomes one and two appear to have been drawn from the comments made by U.S. President Obama during his 2009 trip to Egypt and referred to in the USAID-Egypt web-based content. Outcome three evolved over time. 14 These intentions are not stated explicitly in any documentation that was available to the evaluation team. However, these were the intentions expressed by senior individuals within the Central Department of Missions and USAID personnel interviewed. 22 A review of available CISP documentation shows that there is a solid structure to the processes associated with some of the stages of scholarship programming, specifically administrative processes around scholar processing. All of the individual scholars and organization committee members interviewed understand that there are a series of processes and requirements, however, a common complaint was that the processes and requirements are not explicit, well-publicized and are subject to change without proper notification. Finding 16. Also with regard to transparency, a review of CISP documentation shows that there are sets of relevant documents for CISP processes, regulations and requirements. Scholars who were interviewed said that they understood the overall requirements of CISP. Scholars noted that the three￾hour information session provided by the CDM-CIU focused predominantly on regulations and requirements and they understood the information presented. However, most of these individuals noted that there were issues with the transparency of the details. Issues that kept recurring across interviews and roundtable discussions included: visas (for the scholar and for dependents); the US institution; and, special requests once in the US. Many of the scholars interviewed noted that there has been a lack of clarity around scholar visas. The two individuals interviewed, whose visa applications were rejected, did not know why the applications were rejected. The dependent visa issue was mentioned by nearly all of the individuals interviewed who were responsible for young families or for other family members. In several cases, scholars were informed after arriving in the US that their dependents would not be issued a visa. Other scholars said they were informed about the restriction on dependent visas during the process of developing their individual proposals, and they knew of individuals who subsequently stopped moving ahead with their applications. They cited instances of other Egyptian students in the US who have their dependents with them. None of the scholars knew whether this was a USAID-Egypt, CISP, or US government regulation. Conclusion 11. CISP has made clear efforts to promote and implement the program in a transparent manner and to ensure that information about the program is disseminated. The issues around transparency noted above appear to be due to challenges around limited numbers of CDM-CIU personnel, establishing new and unfamiliar policies, processes, and products, and then overseeing the consistent application of these internally,within target organizations, and with individual scholars. Given the evidence of the learning curve of the past 3.5 years, it is anticipated that if the CDM-CIU has additional staff, most of the issues noted can be addressed. The repercussions of a lack of transparent and consistent policies, processes, and products across organizations, and lack of merit-based criteria for selection, can include bias and personal preferences in selection and concerns around CISP credibility as a transparent and fair scholarship mechanism. Question 4: What actions can be taken to improve women’s participation in CISP? In order to address this evaluation question, it is first necessary to have a firm understanding of the extent to which women participate in universities and ministries in particular and how they participate in CISP. The Government of Egypt and USAID both have policy frameworks that address gender and other social equity concerns such as people with disabilities. Positive measures on the part of the GoE include the following efforts. In all ministries, including the Ministry of Higher Education, there is a Gender and Equal Opportunity Unit with the following mandate:  To integrate the perspective of women and equal opportunities in the ministerial plans and programs 23  To support monitoring and evaluating the progress made in achieving equal opportunities in programs of each ministry  To train ministry staff on the integration of women and equal opportunities in programs and projects  To cooperate with the Office of the Ombudsman to discuss and resolve complaints of discrimination against women. There are several GoE initiatives that aim to provide quantitative data and analyses. The Central Agency for Public Mobilization and Statistics (CAPMAS) periodically publishes a statistical profile on the “Status of Men and Women in Egypt” that includes data on education and employment data. The Ministry of Higher Education Strategic Planning Unit and the Supreme Council of Universities both periodically publish sex-disaggregated statistics on higher education (including data on faculty staff members as well as undergraduate and postgraduate students). The National Council on Women and CAPMAS promote the use of sex disaggregated statistics to measure gender equality and support the efforts undertaken to narrow gender gaps by providing detailed and accurate information on the areas where these gaps exist and on their real dimensions in order to provide sound evidence-based information to policy-makers. This work is undertaken under the auspices of the GEMS project (Gender Equality Measured through Disaggregated Statistics). Finding 17 (multiple). Despite these positive efforts, numerous challenges exist with respect to gender and science.  Sex-disaggregated statistics in the field of science are very incomplete and there is no research and development survey  There is no specific regulation aimed at fostering a gender balance on public committees. There is no official engagement on gender balance in scientific decision-making bodies or committees  There is no measure in place to implement quotas or targets for females in universities or research institutions  Universities and research institutions are not required to set up gender equality plans or related gender equality measures, such as gender units or gender observatories. These measures are completely absent in Egypt to the best of our knowledge  Mentoring is not an institutionalized practice as regards junior scientists of either sex. However, there are a few mentoring programs addressed to women linked to international initiatives15 According to the USAID-Egypt website, “Going forward, USAID’s programs will increase access to education and training for underserved and disadvantaged groups; improve the relevance and quality of workforce development programs, coursework and in-service training; and apply science and technology research to address developmental challenges and promote economic growth.”16 Females are one of the underserved and disadvantaged groups in Egypt in general and in universities and ministries. 15 The Cynthia Nelson Institute for Gender and Women's Studies (IGWS) at the American University in Cairo has a mentoring programme. About 20% of graduate students pursue PhD whilst 80% seek employment in NGOs and UN. Cairo University Centre for the Study of Developing Countries (CSDC) at the Faculty of Economics and Political Sciences recently launched the “Female Mentoring Project”, a joint effort with the Association for Women’s Total Advancement and Development (AWTAD) and a Deutsche Gesellschaftfür Internationale Zusammenarbeit” (GIZ)-funded regional programme “Economic Integration of Women – MENA” (EconoWin). 16 USAID. (March 19, 2015) http://www.usaid.gov/egypt/education. Accessed March 19, 2015 at 12pm from Sydney, Australia. 24 Finding 18. To date, female scholars represent just over one quarter (27%) of all CISP scholars (alumni, current and those who will be mobilized throughout 2015) with some variation in the percentage of female representation between cohorts and within award categories.17 The doctoral degree category comes in at 33% female representation only because of the very limited number of scholars overall (3) in this award category. The cohort with the greatest percent of females participating (33%) was Cohort One. Cohort Two had the least percent of females participating (21%). The breakdown of female and male scholars by award category and cohort is provided below. Table 5: Number of Awards per Award Category and Cohort Disaggregated by Sex - Actual Figures as of March 2015 Degree Type Cohort 1 Cohort 2 Cohort 3 Cohort 4 TOTALS Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013 Fall 2014 Mid￾2015 F ALL %F Post￾Doctoral Study 4/11 4/18 6F out of 30 8F out of 33 11F out of 36 33 128 25% Doctorate Degree 0/0 0F out of 2 1F out of 1 0F out of 0 0F out of 0 1 3 33% Master’s Degree 1/4 6F out of 21 9F out of 29 12F out of 38 5F out of 18 33 116 28% TOTALS 5/15 10F out of 47 16F out of 60 20F out of 71 16F out of 54 67 247 27% %F OF COHORT TOTALS 33% 21% 26% 28% 29% Based on data from the CDM-CIU on 186 alumni and current scholars, there are roughly equal numbers of females from universities (24) and from ministries and other organizations (25). The bulk of females from universities come from Ain Shams University (13 out of the 24 university females). Despite having captured nine awards, the University of Sadat City has no female scholars. The CISP data on gender reflect the available macro level data. Women at the Grade A level of service (the highest level) and as researchers are under-represented in the hard sciences (natural sciences, engineering, agricultural sciences) and males are underrepresented in the social and medical sciences.18 18 European Union. (2014) SHEMERA ( SHE Euro-Mediterranean Research Area) National Report: Egypt. Academy of Scientific Research and Technology: Cairo, Egypt. 25 Figure 1: Proportion of female Grade A staff by main field of science (2010) Figure 2: Distribution of researchers in the Higher Education Sector (HES) across fields (2010) Female scholars are disbursed across the various ministries – there is no one ministry that claims the bulk of female scholars. The Ministry of Finance, however, has sent an equal number of females (3) and males (3). Of the 19 awards for alumni and current scholars captured by the Ministry of Science and Technology, only seven of the awards went to females and four of these seven awards are within the National Research Center (four female scholars and five male scholars). None of the seven awards 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 70% Natural Sciences Engineering and Technology Medical Sciences Agricultural Sciences Social Sciences Humanities AMen 26 captured by the Ministry of Water Resources and Irrigation went to females. Awards to organizations located in frontier and in remote rural governorates are limited. Of the 16 awards captured by universities at least three hours from Cairo, six went to females. Two differences in the profile of researcher from the higher education sector and the government sector stand out: 1) the predominance of young female researchers in the HES compared to the government sector (46% of female researchers under 35 years of age versus 30%) and 2) the predominance of older males in the HES versus the government sector (29% of male researchers 55+years versus 13%).19 Figure 3: Distribution of researchers in the Higher Education Sector (HES) and the Government Sector (GOVS) by sex and age groups (2010) 100% 90% 15% 16% 13% 80% 70% 29% 13% 27% 28% 60% 50% 40% 30% 25% 20% 25% 27% 31% 20% 10% 0% 46% 26% 30% 27% Women Men Women Men HES GOVS <35 35-44 45-54 55+ The un- or under-employment problem is particularly acute for young women, who are 3.8 times more likely to be unemployed than young men.20 The Egyptian public sector has traditionally provided jobs to the large numbers of graduates entering the labor market each year. However, the economic reforms that began in 2005 aimed at curbing government spending and rationalizing the public sector. Consequently, it has become increasingly difficult for young people to find public sector employment. Youth with a secondary education or above represent about 95 percent of unemployed adults in Egypt. Of the young men and women who do find jobs, only 28 percent found work in the formal sector—18 percent in the public sector and 10 percent in the formal private sector. The vast majority -- 72 percent -- end up working in the informal sector, often as unpaid family workers. For those who are paid, many have no labor contract, job security or social benefits. Currently about 850,000 young people enter the labor market annually and 70 percent of them have completed at least secondary education. 19 European Union. (2014) SHEMERA ( SHE Euro-Mediterranean Research Area) National Report: Egypt. Academy of Scientific Research and Technology: Cairo, Egypt. 20 UNDP. (2010). Egypt Human Development Report -Youth in Egypt: Building Our Future. http://www.undp.org.eg/Portals/0/EHDR%202010/NHDR%202010%20english.pdf. Accessed February 20, 2015 from Cairo, Egypt, at 6pm. 27 Finding 19. The pool of potential female candidates for CISP is more limited than it is for males; qualitative data from interviews and roundtable discussions indicate a range of anecdotal reasons for the limited female participation in CISP. Most scholars (females and males) noted that Egyptian cultural norms are such that women are usually the caretakers of elderly parents/relatives. For example, two unmarried female CISP scholars noted that they faced challenges in leaving Egypt because they were responsible for caring for elderly mothers. Scholars who were interviewed mentioned the disincentives for females and males for joining CISP due to the restrictions around visas for dependents and most scholars were able to identify at least one or two qualified females who either did not pursue or who dropped out of the CISP process due to the dependent visa matter. Rural-urban and regional inequalities are also serious problems. Gender inequality in higher education is present in terms of male versus female enrollment rates and women’s representation by economically advantaged versus disadvantaged regions as well as fields of specialization. The overall enrollment of women is less than 50% and this percentage is significantly lower in governorate provinces, especially in Upper Egypt where the overall higher education enrollment rate in 2006–2007 was only 16%, with the lowest female participation rate (35%) occurring in the governorate of Assuit. Given these statistics combined with poverty rates in particular regions of the country,21 women comprise a significant proportion of the poor. Individuals with disabilities are not factored into CISP at this point in time. Overall, there is no evidence of disability sensitivity or disability analysis in the program’s implementation. For example, CISP publicity and calls for proposals do not demonstrate sensitivity to people with disabilities and CISP does not report on the number of people with disabilities who apply or are accepted as scholars. To date, there is one self-identified scholar (male) with a disability. During site visits to CISP targeted organizations, the evaluation team saw one female administrator (not a scholar) with a disability and one alumnus noted that he had a hearing impairment but he did not consider this a disability. Scholars who were interviewed were unaware that a caregiver could accompany a scholar with a disability with associated costs covered. Finding 20. A gender analysis has been undertaken. USAID-Egypt personnel who were interviewed confirm that this is the case. There is also no evidence that implementation or programmatic decisions are gender-sensitive. Although USAID-Egypt undertook a gender assessment of its programs in 2010, it is not clear to what extent that assessment has informed CISP (or Cairo Initiative) gender sensitivity.22 The pre-departure preparation does not provide scholars with a gender-awareness or cross-cultural sensitivity workshop in order to help prepare scholars for the gender and cultural norms that they will encounter in the US. Although CISP disaggregates its scholar data by sex, the evaluation team was unable to obtain sex-disaggregated quantitative data from CISP about all candidates overall, candidates who were not selected, or candidates who dropped out at various points in the CISP processes or after they had been selected. Projects in this Gender Marker Code category are considered to be at risk for unintentionally nurturing or deepening existing gender inequalities. 21 UNDP. (2010) Egypt Human Development Report -Youth in Egypt: Building Our Future. UNDP: Paris. 22 USAID. (2010) Gender Analysis and Assessment for USAID-Egypt. USAID: Cairo, Egypt. 28 Conclusion 12. CISP will continue to face challenges in opening up access to women, PwDs and other underserved groups unless there is a focused effort to analyze barriers to and identify opportunities for participation, to experiment with equity strategies and to monitor the effects of these strategies. While some of the barriers to participation are beyond the control of the program -- such as the policy regarding visas for dependents or the limited number of people with disabilities in universities and ministries (and hence a limited pool of potential scholars among this group), other barriers can be addressed through non-traditional approaches to study programming, for example, consecutive periods of study for shorter periods of time in the US for female post-doctoral scholars or male scholars who have a plausible case for utilizing this approach, master’s degree programs that have non-traditional schedules. Cost implications of equity strategies will doubtless be a consideration; however, if USAID￾Egypt and the CDM are to take gender and other equity considerations seriously, these short-term costs have the potential to provide long-term gains. Across the developing world, factors that enable women to move into leadership positions in public and private sector organizations and in politics include English language proficiency, access to and knowledge of technology, and self-efficacy. CISP has the potential to enhance all three of these factors for selected females. Question 5: Based on the evaluation findings, what (conclusions and) actionable recommendations should be considered in Phase II of the CISP design? The CDM-CIU and USAID-Egypt have an opportunity to take advantage of the respite in organization and scholar selection to enhance the quality of existing CISP processes and products before the start of Phase II. It is proposed that USAID-Egypt concentrates attention on three areas of interest: 1) Improvement of CISP policies, processes and products 2) Strengthening the strategic dimensions of CISP programming 3) Supporting achievement of milestones 16-19 See final section on Recommendations. 29 RECOMMENDATIONS The recommendations included in this section are based on the findings and conclusions presented in the previous section. It is important to recognize that the administrative processes have been fully established by the CI. Now, it is time to turn to fine-tuning the procedures in order to increase the development impact of the scholarships and the recipients, individually and for their host country institutions. There are eight actionable recommendations in total. In a few cases Recommendations are divided into concrete steps. A more detailed and fleshed out version of the recommendations can be found in Annex XI. Recommendation 1: Redesign the HICD to reflect a more realistic approach. A more realistic approach would specifically include: Ia. Amend criteria in terms of job-type, institution-type and degree-type ensure the most equitable distribution of opportunity and to ensure that the investment in the CI leads to quality outcomes for individuals and institutions. Ib. Develop clearly measurable anticipated results from each degree program (i.e. master’s degree versus post-doctoral degree) and hold students and their host country institutions accountable to achieving them. Ic. Include an array of stakeholders in any process of redesign to ensure buy in from the beginning (including current/ past beneficiaries and institutions). Recommendation II: Appraise the short-term overseas training program for 20 CDM personnel and 100 English Language training program personnel. Include the appraised training program in the CDM’s overall development strategy. Recommendation III: Recruit and hire at least five new CI staff to fill much needed administrative roles and higher level positions, including a CI Liaison. The Liaison should be tasked with solving problems that arise between the US and Cairo. Recommendation IV: Improve the Scholar Action Plan by doing the following: Iva. Rebrand by calling the plan the: Scholar Learning and Development Results Plan (reflecting Agency guidance on learning and results). IVb. Require students to partake in an internship, English language course, and an extra-curricular activity. IVc. Include the roles and responsibilities of the host country college, university or institution and how they will support in the attainment of the identified results. IVd. Require post-doctoral and master’s thesis submitted to the CDM prior to completion of the scholarship and submission to a professor. IVe. Monitor the types of elective courses master’s degree students take in order to maximize the quality of the courses and in turn experience. Recommendation V: Be highly selective in providing masters degrees for MBA programs, select fifty percent female and only those with the highest marks and language skills. Recommendation VI: Use the break between Phase 1 and Phase II to improve existing processes; specifically do the following: VIa. Develop a long term cost plan to track the efficiency of the CI; these services are best performed by an outside systems architecture or business consultant. 30 VIb. Create the following committees with equal representation between USAID and CDM staff: (1) the Beneficiary Committee- responsible for articulating the HICD principles and practices regarding Human Capital Development, (2) the Scholar Selection Committee- comprised of Egyptian and US experts on scholarships, and (3) the Scholar Preparation committee- which will provide insight onto the comprehensive package that is required to be prepared for living and studying in the U.S. Recommendation VII: Improve the equitable distribution of opportunity to the scholarships; a few options towards reaching this goal include: Option 1. Include a statement in the annual advertisements regarding CISP’s desire to have women, people with disabilities, and individuals from other under-represented groups apply. Option 2. Include a requirement in the eligibility criteria that the beneficiary organization puts forward at least 30% women in the proposed scholar group. Option 3. Give extra points for female scholarships undertaking studies in fields traditionally dominated by males. Option 4. Add extra points to the organization score for including people with disabilities and from other under-represented groups in the proposed scholar group such as ethnic minorities in frontier areas. Option 5. Allocate a percentage of awards per annum to organizations in underserved regions of the country. 31 U.S. Agency for International Development 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20523 Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program Inc. USAID Egypt AID 263-O-15-00009 DevTech Systems. Annex I. Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the inside cover Annex I- Statement of Differences to CISP Evaluation Report (submitted 07/17/2015) USAID hereby presents a Statement of Differences regarding the 2015 Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program (CISP) mid-term evaluation conducted by a DevTech evaluation team. This document responds to the final evaluation report submitted by DevTech. Prior to its submission, USAID made significant recommendations for improvement. While the final report is an improvement thereon, there are still shortcomings that need to be highlighted. Lack of Evidence/Data: The final draft lacks data to back up many of the findings and conclusions, greatly reducing the reliability of the evaluation.i In some cases raw data is available but wasn’t usedii, making the evaluators’ conclusions appear to be subjective and anecdotal. In other cases, the evaluators ignore data that is not consistent with their findings and conclusions, or they apply filters to the data interpretationiii. The evaluation team (”team”) also failed to quantify focus group results as planned.iv Perhaps most importantly, the team was to rely significantly on a survey of the participants to be conducted by the team per the scope of work (SOW). However, that online survey ended up being flawed and unreliable. First, it was lengthy, with 38 questions, which increased the risk that people wouldn’t respond to it. USAID staff recommended shortening it but this was not followed. Second, the length added to the preparation time. As a result, the survey went out late; in at least one case, the survey was sent out on 2/19/15, with an unrealistic request for responses by the morning of 2/21/15 – 3 days. Third, despite USAID staff frequently mentioning the sensitivity of gathering the information from Egyptian citizens, the survey was not distributed anonymously – notices were sent out to scholars in a format where all could see each other’s emails, which could obviously deter recipients from responding, and it certainly could compromise privacy. As a result, many scholars didn’t respond. Most disturbing, the final report seems to inflate the low response rate. It gives a rate of 51%v with no figures to show how this was calculated. USAID data shows that the email survey was sent to 177 scholars and that, per DevTech data, 69 responded, with the highest response rate to any one question (their name) being 68 – i.e. 38% of 177. And the response rate steadily decreases as the questions progress, to as low as 9% (16) near the end. So it’s not surprising that the evaluation refers only seldom to the survey and instead relies multiple times on a 2014 survey conducted by the Central Department of Missions (CDM),vi the government implementing partner, which compromises the evaluation methodology. Admittedly, part of the problem with the data collection is that the team received less support from the government implementing partner in collecting data than it had expected. USAID strongly believes that the fault lies with the team - that lacked sensitivity in dealing with government officials and ignored USAID cautions thereon. In particular, the evaluation team seemed to misunderstand the context of a foreign government entity (not a development contractor) as the development partner implementing the CISP. There are significant differences between host governments and contractors in terms of capacity, transparency, comfort level, experience and precautions that need to be considered. Contractors usually come from the same organizational culture as the donor. The government partner does not, and the USAID team repeatedly mentioned issues of negotiation sensitivity to the evaluation team leader. A good example is when the evaluation team asked the partner for sensitive information related to other ministries and government institutions – in Egypt, the partner simply does not have the authority to make such a request of a separate government agency, and it refused to do such. Ultimately, the government implementing partner seems to have had suspicions about the intentions of the team and apparently did not cooperate as the team may have wished. Lack of Balance. USAID sought an objective evaluation of what worked in the project, what did not, and why. What is presented in the final draft report focuses largely on unsubstantiated Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program Inc. USAID Egypt AID 263-O-15-00009 DevTech Systems. Annex I. Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the inside cover information of what didn’t work in CISP. The selective use of anecdotesvii, the lack of contextviii , and in one case a misleading presentation of dataix contribute to an overwhelmingly unbalanced and unfair characterization of CISP that only minimally points to positive contributions of the activity - to the frustration of all stakeholders. Disappointedly, positive components of the activity that had been noted by the evaluation team during data gathering, in conversation with USAID staff, and at the USAID out-brief were not included. For example, during the out-briefing the team highlighted several examples of CISP impact through individual stories. The most notable story illustrated the success of a returned scholar working with a high-value plant (jojoba) used in cosmetics. The researcher returned to Egypt, began growing the jojoba plant in the ideal Upper Egyptian climate, and has positively impacted incomes and living conditions in the area. Yet this wasn’t even briefly mentioned in the evaluation. Other examples abound. USAID felt that a more thorough examination of the reintegration plans that scholars submitted might reveal some positives (and negatives) of the program’s impact on both the scholars and their institutions, so USAID requested the team to look more deeply into the reintegration plans – but to no avail.x This remains puzzling and calls into question whether the team had already reached their main conclusions midway in the process. Another example is the manner in which an unequivocally positive statement is minimized for less impactful data. The report reads, “Survey data [presumably the 2014 CDM survey and not the evaluation team’s] show that 91% out of 112 scholars recognized that CISP…is intended to help the Egyptian USAID candidates to fill crucial skill-gaps needed to increase efficiency and economic growth in Egypt.” xi But the fact that that those scholars did not identify additional objectives, which might be assumed, or considered lower level, such as the intention to “Build friendship and understanding between the United States and Egypt”, is considered damning without explaining why and what negative impact, if any, this might have on the program. Part of the problem regarding the lack of balance and accuracy may be that rather than measure the CISP against a baseline, or several proxies available, the team seems to have measured the CISP against the yardstick of a perfect Human and Institutional Capacity Development (HICD) program, resulting in mostly negative comparisons. The Document - Logical Flow, Format, and Requested Back-Up Documentation. One recommendation is a mystery – why at least “5” new CI staff? Also, findings and conclusions do not flow logically in the final evaluation report. Several findings are duplicative or exhibit significant overlap, while the link to conclusions is not always apparent. For example, Conclusion 7 and Conclusion 8 are indirectly contradictory: Conclusion 7. Targeted institutions need more guidance on the institutional capacity development rationale and the competitive mode of award. Conclusion 8. Organizations have shown that they can submit well-written Expressions of Interest, scholars can provide action plans and organizations can submit reintegration reports… Limitations 1 and 5 complain that various requested documents were provided late and that USAID changed the report format requirement. In fact, the documents were provided timelyxii , and while USAID was open to the more holistic approach discussed (but not outlined) in the out￾briefing, the draft report presented in this format was unacceptable and almost undecipherable. For this reason, USAID requested a conventional, standard format (as specified in the SOW) in an effort to bring logical flow, coherence, structure and reduce duplication in the final report. 1 E.g., tracking data from clusters of scholars might have better grounded Conclusion 5, potentially making it more specific and convincing. Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program Inc. USAID Egypt AID 263-O-15-00009 DevTech Systems. Annex I. Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the inside cover 1 E.g., Conclusion 8 is supported only by a “quick” review of reports submitted by organizations and schools. Why quick? And in Findings 11 and 15, there’s mention of CISP documentation but no data or quantifications presented therefrom. 1 E.g., Finding 14 regarding satisfaction rates. 1 E.g., Finding 16 from roundtable discussions, etc. 1 Limitation 4, page 6. 1 E.g., Findings 14, 15, etc. 1 E.g., Finding 12, bullet 1, selective use of anecdotal information from 5 scholars of all those interviewed. 1 In Conclusion 3, the team fails to show appreciation for the limits on USAID ‘s monitoring role under a Fixed Amount Reimbursement Agreement (FARA). This unique arrangement (for a non-construction project) establishes benchmarks tied to various capacity building requirements. CDM has met those benchmarks, suggesting significant capacity improvements. 1 Finding 14, “37% very satisfied… and 63% somewhat satisfied to extremely dissatisfied”. This is a highly selective way to lump data together; the finding could have just as easily been that 71% of 99 survey respondents were very satisfied or somewhat satisfied while 29% were neutral to dissatisfied. By collapsing the Likert scale and coming up with a 63% number, the team has produced a misleading reading of the CDM survey results. 1 A deeper look at the reintegration plans would have better grounded Conclusion 1, potentially making it more specific and convincing. 1 Finding 15. 1 It is documented that USAID sent the memos by email to Megan, DevTech’s backstop for the evaluation, in December 2014, and that she passed them on immediately to the team leader. Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the inside cover Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program Inc. USAID Egypt AID 263-O-15-00009 DevTech Systems. Annex II. Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the inside cover Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program Inc. USAID Egypt AID 263-O-15-00009 DevTech Systems. Annex II. Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the inside cover Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program Inc. USAID Egypt AID 263-O-15-00009 DevTech Systems. Annex II. Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the inside cover Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program Inc. USAID Egypt AID 263-O-15-00009 DevTech Systems. Annex II. Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the inside cover Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program Inc. USAID Egypt AID 263-O-15-00009 DevTech Systems. Annex II. Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the inside cover Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program Inc. USAID Egypt AID 263-O-15-00009 DevTech Systems. Annex II. Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the inside cover Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program Inc. USAID Egypt AID 263-O-15-00009 DevTech Systems. Annex II. Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the inside cover Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program Inc. USAID Egypt AID 263-O-15-00009 DevTech Systems. Annex II. Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the inside cover Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program Inc. USAID Egypt AID 263-O-15-00009 DevTech Systems. Annex II. Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the inside cover Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program Inc. USAID Egypt AID 263-O-15-00009 DevTech Systems. Annex II. Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the inside cover Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program Inc. USAID Egypt AID 263-O-15-00009 DevTech Systems. Annex II. Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the inside cover Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program Inc. USAID Egypt AID 263-O-15-00009 DevTech Systems. Annex II. Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the inside cover Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program Inc. USAID Egypt AID 263-O-15-00009 DevTech Systems. Annex II. Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program USAID Egypt AID 263-O-15-00009 DevTech Systems Inc. Annex III. Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the inside cover. DEVTECH SYSTEMS, INC Annex III￾Methodology Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program DEVTECH SYSTEMS, INC Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program USAID Egypt AID 263-O-15-00009 DevTech Systems Inc. Annex III. Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the inside cover. The purpose of this document is to provide a description of the evaluation design, the background literature, the data collection and analysis and the implementation work plan. This document was prepared by Valerie Haugen (CISP Team Leader). Mona Zikri (Higher Education Specialist), Nemat Guenana (Social Equity and Institutional Development Specialist), Reuben Hermoso (Quantitative Research Methods Specialist), Laila Kamal (Research and Logistics Coordinator). Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program USAID Egypt AID 263-O-15-00009 DevTech Systems Inc. Annex III. Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the inside cover. Contents Background ................................................................................................................................................. 20 Purpose of the Evaluation ........................................................................................................................... 21 Evaluation Approach ................................................................................................................................... 21 Mixed methods ....................................................................................................................................... 22 Work Schedule ........................................................................................................................................ 26 Other Key Evaluation Considerations ...................................................................................................... 27 Limitations ............................................................................................................................................... 29 Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program USAID Egypt AID 263-O-15-00009 DevTech Systems Inc. Annex III. Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the inside cover. Background The Cairo Initiative pursues the vision for a new direction in cooperation between USAID and the Government of Egypt. The program focuses on cross-sector activities designed to provide new opportunities for the Egyptian population in the areas of workforce development and human capacity building. The scholarship program, known as CISP (Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program), began in 2009 and is one of the CI’s cornerstone activities. The program provides scholarships for students to undertake Master’s degrees (including Master’s of Business Administration - MBA), Doctorate degrees in the areas of Economic Reform, Science and Technology, Education and Health and Post- Doctoral fellowships in the United States. Over the past six years, CISP has transformed into a tool to provide human capacity and institutional development (HCID) for various institutions in Egypt and is intended to align with and support the organizations’ HICD needs. CISP funds will be used to support institutions that have submitted proposals to the Cairo Initiative Steering Committee (CISC) and its Selection Subcommittee. CISP is implemented by the Ministry of Higher Education’s (MoHE) Central Department of Missions (CDM) and the Egyptian Cultural Exchange Bureau (ECEB). Following the completion of a successful Financial Assessment, it was determined that the MoHE, through CDM’s systems, could effectively implement the Cairo Initiative Scholarship program. CDM has adapted its internal systems to comply with the findings of the assessment. USAID rules and regulations relating to implementation of scholarship and/or participant training programs will apply, and that in the event of any conflict such rules and regulations will supersede CDM regulations. CDM will ensure that students abide by USAID rules. Modifications will continue in tandem with the implementation of the program and building the institutional capacity of CDM is an integral part of CISP. Additional details and clarifications include:  Gender: The CISC Selection Subcommittee should take into consideration and pursue equitable gender balance in the award of scholarships.  Results based on Cost Estimate: The scholarship program aims to achieve its purpose through the institutional capacity building of CDM, the stronger link of the CDM program to the institutional capacity building of the home institutions, and the enrollment of at least the number of Master’s and doctorate level students outlined below. The total cost of the program is calculated based on the following: o 133 Master’s students enrolled in a two-year program based on an average annual tuition fees of $30,000 per student o 5 PhD students enrolled in a four-year program o 34 Post-Doctoral students enrolled in two cohorts o Advertisement costs for the Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program over two years o Costs related to the establishment of the Website Application detailed in the milestones. USAID will support up to a specific number fully funded scholarships for mid-level professionals in targeted fields in the public and private sectors to undertake academic studies. The scholarship candidates must demonstrate leadership skill and talent, and the individual’s institution must have a HCID and reintegration plan. Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program USAID Egypt AID 263-O-15-00009 DevTech Systems Inc. Annex III. Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the inside cover. Each milestone has been allocated a percentage of the total cost of the program as a disbursement value, based on the percentage of the overall program that was accomplished by that milestone. As further detailed in the FARA, in no event shall the total percentage disbursed exceed 100%. In determining the relative percentages, it was assumed that there would be three cohorts of students, with minimum enrollment numbers as follows: Table 1: Cohort number by candidate number by degree type Degree Type Cohort 1: Fall 2011 Cohort 2: Fall 2012 Cohort 3: Fall 2013 Cohort 4: Fall 2014 TOTALS Master’sDegree 4 27 102 TBD TBD Doctoral Degree 0 2 3 TBD TBD Post-Doctoral Study 11 18 5 TBD TBD Totals 15 47 110 26 1881 The MoHE and CDM agree that it will achieve a minimum number of students enrolled for each cohort or bear any cost associated with that milestone, unless and until stakeholders. Purpose of the Evaluation CISP has been implemented since 2009. USAID/Egypt contracted DevTech in partnership with The QED Group, LLC to conduct a mid-term evaluation to examine CISP’s performance to date, make an assessment of the sustainability and replicability of the project’s work, and make recommendations to help guide USAID and CISP to improve performance for the remainder of the project. The mid-term evaluation’s findings and recommendations will also provide guidance to the Ministry of Higher Education and other relevant agencies, the donor community, and public and private organizations as they work to enhance human and institutional capacity. The evaluation team is expected to assess the progress and performance of the CISP by addressing five research questions that include a retrospective and future-looking lens:  To what extent is the CISP on track to achieving its capacity building objectives?  What factors enabled or constrained implementation and its results?  How effective is the program in selecting, placing, timing, and transparency? How can these processes be improved?  What actions can be taken to improve women’s participation in the CISP?  Based on the evaluation findings, what conclusions and actionable recommendations should be considered in phase II of the CISP design? Evaluation Approach The evaluation team consists of five individuals, one of whom is based in Washington, DC. In-country field work and telephone/Skype interviews will be carried out by the four individuals working in Egypt. 1 The evaluation team is waiting for the breakdown of scholar awards for 2014. Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program USAID Egypt AID 263-O-15-00009 DevTech Systems Inc. Annex III. Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the inside cover. Mixed methods The evaluation team will use a mixed methods approach to collect and analyze qualitative and quantitative data. The team will review pertinent literature on effective scholarship programs worldwide and background documentation on the CISP. The document review will be ongoing and will continue to inform the evaluation work plan and methodology and the data analysis. The specific methods and possible numbers of human subjects are summarized in the table below. Brief descriptions of the research methods follow. Table 2. CISP Evaluation Design- Research method, data source, analysis, and target numbers Research method Data source Instruments and analysis Target Numbers Literature review Project documents, USAID documents, Government of Egypt documents, documents collected through Internetsearches No instrument. Content analysis of qualitative data to identify themes and patterns and discrepant cases NA Key participant interview  Scholarship recipients – alumni and current degree candidates  Institution Capacity Development Committees – universities and ministries (predominantly)  Institution stakeholders not affiliated directly with CISP  MOHE leadership  Supreme Council of Universities  Ministry of Administration Development  CDM CISP implementers  US HEI administrators  Donor and development partners KPI protocol Content analysis as above 15 – predominantly current candidates Round table discussion As above Discussion protocol Content analysis as above 4 discussions perinstitution x 6 institutions 3 discussions with females from institutions Opinion survey  Scholarship recipients – alumni and current degree candidates  Institution Capacity Development Committees – universities and ministries (predominantly)  Institution stakeholders not affiliated directly with CISP  US HEI administrators Survey Statistical and descriptive analysis Distributed to 100% - Alumni and current candidates. Response target 90-95% Rapid gender and social equity analysis As above and government and institution data on access and participation rates of women and other marginalized groups Gender and social equity quantitative questionnaire Simple numeric analysis and content 25 institutions plus MOHE Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program USAID Egypt AID 263-O-15-00009 DevTech Systems Inc. Annex III. Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the inside cover. Table 2. CISP Evaluation Design- Research method, data source, analysis, and target numbers Research method Data source Instruments and analysis Target Numbers analysis Literature and document review. The evaluation team will carry out a thorough review of the following documents: 1- Documents provided by USAID 2- CISP quarterly reports 3- CISP program design documents (and modifications) 4- FARA agreement 5- Documents submitted by the CDM to USAID 6- Academic literature on human and institutional capacity enhancement, higher education system development, scholarships, gender and development and social equity (including but not limited to Ginsburg, 2008; Hartman 2008; Loveluck, 2012; Herrera, 2012, and Baradei, 2004). Stakeholder/Beneficiary Consultation Key stakeholder and beneficiary groups include individuals from the implementing agency, the 25 CISP-affiliated higher education institutions and research centers and ministries, US higher education institution affiliates, and other stakeholders but still relevant to the evaluation:  Scholarship recipients – alumni and current degree candidates  Institution Capacity Development Committees – universities and ministries (predominantly)  Institution stakeholders not affiliated directly with CISP  MOHE leadership  CDM CISP implementers  US HEI administrators  Donor and development partners Consultations with these key groups will consist of key participant interviews and round table discussions. These methods are described below. Key Participant interviews – face-to-face and by telephone/Skype. In-depth semi-structured interviews will be conducted with personnel from the 25 ministries and institutions with whom CDM and the MOHE coordinate for the implementation of the CISP. A protocol will be created to ensure consistency of content and methods across the interviews conducted by various team members. Interviews also will be conducted with personnel in the recipient universities in the US. The interview protocols will be piloted and revised in a small sample of institutions, and presented to USAID for review before data collection. In addition to questions related to the CISP, background data on the ministries and institutions will be collected to inform questions related to the gender gap in scholarship recipients as well as the potential for future CISP investment. Key groups to be interviewed are: CDM staff, scholarship recipients and their supervisors, the Egyptian Embassy in Washington, US university personnel, CISP sub-committee, and the USAID AOR. A detailed list will be developed from the stakeholder analysis that USAID will provide to the team upon arrival, and additional interviews may be included via a snowball technique (with USAID approval.) Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program USAID Egypt AID 263-O-15-00009 DevTech Systems Inc. Annex III. Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the inside cover. Round table discussions. In-depth semi-structured round table discussions will be conducted with CISP alumni, institution committees, “arms-length” stakeholders at institutions, CDM implementing partners and donor and development partners. Survey. A survey directed to CISP alumni and degree candidates as well as institution committee members will be administered using Survey MonkeyR . The survey will capture a range of relevant demographic data and will pose fixed response questions. The questionnaire will be in English, and should take less than 15 minutes to complete. It will be pilot tested and, as time allows, reviewed by CDM and USAID. Follow-up contacts and possibly an incentive will be used to achieve an acceptable response rate.2 The minimum sample sizes needed in order to demonstrate significance in findings are provided below. Assuming the population is taken from Table 1 of the document provided by USAID and assuming certain values for confidence levels (keeping the margins of error fixed at 5%), the sample sizes needed to be able to state significant findings are: Total Scholarsto Date Confidence interval Confidence level Sample size needed 188 5% 90% 1693 188 5% 95% 176 We will also likely consider a buffer in the sample sizes in case of attrition. Gender and social equity analysis The evaluation team will undertake a rapid mixed methods gender analysis to identify barriers and boosters specific to gender equity and equality. Qualitative data will be collected specific to gender and social equity matters at the meso- and micro levels and quantitative data on access and participation of women and other marginalized groups in CISP and in the respective institutions will be collected. The USAID policy on People with Disabilities will be drawn upon to complement the gender analysis, especially in light of the Government of Eqypt’s emerging interest in inclusion. Analytical frameworks and instruments The evaluation methodology is informed by several established analytic frameworks relevant to investigations of capacity building initiatives. Foremost among these is the Levels of Analysis Framework that encompasses the Individual – Organizational – Institutional Levels. This framework enables the team to focus on individual beneficiaries to examine enhanced capacity in knowledge and skills and changes in attitudes and beliefs. To consider capacity enhancement, the team will also look at the changes in behavior and practices. To examine the organizational level, the team will rely on the proposals and action plans of the 25 institutions for ensuring the best use of improved human capacity. The team will seek to validate any movement by HEIs from one ranking on the accreditation framework to the next. Last, to consider institutional changes to which the body of 25 CISP institutional partners may have contributed, the team may use Derrick Brinkerhoff’s Enabling Environment Framework and will adapt this framework as required. 2 NB: The figures provided in the Scope of Work from USAID and the numbers of scholars on spreadsheets from USAID do not match. Our consolidated list of alumni and current scholars shows an overall figure of 188 individuals for whom we have names and some contact details. 3 Please see Limitation #3 related to response rate. Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program USAID Egypt AID 263-O-15-00009 DevTech Systems Inc. Annex III. Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the inside cover. The constructs from these frameworks have been integrated into the guides and questionnaires for KIIs and RTDs. Thus the practices and outcome measures of the partnerships are at the center of the team’s analysis and – together with the data and insights gained through the literature and documentation review, and engagement with CISP participants – will enable the team to address more fully the evaluation questions. Data collection Data will be collected using Key Participant interviews (face-to-face and by telephone/Skype), roundtable discussions, and surveys. During the interviews, the evaluation team members will take detailed notes of respondents’ answers as close to verbatim as possible and will record any insights and observations that may be pertinent to the evaluation. Each team member will utilize a digital pen that will enable both audio recording and handwritten notes that can be uploaded and shared as electronic files. Handwritten notes can be converted to Microsoft Word files as well. The audio and written files will be shared daily in order to undertake data cleaning and initial eyeballing and pawing to identify patterns and discrepant cases within KIIs and RTDs. These patterns and discrepant cases will be entered into a spreadsheet and a second and third tier of analysis will be undertaken once the entire evaluation team assembles after the fieldwork. This layered analysis will enable the team to identify key findings. Data analysis Qualitative data analysis will consist of “eyeballing” and “pawing”4 which lend themselves to the rapid data analysis necessary in short-term evaluations. Quantitative data from the survey will be entered via Survey MonkeyR . All data will be provided to USAID in electronic form. Raw and processed quantitative will be provided in excel and raw qualitative data (field notes) will be provided in word. Survey and interview protocols will be scanned. Data analysis in country will allow preliminary findings to be generated quickly for preparation of the debriefings and the draft report, and allow for feedback from USAID and MOHE and CDM stakeholders. Ms. Nemat Guenana and Dr. Reuben Hermoso will undertake a data mining exercise using any available CISP and Government of Egypt raw and/or processed quantitative data to determine the rigor and accuracy of CISP analyses and to determine if any of these data could be mined further for the purposes of the evaluation, including the gender and social equity analysis. Rigor in the research methods and data analysis The qualitative research methods utilized will conform to rigorous good (ideally, best) practice principles and processes, namely:  Purposive selection of HEIs and of participants in the MTE process  Field-testing and refinement of questionnaires 4 “Eyeballing and pawing” are considered by experts in qualitative research to be legitimate forms of manual analysis of qualitative data, especially in situations (such as short-term evaluations) where a rapid response is required. Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program USAID Egypt AID 263-O-15-00009 DevTech Systems Inc. Annex III. Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the inside cover.  Rigorous data collection methods for KIIs, round table discussions and direct observation conforming to international best practice  Data triangulation  Pattern analysis using “eye-balling” and “pawing”  Identification of discrepant cases. In addition, the team will adhere to standard research ethics related to human subjects and will work according to a Do No Harm framework. Evaluation team members will conduct meetings using guides and questionnaires. A consistent line of questioning will be followed in order to get at the three levels of change (individual, organizational and institutional); however, additional lines of questions that are unique to a participant’s/group’s particular standing will also be incorporated. This will enable the team to attempt to derive any commonalities of perspective across individuals with the same position across the various targeted HEIs. For example, it may be that the team can identify commonalities in the perspectives shared by rectors. In order to ensure maximum value is derived from interviews and discussions, the team will make every attempt to arrange KIIs and RTDs as far in advance as possible and will also contact potential interviewees prior to arriving at each institution through e-mail or text, by phone, and, if needed, through a local logistics expert retained for this purpose by the team. The evaluation team will need to rely on the kind assistance of CDM and USAID to facilitate contact and entry to the selected institutions for site visits and to ensure the distribution and return of the online survey. Compliance with USAID policy The evaluation will be conducted in accordance with USAID’s policies and procedures for evaluations and will also take the principles underlying USAID’s HICD policy into account. The evaluation will also follow the policies specific to evaluations, gender, women, peace and security, people with disabilities and environment. For example, USAID policy states that USAID programs should contribute to gender equality and empowerment of women. Evaluation question #4 focuses on actions to improve women’s participation in the CISP. A scholarship program focused on mid-level professionals with demonstrated leadership skills and talent should be an effective mechanism for empowerment. The under-representation of women among the scholarship recipients is an important issue both in terms of USAID policy but more importantly, in terms of workforce and human capacity development in Egypt. Work Schedule The work schedule is divided into four stages summarized in Table 2 below. A detailed Work Plan is available on the Google Drive and USAID and evaluation team members have real time access to the document. The MTE fieldwork (reflecting Dr. Haugen’s days of arrival in and departure from Egypt) is scheduled from February 1 through 28, 2015. USAID has authorized a six-day work week in Egypt. Days are allocated for pre￾mobilization preparation, including the drafting of this methodology and work plan, initial literature and CSIP document review and other tasks pertinent to the conduct of the evaluation. There are also days assigned to Dr. Haugen from her home base for finalization of the evaluation report based on feedback from USAID. Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program USAID Egypt AID 263-O-15-00009 DevTech Systems Inc. Annex III. Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the inside cover. The evaluation team will meet the USAID/Egypt Program Office and Education Team for an initial briefing at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo on Thursday, Feb 5, at 12pm. A presentation of the findings, conclusions and draft recommendations of the evaluation for US and Egyptian government stakeholders and other interested parties to be determined by USAID and the Government is anticipated to take place at location and date yet to be agreed. The inclusion of a short “no-surprises” meeting with the evaluation team at USAID prior to the presentation will take place on a date agreed with USAID. A draft evaluation report will be submitted on February 28 prior to the departure of Dr. Haugen departure from Egypt. A revised final report will be submitted within ten working days of receipt of comments from USAID/Egypt. Table 3. Summary of Work Plan Phase Main activities Timeframe Location 1 Preparation – team meetings, document collection and review, instrument development, USAID in-briefing Week 1 Cairo 2 Fieldwork, telephone interviews,survey administration, data analysis(ongoing) Weeks 2 and 3 Cairo and two externalsites 3 Data analysis, preparation for presentation, draft report Weeks 3-4 Cairo 4 Finalize and submit report Week 6 Home base Other Key Evaluation Considerations Interpretation of Data Analysis Results and Development of Recommendations The key findings will enable the team to derive its conclusions about CISP from a solid evidence base (the primary data collected) and insights from secondary sources tempered by the team members’ own experience and knowledge. These conclusions will then form the basis of a set of recommendations to USAID and through USAID to the Government of Egypt. Protection of Human Subjects Given the university and national sensitivities that may be implicit in the implementation of scholarship programs, several techniques to improve the anonymity of respondents/interviewees will be employed, such as small group discussions or one-on-one interviews without attribution. The team is cognizant of and adheres to the standard international best practices on the protection of human subjects and is familiar with the requirements and USAID policy and regulations on this topic. In the context of evaluations such as this, in addition to constraints on actual attribution to individuals, we feel that this also relates primarily to disaggregation of data when responses could readily be tracked to particular individuals as a result of the disaggregation and there is a potential that candid responses “could reasonably place the subjects at risk of criminal or civil liability or be damaging to the subjects' financial standing, employability, or reputation.” (22 CFR 225.101(b); ADS 200mbe_122606_cd46). Sensitivity to Gender, Disability, Socio-Economic-Cultural, and Conflict Dimensions Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program USAID Egypt AID 263-O-15-00009 DevTech Systems Inc. Annex III. Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the inside cover. All members of the team have lived or worked in a wide range of international and national locations and are sensitive to matters of diversity. In addition, several members of the team are experts in social equity with respect to inclusion and accommodation of diverse needs and requirements of potential evaluation participants, including females, people with disabilities, and others who may be members of disadvantaged populations. One member of the team has in-depth expertise in conflict sensitivity and Do No Harm dimensions of development assistance and monitoring and evaluation and all team members have experience in gender-sensitive evaluations. The MTE team will adapt its engagement with participants to accommodate diversity and security to the greatest extent possible. Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program USAID Egypt AID 263-O-15-00009 DevTech Systems Inc. Annex IV. Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the inside cover. Limitations Scope USAID wants a number of aspects to be taken into account in the evaluation including site visits to institutions that represent the spectrum of organizations participating in CISP. The sample of institutions selected for site visits accounts for this diversity and representativeness. Timing of the Evaluation and Time Available for Site Visits In order to apply a sound human and institutional capacity development lens, it is necessary for the team to spend an adequate amount of time at the selected institutions. It anticipated that it will take at least half- or a full day at an institution. Given the short duration of the evaluation timeframe, the number of institutions to be visited and the number of scholarship recipients and other stakeholders to be interviewed may be more limited than is desirable. Response Rate for Online Survey The evaluation team has received three different documents that have scholar details. Each document has a number of gaps that the team is attempting to fill. The gap that has the most significance for the online survey is the absence of contact details (specifically email addresses) or wrong contact details for at least 9 scholars. The online survey response target is 90-95 percent. This means that at least 169 of the 188 scholars will need to respond to the survey. However, with the gap in contact details for nine individuals, half of the non-respondent allocation is already taken up. If the nine email addresses cannot be located, the team will need to work very hard to ensure that no more than nine individuals do not respond to the survey or possibly will need to adjust the response target downwards. Testing the CISP Theory of Change It is not yet clear to the evaluation team what the CISP theory of change and the associated assumptions underpinning the TOC are. Ideally, the team could rely on data and analyses already undertaken by CISP to evaluate the efficacy of the TOC. In circumstances where this may not be possible, it may be difficult to collect and analyze relevant data in the time available for the team in order to validate the TOC and the underlying CSIP design. Analysis of Qualitative Data Qualitative data can be analyzed across a spectrum of legitimate approaches from manual “eye-balling” and “pawing” in situations where a rapid analysis on the go is required to intensive coding processes that are linked to software that undertakes the initial analysis including deriving percentages and/or numbers of responses. Out of necessity due to time and human resource constraints, qualitative data will largely be analyzed using the eyeballing and pawing method to identify patterns, themes and discrepant cases. It will not be possible to provide numeric tallies. Additional limitations Additional limitations include the fact that there is no baseline data nor were the evaluators able to use a Random Control Trial design. This limits the ability to compare beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries with matching characteristics. Given there was no baseline we had to rely on recall techniques. Unfortunately, we recognize that there were Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program USAID Egypt AID 263-O-15-00009 DevTech Systems Inc. Annex IV. Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the inside cover. limitations in our participant’s ability to recall, also known as recall bais. We employed a snowball sampling technique, we relied on our client to provide us with the list of beneficiaries and associated stakeholders to interview, inherently there is some bias in this approach. However, during our individual and group interviews we prefaced the interview emphasizing the confidential nature of their information and that no personal identifiable information would be linked to responses. Work Plan Day Date Organization Activity Location & Time Monday 26-Jan Home base Preparation Home base Tuesday 27-Jan Home base Preparation Home base Wednesday 28-Jan Home base Preparation Home base Thursday 29-Jan Home base Preparation Home bases Friday 30-Jan Home base Preparation Home bases Saturday 31-Jan Sunday 1-Feb N/A Travel Monday 2-Feb Cairo Arrive Cairo Marriott Hotel Tuesday 3-Feb Cairo Team Planning Meeting 1 Marriott Hotel 1-5pm Wednesday 4-Feb Cairo Team Planning Meeting 1 Marriott Hotel 9am-5pm Thursday 5-Feb Cairo USAID Meeting USAID 12-2pm Friday 6-Feb Cairo Methodology Preparation Marriott Hotel 9am-5pm Saturday 7-Feb Cairo Team Planning Meeting 1 Marriott Hotel 9am-5pm Sunday 8-Feb MOHE CDM CDM 12-3pm Monday 9-Feb Ain Shams University Key Participant Interviews Ain Shams University 1-4pm Tuesday 10-Feb None Revise Instruments; Review Data TBD Wednesday 11-Feb Ministry of Scientific Research - National Research Center Key Participant Interviews Ministry of Scientific Research - National Research Center 11am-2pm Thursday 12-Feb USAID Key Participant Interviews USAID 9am-2pm Friday 13-Feb N/A Govt Day Off N/A Saturday 14-Feb N/A Govt Day Off N/A Sunday 15-Feb Ministry of Health Key Participant Interviews Ministry of Health 2-5pm Monday 16-Feb Institute of Ophthamology; Academy of Science, Research and Technology Key Participant Interviews Institute for Ophthamology Research - Giza Square 11am-2pm; MoHE Academy of Research, Science and Technology 3rd Floor 11:30am￾12:30pm Tuesday 17-Feb CDM Key Participant Interviews CDM Mogamaa El Tahrir Tahrir Square 10am￾3pm Wednesday 18-Feb University of Sadat City - GEBRI Key Participant Interviews University of Sadat City -GEBRI 10am-2:30pm Thursday 19-Feb Donors; USAID; LEAD Program Donor/Development Partners Round Table Discussion; USAID Check-In; LEAD Marriott Hotel Executive Lounge 10:00 - 11:30; USAID 1-2:30pm; AUC - Campus Center 3-4pm Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program USAID Egypt AID 263-O-15-00009 DevTech Systems Inc. Annex IV. Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the inside cover. Scholarships Program Friday 20-Feb N/A Saturday 21-Feb N/A Team Meeting for Data Analysis Marriott Hotel Executive Lounge 9am-5pm Sunday 22-Feb N/A Key Participant Interviews; Data Analysis N/A Monday 23-Feb N/A Data analysis; Report drafting Marriott Hotel 9am-5pm Tuesday 24-Feb N/A Data analysis; Report drafting Marriott Hotel 9am-5pm Wednesday 25-Feb N/A Preparation for USAID Internal Presentation Marriott Hotel 9am-5pm Thursday 26-Feb N/A USAID Internal Presentation USAID 12-2pm Friday 27-Feb N/A Submit Skeleton Draft; Travel Saturday 28-Feb N/A Travel Sunday 1-Mar N/A Travel Monday 2-Mar Produce final draft Tuesday 3-Mar Produce final draft Wednesday 4-Mar Submit final draft to USAID (still being discussed between DevTech and USAID) Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program USAID Egypt AID 263-O-15-00009 DevTech Systems Inc. Annex IV. Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the inside cover. Annex IV.- Data Collection Instruments Key Informant Interview/Roundtable Discussion Guidance and Instrument INTRODUCTORY REMARKS “My name is and this is my colleague _. We are carrying out an evaluation of the Cairo Initiative Scholarships Program funded by USAID and implemented by the Ministry of Higher Education Central Department of Missions. We work for organizations called DevTech and QED that are based in the United States. These companies have been contracted by USAID to conduct this evaluation. USAID and the Government of Egypt will use the findings and recommendations from this evaluation to help strengthen CISP implementation over the next three years. We are speaking with a large number of individuals from a wide range of organizations, including your organization. The information you provide will become part of a large amount of data being collected and analyzed and considered by our team. We would like to ask you a series of questions. We would like to hear about your specific experiences. We are asking about things that you have heard of or seen or know to be happening. The questions we are going to be asking you today are about the ways in you, your colleagues, your organization and the higher education sub-sector more broadly may have changed as a result of the implementation of CISP. Your participation in the discussion is completely voluntary and you do not have to answer any questions that you do not want to answer. If you feel uncomfortable at any time during this discussion, it is fine to leave. If you are willing to stay, we would ask that you are also willing to share your views and opinions with us. We will treat everything that you say today with respect and your stories will be kept confidential. We will only share the answers you give as general answers based on those things that are shared with us by all of the people who speak to us. If we share a particular story, we will not present any information that might identify you in anything that we write or record or photograph. We also ask you to keep the information shared during this discussion confidential. For example, if someone in the group shares a personal story, please respect that person’s privacy and do not tell others what was said here today. _XX is taking notes while I lead the discussion. We take notes in order to make sure that we do not miss what you have to say. Is this all right with you? (Make sure everyone in the group shows their agreement clearly.) I would also like to record this discussion in case we miss something in our notes and need to check to make sure that we understood exactly what was being shared. Is this all right with you? (Make sure everyone in the group shows their agreement clearly.) We really want to hear what you have to say, and we want you to answer our questions in whatever way you want. There is no wrong answer to any question. We will make sure that everyone who wants to speak has a chance to speak. Sometimes, we may ask someone to let others speak. We expect our discussion to last for a maximum time of two hours. Does anyone have any questions before we begin?” (Please note down any questions that people ask and your answers to the questions.) We’d like to know some basic things about you all that will help us understand who you are and also help our team ensure that we are talking to a wide range of individuals from different backgrounds. Would you Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program USAID Egypt AID 263-O-15-00009 DevTech Systems Inc. Annex IV. Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the inside cover. please take a moment to fill in this form? You do not have to put your name on the form. Thank you very much. Now, we would like to ask you some questions related to the HELM Program. WARM UP We would like to know a bit about you before we begin. Please tell us: your name, your position, what type of scholarship you received, and for how long and where you studied in the US. INTERVIEW QUESTIONS Thank you very much. Now we’d like to begin our conversation with you about CISP. We have three broad areas of exploration that we are calling: the pre-departure period; the on award period; and the post-award period. We will ask you a series of questions that relate to each of these periods. We will also ask you to consider different levels of change that concern you as an individual, your work unit, your institution more broadly and other institutions. Let’s begin. First we’d like to hear how your own knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, behaviors and skills may have changed because of your time in the US. We’d also like to know how you are applying your new skills and knowledge. I.Topical Focus: Impact of CISP on Alumni Knowledge, Attitudes, Beliefs, Behaviors, Skills and Application of Knowledge and Skills (KABBSA) (Scholars, Internal Committee Members, CDM, Egyptian Cultural Bureau) Due to study in the United States, to what extent have Alumni changed their attitudes and beliefs about their:  Own abilities  Ability to contribute to positive change in their work unit  Ability to contribute to positive change in their institution more broadly  Ability to contribute to positive change in Egypt  Other (please name) Due to study in the United States, to what extent have Alumni acquired new knowledge about:  English language proficiency  Intercultural dimensions - United States as a country, Americans, people from other nationalities  Individual work habits and processes  Organizational culture, organizational development and functioning  Thinking skills (critical thinking, reasoning, other)  Technical field (presentation skills, theoretical and applied research, analytical frameworks, data processing, other)  Research dissemination (publishing, conference presentation, other)  Collaboration in field  Collaboration between public and private sectors (specifically industry)  Other (please name) Due to study in the United States, to what extent have Alumni acquired new skills related to: Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program USAID Egypt AID 263-O-15-00009 DevTech Systems Inc. Annex IV. Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the inside cover.  English language proficiency  Intercultural dimensions - United States as a country, Americans, people from other nationalities  Individual work habits and processes  Organizational culture, organizational development and functioning  Thinking skills (critical thinking, reasoning, other)  Technical field (presentation skills, theoretical and applied research, analytical frameworks, data processing, other)  Research dissemination (publishing, conference presentation, other)  Collaboration in field  Collaboration between public and private sectors (specifically industry)  Other (please name) To what extent have Alumni applied their new knowledge and skills on the job?  A huge amount  Somewhat  Very little  Not at all To what extent have Alumni applied their new knowledge and skills outside of work?  A huge amount  Somewhat  Very little  Not at all II.T opic al Foc us: I mpact of A lumni’s N ew Knowledge, A ttitudes, Beliefs, B ehaviors, Skills and A pplic ation of Knowledge and Skills (KABBSA) (Scholars, Internal Committee Members, CDM, Egyptian Cultural Bureau) How have changes in attitudes and beliefs had an effect on Alumni:  Daily life  Professional Life  Working Unit Colleagues  Organization Colleagues more broadly  Civic involvement  Other (please name) How have changes in Alumna/Alumnus knowledge and skills had an effect on her/his:  Daily life  Professional Life  Working Unit Colleagues  Organization Colleagues more broadly  Contribution to Egypt’s development  Civic involvement Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program USAID Egypt AID 263-O-15-00009 DevTech Systems Inc. Annex IV. Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the inside cover.  Other (please name) Are the Alumna/Alumnus new knowledge and skills relevant to the needs of her/his organization? Why/why not? What specific new skills and knowledge is the Alumna/Alumnus passing on to others in the:  Workplace  Community  Home What are the boosters that help enable an Alumna/Alumnus apply and also pass on new knowledge and skills? Why?  Individual boosters  Working unit boosters  Organization-wide boosters  Enabling environment boosters  Other (please name) What are the barriers that prevent an Alumna/Alumnus from applying and also passing on new knowledge and skills? Why?  Individual barriers  Working unit barriers  Organization-wide barriers  Enabling environment barriers  Other (please name) What are the observable results/changes that can be attributed to the return of the Alumna/Alumnus:  Benefits to other individuals  Changes in policies, practices, processes (work unit, organization, other)  New products (knowledge products, physical materials/goods, other)  Changes in perceptions about the work unit or organization (insiders/outsiders)  Increased interest in collaborating with the work unit or organization (internally/externally)  Other (please name) What are the observable results/changes that can be attributed to the CISP for the Alumna/Alumnus:  Increased visibility and recognition at home institution  Increased visibility and recognition in Egypt  Increased visibility and recognition internationally  Increased requests for Alumna/Alumnus as a guest speaker/presenter  Expanded network of relevant professionals in Egypt  Expanded network of relevant professionals from the United States  Expanded network of relevant professionals from other countries  Publications in Egyptian professional journals Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program USAID Egypt AID 263-O-15-00009 DevTech Systems Inc. Annex IV. Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the inside cover.  Publications in international refereed journals  Increased number of patents registered in Egypt  Increased number of patents registered internationally  Presentations at Egyptian conferences  Presentations at regional conferences  Presentations at national conferences  Transfer in home organization to more appropriate unit  Promotion in home organization  Promotion in other organization  Pay rise  Other What dimension has contributed the most to the changes above?  Improved English language proficiency  Higher level of academic qualification  Status of being a CISP Alumna/Alumnus  Status of having studied at a US institution  Increased number of professional products (research papers, conference presentations, patents, etc.)  Other What are the reasons for lack of observable results/changes that were expected when the Alumna/Alumnus returned?  Lack of English language proficiency  Failure to complete academic qualification  Lack of status of CISP as a scholarship provider (for example, compared to Cheevening or Fulbright)  Lack of status of the US institution  Lack of professional products (research papers, conference presentations, patents, etc.)  Other III.Topical Focus: Perception of CDM as an Implementing Agency (Scholars, Internal Committee Members, CDM, Egyptian Cultural Bureau, USAID, Donor and Development Partners) What part of the scholarship process has CDM done extremely well?  Advertising and solicitation of proposals (strategic, transparent, appropriate, gender-sensitive, inclusive)  Screening and selection of organizations (strategic, transparent, appropriate)  Screening and selection of scholarship recipients (merit-based, inclusive and gender-sensitive)  Guidance on selection of best placement and course of study  Pre-departure preparation of scholarship recipients  Hand-over to the Egyptian Cultural Bureau  Hand-over from the Egyptian Cultural Bureau  Ensuring organization’s commitment to the scholar’s reintegration and results Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program USAID Egypt AID 263-O-15-00009 DevTech Systems Inc. Annex IV. Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the inside cover.  Ensuring scholar’s commitment to re-integration and results  Monitoring and evaluation of re-integration results  Strategic thinking about scholarships as a vehicle for Egypt’s development  Other (please name) What should be changed about CISP to increase its impact and results?  Advertising and solicitation of proposals (strategic, transparent, appropriate, gender-sensitive, inclusive)  Screening and selection of organizations (strategic, transparent, appropriate)  Screening and selection of scholarship recipients (transparent, merit-based, inclusive and gender￾sensitive)  Guidance on selection of best placement and course of study  Pre-departure preparation of scholarship recipients  Hand-over to the Egyptian Cultural Bureau  Hand-over from the Egyptian Cultural Bureau  Ensuring organization’s commitment to the scholar’s reintegration and results  Ensuring scholar’s commitment to re-integration and results  Monitoring and evaluation of re-integration results  Strategic thinking about scholarships as a vehicle for Egypt’s development  Other (please name) What should be kept the same about CISP? Why?  Advertising and solicitation of proposals (strategic, transparent, appropriate, gender-sensitive, inclusive)  Screening and selection of organizations (strategic, transparent, appropriate)  Screening and selection of scholarship recipients (transparent, merit-based, inclusive and gender￾sensitive)  Guidance on selection of best placement and course of study  Pre-departure preparation of scholarship recipients  Hand-over to the Egyptian Cultural Bureau  Hand-over from the Egyptian Cultural Bureau  Ensuring organization’s commitment to the scholar’s reintegration and results  Ensuring scholar’s commitment to re-integration and results  Monitoring and evaluation of re-integration results  Strategic thinking about scholarships as a vehicle for Egypt’s development  Other (please name) IV.Topical Focus: Perception of Egyptian Cultural Bureau (Scholars, Internal Committee Members, CDM, Egyptian Cultural Bureau, USAID) What part of the scholarship process has the Egyptian Cultural Bureau done extremely well?  Hand-over from the CDM  Ensuring scholar’s success at her/his US institution (personal and professional, gender-sensitive, inclusive) Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program USAID Egypt AID 263-O-15-00009 DevTech Systems Inc. Annex IV. Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the inside cover.  Ensuring scholar’s commitment to re-integration and results  Monitoring and evaluation of scholar’s progress  Monitoring and evaluation of US institution’s duty of care  Creating esprit de corps among CI scholars  Hand-over to CDM  Other (please name) What should be changed about CISP to increase its impact and results?  Hand-over from the CDM  Ensuring scholar’s success at her/his US institution (personal and professional, gender-sensitive, inclusive)  Ensuring scholar’s commitment to re-integration and results  Monitoring and evaluation of scholar’s progress  Monitoring and evaluation of US institution’s duty of care  Creating esprit de corps among CI scholars  Hand-over to CDM  Other (please name) What should be kept the same about CISP? Why?  Hand-over from the CDM  Ensuring scholar’s success at her/his US institution (personal and professional, gender-sensitive, inclusive)  Ensuring scholar’s commitment to re-integration and results  Monitoring and evaluation of scholar’s progress  Monitoring and evaluation of US institution’s duty of care  Creating esprit de corps among CI scholars  Hand-over to CDM  Other (please name) V.Topical Focus: Perception of Home Institution (Scholars, Internal Committee Members, CDM) What part of the scholarship process has the home institution done extremely well?  Ensuring top management support for and endorsement of the institution’s CISP proposal  Undertaking an organizational development analysis to identify gaps to be filled by CISP Alumni  Responding to CDM solicitation for proposals  Screening and selecting scholarship candidates (transparent, merit-based, inclusive and gender￾sensitive)  Preparing scholarship candidates for CISP interview  Providing guidance on US institution placement and course of study  Preparing the reintegration plan – roles and responsibilities of the home organization  Assisting the scholarship recipient to prepare her/his reintegration plan and linking the plan to professional development targets to be achieved in the US  Pre-departure preparation of scholarship recipients Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program USAID Egypt AID 263-O-15-00009 DevTech Systems Inc. Annex IV. Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the inside cover.  Hand-over to the CDM  Ensuring organization’s commitment to the scholar’s reintegration and results  Ensuring scholar’s commitment to re-integration and results  Monitoring and evaluation of re-integration processes and results  Ensuring top management support for and financing of the institution’s reintegration strategy  Strategic thinking about scholarships as a vehicle for Egypt’s development  Other (please name) What part of the scholarship process has the home institution not done well?  Ensuring top management support for and endorsement of the institution’s CISP proposal  Undertaking an organizational development analysis to identify gaps to be filled by CISP Alumni  Responding to CDM solicitation for proposals  Screening and selecting scholarship candidates (transparent, merit-based, inclusive and gender￾sensitive)  Preparing scholarship candidates for CISP interview  Providing guidance on US institution placement and course of study  Preparing the reintegration plan – roles and responsibilities of the home organization  Assisting the scholarship recipient to prepare her/his reintegration plan and linking the plan to professional development targets to be achieved in the US  Pre-departure preparation of scholarship recipients  Hand-over to the CDM  Ensuring organization’s commitment to the scholar’s reintegration and results  Ensuring scholar’s commitment to re-integration and results  Monitoring and evaluation of re-integration processes and results  Ensuring top management support for and financing of the institution’s reintegration strategy  Strategic thinking about scholarships as a vehicle for Egypt’s development  Other (please name) What part of the scholarship process should the home institution change? Why?  Ensuring top management support for and endorsement of the institution’s CISP proposal  Undertaking an organizational development analysis to identify gaps to be filled by CISP Alumni  Responding to CDM solicitation for proposals  Screening and selecting scholarship candidates (transparent, merit-based, inclusive and gender￾sensitive)  Preparing scholarship candidates for CISP interview  Providing guidance on US institution placement and course of study  Preparing the reintegration plan – roles and responsibilities of the home organization  Assisting the scholarship recipient to prepare her/his reintegration plan and linking the plan to professional development targets to be achieved in the US  Pre-departure preparation of scholarship recipients  Hand-over to the CDM  Ensuring organization’s commitment to the scholar’s reintegration and results  Ensuring scholar’s commitment to re-integration and results  Monitoring and evaluation of re-integration processes and results  Ensuring top management support for and financing of the institution’s reintegration strategy  Strategic thinking about scholarships as a vehicle for Egypt’s development  Other (please name) Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program USAID Egypt AID 263-O-15-00009 DevTech Systems Inc. Annex IV. Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the inside cover. VI.Topical Focus: Perception of US Institution (Scholars, Internal Committee Members, CDM, Egyptian Cultural Bureau, USAID) What has the US institution(s) done extremely well?  Hand-over from Egyptian Cultural Bureau  Duty of Care (sensitive to gender roles and responsibilities and inclusion)  Ensuring scholar’s academic success at her/his US institution  Ensuring scholar’s exposure to multiple professional growth activities  Ensuring scholar’s commitment to re-integration and results  Monitoring and evaluation of scholar’s progress  Creating esprit de corps among Egyptian scholars at the institution  Ensuring the quality of advisers and instructors  Hand-over to Egyptian Cultural Bureau  Alumni engagement  Other (please name) What has the US institution(s) not done well?  Hand-over from Egyptian Cultural Bureau  Duty of Care (sensitive to gender and inclusion)  Ensuring scholar’s academic success at her/his US institution  Ensuring scholar’s exposure to multiple professional growth activities  Ensuring scholar’s commitment to re-integration and results  Monitoring and evaluation of scholar’s progress  Creating esprit de corps among Egyptian scholars at the institution  Ensuring the quality of advisers and instructors  Hand-over to Egyptian Cultural Bureau  Alumni engagement  Other (please name) VII. Topical Focus: Perception of CISP (Scholars, Internal Committee Members, CDM, Egyptian Cultural Bureau, USAID, Donor and Development Partners) What is the importance of CISP for:  Individuals in Egypt  Organizations in Egypt  Egypt’s development more broadly What should be changed about CISP to increase its impact on:  Individuals in Egypt Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program USAID Egypt AID 263-O-15-00009 DevTech Systems Inc. Annex IV. Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the inside cover.  Organizations in Egypt  Egypt’s development more broadly What should be kept the same about CISP? Why?  Individuals in Egypt  Organizations in Egypt  Egypt’s development more broadly How does CISP compare to other scholarship schemes? Why? What should USAID do to enhance the prestige of CIS awards? CLOSING REMARKS Thank you, XX, for your willingness to speak with us. We’d like to know if you have any specific questions of us. We’d also like to know if you found this process interesting or helpful in any way. Again, we’d like to say that the information you shared today will be kept confidential. For your part, please do not discuss the information shared in this meeting with others who were not part of the meeting. The evaluation team will be continuing its work until the end of February when we will present our findings, conclusions and recommendations to USAID/Egypt and the Government of Egypt. Best wishes for your future endeavors Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program USAID Egypt AID 263-O-15-00009 DevTech Systems Inc. Annex IV. Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the inside cover. KII/RTD Interview Processing Instructions for Evaluation Team Part I YOUR PERSPECTIVE on the Interview Process Write down your insights into the information below. Doing so will help you remember details and interpret what was said.  Perspective on how the INTERVIEW was conducted (were you happy with your performance, did anything unusual or notable happen before, during or after the INTERVIEW, etc.)  Impressions of the setting  Any changes to the question sequence or questions themselves and any additional interesting questions that you incorporated into the INTERVIEW  Impressions of the participants, including any observations about indications of wealth, poverty, education, enthusiasm and body language. Part II PRODUCE Cleaned Interview Notes Make sure that your INTERVIEW notes are complete and as close to verbatim as possible. Listen to the INTERVIEW audio recording to see if you have missed any information and fill in any missing information in the notes. Produce a set of notes in electronic form and in English (spell-checked; grammar-checked). Use the table below as part of the electronic file. Table: Summary of Contextual and Biographical Data Location (City, Governorate, Province) Organization Name ID Number of Organization KII/RDT Date Start Time End Time Duration of KII/RDT (in minutes) Number of Participants Number of Female Participants Number of Male Participants Number of Participants with Disabilities Age Range of Participants Socio-Cultural Aspects of Participants Interviewer Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program USAID Egypt AID 263-O-15-00009 DevTech Systems Inc. Annex IV. Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the inside cover. Note Taker Quality Assurance Provider N/A Part III INTERVIEW Patterns and Themes Summary Re-read your INTERVIEW notes and use a marking system to identify common patterns and themes and any ‘discrepant case’ (a discrepant case is something that emerges that is very much outside of the common experience expressed by most of the group –it is good to probe such cases because you often uncover very interesting information). Identify and write down key findings in the categories on the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations Matrix on Google Drive. Remember: Key findings are clusters of findings that reveal a pattern or theme that emerge when a particular issue is being discussed. Remember: We are trying to demonstrate change (positive or negative) or lack of change that came about as a result of CISP (the before and after picture) and your INTERVIEW Key Findings should make it possible to see the change and the extent of change from participants’ perspectives. Part IV: YOUR EMERGING CONCLUSIONS Based on your analysis of your key findings from this particular KII/INTERVIEW, write down the conclusions you draw about the following Evaluation Questions. If the particular Evaluation Question is not applicable to this INTERVIEW, simply write, ‘NA’ for ‘Not Applicable’. Overarching CISP Evaluation Questions Q1: To what extent is the CISP on track to achieving its capacity building objectives? Q2: What factors enabled or constrained implementation and its results? Q3: How effective is the program in selecting, placing, timing and transparency? How can these processes be improved? Q4: What actions can be taken to improve women’s participation in the CISP? Q5: Based on the evaluation findings, what conclusions and actionable recommendations should be considered in phase II of the CISP design? Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program USAID Egypt AID 263-O-15-00009 DevTech Systems Inc. Annex IV. Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the inside cover. Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program USAID Egypt AID 263-O-15-00009 DevTech Systems Inc. Annex IV. Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the inside cover. Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program USAID Egypt AID 263-O-15-00009 DevTech Systems Inc. Annex IV. Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the inside cover. Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program USAID Egypt AID 263-O-15-00009 DevTech Systems Inc. Annex IV. Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the inside cover. Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program USAID Egypt AID 263-O-15-00009 DevTech Systems Inc. Annex IV. Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the inside cover. Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program USAID Egypt AID 263-O-15-00009 DevTech Systems Inc. Annex IV. Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the inside cover. Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program USAID Egypt AID 263-O-15-00009 DevTech Systems Inc. Annex IV. Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the inside cover. Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program USAID Egypt AID 263-O-15-00009 DevTech Systems Inc. Annex IV. Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the inside cover. Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program USAID Egypt AID 263-O-15-00009 DevTech Systems Inc. Annex IV. Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the inside cover. Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program USAID Egypt AID 263-O-15-00009 DevTech Systems Inc. Annex IV. Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the inside cover. Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program USAID Egypt AID 263-O-15-00009 DevTech Systems Inc. Annex IV. Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the inside cover. Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program USAID Egypt AID 263-O-15-00009 DevTech Systems Inc. Annex IV. Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the inside cover. Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program USAID Egypt AID 263-O-15-00009 DevTech Systems Inc. Annex IV. Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the inside cover. Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program USAID Egypt AID 263-O-15-00009 DevTech Systems Inc. Annex IV. Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the inside cover. Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program USAID Egypt AID 263-O-15-00009 DevTech Systems Inc. Annex IV. Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the inside cover. Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program USAID Egypt AID 263-O-15-00009 DevTech Systems Inc. Annex IV. Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the inside cover. Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program USAID Egypt AID 263-O-15-00009 DevTech Systems Inc. Annex IV. Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the inside cover. Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program USAID Egypt AID 263-O-15-00009 DevTech Systems Inc. Annex IV. Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the inside cover. Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program USAID Egypt AID 263-O-15-00009 DevTech Systems Inc. Annex IV. Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the inside cover. Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program USAID Egypt AID 263-O-15-00009 DevTech Systems Inc. Annex IV. Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the inside cover. Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program USAID Egypt AID 263-O-15-00009 DevTech Systems Inc. Annex IV. Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the inside cover. Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program USAID Egypt AID 263-O-15-00009 DevTech Systems Inc. Annex IV. Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the inside cover. Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program USAID Egypt AID 263-O-15-00009 DevTech Systems Inc. Annex IV. Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the inside cover. Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program USAID Egypt AID 263-O-15-00009 DevTech Systems Inc. Annex IV. Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the inside cover. Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program USAID Egypt AID 263-O-15-00009 DevTech Systems Inc. Annex IV. Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the inside cover. Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program USAID Egypt AID 263-O-15-00009 DevTech Systems Inc. Annex IV. Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the inside cover. Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program USAID Egypt AID 263-O-15-00009 DevTech Systems Inc. Annex IV. Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the inside cover. Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program USAID Egypt AID 263-O-15-00009 DevTech Systems Inc. Annex IV. Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the inside cover. Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program USAID Egypt AID 263-O-15-00009 DevTech Systems Inc. Annex IV. Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the inside cover. Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the inside cover. Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program USAID Egypt AID 263-O-15-00009 DevTech Systems Inc. Annex V. Annex V. - Sources of Information Bibliography DevTech (2008) Mid-term evaluation of AUC and LEAN Egyptian Law of Higher Education (2006) Hattab (2012) GEM Monitoring Report Handoussa, et all (2010) Cairo Agenda for Action Mills, K. (2015) Clusters and Competitiveness: A New Federal Role; Brookings Institution Oakden, J. (2013) Evaluation Rubrics; Better Evaluation Publishers UNGE (2012) UN Girls Education Initiative Gender Analysis in Education USAID (2010) Gender Assessment and Analysis USAID (2012) Gender Equity Policy USAID (2012) How To Note- How to conduct evaluations Amendment 1- attachment 2- CDM Milestones Ammendment1- technical description Ammendment2- Fara- 2 CDM Milestones Ammendment2- Fara- technical description Ammendment3- Fara-technical description Amendement 3- attachement 2- CDM Milestones Ammendment4- Fara-technical description Amendement 4- attachement 2- CDM Milestones IL 3 IL 7 FARA- signed Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program USAID Egypt AID 263-O-15-` DevTech Systems Inc. Annex V. Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the inside cover. Scholarship Recipients (by unique Code) Code Institution Sex Age Candidate Status CISP Degree Category Discipline Category of Discipline US Institution Details F M Master's Doctorate PostDoc US State US Institution UNIVERSITIES - Attained Degree 001 Alexandria University (3 hrs by car) M 24 Achieved MA Geological and Earth Sciences/Geosciences 002 Alexandria University F Current Student MA Business Administration and Management, General Delaware Goldey Beacom College 003 Alexandria University M Current Student MA Human Development, Family Studies, and Related Services, Other other Kentucky Murray State University 004 Alexandria University M Current Student MA Human Development and Family Studies, General Kentucky Murray State University 005 Alexandria University M Current Student MBA Hospital and Health Care Facilities Administration/Management 006 Alexandria University F Current Student MA Communication and Media Studies, Other New Indiana Indiana University of Pennsylvania 007 Alexandria University F Current Student MA Pharmacy Administration and Pharmacy Policy and Regulatory Affairs (MS, PhD) 008 Alexandria University M Current Student MA Civil Engineering other Utah Utah State University 009 Alexandria University M Current Student MA Health-Related Knowledge and Skills Other California California State University 010 Al Azhar University (Assiut Branch - 6 hrs by car) M 36 Achieved PD Agriculture, Agriculture Operations, and Related Sciences Other New Mexico New Mexico State University 011 AlAzhar University M Current Student PD Biotechnology Texas Ohio State University 012 AlAzhar University M Current Student PD Microbiological Sciences and Immunology Other/new Michigan University of Michigan 013 Ain Shams University F 51 Achieved PD Health/Health Care Administration/Management Maine Kennesaw State University 014 Ain Shams University F 39 Achieved PD Health Aide 015 Ain Shams University F 33 Achieved PD Public Health Other New York Albany College of Pharmacy 016 Ain Shams University F 56 Achieved PD Personal Health Improvement and Maintenance Pennsylvania Foundation for Advancement of International Medical Education and Research - FAIMER 017 Ain Shams University F 41 Achieved PD Health-Related Knowledge and Skills, Other Other Pennsylvania Foundation for Advancement of International Medical Education and Research - FAIMER 018 Ain Shams University F 40 Achieved PD Agricultural Business and Management, Other Other North Carolina University of North Carolina 019 Ain Shams University F 35 Achieved PD Management Science, General Texas University of Houston 020 Ain Shams University F 38 Achieved PD Management Science, General Texas University of Houston 021 Ain Shams University M 33 Achieved PD Public Health Other New York Albany College of Pharmacy 022 Ain Shams University M 42 Achieved PD Information Technology California University of California-San Diego 023 Ain Shams University M 54 Achieved PD Computer and Information Sciences and Support Services Other California Alliant International University 024 Ain Shams University M 49 Achieved PD Agricultural Business and Management other North Carolina University of North Carolina 025 Ain Shams University M 35 Achieved PD Computer and Information Sciences, General Florida University of Florida 026 Ain Shams University M 33 Achieved PD Education, General 027 Ain Shams University M 50 Achieved PD Health-Related Knowledge and Skills, Other Other Pennsylvania Foundation for Advancement of International Medical Education and Research - FAIMER 028 Ain Shams University F Current Student PD Microbiology, General (NEW) New Ohio University of Ohio 029 Ain Shams University F Current Student MBA Health Information/Medical Records Technology/Technician Ohio Cleveland 030 Ain Shams University F Current Student MA Management Science, General Delaware Goldey Beacom College 031 Ain Shams University F Current Student MBA Management Science, General Kentucky Murray State University 032 Ain Shams University M Current Student MBA Business/Commerce, General Delaware Goldey Beacom College 033 Ain Shams University M Current Student MA Taxation Delaware Goldey Beacom College 034 Ain Shams University M Current Student MA Environmental Engineering Technology/Environmental Technology Texas Texas A&M University 035 Aswan University M 42 Achieved PD Education, General 036 Benha University M 45 Achieved PD Education, General 037 Cairo University F 54 Achieved PD Business/Commerce, General Georgia Georgia State University 038 Cairo University F 28 Achieved Health-Related Knowledge and Skills Other New York New York University, Steinhardt 039 Cairo University M 42 Achieved PD Health/Health Care Administration/Management Texas University of North Texas 040 Cairo University M 38 Achieved PD Materials Engineering Pennsylvania Pennsylvania State University 041 Cairo University M 37 Achieved PD Pathology/Pathologist Assistant (NEW) new Alabama University of Alabama at Birmingham 042 Cairo University M 48 Achieved PD Medicine (MD) Texas Baylor College of Medicine 043 Cairo University M 48 Achieved PD Health/Medical Physics Massachusetts NortheasternUniversity 044 Cairo University M 49 Achieved PD Veterinary Medicine (DVM) Kentucky University of Louisville 045 Cairo University M 60 Achieved PD Business Administration, Management and Operations, Other Other Georgia Georgia State University 046 Cairo University F Current Student PD Poultry Science Texas Texas Southern University 047 Cairo University M Current Student PD Poultry Science Indiana Purdue University 048 Cairo University M Current Student MA Food Technology and Processing New Florida University of Florida 049 Cairo University M Current Student MA Business Administration and Management, General 050 Cairo University M Current Student PD Business Administration, Management and Operations other Georgia Georgia State University 051 Cairo University M Current Student PD Agriculture, General Indiana Purdue University 052 Cairo University M Current Student MBA Management Science, General Ohio University of Akron 053 Cairo University M Current Student MA Health/Medical Physics Washington, DC Georgetown University 054 Cairo University F Current Student MA Pharmacy Administration and Pharmacy Poli cy and Regulatory Affairs (MS, PhD) 055 Cairo University M Current Student MA Pharmacology Washington, DC Georgetown University 056 Cairo University M Current Student MA Pharmacology Pennsylvania Temple University 057 El Areesh University M 38 Achieved PD Education, General 058 Fayoum University (outside Cairo) F 40 Achieved PD Education, General 059 Fayoum University F 40 Achieved PD Education, General 060 Fayoum University M 32 Achieved PD Education, General 061 Helwan University M 39 Achieved PD Education, General 062 Helwan University M 35 Achieved PD Education, Other Other Indiana Purdue University 063 Helwan University F Current Student MA Human Resources Management and Services, Other New York New York Institute of Technology 064 Helwan University F Current Student MBA Human Resources Development New Connecticut New Haven Graduate School 065 Helwan University M Current Student MBA Human Resources Management/Personnel Administration, General Delaware Goldey Beacom College 066 Helwan University M Current Student MA Astrophysics New York State University of New York 067 ?? Mansoura?? F 34 Achieved PD Education, General 068 Mansoura University M 41 Achieved PD Education, General Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program USAID Egypt AID 263-O-15-` DevTech Systems Inc. Annex V. Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the inside cover. 069 Mansoura University M 48 Achieved PD Education, General 070 Menoufia University M 34 Achieved PD Veterinary/Animal Health Technology/Technician and Veterinary Assistant Tennessee TuskegeeUniversity 071 Menoufia University M 35 Achieved PD Veterinary Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, Other (Cert, MS. PhD) Other/New Tennessee TuskegeeUniversity 072 Menoufia University M 39 Achieved PD Genetic Counseling/Counselor New Michigan University of Michigan 073 Menoufia University M 54 Achieved PD Horticultural Science Illinois Purdue University 074 Menoufia University M 49 Achieved PD Engineering, Other other Massachusetts NortheasternUniversity 075 Menoufia University M 46 Achieved PD Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 076 Menoufia University M 47 Achieved PD Educational Assessment, Testing, and Measurement 077 Menoufia University M 52 Achieved PD Education, General 078 Menoufia University M 53 Achieved PD Chemistry Other 079 Minia University M 35 Achieved PD Agricultural and Food Products Processing 080 Minia University M Current Student PhD Agronomy and Crop Science 081 Zagazig University F Current Student MA Health Teacher Education Texas University of Texas - Houston 082 Zagazig University M Current Student MA Health Professions and Related Clinical Sciences Other New York University of Rochester 083 Zagazig University M Current Student MA Chemical Technology/Technician Washington, DC Georgia State University 084 MINISTRIES 085 Central Agency for Public Mobilization and Statistics (CAPMAS) F Current Student MA Information Science/Studies Maryland University of Maryland 086 Central Agency for Public Mobilization and Statistics (CAPMAS) M Current Student MA Health/Medical Preparatory Programs, Other other New Jersey University of New Jersey 087 Central Agency for Public Mobilization and Statistics (CAPMAS) M Current Student MA Education, General New Mexico University of New Mexico 088 Central Audit Organization (CAO) F Current Student MBA Business, Management, Marketing, and Related Support Services other Oregon Willamette University 089 Central Audit Organization (CAO) F Current Student MBA Business Administration, Management and Operations Other Delaware Goldey Beacom College 090 Central Audit Organization (CAO) M Current Student MBA Accounting Delaware Goldey Beacom College 091 Central Audit Organization (CAO) M Current Student MBA Management Science, General Delaware Goldey Beacom College 092 Central Audit Organization (CAO) M Current Student MBA Business Administration, Management and Operations other Delaware Goldey-Beacom College 093 Central Audit Organization (CAO) M Current Student MBA Management Science, General Delaware Goldey Beacom College 094 Central Audit Organization (CAO) M Current Student MBA Accounting Delaware Goldey Beacom College 095 Central Audit Organization (CAO) M Current Student MBA Auditing Colorado University of Colorado 096 Ministry of Civil Aviation F 42 Achieved MA Meteorology New Tennessee TuskegeeUniversity 097 Ministry of Civil Aviation F 29 Achieved MA Science Technologies/Technicians Other Tennessee TuskegeeUniversity 098 Ministry of Civil Aviation M 38 Achieved MA Meteorology New Tennessee TuskegeeUniversity 099 Ministry of Communications and Information Technology M 40 Achieved PD Engineering, Other 100 Ministry of Electricity and Renewable Energy M 39 Achieved PD Engineering Physics 101 Ministry of Electricity and Renewable Energy M 55 Achieved PD Geological and Earth Sciences/Geosciences, Other 102 Ministry of Electricity and Renewable Energy M Current Student MA Biomedical/Medical Engineering Connecticut University of Connecticut 103 Ministry of Electricity and Renewable Energy M Current Student PhD Civil Engineering, General 104 Ministry of Finance M 43 Achieved PD Administrative Assistant and Secretarial Science, General Massachusetts University of Massachusetts 105 Ministry of Finance F Current Student MA Adult and Continuing Education and Teaching Pennsylvania Indiana University of Pennsylvania 106 Ministry of Finance F Current Student MBA Business Administration and Management, General Delaware Goldey Beacom College 107 Ministry of Finance M Current Student MBA Management Science, General Massachusetts Clark University 108 Ministry of Finance M Current Student MBA Taxation Pennsylvania Widener University 109 Ministry of Health F 35 Achieved MBA Hospital and Health Care Facilities Administration/Management Oregon WillametteUniversity 110 Ministry of Health F 35 Achieved MA Medicine (MD) Oregon University of Portland 111 Ministry of Health F 29 Achieved MBA Business, Management, Marketing, and Related Support Services other Ohio University of Akron 112 Ministry of Health F 30 Achieved MBA Pharmacy, Pharmaceutical Sciences, and Administration Other Oregon University of Portland 113 Ministry of Health M 35 Achieved MA Health-Related Knowledge and Skills other 114 Ministry of Health M 31 Achieved MBA Health/Health Care Administration/Management Oregon University of Oregon - Portland 115 Ministry of Health M 34 Achieved MBA DentalHygiene/Hygienist Oregon University of Oregon - Portland 116 Ministry of Health M 33 Achieved MBA Health-Related Knowledge and Skills Other Connecticut University of Connecticut 117 Ministry of Health M 32 Achieved MBA Health and Medical Administrative Services Other Connecticut University of Connecticut 118 Ministry of Health M 35 Achieved MBA Hospital and Health Care Facilities Administration/Management Connecticut University of Connecticut 119 Ministry of Health M 32 Achieved MBA Health Information/Medical Records Administration/Administrator Oregon University of Oregon - Portland 120 Ministry of Health M 33 Achieved MBA Medicine (MD) Oregon WillametteUniversity 121 Ministry of Health M 43 Achieved MBA Management Science, General 122 Ministry of Health M 34 Achieved MBA Business, Management, Marketing, and Related Support Services other Ohio University of Akron 123 Ministry of Health M 34 Achieved MBA Business, Management, Marketing, and Related Support Services other Ohio University of Akron 124 Ministry of Health M 38 Achieved MBA Business, Management, Marketing, and Related Support Services other Ohio University of Akron 125 Ministry of Health M 32 Achieved MBA Marketing other Louisiana University of Tulane 126 Ministry of Health M 35 Achieved MBA Physical Therapy/Therapist Oregon University of Oregon - Portland 127 Ministry of Health F Current Student MBA Management Science, General new Illinois Loyola University Chicago 128 Ministry of Health F Current Student MA History, General Arizona Arizona University 129 Ministry of Health M Current Student MBA Biology/Biological Sciences, General Georgia Georgia Regent University 130 Ministry of Health M Current Student MBA Business Administration and Management, General Georgia Georgia State University 131 Ministry of Higher Education F Current Student MA Health/Health Care Administration/Management New York University of Rochester 132 Ministry of Higher Education M Current Student MA Health-Related Knowledge and Skills other 133 Ministry of Higher Education M Current Student MBA Finance and Financial Management Services other Delaware Goldey Beacom College 134 Ministry of Industry and Foreign Trade F Current Student MA Animal Sciences other Virginia Virginia Tech University 135 Ministry of Industry and Foreign Trade M Current Student MA Health-Related Knowledge and Skills Other Pennsylvania Indiana University of Pennsylvania 136 Ministry of Industry and Foreign Trade M Current Student MBA Business Administration and Management, General Delaware Goldey Beacom College 137 Ministry of Justice M 39 Achieved MA Meteorology New Tennessee TuskegeeUniversity 138 Ministry of Justice M Current Student PD Toxicology Texas Texas Southern University 139 Ministry of Justice M Current Student PD Toxicology Texas Texas Southern University 140 Ministry of Justice M Current Student PD Toxicology Texas Texas Southern University 141 Ministry of Justice M Current Student PD Toxicology Texas Texas Southern University 142 Ministry of Justice M Current Student PD Toxicology Texas Texas Southern University Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program USAID Egypt AID 263-O-15-` DevTech Systems Inc. Annex V. Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the inside cover. 143 Ministry of Justice M Current Student PD Toxicology Texas Texas Southern University 144 Ministry of Justice M Current Student PD Toxicology Texas Texas Southern University 145 Ministry of Justice M Current Student PD Toxicology Texas Texas Southern University 146 Ministry of Scientific Research F 42 Achieved PD Education, General 147 Ministry of Scientific Research F 41 Achieved PD Dentistry (DDS, DMD) New York New York University 148 Ministry of Scientific Research M 43 Achieved PD Chemical Engineering 149 Ministry of Scientific Research M 44 Achieved PD Dentistry (DDS, DMD) 150 Ministry of Scientific Research M 46 Achieved PD Chemistry, Other Connecticut Yale University 151 Ministry of Scientific Research M 49 Achieved PD Architecture and Related Services other GEM Tox Labs 152 Ministry of Scientific Research M 35 Achieved MBA Medicine (MD) 153 Ministry of Scientific Research F Current Student MA Health Professions and Related Clinical Sciences Other New York University of Rochester 154 Ministry of Scientific Research F Current Student PD Human/Medical Genetics New York Yeshiva University - Albert Einstein College of Medicine 155 Ministry of Scientific Research M Current Student MA Accounting 156 Ministry of Scientific Research F 54 Achieved PD Health/Medical Physics California University of California 157 Ministry of Scientific Research F 52 Achieved PD Microbiology, General Florida University of Florida 158 Ministry of Scientific Research M 58 Achieved PD Radiation Protection/Health Physics Technician New Pennsylvania University of Pennsylvania 159 Ministry of Scientific Research M 39 Achieved MA Meteorology New New York New York University at Albany 160 Ministry of Scientific Research M 45 Achieved MBA Human Resources Management and Services Other Ohio AkronUniversity 161 Ministry of Scientific Research M Current Student MBA Management Information Systems and Services Other Massachusetts Clark University 162 Ministry of Scientific Research M Current Student MA Geological/Geophysical Engineering New Texas Texas A&M University 163 Ministry of Scientific Research M Current Student MBA Management Science, General Ohio University of Akron 164 Ministry of Scientific Research F 52 Achieved PD Education, General 165 Ministry of Social Affairs F 56 Achieved PD Social Sciences, General 166 Ministry of Social Affairs M 39 Achieved PD Criminology 167 Ministry of Social Affairs M 41 Achieved PD Agricultural and Food Products Processing 168 Ministry of State for Antiquities M 34 Achieved PD History, Other 169 Ministry of State for Antiquities M 33 Achieved PD History, General Massachusetts HarvardUniversity 170 Ministry of State for Antiquities F Current Student MA General Studies Washington, DC George Washington University 171 Ministry of State for Antiquities M Current Student MA General Studies Washington, DC George Washington University 172 Ministry of Antiquities M Current Student PD Art History, Criticism and Conservation California University of California 173 Ministry of Antiquties M Current Student MA Business, Management, Marketing, and Related Support Services Other Delaware Goldey Beacom College 174 Ministry of Antiquities M Current Student MBA Management Science, General Tennessee University of Memphis 175 Ministry of Trade and Industry M 48 Achieved PD Biochemistry Indiana Purdue University 176 Ministry of Water Resources and Irrigation M 41 Achieved PD Agriculture, General Florida Florida Agricultural University 177 Ministry of Water Resources and Irrigation M 39 Achieved PD Civil Engineering, General Illinois University of Illinois 178 Ministry of Water Resources and Irrigation M 41 Achieved PD Water, Wetlands, and Marine Resources Management New Florida University of South Florida 179 Ministry of Water Resources and Irrigation M 29 Achieved MA Biological and Biomedical Sciences Other Minnesota University of Minnesota 180 Ministry of Water Resources and Irrigation M Current Student MA Biology/Biological Sciences, General Kansas Wichita State University 181 Ministry of Water Resources and Irrigation M Current Student MA Water Resources Engineering Colorado Colorado University 182 Ministry of Water Resources and Irrigation M Current Student MA Civil Engineering Technology/Technician North Carolina North Carolina State University 183 Ministry of Water Resources and Irrigation M Current Student MA Environmental Engineering Technology/Environmental Technology Utah Utah State University 184 OTHER 185 ON TV Channel F 25 Achieved MA Broadcast Journalism New York Columbia Journalism School 186 Texas A&M University M Current Student MA Theology and Religious Vocations other Maryland Towson University 187 KEMT Chemical Industries M Current Student MBA Accounting and Business/Management new Minnesota Saint Mary's College Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program USAID Egypt AID 263-O-15-` DevTech Systems Inc. Annex V. Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the inside cover. Organization Individual Name (First Middle Last) Title Evaluation Participants- Type of CISP Involvement Sex SES Status Disability Status (Disabled - Yes, No) Religious Affiliation (M, C, Other) Position in Organization Alumnus/Alumna Current Scholar Unsuccessful Candidate Institution Committee Member Institution Colleagues MoHE (non￾CISP) or other GoE Ministry CDM CISP Staff Member Egyptian Cultural Exchange Bureau Personnel Donor/Development Partner (Which one - USAID, DAAD, etc.) US University Personnel F M USAID Arturo Acosta Mr 1 1 N Deputy Director USAID Pamela Strong Ms. 1 1 N C Program Development Officer USAID Thomas P. Crehan Mr. 1 1 N C Director Office of Education and Training USAID Soad Saada Ms. 1 1 N M Development Program Specialist USAID Nader Ayoub Mr. 1 1 N Program Management Specalist USAID Seba Auda Ms. 1 1 N M Development Program Specialist USAID Shadia Attia Ms. 1 1 N Senior Monitoring and Evaluation Advisor USAID Hanan Abbas Ms. 1 1 N Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist American University in Cairo Sohair Saad Ms. 1 1 N C (?) Executice Director - Office of Student Financial Affairs and Scholarships DAAD Mona Ayoub Ms. 1 1 N M Deputy Director DAAD Christian Melchert Mr. 1 1 N NK Coordinator, German Science Centre (DWZ) Cairo EU Heba Gaber Dr. 1 1 Research and Innovation Officer CDM, MoHE Hesham Nashat Mr. 1 1 N Financial Auditor CDM, MoHE Ahmed Sharaf El Din Mr. 1 1 N M Financial Auditor CDM, MoHE Somaia Ramadan Ms. 1 1 N M Ministry of Higher Education - Central Department of Missions Mohamed Abdel Naby Mr. 1 1 N M Ministry of Higher Education - Central Department of Missions Mohamed Safial Mr. 1 1 N M Engineer Ministry of Higher Education - Central Department of Missions Mohamed Hasan Mr. 1 1 N M General Director Financial Dept Ministry of Higher Education - Central Department of Missions Hesham Ahmed Mr. 1 1 N M Executive Director - Central Department of Missions - CISP Implementation Unit Ministry of Higher Education - Central Department of Missions Manal Kamal Ms. 1 1 N M Undersecretary - Ministry of Higher Education Cultural Cooperation Ministry of Higher Education - Central Department of Missions Sayed Tag El Din Professor, Dr. 1 1 N M Undersecretary - Ministry of Higher Education Central Department of Missions Ministry of Higher Education Tamer Mohamed Ahmed Mr. 1 1 N M Ministry of Higher Education - Central Department of Missions CISP Somaya Ramadan Mohamed Mrs. 1 1 N M Finance Officer Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program USAID Egypt AID 263 - O -15 - ` DevTech Systems Inc. Annex V. Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the inside cover. Implementing Unit (MOHE CDM - CIU) Ministry of Higher Education - Central Department of Missions CISP Implementing Unit (MOHE CDM - CIU) Mohamed Safany Ibrahim Abdel Ghany Mr. 1 1 N M Information Technology Administrator Ministry of Higher Education - Central Department of Missions CISP Implementing Unit (MOHE CDM - CIU) Marwa Hanafy Mahmoud Abdel Rahman Mrs. 1 1 N M Finance Officer Ministry of Higher Education - Central Department of Missions CISP Implementing Unit (MOHE CDM - CIU) Ahmed Mohamed Sharaf El Din Mr. 1 1 N M Financial Auditor Ministry of Higher Education - Central Department of Missions CISP Implementing Unit (MOHE CDM - CIU) Mostafa Hamed Mr. 1 1 N M Office Assistant Egyptian Cultural & Educational Bureau - Embassy of Egypt Hazem I. Saleh Dr. 1 M Director and Cultural Counselor Egyptian Cultural & Educational Bureau - Embassy of Egypt Maged Farouk El - Sayed Dr. 1 M Deputy Director and Cultural Attaché Egyptian Cultural & Educational Bureau - Embassy of Egypt A. El Nabawi Mr. 1 M ECEB Coordinator Goldey Beacom College Ibrahim Elsaify Dr. 1 M Professor, Finance and Economics Goldey Beacom College Fatma Abdel -Raouf Dr. 1 F Professor, Finance and Economics Goldey Beacom College Larry Eby Mr. 1 M Director of Admissions Ain Shams University - Faculty of Commerce Amr I.A. El Atraby Professor, Dr. 1 1 N M Vice Dean Ain Shams University - Faculty of Science Khaled El Baghdady Associate Prof. Dr. 1 1 N M Associate Professor Ain Shams University - Faculty of Science Noha Khalifa Associate Prof.Dr. 1 1 1 N M Associate Professor Ain Shams University - Faculty of Science Abdel Rahman El Sayed Dr. 1 1 N M Lecturer Ain Shams University - Faculty of Science Mohamed A.M. Ali Dr. 1 1 N M Lecturer Ministry of Scientific Research - National Research Center Hend Salah Hafez Dr. 1 1 N M Researcher Ministry of Scientific Research - National Research Center Ashraf Abdou Tabll Dr. 1 1 N M Professor Ministry of Scientific Research - National Research Center Ahmed Tawfik Ahmed Dr. 1 1 N M Associate Professor Ministry of Scientific Research - National Research Center Ahmed Mohamed Awad Dr. 1 1 N M Associate Professor Ministry of Health - Abbasiya Hospital for Mental Health Sameh Haggag Dr. 1 1 N M Deputy Director Ministry of Health - Technical Office Mohamed El Teriaky Dr. 1 1 N M Assistant to the Minister Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program USAID Egypt AID 263 - O -15 - ` DevTech Systems Inc. Annex V. Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the inside cover. Ministry of Health - Technical Office Ghada Mohamed Radwan Dr. 1 1 N M Director - Minster of Health Technical Office Ministry of Health - Technical Office Sally Kamel Dr. 1 1 N M Ministry of Health - Coptic Hospital Hamed El Askary Dr. 1 1 N M Medical Director Ministry of Scientific Research - Opthamology Research Institute Maha Haggag Dr 1 1 N M Researcher Ministry of Scientific Research - Opthamology Research Institute Sherif Sedik Dr 1 1 N Professor Ministry of Scientific Research - Opthamology Research Institute Amira Abdel Meguid Dr 1 1 N M Professor Ministry of Scientific Research - Opthamology Research Institute Amr Abdel Bary Dr 1 1 N M Assistant Professor University of Sadat City - Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology Research Institute (GEBRI) Adel ElSayed Hegazy Prof Dr. 1 1 N M Department Head University of Sadat City - Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology Research Institute (GEBRI) Ibrahim ElSayed Mousa Dr. 1 1 Y M Assistant Professor University of Sadat City - Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology Research Institute (GEBRI) Ashraf Farag El Baz Prof Dr. 1 1 N M Vice Dean - Graduate Studies University of Sadat City - Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology Research Institute (GEBRI) Yasser Ali Dr. 1 1 N M Lecturer Ministry of Industry and Foreign Trade Ramy Hasan Mr. 1 1 N M Ministry of Justice Ahmed Saber Yassein Dr. 1 1 N M Ministry of Electricity and Renewable Energy Reda El Arafy Mr 1 1 N M Zagazig University Waleed Azmy Abdel Latif Dr. 1 1 N M Lecturer Ministry of Scientific Research - Academy of Scientific Research and Technology Mohamed Ghaleb Dr. 1 1 N M Research Coordinator Helwan University Mostafa Nagy Mohamed Marghany Mr. 1 1 N M TA Cairo University Mohamed Abouelmakarem Mohamed Mekky El Ansary Mr. 1 1 N M TA Ministry of Finance - State Accountability Authority Mohamed Mahrous Mr. 1 1 N M Auditor Ministry of State for Antiquities - Egyptian Museum Conservation Center Ibrahim Abdel Fattah Ibrahim Mohamed Mr. 1 1 N M Conservator Ministry of Finance -Egyptian Tax Authority Mona Hassan Ms. 1 1 N M General Manager - Information Technology Ministry of Finance - Egyptian Tax Authority Amel Saleh Ms. 1 1 N M Computer Engineer Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program USAID Egypt AID 263-O-15-` DevTech Systems Inc. Annex V. Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the inside cover. Ain Shams University Donya Bayomi Ms. 1 1 N M Administrative Assistant Ministry of State Antiquities - Grand Museum Fatma Zaid Ms. 1 1 N M Conservation specialist Zagazig University - Faculty of Medicine Waleed Azmy Dr 1 1 N M Assistant Lecturer Jahmer M Shedid 1 1 Ramy S. Hassan 1 1 Amal S. Nour 1 1 Assem Elzanny 1 1 Ossama Ragab 1 1 Ahmed Badey 1 1 Sayeol A A Mohamed 1 1 Mohamed Ammar 1 1 Mohamed EL￾Moatter 1 1 Khaled A. Mostafa 1 1 Samam S. Abdalla 1 1 Azza Aboyalam 1 1 Ammar El Fiky 1 1 Abdel Rahman El Sayed 1 1 Ministry of Scientific Research - Opthamology Research Institute Iman Shabrawy Dr. 1 1 N M Assistant Professor Ministry of Scientific Research - Opthamology Research Institute Raghda Abdel Salam Nagaty Dr. 1 1 N M Assistant Researcher Ministry of Scientific Research - Opthamology Research Institute Azza Khalil Dr. 1 1 N M Department Head Ministry of Scientific Research - Opthamology Research Institute Ahmed Mostafa Mr 1 1 N M Researcher/Chemist Ministry of Scientific Research - Opthamology Research Institute Salwa El Bassyouni Kanaan Mrs. 1 1 N M Cultural Affairs Manager University of Sadat City - Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology Research Institute (GEBRI) Amal Ahmed Abdel Aziz Prof Dr 1 1 Y M Dean University of Sadat City - Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology Research Institute (GEBRI) Shaden Muawia Hanafy Prof Dr. 1 1 N M Vice Dean Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program USAID Egypt AID 263-O-15-` DevTech Systems Inc. Annex V. Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the inside cover. Ain Shams University - Faculty of Science Mohamed Samir Hamza Professor, Dr. 1 1 N M Adviser to the President Ministry of Health - National Training Institute Mohga Mostafa Dr 1 1 N M Undersecretary - Human Resource Development Ministry of Scientific Research - National Research Center Salma M. Naga Prof. Dr. 1 1 N M Professor Ministry of Scientific Research - National Research Center Sanaa Haroon Mrs. 1 1 N M CISP Coordinator University of Sadat City - Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology Research Institute (GEBRI) Manal Osama El Hamshary Dr. 1 1 N M Assistant Professor Ministry of Scientific Research - Opthamology Research Institute Ahmed Hanafi Mr 1 1 N M Manager University of Sadat City - Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology Research Institute (GEBRI) Saleh Sayed El Ballal Dr. 1 1 University President University of Sadat City - Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology Research Institute (GEBRI) Mahmoud Nasr Prof Dr. 1 1 N M University Founder 22 28 4 10 1 1 15 3 12 3 36 57 Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program USAID Egypt AID 263-O-15-00009 DevTech Systems Inc. Annex VII. Annex VI Data Annex Figure 1. Respondents by Age Figure 2. Respondents by CI degree type Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program USAID Egypt AID 263-O-15-00009 DevTech Systems Inc. Annex VII. Figure 3. Respondent by field of study Figure 4. Respondent by institution type Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program USAID Egypt AID 263-O-15-00009 DevTech Systems Inc. Annex VII. Figure 5. Respondent by location Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program USAID Egypt AID 263-O-15-00009 DevTech Systems Inc. Annex VIII. Annex VII- Dissemination Strategy Purpose: The main purpose of this dissemination plan is to assist the CDM and USAID in developing effective dissemination strategies to make the evaluation findings, conclusions and recommendations accessible to a wide range of relevant stakeholders. Dissemination: Effective dissemination of the evaluation will not only contribute to greater accountability but it also allows stakeholders to learn more about the CI. Specifically in this document we provide answers to the following questions: 1. What is the dissemination strategy? 2. Why do we need a dissemination strategy? 3. Who is responsible for the dissemination strategy? 4. When will we disseminate? 5. Is there follow up? Question 1- What is the dissemination strategy? The table below identifies the steps required for the dissemination strategy; they include: review of deliverables by USAID, presentation of deliverables or portions of deliverables to stakeholders, submission of the deliverable(s) to the DEC. Question 2- Why do we need a dissemination strategy? We need a disseminations strategy because not only are USAID, DevTech and the CDM interested in the CI but a wider range of parties are interested in the findings, conclusions and results. These stakeholders are in the US, Egypt and possibly worldwide. As part of USAID’s evaluation policy and current work in Monitoring and Evaluation- Learning is an important part of our evaluation work. Therefore Learning can happen via this document and its related deliverables- but it must be accessible worldwide. Question 3- Who is responsible for the dissemination strategy? DevTech is responsible for producing the deliverables as outlined in the SoW. This includes the final evaluation report and the expanded executive summary. In addition USAID and the CDM are responsible for the review of the report. Ultimately DevTech is responsible for submission to the DEC. All are responsible for encouraging other practioners and policy makers to review the report once it is published online. Question 4- When will the Evaluation Report be disseminated? The report will be disseminated upon approval by USAID. Question 5- Is there follow-up? Yes, DevTech will verify that the report is available on the DEC. In addition, USAID will verify its availability. Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program USAID Egypt AID 263-O-15-00009 DevTech Systems Inc. Annex IX. Annex VIII: Additional Possibilities to Consider to Improve Gender Equality in CISP This annex provides the policy recommendations from the SHEMERA project in Egypt including the main recommendations taken throughout the proceedings of the national workshop held at Alexandria University, Egypt on 22nd January 2014, as well as the other recommendations taken throughout the SHEMERA project’s different events, networking activities, focus group discussions with different key stakeholders and policy makers and task force meetings.5 CISP could benefit from a review of these recommendations and incorporation of all or most of these recommendations into a gender and social equity strategy that should emerge from a program gender analysis. 1) The necessity of a roadmap that supports the objectives of gender equality in different science fields. It should be built on the Framework Strategy for equality between women and men. 2) The provision of guidelines to improve gender equality mainstreaming in education and science and to reinforce the role of women in the science, both at the academic and nonacademic levels. 3) Greater attention now paid to promoting institutional changes and their impact on gender equality. There is a need to have common changes in the evaluation framework for addressing the challenges for gender policy in science; for example: (a) ) Promoting gender-diversity- oriented teaching and learning. Higher education institutions could target girls’ friendly context. Universities can implement a number of activities such as e-learning and training sessions to advance young female academics' skills. More flexible university study programs and more support for female students from poor families. Encouraging female students in applied fields of science through support grants. Promoting flexible work/balance options to support women’s educational opportunities and careers, especially for female postgraduates to be interpreted into the higher academic hierarchy. (b) Integrative gendering and diversity in research. Gender diversity budgeting in research projects; Gender diversity in research teams. Consider gender and intersectional research in research reports. Consider the gender diversity dimension in research content. 4) Understanding the context in which women pursue their careers in higher education. This will actually call for a more organized action taken for data to be collected from women in higher education positions; for example: setting up a ‘surveillance system’ with specific indicators. This concept can be used to watch how organizations are progressing to become what is called ‘women friendly organizations’ that take into consideration the dual role of women as mothers and scientists. 5 European Union. (2014) SHEMERA. Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program USAID Egypt AID 263-O-15-00009 DevTech Systems Inc. Annex X. Annex IX. – CISP Milestones Milestone 1: Development of financial and administrative structure to effectively manage the scholarship program Milestone 2: Development of technical structure to effectively manage the scholarship program in accordance with international best practice and USAID Policies and Regulations for U.S. based participant training and academic education. Milestone 3: Developing agreements/MOUs with U.S. Universities or Host Institutions. Milestone 4: Completion of the pre-departure paperwork package and preparation of part of the First Cohort of Students with a November start date for travel. Milestone 5: Transparent and cohesive strategy developed for advertising CI scholarship program. Milestone 6: Monitoring and Evaluation improved of Scholarship Program and Completion of the Pre￾departure paperwork package and preparation of the second part of the First Cohort of students, with December start date, for travel. Milestone 7: Technical structure developed in the first year endures to effectively manage the scholarship program in accordance with international best practice and USAID Policies and Regulations for U.S. based participant training and academic education. Milestone 8: Completion of the pre-departure paperwork package and preparation of the Second Cohort of Students for travel. Milestone 9: Transparent and cohesive strategy developed for advertising CI Scholarship Program. Milestone 10: Systematic Monitoring and evaluation of Scholarship Program. Milestone 11: Technical structure developed in the First year and Second year endures to effectively manage the scholarship program in accordance with international best practice and USAID Policies and Regulations for U.S. based participant training and academic education. Milestone 12: Completion of the pre-departure paperwork package and Preparation of the Third Cohort of Students for travel. Milestone 13: Adequate Support for effective integration of new ideas and methods that have been obtained by students during their study in the U.S. into their home institutions. Milestone 14: Institutional Strengthening of the internal audit section and continued effective Monitoring and Evaluation of the Scholarship Program. Milestone 15: Measure the effect and success of the CI program. Milestone 16: Enhancing the capacity of the MOHE Central Department of Missions (CDM) to effectively administer the scholarship program. Milestone 17 (was M16 in #2): Systems developed through CI program are institutionalized into CDMs normal processes and operations, including Monitoring and Evaluation of the Scholarship Program. Milestone 18 (was #17 in #2): Development of a Strategic Plan for CDM to integrate CI and HCID principles and other lessons learned into their worldwide normal business practices and continue to enhance the capacity of the MOHE Central Department of Missions (CDM) to effectively administer the scholarship program. Milestone 19: Successful completion of the Scholarship Program and Strategic Plan developed based on lessons learned. Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program USAID Egypt AID 263-O-15-00009 DevTech Systems Inc. Annex XII. Annex X- Detailed Recommendations RECOMMENDATION 1: Reframe the HICD agenda to reflect a less ambitious and more realistic approach. These adjustments proposed will help beneficiary organizations begin to think more strategically about how human resources and organizational development mesh and also work more consistently toward development results that are anticipated from the investment in the scholars.  Review the strategic constructs and the targeting criteria and determine whether they are relevant, appropriate and of sufficient quality to serve as the foundational dimensions of CISP. An important thing to consider is whether CISP could be used more strategically as a cross cutting vehicle for increasing the impact of the other four focal areas under the Cairo Initiative rather than functioning as a stand-alone project. Using CISP in such a way would provide more shape to the at least two of the current strategic constructs and could help ensure that the targeting criteria are met in more appropriate ways that is currently the case.  Review the data analyses on degree types, sectors and beneficiary organizations and determine whether any redirection needs to occur.  Clean the data specific to field/disciplines of study using a standard categorization schema and undertake an analysis of these data in order to inform the review of the strategic constructs and targeting criteria proposed in Recommendation 1 above.  Develop a continuum of anticipated results that runs from the results expected from master’s degree scholars to those expected from post-doctoral scholars. In some instances, the results may be of a similar scale and scope; however, for most master’s degree scholars, their capacity to contribute to Egypt’s development is at the early stages whereas for most of the post-doctoral scholars, the results they produce may have significant development impact. The results for any type of scholar, however, will not be realized without greater strategic thinking around HICD. RECOMMENDATION 2: Undertake a quality appraisal of the short-term overseas training program for 20 Central Department of Missions personnel and the English language training program for 100 personnel. Any training, particularly training outside of Egypt, should be located within the Department’s (and the MOHE’s) organizational and human resource capacity development strategy. If this strategy is not available or is of limited quality, the risk that the training investment does not bring about anticipated changes within the Department is high. RECOMMENDATION 3: Address CISP under-staffing issues as a matter of urgency, including recruitment of a fulltime CISP liaison for the Egyptian Cultural Exchange Bureau Washington, DC office and at least four full time equivalency positions for the CDM-CIU Cairo office. Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program USAID Egypt AID 263-O-15-00009 DevTech Systems Inc. Annex XII.  The CISP liaison position should be filled by an individual who is very knowledgeable about the US higher education landscape, understands tertiary degree structures and fields of study, is skilled in database management and is a good problem-solver with excellent English language proficiency (spoken and written). The liaison would: provide support to scholars during Stage 1 as they seek to identify appropriate professors, universities and programs, ensure that US universities are exercising appropriate duty of care, ensure that scholars are able to carry out the US part of their Learning and Development Results Plans during Stage 2; and ensure that scholars and home institutions are prepared for achieving development results on the scholars’ return in Stage 3. RECOMMENDATION 4: Alter the scholar action plan in the following ways:  Call the document the Scholar Learning and Development Results Plan (or something similar).  Expand the productive learning opportunities available to scholars in the following ways in order to ensure that CISP scholars are as well rounded and have as comprehensive a set of experiences as possible:  Each scholar should undertake a mandatory set of experiences that cut across every scholarship award – internship in an appropriate institution with a clear internship strategy with skills to be gained (including understanding US organizational culture), etc., English language classes with demonstrated gains in proficiency, attendance (preferably presentation) at least one national conference, visits (at least two) to other acknowledged leading US institutions in the scholar’s field, participation in at least two extra￾curricular sessions (of the scholar’s choice) to develop non-technical skills; American cultural experiences (such as a home-stay, going to a sports event, attending a different religious service, etc.).  Build in flexibility to the post-doctoral studies approach and exercise this flexibility on a case by case basis where the scholar and her/his supervising professor make a clear business case for the flexibility and where there are mutual benefits on both sides that will advance contributions to the field of study and will contribute (convincingly) to Egypt’s development.  Establish a realistic cut-off score for English language proficiency for post-doctoral scholars and require the scholars to take an English language proficiency test and report the results.  Ensure that the Plan includes the specific ways in which the beneficiary organization will support the scholar to achieve the development results that will come from the investment in the scholar.  Introduce greater flexibility in the structure of post-doctoral studies including extending the program to nine months, allowing a staged approach with multiple visits, encourage (this will benefit women with family responsibilities and will also enable CISP to expand the scholar’s development impact), incorporating opportunities for scholars to teach at their university.  Require all master’s degree scholars to enroll in programs that consist of coursework plus a master’s degree thesis.  Monitor the types of course master’s degree scholars are taking (to ensure scholars are not taking signing up for courses that do not require substantive written work and so forth). RECOMMENDATION 5: Encourage master’s degree candidates to actively seek out opportunities to obtain their doctoral degrees. Although this recommendation goes counter to the CISP intention that scholars will return from their studies and build the capacity of the organizations, realistically speaking, the ability of an individual with a master’s degree to significantly influence her/his organization’s capacity is unrealistic and unlikely to occur in highly-centralized hierarchical organizational cultures. CISP can actually contribute to Egypt’s development more strategically by building in succession planning in this indirect way and helping to create pathways for ongoing academic and professional development for emerging leaders. If this recommendation is taken up, this also places a greater burden on the Scholar Selection Committee to ensure that they select Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program USAID Egypt AID 263-O-15-00009 DevTech Systems Inc. Annex XII. master’s degree candidates with the greatest potential to find additional opportunities and contribute in the longer-term. RECOMMENDATION 6: Be very selective in providing master’s degree awards for generic business administration and management. RECOMMENDATION 7: Take advantage of the respite in organization and scholar selection during the remaining months of Phase 1 to enhance the quality of existing CISP processes and products. This quality review and enhancement will enable CISP Phase II to eliminate or alleviate issues such as those mentioned above. Foremost among these quality improvement efforts should be the following: 1) Hire an external highly qualified consultant with information systems architecture and business processes credentials to appraise the work done to date on the management information system and the databases. The appraisal should include a cost plan for any proposed improvements and ongoing maintenance costs and should consider utilization of the system to track efficiency. 2) Identify a group of pre-qualified individuals (preferably not USAID or CDM staff) who will participate on the following committees to undertake a specific set of tasks for fixed terms:  Beneficiary Organization Selection Committee. This committee should no longer involve USAID or CDM personnel. Individuals selected should have a sound understanding of HICD principles and practices and an in-depth understanding of how human resource development and management can realistically contribute to institutional capacity development. These committee members could also potentially be used to help the CDM-CIU monitor the exten to which development results are being realized once the scholars are back at their home institutions. CISP alumni could be involved in this task, provided any conflicts of interest can be avoided.  Scholar Selection Committee. This committee should include individuals who have an in-depth understanding of how to make the most out of the scholarship experience and how to ensure successful implementation of the Learning and Development Results Plan and should ideally have a very firm grounding in the US higher education landscape. This committee should not be comprised of USAID or CDM personnel. These individuals should be trained in interview techniques, including those that are sensitive to gender, and other social equity considerations. The selection criteria provide the basis of the interview questions. A Likhert scale with rubrics for scoring the various selection criteria is suggested. CISP alumni could be involved in this task, provided any conflicts of interest can be avoided.  Scholar preparation for living and succeeding in the US. An essential element is ensuring that scholars have a solid understanding of the US higher education landscape so that they can make good choices about their US university and study programs. A high quality, comprehensive information package is essential; ideally, the scholars would participate in a pre-departure program through the American University in Cairo or other organization able to simulate a UN university experience. CISP alumni could be involved in this task. RECOMMENDATION 8: Expand the CISP equitable access and participation strategies in the following ways:  Include a statement in the annual advertisements regarding CISP’s desire to have women, people with disabilities, and individuals from other under-represented groups apply.  Include a requirement in the eligibility criteria that the beneficiary organization puts forward at least 30% women in the proposed scholar group.  Give extra points for female scholarships undertaking studies in fields traditionally dominated by males. Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program USAID Egypt AID 263-O-15-00009 DevTech Systems Inc. Annex XII.  Track the impact of additional qualifications and English language proficiency for enabling female scholars to access positions of authority and leadership (the same can be done for People with Disabilities and from other under-served groups).  Incorporate joint supervision for degrees (Egyptian and US professors in partnership). This is an existing Egyptian model that can decrease time abroad, create partnerships between US and Egyptian supervisors/institutions, and resolve issues for women and men who cannot be away from family members for extended periods of time.  Add extra points to the organization score for including people with disabilities and from other under￾represented groups in the proposed scholar group such as ethnic minorities in frontier areas.  Allocate a percentage of awards per annum to organizations in underserved regions of the country.  Encourage joint proposals between top-rated universities and universities that are middle tier, particularly if certain faculties critical to development results are being established and/or expanded. 1) Hire an external highly qualified consultant with information systems architecture and business processes credentials to appraise the work done to date on the management information system and the databases. The appraisal should include a cost plan for any proposed improvements and ongoing maintenance costs and should consider utilization of the system to track efficiency. 2) Identify a group of pre-qualified individuals (preferably not USAID or CDM staff) who will participate on the following committees to undertake a specific set of tasks for fixed terms:  Scholar Selection Committee. This committee should include individuals who have an in-depth understanding of how to make the most out of the scholarship experience and how to ensure successful implementation of the Learning and Development Results Plan and should ideally have a very firm grounding in the US higher education landscape. This committee should not be comprised of USAID or CDM personnel. These individuals should be trained in interview techniques, including those that are sensitive to gender, and other social equity considerations. The selection criteria provide the basis of the interview questions. A Likhert scale with rubrics for scoring the various selection criteria is suggested. CISP alumni could be involved in this task, provided any conflicts of interest can be avoided.  Scholar preparation for living and succeeding in the US. An essential element is ensuring that scholars have a solid understanding of the US higher education landscape so that they can make good choices about their US university and study programs. A high quality, comprehensive information package is essential; ideally, the scholars would participate in a pre-departure program through the American University in Cairo or other organization able to simulate a UN university experience. CISP alumni could be involved in this task.  Beneficiary Organization Selection Committee. This committee should no longer involve USAID or CDM personnel. Individuals selected should have a sound understanding of HICD principles and practices and an in-depth understanding of how human resource development and management can realistically contribute to institutional capacity development. These committee members could also potentially be used to help the CDM-CIU monitor the extent to which development results are being realized once the scholars are back at their home institutions. CISP alumni could be involved in this task, provided any conflicts of interest can be avoided. Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program USAID Egypt AID 263-O-15-00009 DevTech Systems Inc. Annex XII. ANNEX XI.- Presentation with cycle Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program USAID Egypt AID 263-O-15-00009 DevTech Systems Inc. Annex XII. Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the inside cover. Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program USAID Egypt AID 263-O-15-00009 DevTech Systems Inc. Annex XII. Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the inside cover. Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program USAID Egypt AID 263-O-15-00009 DevTech Systems Inc. Annex XII. Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the inside cover. Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program USAID Egypt AID 263-O-15-00009 DevTech Systems Inc. Annex XII. Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the inside cover. Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program USAID Egypt AID 263-O-15-00009 DevTech Systems Inc. Annex XII. Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the inside cover. Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program USAID Egypt AID 263-O-15-00009 DevTech Systems Inc. Annex XII. Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the inside cover. Cairo Initiative Scholarship Program USAID Egypt AID 263-O-15-00009 DevTech Systems Inc. Annex XII. Use or disclosure of the data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the inside cover. i E.g., tracking data from clusters of scholars might have better grounded Conclusion 5, potentially making it more specific and convincing. ii E.g., Conclusion 8 is supported only by a “quick” review of reports submitted by organizations and schools. Why quick? And in Findings 11 and 15, there’s mention of CISP documentation but no data or quantifications presented therefrom. iii E.g., Finding 14 regarding satisfaction rates. iv E.g., Finding 16 from roundtable discussions, etc. v Limitation 4, page 6. vi E.g., Findings 14, 15, etc. vii E.g., Finding 12, bullet 1, selective use of anecdotal information from 5 scholars of all those interviewed. viii In Conclusion 3, the team fails to show appreciation for the limits on USAID ‘s monitoring role under a Fixed Amount Reimbursement Agreement (FARA). This unique arrangement (for a non-construction project) establishes benchmarks tied to various capacity building requirements. CDM has met those benchmarks, suggesting significant capacity improvements. ix Finding 14, “37% very satisfied… and 63% somewhat satisfied to extremely dissatisfied”. This is a highly selective way to lump data together; the finding could have just as easily been that 71% of 99 survey respondents were very satisfied or somewhat satisfied while 29% were neutral to dissatisfied. By collapsing the Likert scale and coming up with a 63% number, the team has produced a misleading reading of the CDM survey results. x A deeper look at the reintegration plans would have better grounded Conclusion 1, potentially making it more specific and convincing. xi Finding 15. xii It is documented that USAID sent the memos by email to Megan, DevTech’s backstop for the evaluation, in December 2014, and that she passed them on immediately to the team leader.