1 
September 2015
This publication was produced at the request of the United States Agency for International Development. It was 
prepared independently by Steven J. Kelly of KNO Worldwide and Mariam Ghazala, Roger Nassif and Salma El 
Abbassy of CDC Academy under subcontract to Institute of International Education.
MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Sustainability of Career Development Centers in Egypt 
Public Universities 
1 
MIDTERM 
PERFORMANCE 
EVALUATION 
SUSTAINABILITY OF CAREER 
DEVELOPMENT CENTERS IN 
EGYPT PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES 
October 11, 2015 
AID-263-TO-14-00001 - Scholarships & Training for Egyptian Professionals (STEP) 
Submitted by: Joseph Ghanem, STEP Chief of Party 
 Institute of International Education
COVER PHOTO: SUEZ CANAL UNIVERSITY CDC, AUC ECDC 
DISCLAIMER 
2 
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. 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
Table of Contents........................................................................................................................................................... 2
List of Figures and Tables ............................................................................................................................................. 3
Acronyms ...................................................................................................................................................................... 4
1. Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................... 5
2. Introduction .............................................................................................................................................................11
3. Background ..............................................................................................................................................................13
4. Methodology ............................................................................................................................................................14
5. Limitations ...............................................................................................................................................................16
6. Findings, Conclusions & Recommendations ...........................................................................................................17
7. References ...............................................................................................................................................................44
Annexes .......................................................................................................................................................................46
Annex A: List of Stakeholders Contacted ...................................................................................................................47
Annex B: Student Focus Group Analysis ....................................................................................................................50
Annex C: Performance Monitoring Plan Tables ..........................................................................................................57
Annex D: Gender Balance Analysis ............................................................................................................................60
Annex E: Illustrative Photos of CDC Operations ........................................................................................................66
Annex F: Evaluation Methods and Limitations ...........................................................................................................71
Annex G: Data Collection Design Matrix ...................................................................................................................80
Annex H: Data Collection Instruments ........................................................................................................................94
Annex I: Evaluation Statement of Work ....................................................................................................................135
Annex J: Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest ..............................................................................................................147
3 
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES 
Figure 1: Map of Egypt highlighting CDC locations ...................................................................................................18
Figure 2: Ranking of factors influencing the success of CDCs ...................................................................................30
Figure 3: Importance ranking of successful CDCs ......................................................................................................31
Figure 4: Force ranking of Successful CDCs ..............................................................................................................31
Figure 5: Percent of students ECDC vs LEEP .............................................................................................................50
Figure 6: Students % of distribution per CDC .............................................................................................................51
Figure 7: Percent of Females vs Males ........................................................................................................................51
Figure 8: Percent of females vs males per CDC ..........................................................................................................52
Figure 9: How did you know that the CDC exists? How did they try to reach you? ..................................................53
Figure 10: Ranking for ECDC .....................................................................................................................................53
Figure 11: Ranking for LEEP ......................................................................................................................................54
Figure 12: Highest Student Participation .....................................................................................................................54
Figure 13: Effectiveness of Service ............................................................................................................................. 55
Figure 14: HU males vs females distribution ..............................................................................................................60
Figure 15: SVU males vs females distribution ............................................................................................................60
Figure 16: ASU males vs females distribution ............................................................................................................61
Figure 17: ASU-Eng males vs females distribution ....................................................................................................61
Figure 18: SCU males vs females distribution ............................................................................................................62
Figure 19: Number of students gaining access to CDCs work development programs ...............................................62
Figure 20: Number of students applying career centers content in their employment search .....................................63
Figure 21: Number of Students with improved languages skills .................................................................................63
Figure 22: Number of students who attended "Employability Skills" courses ............................................................64
Figure 23: Number of Students who attended "Career Development" workshops ......................................................64
Figure 24: Number of Students who benefited from individual career advising services ...........................................64
Table 1: SVU evaluation .............................................................................................................................................33
Table 2: Helwan University evaluation .......................................................................................................................34
Table 3: Suez Canal evaluation ...................................................................................................................................35
Table 4: Ain-Shams general evaluation .......................................................................................................................36
Table 5: Ain-Shams engineering evaluation ................................................................................................................37
Table 6: Contacts and informants list ..........................................................................................................................49
Table 7: ECDC Plan Progress To-Date .......................................................................................................................57
Table 8: LEEP Plan Progress To-Date ........................................................................................................................58
Table 9: CDC mid-term overall schedule ....................................................................................................................79
Table 10: CDC evaluation timeline of events and processes .......................................................................................79
Table 11: Overall areas of CDC research parameters ..................................................................................................93
Table 12: Ranking of factors influencing success of CDCs ......................................................................................101
Table 13: Financial flows for CDC sustainability .....................................................................................................102
Table 14: AUC-ECDC summary performance indicator table ..................................................................................103
Table 15: WL-LEEP summary performance indicator table ....................................................................................105
Photo 1 Business English language Course .................................................................................................................66
Photo 2: Build your Business training program ...........................................................................................................66
Photo 3: Job Search training program..........................................................................................................................67
Photo 4: Disability Training ........................................................................................................................................68
Photo 5: Job fair ...........................................................................................................................................................68
Photo 6: School Ambassador program visiting the faculty of dentistry ......................................................................69
Photo 7: CV Support services ......................................................................................................................................70
Photo 8: An Experiential learning exercise during employability skills track- ASU Main Campus ...........................70
Photo 9: Thinking patterns, ASU-Main campus ..........................................................................................................71
Photo 10: Power of positive attitude at work, ASU-Engineering ................................................................................71
Photo 11: Volunteers at ASU celebrating the success of the employment fair ............................................................72
4 
ACRONYMS 
ADS Automated Directives System
APS Annual Program Statement
ASU Ain Shams University
AUC American University Cairo
CDC Career Development Center
DEC Development Experience Clearinghouse
ECDC Employability and Career Development
EGP Egyptian Pounds
FY Fiscal Year
HU Helwan University
IIE Institute for International Education
KNO Kelly Novak Opportunities
LEEP Linking Education & Employment Project
MOD Modification
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
NCDA National Career Development Association
PMP Project Monitoring Plan
PROC USAID Procurement Office
RFP Request for Proposal
SCU Suez Canal University
SOW Statement of Work 
STEM Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics
STEP Scholarships and Training for Egyptian
SVU South Valley University
USAID U.S. Agency for International Development
USG United States Government
WL World Learning
5 
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
EVALUATION PURPOSE AND EVALUATION QUESTIONS 
The purpose of this mid-term performance evaluation is to review, analyze, and evaluate the 
effectiveness of USAID- funded CDCs in achieving program objectives and completing 
deliverables. 
The evaluation answers the following questions: 
1. To what extent have the CDCs achieved their goals of this SOW? 
2. If and how did the selection of the geographic location for the CDCs affect their 
performance? To what extent CDCs geographic location affect the performance of CDCs 
in achieving the results? Why? 
3. To what extent are the LEEP/WL and ECDC/AUC projects on track to transitioning the 
management of the CDCs to the host universities? Which factors have contributed to or 
hindered the sustainability of the CDCs? What are the prospects for sustainability post￾project completion? 
4. How do key stakeholder groups (e.g., students, faculty members, university management, 
employers) perceive the value and utility CDCs? How, and to what extent, do key 
stakeholder groups engage with the CDCs and which factors facilitate and inhibit 
utilization of the CDCs? How effective have the CDCs been in connecting graduates with 
employers and providing them with the skills that employers demand? 
5. How effective have the CDCs been in achieving gender balance in the provision of CDC 
services (e.g., training, job placement services, etc.) during implementation? Which 
factors have facilitated or inhibited the CDCs from achieving gender balance in the 
provision of services? 
AUDIENCE AND INTENDED USES 
The audience of the evaluation report will be USAID/Egypt Mission, specifically the Office of 
Education and Training and the Program Office. USAID/Egypt will review and share the 
expanded executive summary, final report, and evaluation recommendations with the Ministry of 
Higher Education (MOHE), other donors in Egypt working on the Employment Alliance, and the 
general public via the Development Education Clearinghouse (DEC) within 3 months of the 
report completion. 
PROJECT BACKGROUND 
Until the 1950’s, Egypt’s higher education system was a model for the region. However, Egypt 
now confronts a serious knowledge and skills deficit. A major reason underlying this was the 
rapid expansion of the tertiary education system after 1957, which was not matched with the 
allocation of adequate resources, and a subsequent lack of responsiveness of education 
institutions to the needs of the labor market. 
6 
In 2012, USAID/Egypt’s Office of Education supported the establishment and management of 
state-of-the-art, university- based Career Development Centers (CDCs) through a three-year 
activity aimed at improving the long-term capacity of Egyptian universities to assist students and 
recent graduates in their transition from education to employment. The CDC project’s 
development hypothesis is that the CDCs will enhance a student’s employability, stability and 
prosperity through the provision of training courses, mentorship opportunities, workshops, 
internships and job opportunities, which will result in an educated workforce that responds to the 
labor market needs. USAID made awards to two implementers, namely: American University 
Cairo (AUC) Employability and Career Development Centers (ECDC) and World Learning 
(WL) Linking Education & Employment Project (LEEP). Together, they established 8 CDCs at 
7 public universities of which 5 remain open. 
In early 2013, as a result of events in Egypt and the U.S. foreign policy response, USAID 
partially suspended the programs as they wound down nearly all education program 
implementation. After 6 months, USAID authorized re-start of the programs once again. The five 
CDCs that are currently operational have been expected to become an integral part of each 
respective university campus by the completion date of the projects, and are expected to be 
sustained by corporate funding and fee-for- service programs. Both completion dates were 
scheduled for May 31, 2015, but USAID provided a no-cost extension of the modified award to 
AUC to until September 30, 2016 and a no-cost extension to WL through December 31, 2015. 
USAID asked Scholarships and Training for Egyptian Professionals (STEP), a five-year program 
that supports Egypt’s economic and social development, to undertake a mid-term performance 
evaluation of the two programs prior to the end of FY15. 
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 
World Learning’s Linking Education & Employment Project (LEEP)
Founded in 1932, World Learning/SIT Graduate Institute in Vermont has decades of experience 
delivering training and capacity globally in over 70 countries. Currently WL is managing two 
CDCs, one at Helwan University and the other at South Valley University. Two others were 
started in Fayoum and Port Said Universities, but closed due to senior management changes. 
The contracts went through several modifications due to the short-term suspension and budget 
re-alignments due to changes in university partners. 
Based on the data provided to the evaluation team, the LEEP performance on meeting 
Performance Monitoring Plan indicator targets is relatively strong based on numbers through the 
period of the evaluation. Major achievements include outputs involved in providing service to 
students such as access to career development programs and soft skill training where 
participation surpass targets by 140-160% despite only having two operating CDCs. As well, 
reported data from Year 2 surveys indicate high use of skills in employment searches. This is 
supported by the student focus group data. Indicators tracking staff actions and committee 
meetings are mixed, but do not seem to have impacted operations significantly (see individual 
CDC evaluations below). As well, the employment fairs and youth ambassador programs were 
7 
delayed in starting with resulting lower results (Below target by 50% or more at the time of the 
evaluation). 
Best practices 
The LEEP initiative has a number of actions that the evaluators highlight as ―best practices‖ in 
building sustainable CDCs: 
 Initiating youth ambassadors introduces the center and university to graduating secondary 
students. 
 Building internal staff training capabilities allows for better quality monitoring and lower 
cost over time than external commercial sources. 
 Ongoing active student / faculty volunteer networks help build enthusiasm for the 
program, while spreading word of services and successes. 
 Bringing specialized English language business curriculums and training existing 
teaching assistants to deliver them while very challenging and time consuming, over the 
long term this builds further university capacity to support career center needs rather than 
out-sourcing. 
 Conducting employment surveys as these are refined, they can provided data on jobs 
realized, key skill sets used from training, and provide links between employer needs and 
CDC service. 
 A program addressing special needs for the vision impaired is done in collaboration with 
a nonprofit. This can become a model for other special needs services over time. 
 Use of expanded advisory committees for centers that includes employers, faculty and 
students can allow for diverse inputs and feedback for program design and monitoring. 
As well, the LEEP program has a number of challenges in the areas of MOU content, lack of 
revenue generation, sustainability planning, and documenting center procedures. 
American University Cairo Employability and Career Development Centers (ECDC) 
The American University in Cairo (AUC), Egypt is a premier English-language institution of 
higher learning. The Career Center, formerly known as office of career advising and placement 
services (CAPS), was established 20 years ago as the first university career center in the region 
and is implementing the program. Currently, AUC is managing three CDCs, one at Suez Canal 
University and the other two at Ain Shams University. One other was started in Assiut 
University, but closed due to a shift in senior management attitude. The grants went through 
several modifications dealing with the temporary wind-up and a reduction of the budget due to 
the trimming in numbers of university partners. 
Based on the data provided to the evaluation team, the ECDC performance on meeting their 
Performance Monitoring Plan indicator targets is quite strong in several areas based on reported 
numbers through the period of the evaluation. Other areas are weak or inconclusive. Major 
achievements include surpassing the reported output targets for providing service to students 
such as short-term career development training, individual counseling sessions and attendance at 
employment fairs where participation surpass targets in some cases by 300 – 500% based on 
8 
very high demand by students. Numbers for staff certification and longer training programs 
were within 10% of actual targets. For the indicator percentage of graduates reporting 
themselves as employed, no data was available for this category. Student surveys regarding 
employment success or application of skills in job searches have not been completed to-date. 
The ECDC initiative has several actions that the evaluators highlight as ―best practices‖ in 
building sustainable CDCs: 
 The generation of revenues from employment fairs has been an important element is 
helping to build the financial sustainability of the CDCs. This both begins to build a bank 
balance to support the transition to the university, but also accustoms employers to expect 
to pay for these types of services. 
 In partnership with ASPIRE Experiential Consulting Solutions, AUC has designed and 
customized an innovative intensive soft skills training program, especially customized for 
student audiences 
 ECDCs have built a strong volunteer of student volunteers and allowed the office to 
function also as a ―community center‖ for students for informal encounters and 
engagement. 
 AUC has championed the certification of all ECDC staff as career development 
facilitators. This has been instrumental in insuring high quality individual assessment 
and counseling services. 
As well, the ECDC program has a number of challenges in the areas of MOU content, faculty 
involvement, out-sourcing of soft skills training, and employability surveying. 
The successes of the five operating CDCs were evaluated according to senior university support, 
director ability, staff competence, quality of facility, faculty involvement, employer network, 
service delivery and satisfaction, job opportunities created and financial status. Based on the 
status of these factors the sustainability of the CDC was predicted. 
Generally it was found that the a CDC established over 2 years has a good chance of survival, 
although none of the centers have created joint sustainability plans including budget 
requirements with the university management. 
COMMON LESSONS LEARNED 
1. The five CDCs operating under the grants provide a variety of services to students, based on 
the original project scope of work. Currently there is no common agreement of an optimal CDC 
model: what should be core services, what size and make-up of staff is best, what topics of 
supplemental soft skill training are most important, whether trainers should be a part of staff or 
outsourced, what are the parameters of an employers’ network, what should be the nature of 
faculty involvement, etc. A ―best practices‖ model of a CDC would be helpful to guide future 
implementation in partner universities. This can be included in future Requests for Proposals if 
funding is made available to expand the program. 
9 
2. The findings clearly point to the importance of senior university management support as the 
critical factor in building sustainable CDCs. When evaluating potential partners, this should be 
the paramount issue to be vetted, as opposed to geographic location, size of student body, or 
nearby employers. The support should be demonstrated by university provision of facilities, 
identification of potential internal staff, and agreement to find a mechanism to include the center 
in the university budget and payroll within a few years. 
3. The evaluation reviewed the operations of the current CDCs, with several relatively new and 
others operating for several years. The findings demonstrate that it takes several years to 
establish a physical facility, hire and train staff, rollout training, and build an employers’ 
network. Financial support for 30 months, with the last six being overtaken by CDC revenue 
generation and university budget support is necessary when considering timetables and funding. 
4. Although there was consideration of elements, none of the five CDCs have prepared a 
sustainability plan. Without this, it is unclear the milestones necessary, joint role and 
responsibilities, financial requirements and progress indicators. Preparing a framework jointly 
with the university within the first six months of the project, that is finalized at the beginning of 
the last year of support, will allow both partners to insure actions are taken to build 
sustainability. 
5. The memorandum of agreement (MOU) signed with the university is a critical document to 
establish roles and responsibilities of both parties, not just the universities. These should require 
the joint preparation of a sustainability plan, key milestones toward sustainability, and indicators 
to measure progress. The potential instability of management support in some institutions might 
be controlled by MOUs with phases and milestones to be achieved; if stipulated conditions are 
not met, USAID funding could be suspended. 
6. The project staff, CDC management and university management did not appear to have 
explored very deeply the financial requirements and source of funds for sustainability after the 
conclusion of the project. While the evaluation team had prepared simple revenue/cost tables for 
data collection, it was very difficult to find data to analyze. No financial projections have been 
prepared (tied to lack of sustainability planning above) and parties assumed the universities 
would find the budget or CDC revenues would suddenly spike, and all will work out. Financial 
planning, with realistic targets and expense ratios, must be a highlighted element for both 
planning and monitoring. 
7. The PMPs, which contains indicators for monitoring performance, are weak in identifying 
specific outcomes/outputs focused on sustainability. While hiring and training staff are 
important, along with delivery of services, other indicators as mentioned above focusing on 
financial progress and actions for the university to move the CDC administratively internally 
should also be included. PMPs with a heavy emphasis on service delivery targets and outputs 
large numbers can sometimes distort the focus of the small CDC staff. Actions that take time, 
such as developing deeper relationships with employers (beyond job fair attendance), or 
surveying graduates, may lose staff attention while they pursue the more visible event attendance 
targets. 
10
8. Although all CDC staff have been trained and in some cases certified, there is a uniform lack 
of written policies and procedures manuals (other than some communication strategies) in place 
within the center. When staff leaves, the knowledge leaves with them. Although time￾consuming to develop, written operation manuals that document best practices, procedural steps, 
and approved policies can be very helpful to orient new hires. If a common model of the CDC is 
adopted, basic administrative software can be developed and provided to the new CDCs to 
automate data collection and improve the ability to monitor and evaluate efforts. 
9. While it is agreed that English language is an important qualification for many jobs, the 
addition of this component to the CDC services has been highly problematic. ECDC has 
attempted to address this by outsourcing, while LEEP pursued a strategy to introduce business 
curriculums into existing language programs. Becoming proficient in English language is a 
multi-year effort and might best be removed from the scope of CDCs. 
10. While there have been some efforts to track graduate success with employment, and the link 
between CDC career training, this must be expanded. Surveys of both graduates and employers 
should use common templates for easy comparison, and may benefit with the contributions of 
education/labor market specialists in their design. 
CONCLUSIONS 
Question #1: Generally, despite the recent instability and mid-term suspension of activity, the 
ECDC and LEEP projects have achieved the goals of their modified scopes of work. 
Questions #2: Geography is not an important factor in CDC performance. Most critical is 
university manager support, followed closely by quality of services delivered by competent staff. 
Questions #3: Those CDCs with over two years of operation are well on their way to 
sustainability. As covered throughout the analysis, a variety of factors influence sustainability. 
Other than conducting necessary sustainability planning, to include financial elements, the longer 
term CDCs have embedded these factors 
Questions #4: The engagement with key stakeholders has been variable depending on the 
program and individual CDC. Generally students are highly engaged at all centers, while active 
faculty involvement and deeper relationships with employer networks should be strengthened at 
some locations. The effectiveness of CDC services providing the right mix of skill development 
and connections with employers requires more attention. 
Question #5: Gender balance is excellent in the programs as illustrated in participation in 
services. 
When considering the development hypothesis … that the Career Development Centers will 
enhance a student’s employability, stability and prosperity through the provision of training 
courses, mentorship opportunities, workshops, internships and job opportunities, which will 
result in an educated workforce that responds to the labor market needs.
11
The evaluators conclude that while this is partially supported by the findings, there still needs to 
be further research as regards the impact of the CDCs as directly linked to student employability 
and prosperity. 
Main Recommendation: The Career Development Center concept has value toward 
achievement of matching workforce education to labor market needs and should be scaled up 
under best practice model if priorities and funds permit. 
A variety of actionable recommendations are made in the full report, addressing the overall 
programmatic issues, establishment of new CDCs, and more effective operations. 
2. INTRODUCTION 
EVALUATION PURPOSE 
The purpose of this mid-term performance evaluation is to review, analyze, and evaluate the 
effectiveness of USAID- funded CDCs in achieving program objectives and completing 
deliverables. An evaluation team lead by Kelly Novak Opportunities (KNO), and assisted by 
Career Development & Consultants Academy (CDC), conducted the mid-term performance 
evaluation of the ECDC/AUC and LEEP/WL components of the CDCs project. 
OBJECTIVES OF THE EVALUATION INCLUDE: 
1. Identification of lessons learned with regard to project implementation and building 
relationships with counterparts in the Ministry of Higher Education and public universities 
around CDC establishment; 
2. Assessment of the sustainability of the CDCs at the Egyptian public universities in which they 
have been established; and 
3. Provide recommendations that can be used to inform the design and expansion of future 
CDC-related activities in Egypt’s public universities. 
AUDIENCE AND INTENDED USES 
The audience of the evaluation report will be USAID/Egypt Mission, specifically the Office of 
Education and Training and the Program Office. 
USAID/Egypt will review and share the expanded executive summary, final report, and 
evaluation recommendations with the Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE), other donors in 
Egypt working on the Employment Alliance, and the general public via the Development 
Education Clearinghouse (DEC) within 3 months of report completion. 
EVALUATION QUESTIONS 
The evaluation answers the following questions: 
12
1. To what extent have the CDCs achieved their goals of this SOW? 
2. If and how did the selection of the geographic location for the CDCs affect their 
performance? To what extent CDCs geographic location affect the performance of CDCs in 
achieving the results? Why? 
3. To what extent are the LEEP/WL and ECDC/AUC projects on track to transitioning the 
management of the CDCs to the host universities? Which factors have contributed to or hindered 
the sustainability of the CDCs? What are the prospects for sustainability post￾project completion? 
4. How do key stakeholder groups (e.g., students, faculty members, university management, 
employers) perceive the value and utility CDCs? How, and to what extent, do key stakeholder 
groups engage with the CDCs and which factors facilitate and inhibit utilization of the CDCs? 
How effective have the CDCs been in connecting graduates with employers and providing them 
with the skills that employers demand? 
5. How effective have the CDCs been in achieving gender balance in the provision of CDC 
services (e.g., training, job placement services, etc.) during implementation? Which factors have 
facilitated or inhibited the CDCs from achieving gender balance in the provision of services? 
The CDCs project’s critical assumptions include: 
 The bilateral relationship between the Government of Egypt (GOE) and the USG remains 
positive and fully collaborative; 
 The GOE presented in the public universities’ management cooperates fully with the 
implementation of the programs and activities; and 
 Funding/resources are available to implement planned activities. 
Based on evaluation findings, the evaluation team has developed actionable recommendations 
that will help USAID to better design and implement effective CDCs programming going 
forward. In particular, the recommendations are based on lessons learned from implementation to 
date that USAID should take into consideration in future designs, and key considerations have 
been identified for replicating CDCs in other geographic locations? 
13
3. BACKGROUND 
The Egyptian education system is the largest in the Middle East and North Africa. It is made up 
of 19 public universities, 19 private universities, and another 139 public and private technical 
colleges and institutes. As of 2011/2012, 1.6 million students were enrolled in public 
universities, 87,000 in private universities, and another 428,000 students in private and public 
technical colleges and institutes. 
Until the 1950’s, Egypt’s higher education system was a model for the region. However, Egypt 
now confronts a serious knowledge and skills deficit. A major reason underlying this was the 
rapid expansion of the tertiary education system after 1957, which was not matched with the 
allocation of adequate resources, and a subsequent lack of responsiveness of education 
institutions to the needs of the labor market. 
Currently, the university system is not positioned to provide high quality education that will meet 
the needs of the labor market. The lack of balance and fit in graduate supply to the labor market 
is at the core of Egypt’s challenge. Egypt’s higher education institutions struggle to produce 
graduates with the skills employers seek, thus posing constraints for growth opportunities. 
Moreover, they lack a sustainable financing system, sufficient autonomy, adequate faculty 
compensation levels, and merit‐based systems of recruitment and promotion. In 2004, the GOE 
embarked on an aggressive regulatory and institutional reform program. However, some 
structural issues prevented many of the benefits from being realized by most Egyptians, and the 
percentage of the population in poverty increased. As a result, over 23.5% of Egypt’s population 
in 2010 was between 18 and 29 years with 90% of them being either unemployed or 
underemployed. 
In an attempt to address those issues, several public Egyptian universities have attempted to 
create Career Development Centers (CDCs) charged with preparing students and graduates with 
skills needed to seek employment and succeed in the workplace. The most recognized of those 
efforts being previously USAID supported Nahdet El Mahrousa sponsored Center at the 
University of Cairo and the Egypt Junior Business Association sponsored Key Career Center at 
Ain Shams University. However, few exist outside of major urban areas where unemployment 
is especially high. Moreover, most CDCs are managed by outside providers and are not 
integrated into university systems. Hence, the universities do not develop the capacity to manage 
and expand the CDC concept independently across faculties, and hence ensuring long term 
sustainability. In conclusion, there is an urgent need, to support CDCs that are integrated into 
university structures. 
In 2012, USAID/Egypt’s Office of Education supported the establishment and management of 
state-of-the-art, university- based Career Development Centers (CDCs) through a three-year 
activity aimed at improving the long-term capacity of Egyptian universities to assist students and 
recent graduates in their transition from education to employment. USAID made awards to two 
implementers, namely: American University Cairo (AUC) Employability and Career 
Development Centers (ECDC) for $ 2,728,700 and World Learning (WL) Linking Education & 
14
Employment Project (LEEP) for $ 1,678,768. Together, they established 8 CDCs at 7 public 
universities of which 5 remain open. 
In early 2013, as a result of events in Egypt and the U.S. foreign policy response, USAID 
partially suspended the programs as they wound down nearly all education program 
implementation. Almost 6 months, USAID authorized re-start of the programs once again. 
Consequently, both the LEEP/WL and ECDC/AUC programs experienced major challenges 
during the second year of operations in 2013, and both awards went through several 
modifications as a result of the suspension and changes in university partners. 
The five CDCs that are currently operational have been expected to become an integral part of 
each respective university campus by the completion date of the projects, and are expected to be 
sustained by corporate funding and fee-for- service programs. Both completion dates were 
scheduled on May 31, 2015, but USAID provided a no-cost extension of the modified award to 
AUC to until September 30, 2016 and a no-cost extension to WL through December 31, 2015. 
USAID asked Scholarships and Training for Egyptian Professionals (STEP), a five-year program 
that supports Egypt’s economic and social development, to undertake a mid-term performance 
evaluation of the two programs prior to the end of FY15. STEP subcontracted with the 
international firm KNO and Egyptian researchers from CDC Academy to conduct the evaluation 
during the period July-September 2015. The cost of the evaluation was $112,000. 
4. METHODOLOGY 
EVALUATION DESIGN
As a mid-term performance evaluation, the design focuses on how the CDCs projects have been 
implemented, what the projects have achieved, whether expected results were attained according 
to the projects’ design and the underlying development hypothesis, how activities were perceived 
and valued by stakeholders, and whether the projects are sustainable. The evaluation team used 
a mix of quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis methods to answer the questions 
of interest in this evaluation. The evaluation follows the principles and guidelines for high 
quality evaluations outlined in the USAID Evaluation Policy (January 2011), as well as addresses 
criteria from the Checklist for Assessing USAID Evaluation Reports (V1.0). 
EVALUATION QUESTIONS
The evaluation team developed data collection tools that are consistent with the evaluation 
questions to ensure high quality analysis. The primary design tool is the Evaluation Design 
Matrix (Annex G). This matrix breaks out each of the major research areas into more specific 
sub-questions. The matrix describes for each question the indicator area, source of information, 
type of evaluation design, type of sampling if used, and the data collection instrument to be used. 
Prior to the finalizing of the Design Matrix, initial meetings were held with the LEEP and ECDC 
project staff, as well as USAID Education Office representatives, to insure the design was 
aligned with expectations. 
15
Based on the design matrix, the team developed detailed interview guidelines including 
questionnaires covering the specific evaluation issues and concerns for all levels of the CDC 
project implementation (annex H). These questionnaires include specific questions for each 
stakeholder group based on the Design Matrix. Given the extremely short project timeline, full 
pilot testing could not be done. However, the team conducted the first set of interviews in the 
form of a pilot. No adjustment to the questionnaires was found necessary. The detailed 
interview questionnaires were used as discussion guidelines and allowed the evaluators to obtain 
similar types of qualitative information at the various levels of the project implementation. The 
research team was trained on the use of the guides to conduct interviews. 
KNO submitted to USAID through STEP the Evaluation Methodology and Design Matrix for 
their review. IIE submitted the document to the USAID Evaluation Program Manager and 
organized a meeting with USAID for review, feedback and/or discussion prior to use in the field. 
A list of the institutions, individuals, and groups interviewed is included as an annex to the final 
report. Over 40 interviews and 9 focus groups with 182 student participants (55% female) were 
undertaken by the evaluation team. 
EVALUATION DATA SOURCES
The evaluation will be based on the following sources of information: 
a) Project reports and other documents listed in the bibliography 
b) Secondary data sources identified at appropriate points in the report 
c) Interviews and meetings with LEEP and ECDC project staff 
d) Field visits in 4 universities: Helwan, South Valley, Suez Canal and Ain Shams (main 
school and engineering faculty). 
EVALUATION STEPS
The evaluation process consisted of the following eleven tasks over 6 weeks of effort (see annex 
F for more detail and schedule). The survey team was led by a senior international performance 
expert specializing in the design and implementation of performance assessments and 
evaluations, with experience in the higher education sector. The local survey team includes a 
senior lead researcher and two researchers, an analyst and administrator. All researchers speak 
the local languages. 
DATA ANALYSIS 
The evaluation team conducted site visits to each of the five active CDCs, as well as made 
contacts with closed ones when possible. Strict guidelines were prepared and followed for 
analysis as detailed in the methodology annex. Notes were written during or immediately after 
interviews. The international team leader received completed research data regularly and 
provided ongoing direction to the local team. Quantitative data was analyzed using spreadsheets 
with an aim to provide percentages and ratios for presentation. As appropriate, charts and graphs 
were prepared to summarize or highlight data. Data was triangulated between different 
informants to assess validity and reliability. All beneficiary data is disaggregated by gender and 
geographic location as available. 
The international team leader returned to Cairo at the conclusion of the data collection effort to 
lead the team in the final data analysis phase. An out-brief presentation was provided to USAID 
16
on draft findings, lessons learned and recommendations for review and feedback prior to 
submitting this draft report. 
5. LIMITATIONS 
 
DATA QUALITY STANDARDS
The evaluation team ensured that the data collected clearly and adequately represents answers to 
the evaluation questions, is sufficiently precise to present a fair picture of performance, and is at 
an appropriate level of detail.
DATA LIMITATIONS 
The evaluation team insured that issues potentially affecting the quality (including validity, 
integrity, and reliability) of evaluation data were discussed and documented in the evaluation 
planning stage and assessed on an ongoing basis during evaluation implementation, including 
during data collection and analysis. The limitations and identified measures to address or 
overcome limitations were discussed by the evaluation team and USAID during the out-briefing 
at the conclusion of the implementation phase. The list below includes all notable limitations 
and if and how they may affect the evaluation’s findings, conclusions, and recommendations. 
There are known limitations to the design and implementation of the evaluation: 
 Due to the delay in approval for project start and the fixed deadline, the time spent at 
each university was limited, as well as the time spent interviewing stakeholders and CDC 
beneficiaries. 
 Instructions by USAID prohibited the team access to financial data concerning the 
grantees budgets to only total grant amounts (identified in the SOW). This limited the 
analysis of various funds provided to support the individual CDCs and reduced the ability 
to fully identify actual required funding for CDC sustainability in some cases. 
 Given that the evaluation takes place on university campuses during the August summer 
break, there was a risk that adequate samples of student beneficiaries are not available. 
Thus, in some cases, random selections of students were not possible to establish. Each 
CDC identified and invited students for focus groups and this may result in a positive 
bias in their selection. 
 Contacts for involved employer representatives were of necessity provided by each 
project. There is a risk of bias in the selection of interviewees and in some cases too 
small samples were provided by the CDC despite several requests. 
 Contacts for involved faculty representatives were of necessity provided by each project. 
There is a risk of bias in the selection of interviewees, and in the case of ECDC, too small 
samples were provided. 
 The team relied on data provided from surveys designed and administered by project 
staff. There is a risk that the survey design might not be valid or reliable, with the 
potential of incorrect results. 
 Not all requested documents and/or data necessary for desk review were provided in a 
timely manner; or if provided, not complete or accurate. As well, certain records 
17
requested for observation as evidence while onsite were not provided or were incomplete. 
 In some cases student and alumni data were not made available by Project or CDC 
management, or defined by preferred categories. 
Despite these limitations, every attempt has been made to review all available data and 
information gathered from all key informants to ensure the data matches the various findings. 
The evaluation team has insured that the generalized as well as the specific findings are valid and 
accurate for the project being evaluated, considering the time, effort, and resources expended, as 
well as the efforts made to verify all the collected data with a wide array of secondary 
information.
6. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS 
FINDINGS 
Given the concerns about labor market links to higher education noted in the background above, 
USAID designed an Annual Program Statement (APS) with the following objectives (CDC 
Support APS-263-11-000001): 
Establish sustainable career development centers in Egyptian public universities; 
Provide career guidance to students and university graduates and build employability skills of 
students and alumni; 
Develop participants’ skills in disciplines needed for the labor market; and 
Bridge the gap between current university graduate skills and job market requirements. 
In 2012, USAID’s Office of Education supported the establishment and management of state-of￾the-art, university- based Career Development Centers (CDCs) through a three-year activity 
aimed at improving the long-term capacity of Egyptian universities to assist students and recent 
graduates in their transition from education to employment. 
Given the instability in Egypt during the life of the project 
since the 2012 start, the implementers of the CDCs have had 
a very challenging job. Of the eight CDCs that were 
started, three of them were closed, in some cases, after 
significant investment due to university changes in senior 
management that were coupled with political issues. For 
over a 6 month period following the June 30th revolution 
(October 2013 to March 2014), USAID was required to 
work with the implementers to wind-up certain existing 
activities consistent with U.S. law and policy. On October 
13, 2013, the Procurement Office informed the two career 
development programs: LEEP and ECDC which directly 
benefit and support public universities in Egypt that they 
must precede with an orderly wind-up of certain activities. 
WL and AUC developed detailed wind-up plans and the 
contracts office modified their awards accordingly. 
The CDC project’s 
development hypothesis: 
… is that the Career 
Development Centers will 
enhance a student’s 
employability, stability and 
prosperity through the 
provision of training courses, 
mentorship opportunities, 
workshops, internships and 
job opportunities, which will 
result in an educated 
workforce that responds to 
the labor market needs. 
18
At that time, USAID agreed with AUC and WL to complete ongoing activities on campus by the 
end of January 2014. It was also agreed that both partners could continue providing necessary 
services to Egyptian students off the university campuses, in a community based context. This 
arrangement was planned to allow for project activities/services greatly needed by Egyptian 
youth to meet the job market needs while complying with assistance restrictions. On March 4, 
2014, before proceeding with moving the CDC activities off campus, both programs were 
informed that the wind-up imposed on the CDC activities was relieved and activities could go 
back to its originally planned and approved program description, work plan and budget. 
This resulted both in loss of momentum with the established CDCs and also several 
modifications to both the LEEP and ECDC contracts for the renewal of activity. Without a 
doubt, the instability and suspension had impact on the ability to build operating career 
development centers to a level where they can be sustainable. Nevertheless, both ECDC and 
LEEP have had success with at least one of the CDCs that have a strong potential to be 
sustainable after the end of USAID funding. 
The narrative below is organized according to the five primary evaluation questions and 
separates the two implemented programs since they have different work scopes. It focuses only 
on the LEEP / ECDC scope of work performance following the last contract modification for 
each implementer as identified below. Given this focus, the evaluation focuses only on the scope 
of work (SOW) and project management plan (PMP) from the time of the last modifications. As 
well, the evaluation team only studied the operations of the 5 remaining open CDCs: 
 Ain Shams University (two CDCs) – managed by 
ECDC/AUC 
 Helwan University – managed by LEEP/WL 
 South Valley University – managed by LEEP/ WL 
 Suez Canal University– managed by ECDC/AUC 
The three other university CDCs that were established but 
were closed include: 
 Fayoum University (closed 9/2013) – managed by 
LEEP/WL 
 Assiut University (closed 4/2014) – managed by 
ECDC/AUC 
 Port Said University (closed 11/2014) – managed 
by LEEP/WL 
As previously mentioned, for the three CDCs that closed, 
this was primarily due to issues with university 
management who are very independent in decisions 
affecting their institutions. In September 2013, following 
the June 30 events, the President of Fayoum University requested the cessation of the CDC’s 
activities, as he individually decided he did not want any USG supported-programs at his 
Figure 1: Map of Egypt highlighting CDC 
locations
19
university. CDC-Assiut and CDC-Port Said closed in April and November 2014, respectively, 
due to changes in university management. Assiut University’s new administration was not 
cooperative, and ultimately support to Assiut ended. Due to changes in the university’s senior 
management, the CDC’s activities at Port Said University were suspended in November 2014. 
A variety of photos illustrating CDC operations are grouped together in annex E because of 
report length considerations. 
1. TO WHAT EXTENT HAVE THE CDCS ACHIEVED THEIR GOALS OF THIS SOW? 
In researching the achievements of the implementers of their work scopes under the current 
award modification, the focus of evaluation is on: 
 General achievement of goals 
 Success in meeting Performance Management Plan (PMP) indicator targets 
 Implementation of Other Strategies Identified from SOW (non-PMP indicators) 
As the two implementers have differing specific objectives and work scopes, their performance 
is reviewed separately. Since much of the success of the work scope is illustrated by the 
operation and potential sustainability of their sponsored university CDCs, these will each be 
explored in-depth separately in the analysis of research question #3. 
World Learning’s Linking Education & Employment Project (LEEP)
Overview of Goals 
Founded in 1932, World Learning/SIT Graduate Institute in Vermont has decades of experience 
delivering training and capacity development courses to students and participants around the 
world. World Learning works globally in over 70 countries, with over 18 country offices. World 
Learning implements the Linking Education and Employment Program with the goal to establish 
self-sustaining Career Development Centers at target universities in regions of high youth 
unemployment. 
Objective 1: To establish self-sustaining career centers at target universities in regions of high 
youth unemployment: Each participating university will host a fully integrated career 
development center that meets the needs of students and alumni by providing specialized 
trainings and career mentoring and that links students with networking and employment 
opportunities. 
Objective 2: To develop students’ and graduates’ job seeking skills and to strengthen their 
ability to obtain employment: LEEP will provide university students and recent graduates with 
critical skills and access to employment opportunities needed to successfully secure professional 
employment. 
Objective 3: Foster Collaboration between Universities, Industry, Business and Civil Society:
CDCs will nurture sustainable relationships between universities and external stakeholders in 
20
industry, business and the non-profit sector. This will enhance relevance of program by 
providing students’ knowledge of and access to career opportunities and job training, and create 
dialogue between universities and the outside world. Through internships with NGOs, students 
will also gain employment skills while strengthening these organizations. 
The primary direct beneficiaries of the program include: 
 The students and recent graduates who gain job search and workplace skills through the 
career development center programs. 
 Current high school students who may benefit from the program’s Youth Career 
Ambassador Program. 
 Employers who benefit from support in recruiting qualified, motivated candidates and 
from increased access to the university and improved communication with administration 
and faculty. 
 The partner universities benefit from strengthened and deepened links with local and 
national industry and business generated through the work of the career development 
centers within the program. 
Currently WL is managing two CDCs, one at Helwan University and the other at South Valley 
University. Two others were started in Fayoum and Port Said Universities, but closed as noted 
above. The awards went through several modifications as noted below: 
 MOD #1 on 2/24/2014 to fully fund the agreement and include the approved wind-up 
plan;
 MOD #2 on 3/19/2014 to remove the wind-up plan; 
 MOD #3 on 7/30/2014 to change the Program Description to substitute Fayoum 
University CDC with Helwan University and re-align the budget; and 
 MOD #4 on 4/23/2015 to extend the completion date until December 31, 2015 and revise 
the Program Description to remove Port Said University CDC and re-align the budget. 
The award to World Learning was $1,678,768, and the budget was re-aligned twice due to 
changes in university CDC support. As well, the project completion date was given a no-cost 
extension through the end of 2015. 
Success in Meeting Performance Management Plan Indicator Targets 
The LEEP Performance Management Plan (revised April 2015) generally responds to the goals 
and objectives outlined in the CDC Support APS-263-11-000001. It includes indicators that 
monitor the success for addressing the mismatch of relevant skills to the job market and low 
employability among current university students and recent college graduates; improving 
employability and interpersonal skills of young Egyptians; and strengthening their ability to 
create and capitalize on job opportunities in various sectors. There is no baseline data as the 
project started from a zero base. 
However, given the overriding goal to establish sustainable operating CDCs that may be 
transferred when funding ends to the host university, indicators and targets to track specific 
21
progress in this area such as growth of revenue generation, transfer of CDC staff to university 
payrolls, and progress toward meeting sustainability plan actions are missing. While staff 
recruitment and committee meetings, as well as service delivery are important, they could use 
supplemental indicators for measuring potential sustainability. This is especially critical in the 
financial area, where the ability of the CDCs to generate funds close to matching expense levels 
is very critical for survival in the host university. 
As well, although there is some information concerning students applying career development 
skills to their employment search, there are no data tracking successful employment numbers or 
linking the application of trained skills to job search success. 
PMP Indicators 
LEEP has a total of three outcome level indicators, one for each objective. In addition, they 
define output level indicators that support these outcomes. LEEP has a total of 16 indicators. 
______________________________________________________________________________
Objective 1: Self-sustaining Career Development Centers established at partner universities 
Outcome 1.1: # of CDCs embedded in partner universities 
Output 1.1.1: # of CDC personnel recruited 
 Output 1.1.2: #of Management Committee meetings conducted 
 Output 1.1.3: # of Advisory Board meetings conducted 
 Output 1.1.4: # of staff participating in training and development 
 Output 1.1.5: # of staff participating in language skills training 
 Output 1.1.6: # of training sessions held under USAID funded LEEP project 
 Output 1.1.7: # of students attending 16 hours (or more) of training at the CDCs 
Objective 2: To improve job seeking skills among students’ and graduates’ and improve their 
ability to obtain employment 
Outcome 2.1: % of graduates from USG supported tertiary education reporting themselves as 
employed 
Output 2.1.1: # of individual persons gaining access to CDC work development programs 
supported by USG 
Output 2.1.2: % of student clients demonstrating improved skills after CDC training 
Output 2.1.3: % of students applying career center content in their employment search 
Output 2.1.4: # of student with improved language skills 
Objective 3: Universities, industry, business, and civil society are collaborating with CDCs 
Outcome 3.1: # of partnerships developed with industry, business, and non-profits 
Output 3.1.1: # of employers using career center services to search for employees or interns 
 Output 3.1.2: # of career fairs held at each partner university 
______________________________________________________________________________
Based on the data provided to the evaluation team, triangulated by interviews and random 
samples verified during the CDC visits, the LEEP performance on meeting indicator targets is 
relatively strong based on numbers through the period of the evaluation. 
Major achievements include outputs involved in providing service to students such as access to 
career development programs and soft skill training (i.e. Outputs 1.1.6, 1.1.7, and 2.1.1.) where 
22
participation surpass targets by 140-160% despite only having two operating CDCs. As well, 
reported data from year 2 surveys indicate high use of skills in employment searches. This is 
supported by the student focus group data. 
Indicators tracking staff actions and committee meetings are mixed, but do not seem to have 
impacted operations significantly (see individual CDC evaluations below). As well, the 
employment fairs and youth ambassador programs were delayed in starting with resulting lower 
results (below target by 50% or more at the time of the evaluation).
A complete table of LEEP PMP indicators including targets and accomplishments is contained in 
annex C. 
Implementation of Other Strategies Identified from SOW (non-PMP indicators) 
The LEEP modified scope of work includes other strategies and actions that are not tracked by 
PMP indicators. Generally the evidence indicates that these have been accomplished. Given the 
mid-term suspension, some actions took longer to initiate such as the student ambassador 
program, the career fairs and the initiation of English language training. But, these are now on 
track. Communication plans are in place and a variety of media are employed to promote the 
centers (as evidenced by data collected during the student focus groups). 
LEEP undertook to train the CDC staffs using experts from the WL home office. This has 
resulted in larger staffs (5-8) that include trainers. While carrying more office overhead cost, 
this allows for full internal capability to execute all programs (rather than relying on 
outsourcing). 
The faculties in both LEEP CDCs have been highly engaged. They have become volunteer 
trainers and engage students for counseling session outside the centers in offices and sometimes 
homes. 
The network of employers is growing and strengthening, resulting in sponsorship/delivery of 
technical training such as Build Your Business in collaboration with Masr Ta3mal-Microsoft. 
While grant parameters did not allow for generation of revenue for the centers, during 
employment fairs they were able to obtain cost share contributions of materials and services. 
LEEP/WL partners further include a network of NGOs and private sector entities including 
Etisalat, Vodafone, Microsoft, Intel, The Marketer.Net, and AWTAD to support training 
workshops on career development and employability skills programs. 
The practice of student surveys, including alumni who participated in center services, is 
providing some data on employment opportunities realized and application of new skills in job 
search. A special program addressing needs for the sight impaired is a success. 
Best practices 
The LEEP initiative has several actions that the evaluators highlight as ―best practices‖ in 
building sustainable CDCs: 
23
 Initiating youth ambassadors: introduces the center and university to graduating 
secondary students. 
 Building internal staff training capabilities: allows for better quality monitoring and 
lower cost over time than external commercial sources. 
 Ongoing active student / faculty volunteer networks: help build enthusiasm for the 
program, while spreading word of services and successes. 
 Bringing specialized English language business curriculums and training existing 
teaching assistants to deliver them: while very challenging and time consuming, over the 
long term this builds further university capacity to support career center needs rather than 
out-sourcing. 
 Conducting employment surveys: as these are refined, they can provide data on jobs 
realized, key skill sets used from training, and provide links between employer needs and 
CDC service. 
 Addressing special needs: the program for the vision impaired is done in collaboration 
with a nonprofit. This can become a model for other special needs services over time.
 Use of expanded advisory committees for centers: while these can be cumbersome to 
initiate (beyond just a management board), an expanded advisory group that includes 
employers, faculty and students can allow for diverse inputs and feedback for program 
design and monitoring. 
Challenges 
 Given the effort needed from both parties to build a sustainable center in a few years, 
there is a need for the development of a joint sustainability plan. This was not prepared 
with the LEEP university partners. A draft of this plan should be developed within the 
first 6 months of initiation that includes key milestones and revenue targets. This should 
be finalized at the start of the final year of USAID support and extend at least a year past 
transition of the center to the university. 
 The Memorandums of Understanding were signed with universities prior to award of the 
grants, more in the form of a traditional teaming agreement. This resulted in fairly 
general stipulations based on lack of operating experience. The later MOU signed with 
Helwan University built in further requirements (although primarily on the university 
side, not WL). These still can be strengthened to address more sustainability actions that 
include the requirement for a joint sustainability plan and clear indictors for monitoring 
progress. 
 The requirements of the MOU did not allow for revenue generation (beyond in-kind cost 
sharing) for the centers. This practice sets up unrealistic perceptions among stakeholders 
that services will remain free. Without the opportunity for growing income generation, it 
becomes very difficult to predict likely self-funding levels after the conclusion of the 
LEEP. As well, financial data on exact costs (beyond estimated payroll) were not 
readily available or easily calculated. These should be calculated and included as a 
portion of sustainability planning. 
 While the PMP included indicators tied to center operations and service delivery, it lacks 
more specific indicators to measure progress toward sustainability. This could include 
financial targets, timetables to include the center within the university budget and payroll, 
and other jointly identified milestones. 
24
 The CDC staff is provided training and coaching in all aspects of center operation and 
service delivery. However, there is a lack of written policies / procedures for routine 
administration and operations. Since knowledge is not written and primarily in the minds 
of the staff, when employees leave there is little left behind to guide and orient new 
replacements. 
 The distribution of annual surveys still needs to be refined and expanded. Tracking of 
employment success is still weak. It is especially necessary to attempt to link the key 
CDC services that support student ability to acquire jobs. 
 English language skills are clearly identified as a primary employer demand for hire in 
many cases. The ability of students to learn necessary fluency of language can take 
years. Providing support to university language programs, while useful is often 
problematic and delayed. Given the limited resources of CDC funding, this may be a 
service best left to language faculties. 
American University Cairo Employability and Career Development Centers (ECDC) 
Overview of Goals 
The American University in Cairo (AUC), Egypt is a premier English-language institution of 
higher learning. The Career Center, formerly known as office of career advising and placement 
services (CAPS), was established 20 years ago as the first university career center in the region. 
Since then, it has been providing comprehensive career guidance and recruitment services to 
students and alumni and has become a leading model for comprehensive career services in the 
region. American University Cairo’s project goal, implemented through CAPS, is to provide 
career guidance and employability skills to public university students to equip them with the 
right skills for the world of work and bridge the gap between current university graduate skills 
and job market requirements. 
Program objectives include: 
Objective 1: Establish 4 Employability and Career Development Centers (ECDCs) - ―One-stop￾shop‖ – in 3 public universities in upper Egypt, Suez Canal area and Cairo that will become an 
integral part of the universities after the life-span of the project 
Objective 2: Hire 16 ECDC staff; of which 15 will be trained and licensed as career development 
facilitators (CDF) to provide required career education, connect with employees and generate 
internship/employment opportunities to students in selected universities. 
Objective 3: Provide an array of job search and soft/employability skills to a selected subset of 
students from each university; offering a technical track when needed via a network of 
partnerships 
Objective 4: Ensure the functionality of a sustainability model to secure availing required 
employability/soft skills to university students after life-span of project 
The primary beneficiaries of the program include: 
25
 Professionally license 15 career development facilitators (CDFs) at two public 
universities: Suez Canal University and Ain Shams University 
 Over 200,000 students from 3 different governorates will annually have access to 
professional career services (around 130,000 students from Ain Shams University 
including their faculty of Engineering, 50,000 students from Assiut University, and 
30,000 students from Suez Canal University). 
 A subset of approximately 3000 pre-final and final year students will additionally benefit 
from a specially tailored module that cover career management, employability skills and 
a specialized technical training track 
 15-20 professionally trained and coached volunteer trainers for employability skills 
model who are equipped to sustain the model and re-breed others through ―training of 
trainer‖ approach 
 NGOs, corporation and training providers partnering in the project 
Currently AUC is managing three CDCs, one at Suez Canal University and the other two at Ain 
Shams University. One other was started in Assiut University, but closed as noted above. The 
awards went through several modifications as noted below: 
 MOD #1 on 2/26/2014 to fully fund the agreement and include the approved wind-up 
plan;
 MOD #2 on 3/19/2014 to remove the wind-up plan; and 
 MOD #3 on 3/1/2015 to extend the completion date till September 30, 2016, change the 
Program Description to remove Assiut University CDC and decrease the total estimated 
cost. 
The award to American University Cairo was originally for $ 2,728,700. The budget was 
decreased due to reduction in the number of universitiessupported by $426,982 to $2,301,718.
The project has a no-cost extension through the end of September 2016. 
Success in Meeting Performance Management Plan Indicator Targets 
ECDC has a total of three intermediate result indicators, each with one or more output indicators. 
ECDC has a total of 8 indicators. These indicators focus primarily on delivery of career 
development services to students. There are several indicators directed toward measuring 
employment opportunities, however the linking of these to actual employment is unclear without 
further surveys. Given the overriding goal to establish sustainable operating CDCs that may be 
transferred when funding ends to the host university, indicators and targets to track specific 
progress in this area such as growth of revenue generation, transfer of CDC staff to university 
payrolls, and progress toward meeting sustainability plan actions are missing. While staff 
recruitment and training / certification, as well as service delivery are important, other 
supplemental indicators would be useful for measuring potential sustainability. This is 
especially critical in the financial area, where the ability of the CDCs to generate funds close to 
matching expense levels is very critical for survival in the host university. 
26
As well, although there is some information concerning students applying career development 
skills to their employment search, there is no indicator linking the application of trained skills to 
job search success, and there is no data as regards the key indicator for tracking successful 
employment numbers (see annex C). There is no baseline data as the project started from a zero 
base. 
PMP Indicators 
ECDC has a total of eight indicators that seem to be related to the four objectives. They are all 
output oriented and do not show relationship to outcomes. In some cases the specific definition 
of the output indicator is unclear (such as in the case of 2.5 and 3.2). 
______________________________________________________________________________
Output 1: # of ECDC staff receiving training and are certified as Career Development 
Facilitators (CDFs). 
Output 2.1: # of students attending career development workshops, and/or corporate information 
sessions of duration less than 16 hours 
Output 2.2: # of individuals attending any individual career advising service of duration less 
than 16 hours 
Output 2.3: # of students/alumni attending employment fairs 
Output 2.4: # of internships generated 
Output 2.5: # of employment opportunities generated 
Output 3.1: # of persons completing a USG-supported Career Development Center workforce 
development programs of 16 hours or more 
Output 3.2: % of graduates from USG-supported tertiary education programs reporting 
themselves as employed. 
______________________________________________________________________________ 
Based on the data provided to the evaluation team, triangulated by interviews and random 
samples verified during the CDC visits, the ECDC performance on meeting these indicator 
targets is quite strong in several areas based on reported numbers through the period of the 
evaluation. Other areas are weak or inconclusive. 
Major achievements include surpassing the reported output targets for providing service to 
students such as short-term career development training, individual counseling sessions and 
attendance at employment fairs (i.e. Outputs 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3) where participation surpass targets 
in some cases by 300 – 500%. Numbers for staff certification and longer training programs were 
near to targets. 
The indicators 2.5 and 3.2 tracking career opportunities and percentage employed are critical 
indictors. The numbers for tracking employment opportunities generated seemed to be based on 
publicizing job announcements to students, however no evidence could be provided to support 
the number provided. 
For the indicator percentage of graduates reporting themselves as employed, no data was 
available for this category. Student surveys regarding employment success or application of 
27
skills in job searches have not been completed, or if so, were not shared, although it was 
understood that these were to be done for a report in the 2nd quarter of FY 2015. 
A table of ECDC performance indicators extracted from provided quarterly reports that include 
targets and reported accomplishments is contained in annex C. 
Implementation of Other Strategies Identified from SOW (non-PMP indicators) 
The ECDC modified scope of work includes other strategies and actions that are not tracked by 
the indicators referenced above. Generally the evidence indicates that these have been 
accomplished in an ad hoc manner as described below. 
ECDC undertook to train and certify the CDC staffs using the National Career Development 
Association (NCDA) curriculum that AUC is authorized to conduct. Thus, the ECDC staff is 
certified as career development facilitators (CDF). The ECDC staff are quite small, usually 3-4 
people. However, this staff primarily focuses on core services – individual career counseling, 
job fairs and employer network. The heavy workload of the delivery of the soft skills training 
programs is not done by the CDC staff, but rather by ASPIRE and INJAZ. These are two 
subcontracts on the grant and so these services are paid directly from AUC. The two firms are 
well known on the Egyptian market and provide high quality programs. However, the costs for 
these types of services are not inexpensive. The ECDC work scope strategy indicates the 
transfer of these training skills through training of volunteer trainers. This has not started as of 
the time of the evaluation. Project staff indicated that this effort will be initiated during the last 
year of the project. 
English language training is outsourced to the AUC language center, and this is also paid directly 
by the grant. No efforts to build capacity within the university are planned. Similar to the soft 
skills training, this type of training, that requires extended durations for fluency, is expensive. 
Based on USAID/Egypt Education Office guidance, no financial data regarding the costs of these 
services were made available. 
An important strategy from the ECDC work scope was the focus on recruiting 1-2 faculty 
members per faculty to supplement the small staff with of the CDC. Unfortunately, there is no 
evidence that the faculty in three ECDC CDCs have been highly engaged. The team was unable 
to find or speak to anyone who is actively involved with the CDC as regards referring students or 
acting as a volunteer trainer. At the same time, ECDC centers have been highly successful to 
build strong student volunteer networks to support the employment fairs. 
The database of employers is quite large for the CDCs, seemingly supported by the long standing 
AUC career advisory center’s contacts in business and industry. The ECDC has partnered with 
a network of NGOs and private sector entities, including ASPIRE Experiential Business 
Solutions, INJAZ, Vodafone, the International Labor Organization in Cairo, MIT Company, and 
Mobinil, to deliver workshops on career development and employability skills. 
While the employer database seems very useful for promoting the employment fairs, in most 
cases there is no evidence that very deep relationships have been developed between the CDC 
staff and employer human resource functions. These types of relationships are very important 
28
for understanding employer needs and supporting student for specific job opportunities as they 
are open. The centers were able to provide only a few business contacts to interview, and some 
of these were only familiar with the job fair, rather than CDC services. 
The generation of revenue from employers from employment fairs is a success for the ECDC 
programs. Between the three centers, this income has surpassed 400,000 EGP (~$ 52,000) in the 
past few years, and is available for the center use within university controlled bank accounts. As 
well, the CDCs were able to obtain other sponsorship in-kind of materials and services. . 
The scope of work states that ECDC staff will be trained on strategies for conducting market 
studies such as conducting bi-annual online employer surveys and employer focus groups, to stay 
current with labor market demands. As well, faculty members were to be appointed as ECDC 
liaisons to business. While there has been some surveying of employer satisfaction following the 
fairs, no hard data was available concerning labor market needs, employment opportunities 
realized and application of new skills in job search. Generally, faculty has very limited 
involvement with the ECDCs. 
Best practices 
The ECDC initiative has several actions that the evaluators highlight as ―best practices‖ in 
building sustainable CDCs: 
 The generation of revenues from employment fairs has been an important element is 
helping to build the financial sustainability of the CDCs. This both begins to build a bank 
balance to support the transition to the university, but also accustoms employers to expect 
to pay for these types of services. 
 In partnership with ASPIRE, AUC has designed and customized an innovative intensive 
soft skills training program, especially customized for student audiences 
 ECDCs have built a strong volunteer of student volunteers and allowed the office to 
function also as a ―community center‖ for students for informal encounters and 
engagement. 
 AUC has championed the certification of all ECDC staff as career development 
facilitators. This has been instrumental in insuring high quality individual assessment 
and counseling services. 
Challenges 
 Given the effort needed from both ECDC and the universities to build a sustainable 
center in a few years, there is a need for the development of a joint sustainability plan. 
This was not prepared with the ECDC university partners. A draft of this plan should be 
developed within the first 6 months of initiation that includes key milestones and revenue 
targets. This should be finalized at the start of the final year of USAID support and 
extend at least a year past transition of the center to the university. 
 The Memorandums of Understanding with the university partners are quite brief and 
while outlining goals, provide no details as to roles and responsibilities, requirements for 
sustainability planning or indicators to measure success. 
29
 While the soft skills training program is highly acclaimed by the students, this is being 
delivered by professional experienced trainers from established companies. Although the 
curriculum has been developed and the plans are to provide training-of-trainers, this 
effort has not started yet. The concept is to recruit volunteers to learn to teach these 
programs and provide them at no charge to the center. This model has not been tested 
and evaluator past experience questions the likelihood of success both to maintain 
program quality with inexperienced trainers and to keep them engaged without 
compensation. 
 While the indicators from the PMP focused on center operations and service delivery, 
there is a lack of more specific indicators to measure progress toward sustainability. This 
could include financial targets, timetables to include the center within the university 
budget and payroll, and other jointly identified milestones. 
 The CDC staff has been certified and provided training and coaching in all aspects of 
center operation and service delivery. However, there is a lack of written policies / 
procedures for routine administration and operations. Given the knowledge is primarily 
in the minds of the staff, when employees leave there is little left behind to guide and 
orient new replacements. 
 The engagement of university faculty was an important element for building sustainable 
services as regards to liaisons with employers, volunteers to conduct training, and referral 
points for students. This is very weak area based on the research. 
 The distribution of periodic employer and student surveys still needs to be started. 
Tracking of labor market needs and employment success is informal at best. It is 
especially necessary to attempt to link the key CDC services that are supposed to improve 
student’s ability to acquire jobs with actual identified labor needs. 
 English language skills are clearly identified as a primary demand by hiring employers in 
many cases. In the case of the ECDCs, the language training is provided by the AUC 
language center and the costs will likely not be sustainable. No capacity building to 
provide this capability was developed within the university. 
30
2. IF AND HOW DID THE SELECTION OF THE GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION FOR THE 
CDCS AFFECT THEIR PERFORMANCE? TO WHAT EXTENT CDCS GEOGRAPHIC 
LOCATION AFFECT THE PERFORMANCE OF CDCS IN ACHIEVING THE RESULTS? 
WHY? 
The findings in this area looked at a 
comparison of a number of factors that 
might influence the successful 
performance of a CDC. These are 
rated using a survey instrument that both 
asked for forced ranking of the factors, 
as well as scoring them on importance. 
Data was collected using the instrument 
directly from both the LEEP and ECDC 
project staff (8) plus all the managers of 
the CDCs (6 - including former closed 
Port Said Manager) for a total of 14. 
The factors are as noted in the sidebar. 
After reviewing the results of the survey data, follow-up interviews were held with the 
LEEP/ECDC Project Directors to further review and prioritize the data. 
The instrument is below: 
Figure 2: Ranking of factors influencing the success of CDCs
The importance of the 12 factors was consistently rated between both comparisons. On the 
ranking of importance from 6 – 1, quality of the center services along with good relations with 
university senior leadership was top, closely followed by competence of CDC director and 
facilitators. Geography was rated of lowest importance. (Figure 3 below) 
Competence of CDC Director
Geographic location of university
Financial support of university administration
Competence and certification of facilitators
Reputation for matching students with job opportunities
Serviceable office and technical equipment
Strength of network with employers
Financial sponsorship by employers
Good relations with university senior leadership
Number of employers in the area
Strength of communication campaign with students
Quality of career development services
31
Figure 3: Importance ranking of successful CDCs 
Looking at the same 12 factors forced ranked, the same key factors came highest. Once again, 
geography was quite low. (Figure 4 below) 
Figure 4: Force ranking of Successful CDCs 
Based on this survey data, the primary factors necessary for success indicated are: 
 Quality of career development services 
 Good relations with senior university counterparts 
 Strength of CDC staff and director 
In the follow-up conversations with the Project Directors, as well as triangulated with interviews 
with CDC staff and university managers, two conclusions were reached and verified: 
1. The most important factor for sustainability success is the strong support and ongoing 
relationships with senior university management. If you have a strong team in place, and 
do not have support with the university administration, the CDC will likely fail. 
2. Geography is seen as a minimal factor influencing success. There is high student demand 
for these types of services throughout the country. With proper senior university support 
32
as a basis, building on a well trained staff and high quality services, over several years’ 
sustainability can be established. 
3. TO WHAT EXTENT ARE THE LEEP/WL AND ECDC/AUC PROJECTS ON TRACK TO 
TRANSITIONING THE MANAGEMENT OF THE CDCS TO THE HOST UNIVERSITIES? 
WHICH FACTORS HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO OR HINDERED THE SUSTAINABILITY OF 
THE CDCS? WHAT ARE THE PROSPECTS FOR SUSTAINABILITY POST￾PROJECT COMPLETION? 
Findings in for this question are presented based on a set of criteria overlapping with the success 
factors above. They include the 9 areas below: 
 University Support: Ongoing support by senior university officials such as President or 
Vice-Presidents 
 Director Ability: Knowledge and skills of the CDC Manager to lead staff, provide 
services, and operate independently without external project support 
 Staff Competence: Technical knowledge and skills of staff (counselor and trainers) to 
deliver high quality services 
 Quality of Facility: Offices, rooms and equipment dedicated for use of the CDC 
 Faculty Involvement: Volunteer active support in referring students, providing 
counseling, and training programs 
 Employer Network: Engagement with companies and nonprofits as demonstrated by 
attendance at job fairs, sponsorship of technical programs, and ongoing placement of 
students 
 Service Delivery: Providing quality services according to established programs and 
schedules 
 Student Satisfaction: Perceptions of beneficiaries as to value of services received 
 Financial Status: Currently level of revenues generated related to ongoing costs 
 Sustainable: Likelihood of sustainability (financing, staff competences, and service 
provision) under the university umbrella following end of USAID funding 
Using these areas of focus, each of the five operating CDCs are reviewed below. The criteria are 
highlighted by color to depict the overall strength at the time of the evaluation. 
STRONG NEEDS IMPROVEMENT WEAK 
Evaluation of South Valley University (LEEP) 
Small rural area university. 
Total number of students: 36,000 (UG); post-graduate 11,000 
President: Dr. Abbas Mansour 
VP for Environment and Community Service: Dr. Sayed Taha. 
33
The CDC at South Valley is one of the longer operating centers. It has been established 
by LEEP in 1st quarter 2013 and open for 2 ½ years (with mid-term suspension of 
activities). 
University 
Support:
Very strong; graduation ready. University president mentioned that 
he cannot wait for LEEP to finish their project for him to start 
generating funds. The project sustainability ideas are well formulated 
from his point of view, but not shared. 
Director Ability: Very strong. A faculty member in the university. He is already a 
master trainer as well. Very apt at fostering good relationships with 
the university, and staff, 
Staff 
Competence:
Experienced (5 / 4 trainers)
Quality of 
Facility: 
High level; 340k EGP (~ $44k) invested by university
Faculty 
Involvement:
Very strong. Faculty involved from first days. They volunteer even in 
their homes to give career counseling. 
Employer 
Network:
Strong 100+; Big fair; relationships with employers are well 
developed given the rural area they are working in. 
Service Delivery 
& Satisfaction
Exceed numbers and targets for training in all areas 
High student demand; Highly satisfied students
Several success stories. 
One student received a 50K EGP (~ $6.5k) gift from the Nile 
University for her project that was supported by center advisory. 
Job 
Opportunities:
Exceed Call Center company created their upper Egypt branch in 
Qena as a result of the employment fair. Employed 225 persons, as 
well as the HR rep from the fair Visually impaired persons as 
supported with employability skills as well.
Financial Status: No generation of funds so far. 
Annual expenses exceed 260K EGP (~ $34k) per year. 
The plan to generate funds is not documented but the university 
president is confident that he can do so. 
Sustainable: Very likely, given the commitment of the university president and the 
active faculty and the management. 
Table 1: SVU evaluation
Evaluation of Helwan University (Leep) 
Large Greater Cairo University. 
Perceived to be second level university. 
Total number of students: 100,000 (UG) 
President: Dr. Yasser Sakr 
Senior Management Rep: Dr. Mayada Belal 
The CDC at Helwan University is quite new and established by LEEP in 4
th quarter 2014
and operating under one year. 
34
University 
Support:
The university perceives the CDC to be a part of the larger Capacity 
Building Center. 
Using the CDC as a marketing tool for the university. 
Director Ability: Currently the Acting Director seems reactive with an unclear vision
for building sustainability. LEEP project management is currently 
looking to recruit a more skilled CDC Director. 
Staff Competence: Enthusiastic however they lack experience and close supervision. 
Currently mostly reactive without plans.
A total of 7 staff member, with 5 trainers. 
Quality of 
Facility: 
Adequate premises, provided by the university with 3 rooms.
Currently 1 room is an office and the other 2 as training rooms. 
Have no problem in getting more rooms to use when the need arises. 
Faculty 
Involvement:
Very engaged faculty; They volunteer with the CDC. 
Several of them happy with the services the CDC is offering, would 
prefer to add a larger range of services to the CDC to cover the 
current gap between academia and applied competencies of the 
student in their fields of study. 
Employer 
Network:
Moderate, the roster was incomplete and not computerized. 
However, employers met were enthusiastic about the CDC. 
Received in-kind donations to their fair from several sponsors. 
Service Delivery 
& Satisfaction
Exceed numbers and targets for training in all areas 
High student demand; Highly satisfied students.
Job Opportunities: No surveys currently or aggregate data; Bibars school employed 
more than 15 teachers from the employment fair.
Financial Status: No generation of funds so far; Annual expenses exceed 440K GBP 
per year. The plan to generate funds is not established. Several 
scenarios are being discussed, but none are well formulated. 
Sustainable: Not currently as the center is too new, but likely if funded longer
through 30 months. 
Table 2: Helwan University evaluation
Evaluation of Suez Canal University (ECDC) 
A middle-sized urban University. 
Total number of students: 45,000 (UG) 
VP Environment & Community Service (Outgoing for retirement): Dr. Kamal Sharobim 
VP Research and post grad studies: Dr. Nahed Ally (Incoming) 
The CDC of Suez Canal University is quite established from 2nd quarter 2013, and 
operating over 2 ½ years.
University 
Support:
New VP to supervise the CDC as of June 2015. Medium support will 
be given until ―AUC is out‖; CDC perceived as AUC satellite.
The new VP is interested in changes to the program operation. 
Director Ability: Very strong, active, and proactive overall; Very good relationship 
management with the university senior manager. 
35
Staff Competence: Strong active staff with a large waiting list of student volunteers to 
help the CDC. 
3 full time, 1 part time staff
Quality of 
Facility: 
Adequate considering the overall infrastructure of the university. 
3 offices + 2 small training rooms provided; Work in corridors, and 
in the open air when need arises. 
Faculty 
Involvement:
Limited faculty involvement. And students’ complains from that. 
The CDC is working as a stand-alone island. 
Only creating ties with the senior management at the UNI. 
Employer 
Network:
Large list of employers; first fair successful; two per year planned;
Deeper relationships with employers beyond the employment fair 
could not be verified. 
Service Delivery 
& Satisfaction
Exceed numbers and targets for training in all areas 
High student demand; Highly satisfied students.
Job Opportunities: Job opportunity surveys currently not carried out; One success story 
is two CDC students were employed by Henkel. 
Financial Status: Funds generated from fairs: 67K EGP (~ $9k) in total
Annual expenses are 200K GBP plus a undisclosed cost for 
outsourced training. 
Sustainable: Likely, but depends primarily on 2 factors: 
1) the new VP commitment 
2) question how to fund costs of current outsourced training
Table 3: Suez Canal evaluation
Evaluation of Ain Shams University – General (ECDC) 
Largest University in the Middle East. 
180,000 students (UG) 
Geographically spread out over several cities and campuses 
President: Dr. Hussein Eissa 
VP for Student Affairs: Dr. Mohammed El Toukhy 
The CDC in Ain Shams – General is quite new and established by ECDC in 4
th quarter 
2014, thus operating under one year. 
University 
Support:
Medium university management support, it is shared with the 
Engineering CDC. VP mentioned the need to open at least 3 more 
CDCs: Faculty of commerce, Zamalek area faculties , and faculties 
of arts and their ―neighboring disciplines‖
Director Ability: Unclear from visit; guarded throughout the conversations. 
Staff Competence: Very competent staff; Overworked due to heavy demand and 
unstructured in their authorities and responsibilities; 4 fulltime staff.
Quality of 
Facility: 
Good; well-equipped premises; More rooms are given when the need 
arises. 
Faculty 
Involvement:
Very weak faculty involvement; No faculty members were referred
for comments. 
36
Employer 
Network:
Large database; Strong response in the employment fair; No depth in 
areas in other than the employment fair could be verified. 
Fair generated 88K GBP
Service Delivery 
& Satisfaction
Exceed numbers and targets for training in all areas; Highly satisfied 
students; Very high demand - CDC has difficulties coping with 
current number of students in need of the service. 
Job Opportunities: No data could be verified; No surveys currently as to numbers of 
opportunities generated were available. 
Financial Status: Fair generates some revenues 
Annual expenses are 225K EGP (~ $30k) plus a undisclosed cost for 
outsourced training. 
Sustainable: Not currently as the center is too new, but likely if funded longer for 
a full 30 months. 
Table 4: Ain-Shams general evaluation
Evaluation of Ain Shams University – Engineering (ECDC) 
Largest University in the Middle East. 
10,000 students in faculty (UG) 
Geographically spread out over several cities and campuses 
President: Dr. Hussein Eissa 
Dean of Engineering: Dr. Ajman Ashour. 
The Engineering Faculty is long established from 3
rd quarter 2013, and operating over 2 
years.
University 
Support:
Very strong, the VP in charge of the CDC is an engineering 
professor and previously the Dean of Engineering who signed the 
original MOU.
Director Ability: Very strong, proactive; Highly experienced. 
Staff Competence: Effective, knowledgeable, and active during and after working hours. 
Good number of student volunteers; 3 full time staff.
Quality of 
Facility: 
Good; office & 2 training rooms well equipped. More training rooms
available when required
Faculty 
Involvement:
Unknown, likely weak as faculty members could not be identified for 
comment. 
Employer 
Network:
Large database of100+; 2 Fairs generated revenues of over 240k 
EGP (~ $31k).
Service Delivery 
& Satisfaction
Exceed numbers and targets for training in all areas; High student 
demand; Highly satisfied students.
Job Opportunities: No data could be verified. No current surveys monitoring 
employment opportunities have been conducted. Many corporate 
events are conducted that may lead to job opportunities. 
Financial Status: Fair generates some revenues 
Annual expenses are 210K GBP plus a undisclosed cost for 
outsourced training. 
Sustainable: Very likely. Given the senior management support. 
37
Table 5: Ain-Shams engineering evaluation
4A. HOW DO KEY STAKEHOLDER GROUPS (E.G, STUDENTS, FACULTY MEMBERS, 
UNIVERSITY MANAGEMENT, EMPLOYERS) PERCEIVE THE VALUE AND UTILITY 
CDCS? HOW, AND TO WHAT EXTENT, DO KEY STAKEHOLDER GROUPS ENGAGE 
WITH THE CDCS AND WHICH FACTORS FACILITATE AND INHIBIT UTILIZATION OF 
THE CDCS? 
The evaluation looked at these questions in detail and much information has already been 
provided in the earlier narrative. Although there are some trends common to all CDCs, each 
individual center and university also have unique characteristics. The key findings for each of 
these stakeholder groups are summarized below: 
A. University management 
As previously explored in the analysis of factors influencing the success of CDCs, the support of 
the senior university management is the most important factor for success. Based on team 
interviews with these officials, the following findings have been identified: 
Senior university officials become engaged for several reasons (usually combined): 
 The CDC is seen as an important supplement to a university curriculum that is not 
linked to business needs and an important way to strengthen graduate abilities to get 
jobs 
 The CDC is hoped to become an important nucleus linking faculty, employers, and 
students through a variety of activities to build the university effectiveness in the 
community 
 Publicity from high profile events and day-to-day successes of the CDC are a way to 
build the university image in both traditional and social media. 
The most successful CDCs engage university management including the President. Typically, 
they are within the university structure under the Vice-President of Student Affairs (or similar 
role). When management is approached for CDC sponsorship based on the apparent values 
above, officials are willing to provide resources such as space, equipment and utilities. The 
LEEP/ECDC project director must engage them in a spirit of joint partnership and through the 
establishment of management/advisory committees transfer the relationship to the CDC manager 
as they reach competence. 
B. Faculty 
There have been mixed results with engaging faculty in support of the CDCs. Motivations for 
faculty to become active with the CDC are several and must be established individually for each 
member. 
 Personal desire to support individual students in ongoing development and career success 
 Interest to learn new knowledge and skills in areas of training and counseling 
38
 Potential for visibility within the university by being linked to CDC successes 
Prior to attempting to engage faculty members, it is important to secure the visible support of 
senior university management to include the President if possible and the Dean of the faculty. 
With this support, contacts with potential faculty volunteers can be initiated. Faculty can support 
the CDC operations in several ways: 
 Promoting the CDC during their classes 
 Actively referring students to the centers 
 Volunteering as a liaison to employers or in support of employment fairs 
 Undertake training as a counselor or instructor and volunteer to provide of career 
development programs 
Only small numbers of faculty are required as instructors or counselors. These can often be 
recruited over time as they witness the success of the CDC outcomes. 
C. Employers 
Businesses and nonprofits are continually looking for candidates to replace turnover in their 
workforce or support increases in jobs due to growth. There are several motivations that help to 
engage employers, usually through their human resource functions: 
 Forward job openings to CDCs to distribute to students 
 Participate in an employment fair for visibility and possible leads for jobs 
 Participate in an employer survey or focus group to provide inputs to requirements for 
student skills that can be addressed in CDC career development services 
 Sponsor technical training to both educate potential workforce and identify high 
potential candidates 
 Work closely with the CDC for specific job opportunities that result in vetted 
referrals 
Developing a close relationship with human resources specialist is a time-consuming process, 
but once established can be maintained for years even as the person moves to other firms. The 
CDC staff must evaluate potential partner companies very closely as regards to likelihood of 
providing value to the employer in filling jobs with qualified graduates. 
D. Students 
Demand by students in all the universities where CDCs have been established is very high. 
Often there are waiting lists for programs. In the focus groups that were conducted with 182 
students (9 groups with all CDCs) during the evaluation satisfaction was very high with the 
services provided. Many students took advantage of a variety of programs. As well, the centers 
have found it easy to recruit highly motivated and engaged students as volunteers to support 
employment fairs and other activities. 
39
The overall students’ perception of the CDC services is very satisfactory. It is agreed that the 
range of services offered had a positive impact on the lives and futures of the students who had 
the opportunity to participate. The CDC services offered, whether by LEEP or ECDC, 
represented an opportunity for positive individual change and skill improvement. Students 
generally suggested that the center be expanded, and have offices to address specific faculties or 
disciplines. Especially of interest would be offers of core technical courses in certain highly 
technical disciplines, in order to help them target their employer opportunities more effectively. 
A separate report on the findings of the student surveys and focus groups is contained in Annex 
B. 
4B. HOW EFFECTIVE HAVE THE CDCS BEEN IN CONNECTING GRADUATES WITH 
EMPLOYERS AND PROVIDING THEM WITH THE SKILLS THAT EMPLOYERS DEMAND? 
This is an area of weakness in some of the CDC programs. For surveys to be useful, the CDCs 
need to be in operation for over a year in order to have graduates for research. The Helwan and 
Ain Shams - General CDCs are still too young. There is data from two of the LEEP CDCs that 
initiated student surveys looking at both employment success and perceptions of the value of 
skill training in supporting the job search. The Suez Canal University and Ain Shams 
Engineering ECDCs have yet to begin this research, so data is not available at this time. The 
evaluation team took survey results from LEEP as provided and there may be risks with validity 
or reliability. 
Of the research completed by the LEEP program with Port Said (prior to closing) graduates, fully 
50% of the 84 respondents had found employment at the time of the survey. Sixty-two percent 
were women. 
After the South Valley University first employment fair, with a survey of almost 800 attendees, 
almost 10% reported employment following the event. Other SVU surveys followed several 
training courses. In one, close to 25% responding to the survey reported finding employment in 
one batch of 74 graduates. In another batch, 12% of 54 graduates were successful. In all cases, 
graduates reported high benefit from the CDC training whether or not they obtained 
employment. 
As Helwan is a relatively new program, no surveys have been completed yet. 
This is an area that clearly needs ongoing focus from all CDCs. However, the initial data 
supports the value of the CDC services in supporting graduates in their job searches. However, 
these are quite low numbers of respondent based on high participation in the training programs. 
As regards surveys of employers evaluating the value of skills developed in graduates for 
satisfying job requirements; this is a research area that has yet to be investigated. 
5. HOW EFFECTIVE HAVE THE CDCS BEEN IN ACHIEVING GENDER BALANCE IN THE 
PROVISION OF CDC SERVICES (E.G, TRAINING, JOB PLACEMENT SERVICES, ETC.) 
40
DURING IMPLEMENTATION? WHICH FACTORS HAVE FACILITATED OR INHIBITED 
THE CDCS FROM ACHIEVING GENDER BALANCE IN THE PROVISION OF SERVICES? 
The CDCs have all been very effective in achieving gender balance, with high levels of female 
students involved in all facets of career services. Factors that have influenced this success are 
explored in Annex D in detail. They include multiple strategies for promoting the centers, high 
student referrals to friend, and use of social media. The career services have been designed as 
gender neutral in content and the counselor / trainers are very effective with both gender groups. 
CONCLUSIONS 
Based on the findings explored previously, there are a number of conclusions to be drawn from 
analysis of the integrated set of data from desk research, interviews, and focus groups.. Prior to 
exploring the conclusions, it can be helpful to review lessons learned over the period of the 
project. Although the LEEP and ECDC projects have different work scopes and approaches, 
they both have a common goal to establish operating career development centers within their 
partner universities that will be sustainable once USAID funding concludes. 
LESSONS LEARNED 
1. The five CDCs operating under the grants provide a variety of services to students, based on 
the original project scope of work. Currently there is no common agreement of an optimal CDC 
model: what should be core services, what size and make-up of staff is best, what topics of 
supplemental soft skill training are most important, whether trainers should be a part of staff or 
outsourced, what are the parameters of an employers’ network, what should be the nature of 
faculty involvement, etc. A ―best practices‖ model of a CDC would be helpful to guide future 
implementation in partner universities. This can be included in future Requests for Proposals if 
funding is made available to expand the program. 
2. The findings clearly point to the importance of senior university management support as the 
critical factor in building sustainable CDCs. When evaluating potential partners, this should be 
the paramount issue to be vetted, as opposed to geographic location, size of student body, or 
nearby employers. The support should be demonstrated by university provision of facilities, 
identification of potential internal staff, and agreement to find a mechanism to include the center 
in the university budget and payroll within a few years. 
3. The evaluation reviewed the operations of the current CDCs, with several relatively new and 
others operating for several years. The findings demonstrate that it takes several years to 
establish a physical facility, hire and train staff, rollout training, and build an employers’ 
network. Financial support for 30 months, with the last six being overtaken by CDC revenue 
generation and university budget support is necessary when considering timetables and funding. 
4. Although there was consideration of elements, none of the five CDCs have prepared a 
sustainability plan. Without this, it is unclear the milestones necessary, joint role and 
responsibilities, financial requirements and progress indicators. Preparing a framework jointly 
with the university within the first six months of the project, that is finalized at the beginning of 
41
the last year of support, will allow both partners to insure actions are taken to build 
sustainability. 
5. The memorandum of agreement (MOU) signed with the university is a critical document to 
establish roles and responsibilities of both parties, not just the universities. These should require 
the joint preparation of a sustainability plan, key milestones toward sustainability, and indicators 
to measure progress. The potential instability of management support in some institutions might 
be controlled by MOUs with phases and milestones to be achieved; if stipulated conditions are 
not met, USAID funding could be suspended. 
6. The project staff, CDC management and university management did not appear to have 
explored very deeply the financial requirements and source of funds for sustainability after the 
conclusion of the project. While the evaluation team had prepared simple revenue/cost tables for 
data collection, it was very difficult to find data to analyze. No financial projections have been 
prepared (tied to lack of sustainability planning above) and parties assumed the universities 
would find the budget or CDC revenues would suddenly spike, and all will work out. Financial 
planning, with realistic targets and expense ratios, must be a highlighted element for both 
planning and monitoring. 
7. The PMPs, which contains indicators for monitoring performance, are weak in identifying 
specific outcomes/outputs focused on sustainability. While hiring and training staff are 
important, along with delivery of services, other indicators as mentioned above focusing on 
financial progress and actions for the university to move the CDC administratively internally 
should also be included. PMPs with a heavy emphasis on service delivery targets and outputs 
large numbers can sometimes distort the focus of the small CDC staff. Actions that take time, 
such as developing deeper relationships with employers (beyond job fair attendance), or 
surveying graduates, may lose staff attention while they pursue the more visible event attendance 
targets. 
8. Although all CDC staff have been trained and in some cases certified, there is a uniform lack 
of written policies and procedures manuals (other than some communication strategies) in place 
within the center. When staff leaves, the knowledge leaves with them. Although time￾consuming to develop, written operation manuals that document best practices, procedural steps, 
and approved policies can be very helpful to orient new hires. If a common model of the CDC is 
adopted, basic administrative software can be developed and provided to the new CDCs to 
automate data collection and improve the ability to monitor and evaluate efforts. 
9. While it is agreed that English language is an important qualification for many jobs, the 
addition of this component to the CDC services has been highly problematic. ECDC has 
attempted to address this by outsourcing, while LEEP pursued a strategy to introduce business 
curriculums into existing language programs. Becoming proficient in English language is a 
multi-year effort and might best be removed from the scope of CDCs. 
10. While there have been some efforts to track graduate success with employment, and the link 
between CDC career training, this must be expanded. Surveys of both graduates and employers 
42
should use common templates for easy comparison, and may benefit with the contributions of 
education/labor market specialists in their design. 
CONCLUSIONS 
Question #1: Generally, despite the recent instability and mid-term suspension of activity, the 
ECDC and LEEP projects have achieved the goals of their modified scopes of work. Although 
both had operating CDCs closed with partner universities, investigation concludes that this was 
based on political issues that influenced senior university management support. Performance 
indicators that were monitored were surpassed in some cases, especially service delivery. Other 
weaker activity still has the opportunity to be advanced during the no-cost extension period. 
Questions #2: Geography is not an important factor in CDC performance. Most critical is 
university manager support, followed closely by quality of services delivered by competent staff. 
Questions #3: Those CDCs with over two years of operation are well on their way to 
sustainability. As covered throughout the analysis, a variety of factor influence sustainability. 
Other than necessary sustainability planning, to include, financial elements, the longer term 
CDCs have embedded these factors. While individual CDCs need to strengthen faculty 
involvement, employment networks, and regular impact surveys, these can be improved with 
management emphasis. 
Questions #4: The engagement with key stakeholders has been variable depending on the 
program and individual CDC. Generally students are highly engaged at all centers, while active 
faculty involvement and deeper relationships with employer networks should be strengthened at 
some locations. All are engaged with and have support from university management, although 
this can be problematic and requires close attention when managers change. 
The effectiveness of CDC services providing the right mix of skill development and connections 
with employers requires more attention. While tracking has started with limited populations in 
some universities, and show promise, more extensive evaluation needs to be done. 
Question #5: Gender balance is excellent in the programs as illustrated in participation in 
services. 
When considering the development hypothesis … that the Career Development Centers will 
enhance a student’s employability, stability and prosperity through the provision of training 
courses, mentorship opportunities, workshops, internships and job opportunities, which will 
result in an educated workforce that responds to the labor market needs. 
The evaluators conclude that while this is partially supported by the findings, there still needs to 
be further research as regards the impact of the CDCs as directly linked to student employability 
and prosperity. If this proves to have a high correlation, there will still be a need to scale up the 
program dramatically given the hundreds of thousands of students graduating annually. As well, 
for the most impact, it is recommended that new CDCs be implemented along best practices 
outlined in the report. 
RECOMMENDATIONS 
43
Based on the previous findings, lessons learned and conclusions, the following recommendations 
are made: 
Main Recommendation: The Career Development Center concept has value toward 
achievement of matching workforce education to labor market needs and should be scaled up 
under best practice model if priorities and funds permit. 
Programmatic Issues for Future CDCs 
 USAID should adopt a successful model with best practice criteria and indicators to 
include in future RFPs 
 The key factor for selecting public universities for CDC expansion should be strong 
senior leadership support 
 MOUs with public universities should include detailed responsibilities and indicators to 
address sustainable transfer of staff and services. In the case of unclear commitment, the 
MOU should define several phases with targets to monitor the ongoing relationship. 
 The Project Management Program for the CDCs should include additional indicators for 
monitoring sustainability to include financial targets 
 A sustainability transfer plan should be established jointly with university management 
within 6 months of project start and finalized one year prior to end of USAID funding 
(required in MOU) 
 A Ministry of Higher Education or Council of University policy issued supporting CDCs 
in public universities will be helpful to promote understanding and interest 
Establishment of Future CDCs 
 Project support and funding for a new CDC should be for a minimum 30 months; income 
generation by the CDC should be allowed, encouraged and tracked 
 In larger universities, CDCs should focus either on specific faculties and/or physical 
locations for specialization in the job market and easy student access to services 
 A priority should be placed on hiring and training existing staff for CDC positions when 
possible 
 As soon as possible, the CDC should become a special project unit with a budget line and 
staff on the university payroll 
 CDCs should develop internal trainers for core courses 
 CDCs should maximize sponsored technical training from employers to supplement 
training offered by the center 
 Initial CDC focus should be on core services (interviews/cv preparation/counseling, 
employer network and fairs, and finding placement opportunities) 
 Soft skills training should be introduced once the core services are operational or be 
optional for small centers 
 While efforts should be made to link students with existing language programs, the CDC 
should not offer this service 
44
Operation of Future CDCs 
 Policy and procedure manuals should be developed and in place within 6 months of the 
start of the CDC.
 Regular graduate / student surveys should conducted on employment success and 
application of trained behavior/skills (at least annually); survey design experts should be 
engaged to create valid and reliable instruments 
 For training programs, pre/post testing should be implemented to gain immediate 
feedback on effectiveness 
 Employers should be surveyed periodically for specific needs to provide as input into 
service design, as well as evaluating the value of skills developed through CDC services 
in graduates for satisfying job requirements 
 Advisory committees should be required and consist of stakeholders such as faculty, 
employers, and students 
 CDC staffs in different universities should network closely to trade lessons learned and 
share best practices; consideration should be given to bi-annual meetings that also include 
skill development 
 Standard software for CDC administration should be developed and provided to start-up 
CDCs to improve efficiency, monitoring and evaluation 
7. REFERENCES 
The following documents were reviewed: 
45
46
ANNEXES 
47
ANNEX A: LIST OF STAKEHOLDERS CONTACTED 
The following stakeholders were key informants interviewed during the evaluation along with 
182 students in 9 focus groups (see annex B).
Stakeholder 
Group Name Job Title
Project staff Yasmine El 
Bendary Project Director, LEEP
Project staff Ms. Maha Guindy Director, CAPS, Main overseers of project, 
ECDC
Project staff Ms. Dina El 
Gohary 
Deputy Director CAPS,Co-Investigator of 
Project (Suez Canal & Ex.Assiut) , ECDC
Project staff Ms. Maha Fakhry Co Investigator of the project ,Ains Sham CDCs 
(2) , ECDC
Project staff Ms. Rania New Hire, Financial Admin, ECDC
Project Staff Dalia Awad AIN Shams CDCs 
Project staff Ms. Norhan El 
Badry 
Project Manager / Project manager Suez Canal 
CDC , ECDC
CDC Mngt. 
Staff Ms. Seddiqa Ashraf Senior career developer, SCU
CDC Mngt. 
Staff Mr. Ahmad Staff member, SCU
CDC Mngt. 
Staff Ms. Eman Staff member, SCU
CDC Mngt. 
Staff Ms. Aya Ahmed IT & Communication Officer, SCU
CDC Mngt. 
Staff Eng. Islam Naaeem Director, ASU-ENG
CDC Mngt. 
Staff Ms. Mira Hani Career Devel Spec., ASU-ENG
CDC Mngt. 
Staff Ms. Noha Ahmed Senior Recruitment Officer ASU-ENG
CDC Mngt. 
Staff Eng. Shady Shafik Acting Director, Senior Career Development 
Specialised, ASU
CDC Mngt. 
Staff
Dr. Mohamed 
Omran CDC Manager, SVU
CDC Mngt. 
Staff
Mr. Mohamed 
Mohsen Trainer, SVU
CDC Mngt. 
Staff Mr. Ahmed Shahin Master Trainer LEEP, SVU
CDC Mngt. 
Staff Ms. Karima Gad Trainer , SVU
48
CDC Mngt. 
Staff Ms. Hend Magdy Admin Assistant, SVU
CDC Mngt. 
Staff Dr. Fairouz Acting Director, HU 
CDC Mngt. 
Staff
DR. AMR EL 
NAGAR
MASTER TRAINER & FORMER CDC MANAGER AT 
CDC- PORT SAID, HU
CDC Mngt. 
Staff
MR. AHMED SAMY, TRAINER, HU
CDC Mngt. 
Staff
MS. MAI EL 
KATATNY, TRAINER (NEW), HU
CDC Mngt. 
Staff
MS. ASMAA EL 
SHERIF,
TRAINER (NEW), HU
CDC Mngt. 
Staff
MS. AMINA EMAM,
TRAINER (NEW), HU
CDC Mngt. 
Staff MS. SANEYA Adminstratvie Assitant, HU 
CDC Mngt. 
Staff MS. FATMA Adminstratvie Assitant, HU 
Senior Uni. 
Mgr
Dr. Kamal 
Sharobim VP of SCU
Senior Uni. 
Mgr
Ms. Nahed Mostafa 
Mohamed Aly VP post grad studies and Research, SCU
Senior Uni. 
Mgr
Dr. Mohammed El 
Toukhy VP Student Affairs, ASU
Senior Uni. 
Mgr
Professor Ayman 
Ashour Dean of the Faculty of Engineering , ASU-ENG
Senior Uni. 
Mgr Dr. Ayman Wahba – Head of Computer and Systems Department, 
Faculty of Engineering.ASU
Senior Uni. 
Mgr Dr. Yasser Sakr HU President
Senior Uni. 
Mgr Dr. Mayada Belal CBC director, direct CDC supervisor, HU
Senior Uni. 
Mgr Dr. Abbas Mansour President, South Valley university 
Senior Uni. 
Mgr DR. SAYED TAHA,
VICE PRESIDENT OF ENVIRONMENT AFFAIRS AND 
COMMUNITY SERVICES (UNIVERSITY LIAISON)
Senior Uni. 
Mgr Dr. Nahed Aly Senior Management, SCU
Uni. Faculty DR. MOHAMED 
YOUNIS,VICE 
DEAN, FACULTY OF LAW, SVU
Uni. Faculty DR. SALAH 
SALEEM, VICE 
DEAN, FACULTY OF ARTS SVU
Uni. Faculty
DR. RAFAAT 
SHIPAT, FACULTY OF AGRICULTURE SVU
49
Uni. Faculty DR. MONA 
SHAHAT,
FACULTY OF ARTS SVU
Uni. Faculty DR. MAHMOUD 
ABOU EL MAGD,
FACULTY OF EDUCATION SVU
Uni. Faculty
DR. MOHAMED 
HEMDAN, FACULTY OF EDUCATION SVU
Uni. Faculty DR. ALAA TAG,
FACULTY OF COMMERCE
SVU
Uni. Faculty DR. RANA TOGHAN 
AHMED,
FACULTY OF MEDICINE SVU
Uni. Faculty DR. AHMED EZZAT, FACULTY OF VETERINARY SVU
Uni. Faculty Dr. Nabiha Kotb Faculty of Education, HU
Uni. Faculty Ms. Rasha Kholy Faculty of Commerce member, HU
Uni. Faculty Dr. Ashraf Meraey Head of Disability Unit, HU
Uni. Faculty Dr. Mayda Mostafa Faculty of Science member, HU
Uni. Faculty Dr. Mohamed 
Hassan Faculty of Education member, HU
Uni. Faculty Dr. Kamal Abdel 
kader Faculty members, SVU
Uni. Faculty Dr. Sherine 
Mazloum English Professor, Faculty of Arts, ASU
Employers Mr. Ahmed 
Shawky Sourcing Manager, ETISALAT
Employers Ms. Ola El Kady HR Head, PWC
Employers Mr. Mohamed 
Ramadan HR & PR Director, BIBARS SCHOOLS
Employers Ms. Amal 
Mohamed Assistant Manager, QALB KEBEER
Employers Mr. Abou Hassan 
Ibrahim (Sherif)
Training & Development dept. Manager, 
ORIENT
Employers Mr. Adel Shaaban HR Manager, EXCEED
Employers Ms. Eman Tayseer HR Assistant, EXCEED
Employers Mr. Ahmed General Manager, EGYTRUST
Employers Ms. Neehal 
Dawood HR Executive, HSBC
Table 6: Contacts and informants list 
50
ANNEX B: STUDENT FOCUS GROUP ANALYSIS 
The following annex outlines the results of the student focus group meetings. The students are 
the primary service beneficiaries. Their perception about the quality of service in the CDC is an 
integral part of the success factors of the CDCs as well as the potential future for each CDC. 
INTRODUCTION, AGGREGATE AND GENDER STRATIFICATION: 
The CDCs visited were: 
 LEEP Active CDCs: 
o Helwan University (1 focus group) 
o South Valley University (1 focus group) 
 ECDC Active CDCs: 
o Ain Shams General (2 focus groups) 
o Ain Shams Engineering (2 focus groups) 
o Suez Canal University (3 focus groups) 
STUDENT AGGREGATE AND DISTRIBUTED DATA: 
As per the following table, the total aggregate number of students interviewed within the focus 
groups is 182, divided per service provider as follows: 
 ECDC: 126 students 
 LEEP: 56 students 
Figure 5: % of students ECDC vs LEEP
As per the following table, the number of students interviewed per CDC is 
 LEEP Active CDCs: 
o Helwan University 25 students 
o South Valley University 31 students 
 ECDC Active CDCs: 
69%
31%
Number of students
ECDC LEEP
51
o Ain Shams General 31 students 
o Ain Shams Engineering 47 students 
o Suez Canal University 48 students T 
The following table represents the percentage distribution of students per CDC visited. 
Figure 6: Students % of distribution per CDC
GENDER STRATIFICATION: 
As per the below tables, the ratio between females and males is 
 55% females 
 45% males 
Figure 7: % of Females vs Males
It is noteworthy to mention, as per the below table, that the female percentage was higher in Suez 
Canal University & South Valley University at 71%. However, these percentages were reduced 
in the Ain Shams University Engineering section, where males reached 74%. The Faculty of 
Engineering in Ain Shams University is mostly attended by male students, and the overall ratio 
of females in these faculties is much lower. 
ASU
17%
ASU-Eng
HU 26%
14%
SCU
26%
SVU
17%
Students % distribution 
per CDC
Female
55%
Male
45%
Females vs Male 
(overall)
52
Figure 8: % of females vs males per CDC
STUDENTS PERCEPTION OF THE CDC SERVICES: 
During the focus group meetings, the facilitator followed the Student Focus Group guide 
exhibited in annex H. The questions asked of the students ranged from: knowledge of the CDC 
existence, knowledge of the spectrum of services offered, services used by the students, the 
usefulness of having a CDC in the university or faculty, the satisfaction of the employment 
services, the satisfaction from the training services offered, and their range; ideas and 
recommendations for improving the CDC services, and the perception of the future. 
Furthermore, individually the students answered a biodata and survey sheet that was aimed at 
measuring the individual students perception of the value and quality of CDC services, as well as 
recommendations for improvement. 
DATA COMPILATION & ANALYSIS: 
In general, most students are enthusiastic and grateful for having a CDC in their university or 
faculty. Most students who came to the focus groups even volunteered to be part of team and 
henceforth, ―give back‖ to the center. In Suez Canal University, the CDC has a waiting list of 
students wishing to volunteer their time to help the CDC staff. 
When prompted to answer they found out about the CDC existence, (26%) said through 
Facebook and websites, another (26%) said that they know the CDC by word of mouth from 
other colleagues, The lowest (3%) mentioned that they came across the CDC through the general 
exploration of the university buildings, and the other lower 3% mentioned that they know of the 
CDC existence through the employment fair. It is noteworthy to mention that most of the 
students interviewed at ASU general mentioned that they were not informed that the CDC offers 
services other than English language and soft skills courses. 
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
ASU ASU-Eng HU SCU SVU
55%
26%
64%
71% 71%
45%
74%
36%
29% 29%
Females vs Males per CDC
Female Male
53
Figure 9: How did you know that the CDC exists? How did they try to reach you?
When asked to rank the CDC services and training, the student’s answers were mostly as 
follows: 
 ECDC-managed CDCs: 
Figure 10: Ranking for ECDC
*It is noteworthy to mention that, AUC had their highest rankings in CV writing and lowest for 
attending the employment fair. 
Facebook / website
26%
Friends / word of 
mouth
26%
cooperation between 
student activity
3%
seeing the office 
(curiosity about 
the new building)
3%
Direct contact 
(mail, 
messages)
6%
employment fair
6%
online 
applications
6%
flyers / banners
12%
thtrough faculty 
members
3%
TA promotion
9%
How did you know that the CDC exists? How did 
they try to reach you?
7
3
5
6
4
1
8
2
Attending
Technical
Training
programs
Attending
Language classes
Placement
services with
employers
Career advising
services with a
counselor
Internship
programs during
the summer
Attending an
Employment fair
Help with
writing your CV
Attending Soft
skills training
programs
Ranking for ECDC
ECDC
54
 LEEP-managed CDCs: 
As for LEEP, their highest and lowest rankings were the same as the overall rankings. 
Figure 11: Ranking for LEEP
Regarding overall participation, the highest was attending soft skills training, followed by CV 
writing. The lowest participation was for technical training and language classes. 
Figure 12: Highest Student Participation
When asked to comment about the effectiveness of past services used within the CDC, most 
students answered that the job search, resume critique, and presentation skills were the most 
effective and satisfactory services they received. Furthermore, the students mentioned that the 
environment of the CDC overall was inviting and that the center offered student support in 
various areas that reach beyond its current mandate and range of services. 
8
6
3
4
5
2
7
1
Attending
Technical
Training
programs
Attending
Language
classes
Placement
services with
employers
Career
advising
services with
a counselor
Internship
programs
during the
summer
Attending an
Employment
fair
Help with
writing your
CV
Attending
Soft skills
training
programs
Ranking for LEEP
LEEP
Attending
Technical
Training
programs
Attending
Language
classes
Placement
services with
employers
Career
advising
services with a
counselor
Internship
programs
during the
summer
Attending an
Employment
fair
Help with
writing your
CV
Attending Soft
skills training
programs
360 367
429 440 443
530
678 717
Highest Student Participation
Overall Points
55
Figure 13: Effectiveness of Service
Asked to comment about the offering of employment opportunities and the strength of the 
employers network, most students mentioned that while there was a network, it needed more 
strengthening. They expressed that they needed to see more internship opportunities being 
generated as well as employment opportunities. It is noteworthy to mention that ASU and HU 
students have not yet experienced any employment services. They are currently unaware that the 
CDCs even have an employers’ network. 
When asked to suggest future recommendations for the CDC, most students did not have specific 
recommendation and answered as follows 
 The CDC offered them a life changing experience. 
 The CDC helped them overall to develop quality employability skills 
 The CDC offered them good opportunities to build team building skills 
When prompted to mention unsatisfactory CDC services received, most students answered by 
saying that: 
 The course scheduling is too intensive (in terms of hours per day) and should be modified 
 The English courses were mostly delayed and problematic 
 While the employment fairs offered vacancies for graduates, there were minimal 
internship opportunities for junior and senior students. 
When asked about specific courses and trainer capabilities the students’ answers were: 
Trainer capabilities
Overall, the students were happy with the trainer’s rapport building capabilities, and that felt 
empathy with them. The trainers were receptive to their individual needs, and that they felt that 
the courses were tailored to their requirements. 
Attending
Technical
Training
programs
Attending
Language
classes
Placement
services with
employers
Career
advising
services with
a counselor
Internship
programs
during the
summer
Attending an
Employment
fair
Help with
writing your
CV
Attending Soft
skills training
programs
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Effectiveness of Service
Rank
56
1) ECDC CDCs: 
Most satisfactory course: 
 Teambuilding skills 
 Presentation skills 
 Communication skills 
 Job search courses. 
Least satisfactory course: ; 
 English language course: specifically that the ―courses on offer were conversation 
General English courses and not business targeted course that help them with the world 
of work.‖
2) LEEP CDCs,: 
Most satisfactory courses: 
 Employability Skills 
Least satisfactory courses: 
 English language specifically ―the delays in the opening of new classes.‖ 
In conclusion, the overall students’ perception of the CDC services is very satisfactory. It is 
agreed that the range of services offered had a positive impact on the lives and futures of the 
students who had the opportunity to participate. The CDC services offered, whether by LEEP or 
ECDC, represented an opportunity for positive individual change and skill improvement for 
them. Students generally suggested that the center be expanded, and have offices to address 
specific faculties or disciplines. Especially of interest would be offers of core technical courses 
in certain highly technical disciplines, in order to help them target their employer opportunities 
more effectively. One student1 mentioned that he was so impressed by the services on offer at the 
CDC, he valued them as more worthy than a full year at the University. 
 
1
Suez Canal university (AUC-managed CDC) 
57
ANNEX C: PERFORMANCE MONITORING PLAN TABLES 
ECDC Plan Progress To-Date 
Table 7: ECDC Plan Progress To-Date 
58
LEEP Plan Progress To-Date 
Table 8: LEEP Plan Progress To-Date 
59
LEEP Plan Progress To-Date (Continued) 
60
ANNEX D: GENDER BALANCE ANALYSIS 
Gender Data Analysis 
The following annex outlines the results gender distribution throughout the CDCs visited, and 
the evaluation of the services performed since the onset of the project to date. The data was 
extracted from the PMP documents received from the implementers. 
 
GENDER STRATIFICATION 
 
A. LEEP-managed CDCs: 
1. Helwan University 
Figure 14: HU males vs females distribution
2. South Valley University (1 focus group) 
Figure 15: SVU males vs females distribution
Male
37%
Female
63%
HU
Male
36%
Female
64%
SVU
61
As per the able above, the gender distribution for females is by far higher than males in the 
overall service delivery, for both LEEP-managed CDCs. 
B. ECDC-managed CDCs: 
1. Ain Shams General 
Figure 16: ASU males vs females distribution
2. Ain Shams Engineering 
Figure 17: ASU-Eng males vs females distribution
3. Suez Canal University (3 focus groups) 
ASU Gen Males 
42%
ASU Gen Females 
58%
ASU Gen
ASU Eng Males 
63%
ASU Eng Females 
37%
ASU-Eng 
62
Figure 18: SCU males vs females distribution
As per the three tables above, it is evident that the gender distribution, overall, in the ECDC 
managed CDCs also higher for females; except for ASU engineering. The reason for that is, the 
overall student body in the faculty of engineering has by far higher numbers of male students 
than female students. 
GENDER RATIOS EXTRACTED FROM LEEP REPORTS 
Figure 19: # of students gaining access to CDCs work development programs 
From the table above we can infer that the overall number of students who has access to the CDC 
development programs exceeds for females in both LEEP managed projects. 
SCU Males 
SCU Females 44%
56%
SCU
HU SVU
678
1179 1156
2245
gaining access to CDCs work 
development programs
Male Female
63
Figure 20: # of students applying career centers content in their employment search 
With regards to students applying career center content in their employment search, the Data 
received from LEEP outlines that the overall number of females still exceeds the number of 
males who used the service. 
Figure 21: # of Students with improved languages skills 
 
With regards to students attending work development programs; it is noteworthy to mention that 
this was the only area outlined where the number of makes exceeds the number of females. This 
is the in the case of SVU. The reason for this could be: the lowered possibility for female 
students to attend extra curricular courses in Upper Egypt rural areas. 
GENDER RATIOS EXTRACTED FROM ECDC REPORTS 
HU SVU
0
60
0
67
students applying career centers 
content in their employment search
Male Female
HU SVU
19
133
23
103
students with improved language 
skills
Male Female
64
Figure 22: # of students who attended "Employability Skills" courses 
From the table above we can infer that the overall number of females who attended the 
employability skills training course is generally higher except for ASU Engineering whose 
nature is to have a larger male student body. 
Figure 23: # of Students who attended "Career Development" workshops 
From the able above we can still deduce that in general the numbers of females attending career 
development workshops is generally higher, except also for ASU engineering. 
Figure 24: # of Students who benefited from individual career advising services 
From the table above, we can also deduce the same deductions that the overall numbers of 
females using the service is generally higher except for the filed of engineering. 
ASU Eng SCU ASU Gen
370 355
241 197
458 367
EMPLOYABILITY SKILLS COURSES
M F
SCU ASU Eng ASU Gen
534
42 25
748
21 148
CAREER DEVELOPMENT WORKSHOPS
M F
SCU ASU ENG
231 43 249
20
INDIVIDUAL CAREER ADVISING 
SERVICES
M F
65
In conclusion, it is safe to assume that the gender distribution overall is higher for females, and 
lower for males, across all CDCs except for the following: 
 The possibility of females in rural areas to attend extracurricular activities such as in the 
SVU, and 
 The students of engineering in ASU, bearing in mind the nature of the faculty, and the 
natural distribution of gender in that faculty. 
66
ANNEX E: ILLUSTRATIVE PHOTOS OF CDC OPERATIONS
1. HELWAN UNIVERSITY- LEEP 
Photo 1 Business English language Course 
Photo 2: Build your Business training program
67
Photo 3: Job Search training program
68
2. SOUTH VALLEY UNIVERSITY- LEEP 
Photo 4: Disability Training 
Photo 5: Job fair 
69
Photo 6: School Ambassador program visiting the faculty of dentistry 
70
3. AIN SHAMS UNIVERSTY - ECDC
Photo 7: CV Support services 
Photo 8: An Experiential learning exercise during employability skills track- ASU Main Campus
71
Photo 9: Thinking patterns, ASU-Main campus
Photo 10: Power of positive attitude at work, ASU-Engineering 
72
Photo 11: Volunteers at ASU celebrating the success of the employment fair 
ANNEX F: EVALUATION METHODS AND LIMITATIONS 
73
Purpose 
This evaluation is a mid-term performance evaluation intended to provide USAID/Egypt with an 
independent assessment of the two Career Development Center (CDC) APS awards to World Learning 
(WL) and the American University Cairo (AUC). The purpose of this performance evaluation is to 
review, analyze, and evaluate the effectiveness of USAID- funded CDCs in achieving program objectives 
and completing deliverables. 
In line with the SOW approved by USAID/Egypt, the evaluation objectives focus on: 
1) Identification of lessons learned with regard to project implementation and building 
relationships with counterparts in the Ministry of Higher Education and public universities 
around CDC establishment; 
2) Assessment of the sustainability of the CDCs at the Egyptian public universities in which they 
have been established; and 
3) Provide recommendations that can be used to inform the design and expansion of future CDC￾related activities in Egypt’s public universities.
The evaluation focuses on the period from 2012–2015, while keeping in perspective the suspension of 
work during the period October 2013 through March 2014 as a result of USAID’s decision to cease all 
programs’ implementation during that time. 
Evaluation Questions 
The evaluation answers the following questions: 
1. To what extent have the CDCs achieved their goals of this SOW? 
2. If and how did the selection of the geographic location for the CDCs affect their performance? To 
what extent CDCs geographic location affect the performance of CDCs in achieving the results? 
Why? 
3. To what extent are the LEEP/WL and ECDC/AUC projects on track to transitioning the management 
of the CDCs to the host universities? Which factors have contributed to or hindered the 
sustainability of the CDCs? What are the prospects for sustainability post-project completion? 
4. How do key stakeholder groups (e.g, students, faculty members, university management, 
employers’) perceive the value and utility CDCs? How, and to what extent, do key stakeholder 
groups engage with the CDCs and which factors facilitate and inhibit utilization of the CDCs? How 
effective have the CDCs been in connecting graduates with employers and providing them with the 
skills that employers demand? 
5. How effective have the CDCs been in achieving gender balance in the provision of CDC services (e.g, 
training, job placement services, etc.) during implementation? Which factors have facilitated or 
inhibited the CDCs from achieving gender balance in the provision of services? 
74
Based on evaluation findings, the evaluation team will identify actionable recommendations that will 
help USAID to better design and implement effective CDCs programming going forward. In particular, 
identify what are the lessons learned from implementation to date that USAID should take into 
consideration in future designs, and what are key considerations for replicating CDCs in other 
geographic locations? 
Evaluation Steps 
The evaluation process consisted of the following main tasks of work (see Evaluation Plan for more 
detail and schedule): 
1. Complete initial desk review 
2. Planning / training meetings with IIE and CDC research team 
3. Planning meeting with USAID 
4. Finalize research planning and submit to USAID 
5. Conduct data-gathering, compiling and analysis 
6. Debrief session for USAID review and comment 
7. Submit draft report (in English) for USAID review and comment 
8. USAID provides written comments on draft report 
9. Submit final report (in English) 
10. Executive summary translated into Arabic 
11. Final report translated into Arabic 
The survey team was led by a senior international performance expert specializing in the design and 
implementation of performance assessments and evaluations, with experience in the higher education 
sector. The local survey team includes a senior and two researchers, an analyst and administrator. All 
researchers speak the local languages. 
Evaluation Design 
As a mid-term performance evaluation, the design focused on how the CDCs projects have been 
implemented, what the projects have achieved, whether expected results were attained according to 
the projects’ design and the underlying development hypothesis, how activities were perceived and 
valued by stakeholders, and whether the projects are sustainable. The evaluation team used a mix of 
quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis methods to answer the questions of interest in 
this evaluation. The evaluation follows the principles and guidelines for high quality evaluations outlined 
in the USAID Evaluation Policy (January 2011), as well as addresses criteria from the Checklist for 
Assessing USAID Evaluation Reports (V1.0). 
Evaluation Data Sources 
75
The evaluation was based on the following sources of information: 
e) Project reports and other documents listed in the bibliography 
 Relevant parts of Projects agreement and amendments 
 Relevant parts of Projects’ quarterly and annual reports
 Budget information as relevant and appropriate to be shared. 
 Projects’ Performance Monitoring Plan
 Other appropriate documents as available 
f) Secondary data sources identified at appropriate points in the report 
g) Interviews and meetings with LEEP and ECDC project staff 
h) Field visits in 4 universities: Helwan, South Valley, Suez Canal and Ain Shams (main school and 
engineering faculty). During these visits, data was gathered from key informants by: 
 Interviews with CDC management and trainer/facilitator staff; 
 Interviews with other stakeholders including senior university managers and involved 
faculty 
 Focus group meetings with a sample of CDC student beneficiaries 
 Interviews with local employers 
 Interview with appropriate manager within the Ministry of Higher Education (not completed 
based on USAID preference) 
i) Tables and text prepared by the project staff at the request of the evaluation team for 
information on specific aspects of the project. 
The team also attempted to gain interviews with former stakeholders at universities with closed CDCs: 
Fayoum, Assiut and Port Said, although this did not prove possible. 
Evaluation Questions 
The evaluation questions are defined in the Design Matrix (Annex G) and are formulated using three 
standard evaluation criteria (relevance, effectiveness, and sustainability) suitable for performance 
evaluations, and overarching criteria such as gender mainstreaming, replication, communications, 
coordination, and management. The three standard criteria are defined as follows: 
 Relevance: This evaluation examined the continued relevance of the intervention’s objectives, 
components/activities, and approaches in light of changing development problems, policies, and 
priorities. The political, economic, and institutional environments in which a project is designed 
and implemented tend to change over time. Some of the changes can have major consequences 
for a project. 
76
 Effectiveness: refers to the extent to which an intervention’s objectives are achieved or are 
likely to be achieved. Evaluations seek to determine whether interventions’ services and 
products are reaching the targeted populations; whether the intended beneficiaries are using 
them; whether the coverage of the target population is as planned in the project design; and 
whether the intervention is likely to achieve its targets. 
 Sustainability: refers to the continuation of an intervention’s services and benefits after foreign 
assistance ends. Three dimensions of sustainability—financial, institutional, and 
environmental— will be examined in evaluations. Financial sustainability indicates the capacity 
of an agency or organization assisted by a project or program to be financially self￾sufficient, either through revenue-generating activities or through substitution of other public, 
private, or donor sources of funding. Institutional sustainability refers to the supported 
organization’s capacity to manage its operations independently. Finally, environmental 
sustainability refers to the capacity of an intervention’s services and benefits to survive in the 
changed or changing environment. 
The definitions of relevance, effectiveness, and sustainability have been taken from “Evaluation 
Guidelines for Foreign Assistance,” Planning and Performance Management Unit, Office of the Director 
of U.S. Foreign Assistance (Final Version: March 25, 2009). 
The evaluation team developed data collection tools that are consistent with the evaluation questions 
to ensure high quality analysis. The KNO performance expert led multiday workshops with the local CDC 
evaluation team members to facilitate the development of the data collection tools. The local CDC team 
members contributed to the development of materials based on their experience in this sector. 
The primary design tool is the Evaluation Design Matrix (Annex G). This matrix breaks out each of the 
major research areas into more specific sub-questions. The matrix describes for each question the 
indicator area, source of information, type of evaluation design, type of sampling if used, and the data 
collection instrument to be used. Prior to the finalizing of the Design Matrix, initial meetings were held 
with the LEEP and ECDC project staff, as well as USAID Education Office representatives, to insure the 
design was aligned with expectations. 
Based on the design matrix, the team developed detailed interview guidelines including questionnaires 
covering the specific evaluation issues and concerns for all levels of the CDC project implementation. 
The tools include: 
 Interview guide for LEEP and ECDC program staff 
 Interview guide for CDC managers and staff 
 Interview guide for Senior University Managers 
 Interview guide for Faculty 
 Interview guide for Employers 
 Focus Group Guide for Students 
 Survey for Students 
77
These questionnaires (see annex H) include specific questions for each stakeholder group based on the 
Design Matrix. However, the team conducted the first set of interviews in the form of a pilot. No 
adjustment to the questionnaires was found necessary. The detailed interview questionnaires will be 
used as discussion guidelines and allowed the evaluators to obtain similar types of qualitative 
information at the various levels of the project implementation. Using these flexible key informant 
questionnaires, extensive interviews will be carried out with key project staff and stakeholders. The 
research team has been trained on the use of the guides to conduct interviews. 
At the conclusion of the planning process, KNO submitted to IIE the Evaluation Methodology and Design 
Matrix following for their review. IIE submitted the document to the USAID Evaluation Program 
Manager and organized a meeting with USAID for review, feedback and/or discussion prior to use in the 
field. A list of the institutions, individuals, and groups interviewed are included as an appendix to the 
final report. Over 182 interviews and 9 focus group discussions were undertaken by the evaluation 
team. 
Data Analysis 
The evaluation team conducted site visits to each of the five active CDCs, although they were unable to 
visit the closed ones. 
The data analysis plan encompasses the following elements: 
 During the interviews and site visits, the evaluation team will write up the findings immediately 
using the interview guidelines to insure no information is lost. In case where two team members 
are present in the interview, one is assigned the primary recording duty and the other edits the 
notes. Appropriate photos will be taken during the site visits. 
 Within 48 hours of the data collection, the interview findings will be provided to the research 
analyst who will input into a customized database, follow-up on any unclear notes, and begin 
analysis of trends in findings, any gaps in information, potential lessons learned and 
recommendations. 
 Initially analyzed data will be provided to the international team leader (distance support) at the 
conclusion of each CDC collection effort. 
 Quantitative data will be analyzed using spreadsheets with an aim to provide percentages and ratios 
for presentation. As appropriate, charts and graphs will be prepared to summarize or highlight data. 
 Qualitative data will be analyzed looking to derive specific recurring factors, or unique indicators. 
Data will be triangulated between different informants to assess validity and reliability. 
 All beneficiary data will disaggregated by gender and geographic location as available. 
 At the conclusion of the data collection effort, the international team leader will return to Cairo to 
lead the team in the final data analysis phase. The team leader, with participation of the local team, 
will weigh and integrate data from qualitative sources with quantitative performance monitoring 
78
data to determine conclusions about the effectiveness of both projects and the five established 
CDCs. 
 A out-brief presentation will be prepared by the team and provided to USAID on draft findings, 
lessons learned and recommendations for review and comments prior to submitting the draft 
report. 
CDC Mid-Term Evaluation: Overall Schedule 
Steps Activity Purpose Timetable
1 Complete initial 
desk review
Gain general background on CDC project requirements and formal progress 
reporting
by 26 July
2 Planning / training 
meetings with IIE 
and CDC research 
team
a) confirmation of research objectives and key questions
b) clarify roles and responsibilities
c) identification of key research stakeholders and audiences
d) preparation of data collection tools and training
e) draft of data collection plan and timetable
by 30 July 
3 Planning meeting 
with USAID
a) review draft methodology and data analysis plan
b) review draft schedule of data collection interviews
By 3 Aug
4 Finalize research 
planning and submit 
to USAID
a) submit final methodology and data analysis plan
b) submit final schedule of data collection interviews
By 6 Aug
5 Conduct data￾gathering, compiling 
and analysis
Note: further detail 
provided in attached 
schedule
Gather data concerning WL-LEEP and AUC ECDC performance along the areas of 
focus:
 Identify lessons learned with regard to project implementation and building 
relationships with counterparts in MHE and the public universities hosting 
CDC establishment.
 Assess sustainability of CDCs in Egyptian public universities where they are 
established.
 Provide actionable recommendations that can be used to inform the design 
and expansion of future CDC-related activities in Egypt’s public universities.
by 10 Sept
5.1 Data gathering, 
compiling & analysis 
Suez Canal University By 11 Aug
5.2 Ai Sham University By 18 Aug
5.3 Helwan University By 26 Aug 
5.4 South Valley University By 2 Sept
6 Debrief session for 
USAID review and 
comment
Provide briefing on findings and take feedback on:
 CDC achievement and issues
 Lessons learned
 Recommendations for future designs
By 17 Sept
7 Submit draft report 
(in English) for 
USAID review and 
a) Complete draft report considering USAID comments and feedback from 
briefing clearly describing findings and conclusions.
b) Complete draft internal memo concerning recommendations for future 
By 24 Sept
79
comment programming
8 USAID provides 
written comments 
on draft report 
USAID provides feedback and comments from draft report peer review By 4 Oct
9 Submit final report 
(in English)
Incorporate comments from USAID and finalize the report By 13 Oct
10 Executive summary 
translated into 
Arabic
Provide executive summary for Arabic audiences By 15 Oct
11 Final report 
translated into 
Arabic
Provide final report for Arabic audiences By 15 Nov
Table 9: CDC mid-term overall schedule
Table 10: CDC evaluation timeline of events and processes
80
ANNEX G: DATA COLLECTION DESIGN MATRIX 
OVERALL FRAMEWORK IS ALWAYS: 
1. Identify lessons learned with regard to project implementation and building relationships with counterparts in MHE 
and the public universities hosting CDC establishment. 
2. Assess sustainability of CDCs in Egyptian public universities where they are established. 
3. Provide actionable recommendations that can be used to inform the design and expansion of future CDC-related 
activities in Egypt’s public universities.
KEY AUDIENCES: 
 USAID Education Office: Grant Manager 
 LEEP/ECDC Directors and Senior Staff 
 Senior University Management 
 Employer Human Resource Managers 
 University Faculty 
 Students 
Note: The interview guidelines for each audience are formulated from these key questions. (see annex H) 

81
Overall Areas of CDC Research 
RESEARCH QUESTIONS 
(Indicator)
 DATA TYPE SOURCES OF INFO 
(sample if appropriate)
DATA COLLECTION 
INSTRUMENT
I. To what extent have the CDCs achieved their goals and objectives?
How did the implementation approach contribute or hinder the achievement of project objectives and planned results? 
1. What are the goals / targets for each 
CDC?
 Quantitative targets  Desk research
 Management
 Document review
 Interview Guide 
2. Have the defined indicators with 
targets been met? (ex. Hiring staff, 
certifying staff, premises, conducting 
training, building a communication 
network with employers, compiling a 
database…. )
 Actual number of 
deliverables vs. 
targeted per 
indicator 
 Desk research 
 Evidence of 
achievement (lists, 
numbers, job 
descriptions, etc…)
 Document review 
 Interview Guide
3. How does actual performance match 
the annual work plan? 
 Quantitative actual 
results
 Progress reports
 PMP updates
 Document review
 Interview Guide
4. What are the main strengths of the 
implementation over the last couple 
of years? What are some of the real 
success stories that you can share 
with us? 
 Qualitative Data 
 Evidence 
 Photos 
 Progress reports
 Managers
 Document review
 Interview Guide
5. What are the biggest challenges you 
faced in the implementation of the 
CDCs over the last couple of years. 
How do you think this has affected 
the achievement of your goals and 
 Qualitative Data 
 Evidence 
 Photos
 Progress reports
 Managers
 Document review
 Interview Guide
82
RESEARCH QUESTIONS 
(Indicator)
 DATA TYPE SOURCES OF INFO 
(sample if appropriate)
DATA COLLECTION 
INSTRUMENT
objectives?
1) Establishing the MOU with the 
university, and strengthening relations 
with University Mngmt.? 
 Evidence  Progress reports
 Managers
 Document review
 Interview Guide
2) Obtaining facilities, and hiring staff, 
and setting up the office. 
 Evidence, Photos  Progress reports
 Managers
 Site visit
 Document review
 Interview Guide
3) Delivering training and other services 
to students
 Evidence 
 Photos 
 Progress reports
 Managers
 Students
 Document review
 Interview Guide
4) Establishing a network with the 
employers. 
 List/ Database  Progress reports
 Managers
 Employers
 Document review
 Interview Guide
6. Knowing what you know now, if you 
could change anything in the basic 
implementation process, what would 
it be? 
 Qualitative  Progress reports
 Managers
 Document review
 Interview Guide
7. If you would create a new CDC now 
with a new university, what would 
you do to increase the likelihood of 
 Qualitative  Progress reports
 Managers
 Document review
 Interview Guide
83
RESEARCH QUESTIONS 
(Indicator)
 DATA TYPE SOURCES OF INFO 
(sample if appropriate)
DATA COLLECTION 
INSTRUMENT
success of the new CDC? 
8. What do you think your main impact 
is on the students and the 
surrounding community that you are 
operating in? 
 Qualitative  Progress reports
 Managers
 Students
 Employers
 Document review
 Interview Guide
9. What has been the success of 
matching students with jobs? 
 Quantitative survey
 Qualitative 
 Progress reports
 Managers
 Students
 Employers
 Document review
 Interview Guide
10. Is the concept of having a CDC a 
successful one? Do you think it 
actually makes a difference? Do you 
think it should be in all universities? 
 Qualitative  Progress reports
 Managers
 Sr University Mngt
 Students
 Document review
 Interview Guide
II. If, and how, did the selection of the geographic location for the CDCs affect their performance? 
How did the geographic locations of the CDCs affect results? Why?
1. How was a university specifically 
selected for establishing a CDC? And 
why? (criteria) 
 Qualitative
 Criteria 
 Evidence 
 Progress reports
 Managers
 Document review
 Interview Guide
84
RESEARCH QUESTIONS 
(Indicator)
 DATA TYPE SOURCES OF INFO 
(sample if appropriate)
DATA COLLECTION 
INSTRUMENT
2. How has the number of employers 
located in the governorate affect CDC 
results? 
 Qualitative 
 Quantitative 
 Progress reports
 Managers
 Document review
 Interview Guide
3. How do you think the size of the 
university or population of the 
governorate affects success? 
 Qualitative 
 Quantitative 
 Progress reports
 Managers
 Document review
 Interview Guide
4. How does “geography” compare to 
the other factors in the success list 
compare to build a successful CDC? 
(*refer to Table 1) 
 Quantitative; Use 
forced ranking and 
scales to compare 
importance 
 Managers  Interview Guide
 Table 1 
III. To what extent are the CDCs on track to transitioning the management of the centers to the universities? 
What factors helped or hindered the sustainability of the CDCs?
What are the prospects for sustainable post-project completion?
1. How independent are the CDCs now?  Qualitative  Progress reports
 Managers
 Interview Guides
 Document Review
2. Who does the CDC director report to 
now? 
 Evidence  Progress reports
 Managers
 Document review
 Interview Guide
3. What is the nature of the relationship 
currently, between the CDC and the 
University Mngt? 
 Qualitative
 Evidence 
 Progress reports
 Managers
 Sr University Mgr
 Document review
 Interview Guide
4. Where is the CDC office within the 
overall university structure? Is this 
 Qualitative  Progress reports  Document review
85
RESEARCH QUESTIONS 
(Indicator)
 DATA TYPE SOURCES OF INFO 
(sample if appropriate)
DATA COLLECTION 
INSTRUMENT
appropriate for optimal operation?  Organizational 
structure 
 Managers
 Sr University Mgr
 Interview Guide
5. Is there a written transition plan that 
includes tasks and timeline for CDC 
turnover to the university? Who will 
be involved in the transition? How is 
progress being measured? 
 Qualitative
 Plan evidence
 Progress reports
 Managers
 Document review
 Interview Guide
6. Please use the provided table to detail 
both the revenue sources and 
expenses for the CDC operation. 
 Quantitative  Managers  Table 2
7. Is there currently a line item in the 
university budget for CDC financing? If 
yes how much per annum? Is the 
budget line item financed? If yes by 
whom? 
 Qualitative
 Quantitative
 Budget numbers
 Progress reports
 Managers
 Sr University Mngrs
 Document review
 Interview Guide
8. What is the current competence level 
of the staff? What is their 
background? How long have they 
been employed at the CDC? 
 Qualitative
 Quantitative -
Evaluations of 
performance 
 Progress reports
 Managers
 Document review
 Interview Guide
9. How is the CDC staff compensated? Is 
the compensation aligned with the 
university salaries? Are they currently 
paid directly by the contractor or the 
university? 
 Qualitative
 Quantitative -
Financial data 
 Progress reports
 Managers
 Document review
 Interview Guide
86
RESEARCH QUESTIONS 
(Indicator)
 DATA TYPE SOURCES OF INFO 
(sample if appropriate)
DATA COLLECTION 
INSTRUMENT
10. What is the % and frequency of the 
CDC staff turnover? And how is the 
transfer of knowledge managed? 
 Qualitative
 Quantitative 
 Progress reports
 Managers
 Document review
 Interview Guide
11. Is there a policies and procedures 
manual that is established and 
followed by the staff members? 
 Qualitative -
Evidence 
 Procedures manual 
 Progress reports
 Managers
 Staff
 Document review
 Interview Guide
12. What is the role of the 
trainer/facilitators (CDFs) within the 
CDCs and how are they paid? 
 Qualitative  Progress reports
 Managers
 Staff
 Document review
 Interview Guide
13. What are the factors that are most 
useful in ensuring the sustainability of 
the CDC? 
 Qualitative  Progress reports
 Managers
 Staff
 Document review
 Interview Guide
14. What are the factors that challenged
your efforts to ensure the 
sustainability of the CDC in the 
future? 
 Qualitative  Progress reports
 Managers
 Staff
 Document review
 Interview Guide
15. Five years from now, what do you 
think will happen to the CDC? 
 Qualitative  Progress reports
 Managers
 Document review
 Interview Guide
87
RESEARCH QUESTIONS 
(Indicator)
 DATA TYPE SOURCES OF INFO 
(sample if appropriate)
DATA COLLECTION 
INSTRUMENT
 Staff
 Sr University Mngrs
IV. How do key stakeholder groups perceive the value and utility of CDCs? (students, faculty, Sr University Mngrs, 
employers)
How and to what extent do the stakeholders engage with CDCs?
What factors facilitate or inhibit use of the CDCs?
How effective have CDCs been in connecting graduates with employers and providing them will skills that employers 
demand?
1. Communications & Marketing: 
Do you have a written marketing and 
communications strategy? 
Do you have an ongoing campaign? 
Please describe it. Who is responsible for 
it? Who are you targeting and how? 
How do you measure the success of the 
campaign?
 Qualitative -
evidence
 Progress reports
 Managers
 Staff
 Document review
 Interview Guide
2. University Senior Management Team: 
1) Who in in the university senior 
management team do you communicate 
with? 
2) Who supervises the CDC work in the 
university? What is the type of 
reporting?
3) What is the type of relationship you 
have with the university senior 
management? 
4) Do you have a formal management 
committee that includes senior university 
 Qualitative -
evidence
 Progress reports
 Managers
 Staff
 Sr University Mgrs
 Document review
 Interview Guide
88
RESEARCH QUESTIONS 
(Indicator)
 DATA TYPE SOURCES OF INFO 
(sample if appropriate)
DATA COLLECTION 
INSTRUMENT
management? If so, how is it working? 
Are there regular meetings? Do they 
approve a strategy or 
policies/procedures? 
5) Do you have access to student lists and 
other data? 
6) Do you have access to bulletin boards? 
Publicity tools? Access to premises, 
lecture halls, facilities?
7) If USAID funding was suspended, do 
you think the Uni. SMT would continue to 
fund the CDC? 
8) What are the possible means that can 
be used to strengthen the relationship of 
the CDC with the University senior 
management? 
9) Is the CDC position in the university 
strong enough to survive if there is a 
change in management? 
3. Students: 
1) What kind of communications strategy 
do you use to target/reach students? 
2) Please list and rank your services by 
priority with regards to students’ 
interest and needs? 
3) How do most students find out about 
the CDC and your services? 
 Qualitative –
evidence
 Quantitative
 Quantitative –
student survey
 Progress reports
 Managers
 Staff
 Student sample
 Document review
 Focus Group Guide
 Student Survey
89
RESEARCH QUESTIONS 
(Indicator)
 DATA TYPE SOURCES OF INFO 
(sample if appropriate)
DATA COLLECTION 
INSTRUMENT
4) Who do you target from the student 
body? Year 1 4? Please list them in 
percentages 
5) Do you measure engagement of 
students in your services? If so, how do 
you rate it?
6) Are you satisfied with this level of 
engagement or is there more to do? 
7) How is the level of demand comparing 
to the available resources, with 
regards to the type of service you 
offer? 
8) What type of placement services do 
you offer currently? How do you 
measure the placement rate?
9) What level of fees are you currently 
charging students for services? How 
does this impact demand?
4. Faculty:
Is the faculty currently engaged with 
CDC? If yes
1) What form does the engagement take?
2) What kind of communications strategy 
do you use to target/reach faculty 
members? 
 Qualitative
 Quantitative
 Progress reports
 Managers
 Staff
 Faculty sample
 Document review
 Interview Guide
90
RESEARCH QUESTIONS 
(Indicator)
 DATA TYPE SOURCES OF INFO 
(sample if appropriate)
DATA COLLECTION 
INSTRUMENT
3) How do the faculty members help 
project and market the CDC? 
4) What % of students, who come to the 
CDC, are referred by faculty?
4.1) What is the optimal target % of 
students to come to the CDC referred by 
faculty members? 
5) How does the faculty perceive the CDC 
program? Do they comment about what 
the CDC is doing? 
6) How do you plan to increase faculty 
engagement in the future with the CDC? 
5. Employers: 
1) Do you have a formal communications 
strategy to reach employers? 
2) Do you have a network of employers? 
If so, How many companies do you have 
in your network? How does the network 
work?
3) Who are your contacts at the 
employer’s offices? Who are the 
management staff that you deal with at 
the employers? 
4) Do you survey the needs of the job 
market to identify the priority 
employment areas? How is this used to 
deliver services? 
5) What kind of agreements (if any) do 
you have with the employers?
 Qualitative
 Quantitative
 Progress reports
 Managers
 Staff
 Employer Sample
 Document review
 Interview Guide
91
RESEARCH QUESTIONS 
(Indicator)
 DATA TYPE SOURCES OF INFO 
(sample if appropriate)
DATA COLLECTION 
INSTRUMENT
6) What types of activities do the 
employers provide you with? (i.e. 
placement, internship programs, Guest 
speakers, money sponsorship, other?) 
7) Do you organize employment fairs? If 
yes how often? How many members of 
the network attend the fair? 
8) What level of funding are you 
receiving from employers? What form 
does this take (i.e. event sponsorship, 
fees, publicity, etc)?
9) How many jobs have been filled with 
employers in the network by students 
referred from the CDC? 
10) How do you find out about 
employment opportunities in companies? 
How do you inform the students about 
the opportunities? 
11) What have been the biggest 
challenges that limit the strength of the 
employers network?
12) What are the strategies that have 
proved to be most useful in strengthening 
the employer’s network? 
13) If the CDC project ends, what effect 
would this have on the employers in 
finding job candidates? 
V. How effective have CDCs been in achieving gender balance and addressing special needs audiences in provision of 
services during implementation?
92
RESEARCH QUESTIONS 
(Indicator)
 DATA TYPE SOURCES OF INFO 
(sample if appropriate)
DATA COLLECTION 
INSTRUMENT
What factors have facilitated or hindered CDCs from achieving gender balance and addressing special needs audiences in 
the provision of services?
Gender: 
1) What is the ratio of gender 
participation in your CDC Services? 
 Quantitative 
 Progress 
reports
 Managers
 Document review
 Interview Guide
2) Is this a reflection of the gender 
balance in the university?
 Quantitative  Document review
 Interview Guide
3) How do you use communications to 
encourage both genders to participate in 
services? 
 Qualitative  Document review
 Interview Guide
4) Do you target special services to 
ladies/women? If so what are they? 
 Qualitative -
Evidence 
 Document review
 Interview Guide
5) What do you think are the biggest 
challenges facing young women students 
in using your services? 
 Qualitative  Document review
 Interview Guide
6) What actions have been most 
successful to provide services to young 
women students? 
 Qualitative  Document review
 Interview Guide
Special Needs: 
1) What is the ratio of Students with 
Special Needs (SWSN) participation in 
your CDC Services? 
 Qualititive  Progress reports
 Managers
 Document review
 Interview Guide
93
RESEARCH QUESTIONS 
(Indicator)
 DATA TYPE SOURCES OF INFO 
(sample if appropriate)
DATA COLLECTION 
INSTRUMENT
2) Is this a reflection of SWSN in the 
university?
 Qualitative -
Evidence 
 Document review
 Interview Guide
3) How do you use communications to 
encourage SWSN to participate in 
services? 
 Qualitative  Document review
 Interview Guide
4) Do you target special services to 
SWSN? If so what are they? 
 Qualitative  Document review
 Interview Guide
5) What do you think are the biggest 
challenges facing SWSN in using your 
services? 
 Qualitative  Document review
 Interview Guide
6) What actions have been most 
successful to provide services to SWSN? 
 Qualitative  Document review
 Interview Guide
Table 11: Overall areas of CDC research parameters
94
ANNEX H: DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS 
INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR LEEP / ECDC PROJECT STAFF
PURPOSE
To gather data from LEEP and ECDC project team concerning performance, lessons learned, and 
recommendations to support evaluation analysis. 

PARTICIPATION
 Senior representatives of project management
TIME
 Approximately 2 Hours (may require several meetings)
LOCATION
 LEEP, World Learning, Cairo
 ECDC, AUC, Cairo
DEMOGRAPHIC DATA 
Date: ___/___/_______ 
CDC Name: ________________________________________________ 
Location: ________________________________________________ 
City: ________________________________________________ 
Name of interviewee: ______________________________________ 
Job Title: ______________________________________ 
Years within the job: ______________________________________ 
95
PRIMARY DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 
(use appropriate probing and follow-up questions) 
I. To what extent have the CDCs achieved their goals and objectives?
How did the implementation approach contribute or hinder the achievement of project 
objectives and planned results? 
1. What are the goals / targets for this grant? (use approved project SOW and PMP as basis for 
discussion – confirm on Table 3)
2. Have the targets within the PMP using the defined indicators been met to-date? What is 
projected through the end of the project? (look for evidence of claims, record on Table 3)
3. Have independent strategies and goals / targets been established for each CDC? If so, can you 
share these?
4. Have the defined indicators with targets been met? (ex. Hiring staff, certifying staff, premises, 
training participation, job placement, employer network, compiling a database)
5. We have seen the annual project work plans. Does each CDC have one? How well does actual 
performance match the annual work plan? 
6. What are the main strengths of the implementation over the last couple of years? What are 
some of the real success stories that you can share with us? 
7. What are the biggest challenges you faced in the implementation of the CDCs over the last 
couple of years. How do you think this has affected the achievement of your goals and 
objectives?
96
1) Establishing MOU with the university, and strengthening relations with Uni.Mngmt.? 
2) Obtaining facilities, and hiring staff, and setting up the office. 
3) Delivering training and other services to students
4) Establishing a network with the employers. 
8. Knowing what you know now, if you could change anything in 
the basic implementation process, what would it be? 
9. If you would create a new CDC now with a new university, what 
would you do to increase the likelihood of success of the new 
CDC? 
II. If and how did the selection of the geographic location for the CDCs affect their 
performance? 
How did the geographic locations of the CDCs affect results? Why?
1. How were the universities selected for establishing a CDC? And why? (any criteria?) 
2. How does ―geography‖ compare to the other factors in the provided success list for building a 
successful CDC? (ask them to complete Table 1) 
III. To what extent are the CDCs on track to transitioning the management of the 
centers to the universities? 
What factors helped or hindered the sustainability of the CDCs?
What are the prospects for sustainable post-project completion?
97
1. How independent are the CDCs now? Where does the CDC fit within the university 
structure and to whom does the director report?
2. Is there a written transition plan in place (That indicates transition implementation steps 
and timelines)? Who will be involved in the transition? How is progress going to be 
measured? 
3. Please detail for us the revenue sources and expenses for each CDC in percentages. What 
% is USAID money and what are the other revenue sources in %? ( See Table 2)
4. Is there a budget line item in the Uni. budget for CDC financing? How are expenses paid 
currently? 
5. What is the current competence level of the staff? How long have they been employed at 
the CDC and experience level
6. How is the CDC staff compensated? Is the compensation aligned with the university 
salaries? Are they currently paid directly by the contractor or the university? 
7. What are the factors that are most useful/helpful in ensuring the sustainability of the CDC? 
8. What are the factors that challenge your efforts to ensure the sustainability of the CDC in 
the future? 
9. Five years from now, what do you think will happen to each CDC? Will it exist, be bigger 
or smaller? Will it be providing the same services as it is doing today? 
IV. How do key stakeholder groups perceive the value and utility of CDCs? 
(students, faculty, univ. mngt, employers)?
How and to what extent do the stakeholders engage with CDCs?
98
What factors facilitate or inhibit use of the CDCs?
How effective have CDCs been in connecting graduates with employers and 
providing them will skills that employers demand?
Communications & Marketing: 
1. Does each CDC have a marketing and communications strategy? 
2. Do they have an ongoing campaign? Who is responsible for it? Who are you targeting and 
how? 
3. How do you measure the success of campaigns?
University Senior Management Team: 
4. Who in in the university senior management team do you communicate with? 
5. What is the type of relationship you have with the university senior management? 
6. Do you have a formal management committee or is it an informal relationship?
7. Do you have regular meetings with them? Do you have Joint Plans? 
8. Who supervises the CDC work in the Uni. SMT? If yes what is the type of reporting? 
9. Where is your position in the organizational structure of the Uni.? Do you think this the 
correct place for the CDC? If not… what do you think your correct place would be? 
10. If USAID funding was suspended do you think the Uni. SMT would continue to fund the 
99
CDC? 
11. What are the possible means that can be used to strengthen the relationship of the CDC with 
the Uni. SMT? 
12. Is the CDC Position strong enough in the Uni. to survive if there is a change in management? 
Employers: 
13. Do you have a formal communications strategy to reach employers? 
14. What have been the biggest challenges standing against having a strong employers network?
15. What are the strategies that proved to be most useful in strengthening the employers 
network? 
16. If the CDC project ends, what effect would this have on the employers in finding job 
candidates? 
V. How effective have CDCs been in achieving gender balance and services to 
persons with special needs in provision of services during implementation?
What factors have facilitated or hindered CDCs from achieving gender balance and 
provision of services for persons with special needs?
1. Gender: What is the ratio of gender participation in your CDC services? 
 Is this a reflection of the gender balance in the university?
 How do you use communications to encourage both genders to participate in services? 
 Do you target special services to ladies/women? If so what are they? 
 What do you think are the biggest challenges facing young women students in using your 
services? 
100
 What actions have been most successful to provide services to young women students? 
2. Disability: What is the ratio of Students with Special Needs (SWSN) participation in your 
CDC Services?
 Is this a reflection of SWSN in the university?
 How do you use communications to encourage SWSN to participate in services? 
 Do you target special services to SWSN? If so what are they? 
 What do you think are the biggest challenges facing SWSN in using your services? 
 What actions have been most successful to provide services to SWSN?
Table 12: Ranking of factors influencing success of CDCs 
1 2 3 4 5 6
Competence of CDC Director
Geographic location of university
Financial support of university administration
Competence and certification of facilitators
Reputation for matching students with job opportunities
Serviceable office and technical equipment
Strength of network with employers
Financial sponsorship by employers
Good relations with university senior leadership
Number of employers in area
Strength of communication campaign with students
Quality of career development services
For Each Factor, Check Importance 
Very Important <-----------------> Not Important
What is the most important factor influencing 
the success of a CDC?
Rank 
from 1 
to 12
2014 
Actual
2015 
Projected
2014 
Actual
2015 
Projected
2014 
Actual
2015 
Projected
2014 
Actual
2015 
Projected
2014 
Actual
2015 
Projected
Revenue 
Funds from USAID -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 
Funds from University -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 
Student Fees -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 
External Sponsorships -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 
Other -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 
Totals * -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 
 
Expense 
Personnel costs -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 
Office and equipment lease -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 
Supplies -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 
Event logistics -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 
Other -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 
Totals * -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 
 
Deficit w/o USAID Funding -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 
Note: Totals must match
Financial Flows for CDC 
Sustainability
Ain Shams - Main Ain Shams - Eng Helwan South Valley Suez Canal
Table 13: Financial flows for CDC sustainability
AUC: ECDC SUMMARY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR TABLE 
Table 14: AUC-ECDC summary performance indicator table

WL: LEEP SUMMARY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR TABLE 
Objective
1. Self-Sustaining CDCs: Establish in 3 target universities
Outcome
1.1 CDCs embedded & sustained in partner universities 
HU SVU TOTAL HU SVU TOTAL HU SVU TOTAL
1.1.1 # of CDC personnel recruited
1.1.2** # of management committees meetings conducted
1.1.3 # of advisory boards meetings conducted
1.1.4 # of staff participating in training and development
1.1.5 # of staff participating in language skills & training
1.1.6 # of training sessions held under USAID funded LEEP project
1.1.7** # of persons completing a USG supported CDC, work force 
development programs of 16 hours or more
Planned
Base
Years
Year 1 Notes
Target 3;Actual 3
Year 2
Target 3;Actual 2
Year 3 
Target 2
Actual
Output Planned
Actual
Planned
Actual
Table 15: WL-LEEP summary performance indicator table
Objective
2. To improve job seeking among students’ and graduates’ 
skills and improve their ability to obtain employment
Outcome
2.1** % of graduates from USG supported tertiary education 
reported themselves as employed (Target 30%)
HU SVU TOTAL HU SVU TOTAL HU SVU TOTAL
2.1.2 % of student clients demonstrating improved skills 
after CDC training 
2.1.3 % of students applying career centers content in 
their employment search
2.1.4 # of students with improved language skills 
Actual
Planned
Base
Years
Year 1 Notes
Target and actual N/A
Year 2
Target 20%; Actual 30.3%
Year 3
Target 30%
Actual
Output Planned
Actual
Planned
2.1.1** # of individual persons gaining access to CDCs 
work development programs supported by USG
Objective
3. Universities, Industry, Business and civil society are 
collaborating
HU SVU TOTAL HU SVU TOTAL HU SVU TOTAL
Outcome
3.1 # of partnerships developed with industry, 
business and non-profits
Output
3.1.1 # employers using career centers services to 
search for employees or interns
3.1.2 # of career Fairs held at each partner university 
Outcome
3.2 # of secondary school students reached
Base
Years
Notes
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Planned 
Actual
Planned 
Actual 
Planned 
Actual 
108
INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR CDC MANAGEMENT AND STAFF
PURPOSE
To gather data from LEEP and ECDC CDC Management & team members concerning performance, 
lessons learned, and recommendations to support evaluation analysis. 

PARTICIPATION
 CDC Managers & Team members 
TIME
 Approximately 2 Hours (may require several meetings)
LOCATION
 CDC locations 
DEMOGRAPHIC DATA 
Date: ___/___/_______ 
CDC Name: ________________________________________________ 
Location: ________________________________________________ 
City: ________________________________________________ 
Name of interviewee: ______________________________________ 
Job Title: ______________________________________ 
Years within the job: ______________________________________ 
109
PRIMARY DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 
(use appropriate probing and follow-up questions) 
I. To what extent have the CDCs achieved their goals and objectives?
How did the implementation approach contribute or hinder the achievement of project 
objectives and planned results? 
1. What are the goals / targets for each CDC? (look for written strategy or operational
documents)
2. Have the defined indicators with targets for each CDC been met? (ex. Hiring staff, 
certifying staff, premises, conducting training, building a communication network with 
employers, compiling a database…. )
3. How does actual performance match the annual work plan? 
4. What are the main strengths of the implementation over the last couple of years? What are 
some of the real success stories that you can share with us? 
5. What are the biggest challenges you faced in the implementation of the CDCs over the last 
couple of years. How do you think this has affected the achievement of your goals and 
objectives?
1) Establishing MOU with the university, and strengthening relations with Uni.Mngmt.? 
2) Obtaining facilities, and hiring staff, and setting up the office. 
110
3) Delivering training and other services to students
4) Keeping training curricula up-to-date and trainers competent
5) Establishing a network with the employers. 
6. Knowing what you know now, if you could change anything in the basic 
implementation process, what would it be? 
7. If you would create a new CDC now with a new university, what would you do to 
increase the likelihood of success of the new CDC? 
8. What do you think your main impact is on the students and the surrounding 
community that your are operating in? How do you track and measure matching 
students with jobs or opportunities? 
111
9. Is the concept of having a CDC a successful one? Do you think it actually makes a 
difference? Do you think it should be in all universities? 
II. If and how did the selection of the geographic location for the CDCs affect their 
performance? 
How did the geographic locations of the CDCs affect results? Why?
1. How has the number of employers located in the governorate affected CDC results? 
2. How does ―geography‖ compare to the other factors in the provided success list for 
building a successful CDC? (ask them to complete Table 1) 
112
III. To what extent are the CDCs on track to transitioning the management of the centers to 
the universities? 
What factors helped or hindered the sustainability of the CDCs?
What are the prospects for sustainable post-project completion?
1. How independent is your CDC currently? 
2. Who does the CDC director report to now in the University? 
3. What is the nature of the relationship currently, between the CDC and the Uni. Mngmnt? 
4. Where does the CDC office lie in the structure of the university? 
5. Is there a written transition plan (That shows how the transition will be implemented)? 
And who will be involved in the transition? And how is progress going to be measured? 
6. Please detail the revenue sources / expenses using the provided template (Table 2)
113
7. Is there currently a budget line item in the Uni. budget for CDC financing? If yes how 
much per annum? Is the budget line item financed? If yes by whom? 
8. What is the current competence level of the staff? How were they recruited? How long 
have they been employed at the CDC, what is their career path? Do you have succession 
planning for them? 
9. How are the CDC staff compensated? Is the compensation aligned with the university 
salaries? Are they currently paid directly by the contractor or the univ? 
10. What is the % and frequency of the staff turnover? And how is the transfer of knowledge 
managed? 
11. Is there a policies and procedures manual that is established and followed by the staff 
members? 
12. What is the role of the trainer/facilitators (CDFs) within the CDCs and how are they paid 
114
? 
13. What are the factors that are most useful/helpful in ensuring the sustainability of the 
CDC? 
14. What are the factors that challenged your efforts to ensure the sustainability of the CDC 
in the future? 
15. 5 years from now, what do you think will happen to the CDC? Will it exist? Will it be 
bigger? Will it be doing the same thing it is doing today? 
IV. How do key stakeholder groups perceive the value and utility of CDCs? (students, faculty, 
univ. mngt, employers)
How and to what extent do the stakeholders engage with CDCs?
What factors facilitate or inhibit use of the CDCs?
How effective have CDCs been in connecting graduates with employers and providing them 
will skills that employers demand?
1. Communications & Marketing: 
1) Do you have marketing and communications strategy? 
2) Do you have an ongoing campaign? Where is it? Who is responsible for it? Who are you 
targeting and how? 
3) How do you measure the success of the campaign?
115
2. University Senior Management Team: 
1) Who in in the university senior management team do you communicate with? 
2) What is the type of relationship you have with the university senior management? 
3) Do you have a formal management committee or is it an informal relationship?
4) Do you have regular meetings with them? Do you have Joint Plans? 5) Who supervises the 
CDC work in the Uni. SMT? If yes what is the type of reporting? 
6) Where is you position in the organizational structure of the Uni.? Do you think this the 
correct place for the CDC? If not… what do you think your correct place would be? 
7) Do you have Access to Student lists? 
8) Do you have access to bulletin boards? Publicity tools? Access to premises, lecture halls? 
facilities?
9) If USAID funding was suspended do you think the Uni. SMT would continue to fund the 
CDC? 
10) What are the possible means that can be used to strengthen the relationship of the CDC 
with the Uni. SMT? 
11) Is the CDC Position strong enough in the Uni. to survive if there is a change in 
management? 
3. Students: 
10) What kind of communications strategy do you use to target/reach students? 
11) Please list and rank you services in priorities with regards to students’ needs? 
12) How do most students find out about you? And your services? 
13) Who do you target from the student body? Year 1 4? Please list them in percentages 
14) How do you measure engagement of students in your services? 
15) are you satisfied with this level of engagement or is there more to do? 
116
16) How is the level of demand comparing to the available resources, with regards to every 
type of service you offer? 
17) Student placement services: what is the type of placement services do you offer 
currently? How do you measure the placement rate?
4. Faculty:
What is the extent of faculty engagement currently? If yes
1) What form does the engagement have?
2) What kind of communications strategy do you use to target/reach faculty members? 
3) How do the faculty members help project and market the CDC? 
4) What % of students, who come to the CDC, are referred by faculty?
4.1) What is the optimal target % of students to come to the CDC referred by faculty 
members? 
5) How does the faculty perceive the CDC program? Do they comment about what the CDC is 
doing? 
6) How do you plan to increase faculty engagement in the future with the CDC? 
5. Employers: 
1) Do you have a formal communications strategy to reach employers? 
2) Do you have a network of employers? If so, How many companies do you have in your 
network? 
3) Who are your contacts at the employers offices? What are the positions that you deal with 
at the employers? (Job title)
4) Do you survey the needs of the job market identify the priority employment areas? How is 
117
this used to deliver services? 
5) What kind of agreements (if any) do you have with the employers?
6) What types of activities do the employers provide you with? Placement, internship 
programs? Guest speakers? Money? 
7) Do you organize employment fairs? If yes how often? How many members of the network 
attend the fair? 
8) How many jobs have been filled with students referred from the CDC? 
9) How do you find out about employment opportunities in companies? How do you inform 
the students about the opportunities? 
10) what have been the biggest challenges standing against having a strong employers 
network?
11) what are the strategies that proved to be most useful in strengthening the employers 
network? 
12) If the CDC project ends, what effect would this have on the employers in finding job 
candidates? 
V. How effective have CDCs been in achieving gender balance in provision of services during 
implementation?
What factors have facilitated or hindered CDCs from achieving gender balance in the 
provision of services?
meet their sustainability plans? 
Gender: 
4) What is the ratio of gender / SWSN participation in your CDC Services? 
5) Is this a reflection of the gender /SWSN balance in the university?
118
6) How do you use communications to encourage both genders/ SWSN to participate in 
services? 
7) Do you target special services to ladies/women// SWSN ? If so what are they? 
8) What do you think are the biggest challenges facing young women / SWSN students in 
using your services? 
9) What actions have been most successful to provide services to young women / SWSN 
students?
Table 1 
Table 2 
2014 
Actual
2015 
Projected
2014 
Actual
2015 
Projected
2014 
Actual
2015 
Projected
2014 
Actual
2015 
Projected
2014 
Actual
2015 
Projected
Revenue 
Funds from USAID -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 
Funds from University -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 
Student Fees -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 
External Sponsorships -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 
Other -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 
Totals * -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 
 
Expense 
Personnel costs -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 
Office and equipment lease -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 
Supplies -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 
Event logistics -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 
Other -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 
Totals * -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 
 
Deficit w/o USAID Funding -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 
Note: Totals must match
Financial Flows for CDC 
Sustainability
Ain Shams - Main Ain Shams - Eng Helwan South Valley Suez Canal
INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR SENIOR UNIVERSITY MANAGERS
PURPOSE
To gather data from senior university managers concerning performance and relationships, lessons 
learned, and recommendations to support evaluation analysis. 
1.
PARTICIPATION
 Senior Management Team Members of the University 
TIME
 Approximately 1 Hours (may require several meetings)
LOCATION
 University Headquarters 
DEMOGRAPHIC DATA 
Date: ___/___/_______ 
CDC Name: ________________________________________________ 
Location: ________________________________________________ 
City: ________________________________________________ 
Name of interviewee: ______________________________________ 
Job Title: ______________________________________ 
Years within the job: ______________________________________ 
PRIMARY DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 
(use appropriate probing and follow-up questions) 
IV. How do key stakeholder groups perceive the value and utility of CDCs? (students, faculty, 
univ. mngt, employers)
How and to what extent do the stakeholders engage with CDCs?
What factors facilitate or inhibit use of the CDCs?
How effective have CDCs been in connecting graduates with employers and providing them 
will skills that employers demand?
1. Who in in CDC do you communicate with? 
2. Do you as a university supervise the CDC work? If yes, who is the person/department 
responsible for the supervision? And what is the type and extend of supervision that you do? 
3. What is the type of relationship you have with the CDC management? 
4. Are you a member of a formal management committee? If yes, how is the committee working? 
Are there regular meetings? Do you approve strategies or policies/procedures? 
5. Do you allow the CDC access to student lists and other data? 
6. Do you allow the CDC access to bulletin boards, publicity tools, premises, lecture halls, 
facilities? 
7. If USAID funding was suspended, would the university continue to fund the CDC? To what 
level of operation? 
8. What are the possible means that can be used to strengthen the relationship of the CDC with the 
University senior management? 
9. Is the CDC position in the university strong enough to survive if there is a change in 
management? 
10. Where do you see the CDC in 5 or 10 years from now? 
INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR UNIVERSITY FACULTY
PURPOSE
To gather data from university faculty members concerning performance and relationships, lessons 
learned, and recommendations to support evaluation analysis. 

PARTICIPATION
 University Faculty Members 
TIME
 Approximately 1 Hour (may require several meetings)
LOCATION
 University headquarters 
DEMOGRAPHIC DATA 
Date: ___/___/_______ 
CDC Name: ________________________________________________ 
Location: ________________________________________________ 
City: ________________________________________________ 
Name of interviewee: ______________________________________ 
Job Title: ______________________________________ 
Years within the job: ______________________________________ 
PRIMARY DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 
(use appropriate probing and follow-up questions) 
IV. How do key stakeholder groups perceive the value and utility of CDCs? (students, faculty, 
univ. mngt, employers)
How and to what extent do the stakeholders engage with CDCs?
What factors facilitate or inhibit use of the CDCs?
How effective have CDCs been in connecting graduates with employers and providing them 
will skills that employers demand?
Are you personally currently engaged with the CDC? 
If yes 
1. What form does your engagement take? 
2. What kind of communications does the CDC Management and staff use to target/reach you 
and other faculty members? 
3. How do you and other faculty members help promote and market the CDC? 
4. How many students ( % of ) have you referred to the CDC? And for what purposes? 
5. How do you and other faculty members perceive the CDC program? 
6. Do you have plans to increase your personal engagement in the future with the CDC? In what 
form? 
7. What would be your recommendations to improve CDC value to both students and the 
community? 
INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR EMPLOYERS
PURPOSE
To gather data from employers concerning performance and relationships, lessons learned, and 
recommendations to support evaluation analysis. 
2.
PARTICIPATION
 Employer HR staff engaged with the CDC 
TIME
 Approximately 1 Hour
LOCATION
 Phone interview, if possible on site 
DEMOGRAPHIC DATA 
Date: ___/___/_______ 
CDC Name: ________________________________________________ 
Location: ________________________________________________ 
City: ________________________________________________ 
Name of interviewee: ______________________________________ 
Job Title: ______________________________________ 
Organization Name: ______________________________________ 
Years within the job: ______________________________________ 
PRIMARY DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 
(use appropriate probing and follow-up questions) 
IV. How do key stakeholder groups perceive the value and utility of CDCs? (students, faculty, 
univ. mngt, employers)
How and to what extent do the stakeholders engage with CDCs?
What factors facilitate or inhibit use of the CDCs?
How effective have CDCs been in connecting graduates with employers and providing them 
will skills that employers demand?
1. How did the CDC reach out to you? In what areas have they offered or do you cooperate? 
2. Are you a member of a network of employers working with the CDC? If yes, who are the other 
companies that are in your network? How does the network work? 
3. Who from the CDC is your liaison? How often are you in contact? 
4. Does the CDC management survey your staffing needs? Do they offer you candidates with the 
competencies that match the job openings you have? 
5. Do you have any type of formal agreement with the CDC? If yes, what type of agreement is 
that? What are the key elements? 
6. In what types of activities does the CDC ask you to participate? Do you participate in all of 
them or just some? Which are they? (Ex. placement, internship programs, Guest speakers, 
money sponsorship, other? 
7. Do you attend any of their employment fairs? If yes how often? How many members of the 
network attend the fair? How many successful candidates have you recruited as a result of the 
fair? 
8. Do you offer any type of funding to the CDC? If yes, how much and what form does this 
funding take? (i.e. event sponsorship, fees, publicity, etc)? 
9. When you have vacancies do you inform the CDC? If yes, how? And what is their general 
response? 
10. What have been the biggest challenges you have faced during your cooperation with the CDC? 
11. What have been the biggest advantages of being engaged with the CDC and using their 
services? 
12. If the CDC project ends, would this have an effect on your recruitment efforts? 
13. What would you recommend for CDC do to improve their services to support your needs as an 
employer? 
Student Focus Group Moderator Guide 
PURPOSE 
To gather data from Students, as stakeholders, concerning performance, lessons learned, and 
recommendations to support the CDC evaluation analysis. 
PARTICIPATION 
 Students who used the CDC service. 
TIME 
 Approximately 1 Hour 
LOCATION 
 CDC __________________________________________________ 
Participants: see attached list Date:
_________________ 
Attachments: 
Please attach all individual questionnaires to this form
Moderator Script 
I. INTRODUCTION 
My name is _______________ and I’m the moderator today. 
The purpose of this discussion is to talk about the effectiveness of your universities career development 
center performance and value to you. I’ll be asking your opinions and your experiences. 
I am an independent research moderator and am only here to work with the evaluation team to help 
collect information. 
II. GROUND RULES (5 minutes) 
1. This session will last about 1.5 hours. 
2. This session is very informal and although I may be using a flipchart to capture some main 
points, my colleagues will be taking notes on key issues. 
3. My colleagues (introduce them) are spending some weeks on this evaluation collecting 
information that will be helpful to the university CDC and also USAID who is currently funding 
the CDC. 
4. There are no wrong answers in this discussion; we are looking for different points of view. I 
want to know what your opinions are, but they should be based on facts as you understand 
them. 
5. Everyone needs to talk during our session but each person doesn’t have to answer each 
question. 
6. Notes are only being taken in a general fashion. No one’s name is associated with any 
comments. 
7. Please talk one at a time and in a clear voice, avoid side conversations. It is distracting to the 
group and I don’t want to miss any of your comments. 
8. Exchange points of view with each other – you don’t need to address all answers to me. 
9. We will also ask each of you to complete a short questionnaire at the end of the session. 
This includes basic demographic information as well as some questions for which we are 
interested in individual answers. It should take less than 10 minutes to complete. 
10. Does anyone have any questions before we begin? 
11. This is a non-smoking session. 
12. Please turn off all cell phones. 
III. BACKGROUND (8 minutes) 
13. Please take the first few minutes to get to know the person seated next to you. 
14. I’m going to ask you to introduce him/her to the group. I’d like you to tell us something about 
that person such as their study focus, areas of specialty or job interest. 
IV. Focus Group Questions (60 minutes)
Group members should be made up of random students who have used CDC services. 
 Note: use appropriate probing and follow-up questions 
KEY AREAS OF INTEREST
How do key stakeholder groups perceive the value and utility of CDCs? (students, faculty, univ. mngt, 
employers)?
How and to what extent do the stakeholders engage with CDCs?
What factors facilitate or inhibit use of the CDCs?
How effective have CDCs been in connecting graduates with employers and providing them will skills 
that employers demand?
1) How did you know that the CDC exists? How did they try to reach you? 
2) How did you know about the various services that they offer? 
3) What services have you used in the past? And were they effective and why? 
4) What do you think of the whole idea of having a CDC is it a useful idea? Would you recommend 
it to other colleagues? 
5) What do you think of the employment services offered by the CDC are they successful at placing 
students in jobs? Do you think they have a strong network of employers? 
6) What about the training services of the CDC ? Have you used them? And how satisfied are you 
with the training programs? And the facilitators? Has the training made a difference in you 
personally? If yes how? 
7) What can the CDC management do more to improve their level of service? Are they doing 
everything you expect from a CDC, or are there more activities that they can do ? 
8) If the CDC would stop operating would you mind it? Are you getting a value from it now? Would 
you like to see it continue? 
V. CLOSE & SUMMARY (5 minutes) 
Thank you for your comments and your time. This has been a valuable session. Information from a 
knowledgeable group such as this will be very helpful to inform our analysis going forward. 
Now I am going to distribute the short questionnaire. Please enter the information requested and answer 
the questions based on your personal knowledge and/or opinion. As I mentioned previously, no one’s 
name will be identified with any answers. We will aggregate the data to analyze for trends. Let me know 
if you have any questions as you work through the questionnaire. 
Thank you again. 
STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE
(to be filled by Individual Students) 
1. BIO DATA: 
Name: _______________________________________________________________ Age: ______________ 
Year of Study/ Graduation Date: ___________________________ 
Faculty: _____________________________________________________________________________ 
University: ____________________________________________________________________________
Current Job (if applicable) ______________________________________________________________ 
2. CDC SERVICES: 
Please tick and rank the service/s that you have personally used from the CDC: 
Where 1 means really satisfied with the service and 5 means totally dissatisfied with the 
service. 
Service Ranking
1 2 3 4 5
Help with writing your CV
Internship programs during the summer 
Placement services with employers 
Attending an Employment fair 
Career advising services with a counselor 
Attending Technical Training programs 
Attending Soft skills training programs 
Attending Language classes 
3. OPINIONS: 
What was the most satisfactory 
service you have received from the 
CDC and why? 
What was the least satisfactory 
service you have received from the 
CDC and why? 
What are your recommendations to make the CDC services better 
1.__________________________________________________________________________________________
2.__________________________________________________________________________________________
3.__________________________________________________________________________________________
4.__________________________________________________________________________________________
5.__________________________________________________________________________________________
ANNEX I: EVALUATION STATEMENT OF WORK 
BACKGROUND 
Scholarships and Training for Egyptian Professionals (STEP) is a five-year program that 
supports Egypt’s economic and social development by improving organizational capacity with 
Egyptian institutions and developing a stronger workforce through the provision of scholarships, 
training, and technical assistance. STEP will create a cadre of highly trained female leaders 
through scholarships for 160 Egyptian women over the course of five years to obtain master of 
business administration or bachelor’s degrees in science, technology, engineering, and 
mathematics (STEM) fields from U.S. universities. STEP will also provide thousands of 
Egyptian professionals with long and short-term training in the fields of Democracy and 
Governance, Economic Growth, Education and Training, and Health.
In Egypt, there is no formal system for career guidance and instruction in public universities, and 
initiatives to develop youth beyond the classroom curriculum are limited. In addition, there is no 
focus on university graduates’ soft skills and career development even though these are critical in 
today’s competitive job market. The current gap between university graduates’ skills and private 
sector needs heavily contributes to Egypt’s unemployment rates. 
Given these concerns, USAID designed an Annual Program Statement (APS) with the following 
objectives: 
 Establish sustainable career development centers in Egyptian public universities; 
 Provide career guidance to students and university graduates and build employability 
skills of students and alumni; 
 Develop participants’ skills in disciplines needed for the labor market; and 
 Bridge the gap between current university graduate skills and job market requirements. 
In 2012, USAID’s Office of Education supported the establishment and management of state-of￾the-art, university- based Career Development Centers (CDCs) through a three-year activity 
aimed at improving the long-term capacity of Egyptian universities to assist students and recent 
graduates in their transition from education to employment. 
In June 2012, USAID made awards to two implementers pursuant to the APS to establish Career 
Development Centers at Public Universities at underserved and geographically diverse regions in 
Egypt: (1) the American University in Cairo (AUC) for $ 2,728,700 and (2) World Learning 
(WL) for $ 1,678,768. Both completion dates were scheduled on May 31, 2015, but USAID 
extended the award to AUC to until September 30, 2016 and the award to WL until December 
31, 2015. Since June 2012, AUC and WL have established 8 CDCs at 7 public universities. 
Of these CDCs, 5 currently remain open and 3 have closed: 
1.Ain Shams (two CDCs) – managed by AUC 
2.Helwan – managed by WL 
3.South Valley – managed by WL 
4.Suez Canal – managed by AUC 
5.Fayoum (closed 9/2013) – managed by WL 
6.Assiut (closed 4/2014) – managed by AUC 
7.Port Said (closed 11/2014) – managed by WL 
The Employability and Career Development Centers implemented by the American University in 
Cairo (ECDC/AUC) have a total of 15 licensed career development facilitators certified through 
the National Career Development Association in the U.S. The CDCs deliver capacity building 
courses, ensure quality of services, and provide sustainability training and set strategies to 
generate income at Suez Canal and Ain Shams universities. To date, the ECDC/AUC have 
provided 1,770 students with career development services. At the present time, the ECDC/AUC 
partners with a network of NGOs and private sector entities, including ASPIRE Experiential 
Business Solutions, INJAZ, Vodafone, the International Labor Organization in Cairo, MIT 
company, and Mobinil, to deliver workshops on career development and employability skills. 
Currently, AUC is managing three CDCs, two at Ain Shams University and one at Suez Canal 
University. The CDCs implemented through World Learning’s Linking Education & 
Employment project (LEEP/WL) have 27 certified career counselors who deliver capacity 
building programs, ensure quality of services, and provide training to generate sustainable 
income at South Valley and Helwan universities. To date, the LEEP/WL has provided 1,285 
students and graduates with career guidance and employability skills programs. LEEP/WL 
partners with a network of NGOs and private sector entities including Etisalat, Vodafone, 
Microsoft, Intel, The Marketer.Net, and AWTAD to conduct workshops on career development 
and employability skills programs. Currently WL is managing two CDCs, one at Helwan 
University and the other at South Valley University. 
The five CDCs that are currently operational are expected to become an integral part of each 
respective university campus by the completion date of the projects, and are expected to be 
sustained by corporate funding and fee-for- service programs. 
Of the three CDCs that closed, this was primarily due to issues with university management. In 
September 2013, following the June 30 events, the President of Fayoum University requested the 
cessation of the CDC’s activities, as he individually decided he did not want any USG supported￾programs at his university. CDC-Helwan was established as a substitute. CDC-Assiut and CDC￾Port Said closed in April 2014 November 2014, respectively, due to changes in university 
management. Assiut University’s new administration was not cooperative, which threatened 
project sustainability. Following negotiations with AUC, Assiut University requested the closure 
of the center in November 2013 and the center officially closed in April 2014. Due to changes in 
the university’s senior management, the CDC’s activities at Port Said University were suspended 
in November 2014. World Learning, in consultation with the USAID Procurement Office, 
decided to close down the CDC since there was no final decision on the status of the center by 
the university management. 
A. Development Hypothesis 
Egypt suffers from a serious youth unemployment problem in large part because many Egyptian 
youth lack the basic education and sufficient skill set to enter the work force. One especially 
challenged cohort of Egyptian youth is current university students and recent college graduates. 
As employer demands increase for well-trained employees, improved core employability skills 
become ever more important. These include information technology (IT) proficiency, career￾specific technical/vocational skills, entrepreneurial skills, and interpersonal/soft skills, as well as 
strong Arabic and English language ability. Two other important factors contributing to youth 
unemployment are student access to available employment opportunities through well￾structured databases and lack of job-search knowledge. 
The CDCs project’s development hypothesis is that the Career Development Centers will 
enhance a student’s employability, stability and prosperity through the provision of training 
courses, mentorship opportunities, workshops, internships and job opportunities, which will 
result in an educated workforce that responds to the labor market needs. 
The CDCs project’s critical assumptions include: 
 The bilateral relationship between the Government of Egypt (GOE) and the USG remains 
positive and fully collaborative; 
 The GOE presented in the public universities’ management cooperates fully with the 
implementation of the programs and activities; and 
 Funding/resources are available to implement planned activities. 
B. Goals, Target Beneficiaries, and Achievements to Date 
The goals, beneficiaries, and results of American University in Cairo-managed CDCs include: 
Goals 
 Establish four Employability and Career Development Centers that will serve as a ―one￾stop shop‖ for students and which will become an integral part of public universities in 
the following areas after the life-span of the project: Upper Egypt, Suez Canal, and Cairo; 
 Train and license 15 career development facilitators and ECDC management to provide 
required career education, connect with employees, and generate internship/employment 
opportunities to students in selected universities; 
 Provide an array of job search and soft/employability skills to a selected subset of 
students from each university, offering a technical track when needed via a network of 
partnerships; and 
 Ensure the functionality of a sustainability model that secures availing required 
employability/soft skills to university students after the life-span of the project. 
Target Beneficiaries 
 15 professionally licensed career development facilitators at two public universities: Suez 
Canal University and Ain Shams University; 
 Over 160,000 students from two different governorates, Cairo and Ismailia, will annually 
have access to professional career services (approximately 130,000 students from Ain 
Shams University and 30,000 students from Suez Canal University); 
 A subset of approximately 3,000 pre-final and final year students will additionally benefit 
from a tailored module that covers career management, employability skills, and a 
specialized technical training track; 
 15-20 professionally trained and coached volunteer trainers who are prepared to sustain 
the employability skills model and train others through a ―training of trainers‖ approach; 
and
 NGOs, corporations and training providers partner in the project. 
Achievements to Date 
AUC’s achievements to date include: 
 1,770 students equipped with employability skills; 
 1,503 students equipped with motivational skills in career development; 
 1,085 students and alumni attended an Ain Shams University Employment Fair in May 
2014, where students applied for 88 job vacancies and 3 internship positions and the 
CDC raised $12,857 for future operations; 
 859 students provided with information about corporate business development; 
 578 students provided with career advising sessions; 
 532 students provided with English placement testing; 
 132 students employed through vacancies and internships; and 
 125 students provided with improved English language skills. 
The goals, beneficiaries, and results of World Learning-managed CDCs include: 
Goals 
 Establish self-sustaining career centers at three universities—Fayoum, South Valley and 
Port Said Universities—in regions of high youth unemployment; 
 Develop students’ and graduates’ job seeking skills and strengthen their employability; 
and.
 Foster collaboration between universities, industry, business and civil society. 
Target Beneficiaries 
 Students and recent graduates who gain job search and workplace skills through the 
career development center programs; 
 Current high school students who benefit from the program’s Youth Career Ambassador 
Program; 
 Employers benefit from the support in recruiting qualified, motivated candidates and 
from increased access to the university and improved communication with administration 
and faculty; and 
 The partner universities benefit from strengthened and deepened links with local and 
national industry and businesses identified through the work of the career development 
centers within the program. 
Achievements to Date 
WL’s achievements to date include: 
 2,584 participants attended courses in career counseling as well as in job search skills, 
business English, entrepreneurship, and presentation skills; 
 1,285 students and graduates attended Employability Skills programs; 
 639 students and graduates attended an Employment Fair at South Valley University; 
 397 students and graduates attended Career Advising sessions; 
 295 students and graduates attended English language training; 
 162 students and graduates attended motivational workshops in career development; 
 94 students attended Education For Employment (EFE) seminars to learn about corporate 
systems; 
 67 graduates (CDC alumni) employed through vacancies and internships; and 
 66 students and graduates at South Valley University took English placement testing. 
C. Project Modifications 
As a result of events in Egypt in 2013 and the U.S. foreign policy response, USAID was required 
to wind down nearly all education program implementation. Consequently, both the LEEP/WL 
and ECDC/AUC programs experienced major challenges during the second year of operations in 
2013. The USAID Procurement Office (PROC) informed LEEP/WL and ECDC/AUC that they 
must proceed with an orderly wind-up of certain activities. In response, WL and AUC developed 
detailed wind-up plans and PROC modified the awards accordingly. In short, USAID agreed 
with WL and AUC to complete ongoing activities on the respective campuses by the end of 
January 2014. However, it was also agreed that both partners would continue providing 
necessary services to Egyptian students off the university campuses, in a community￾based context. This arrangement was planned to allow for some project activities and services, 
which are greatly needed by Egyptian youth to meet the job market needs, to continue while 
complying with U.S. foreign policy requirements. 
Six months later, in March 2014, policy and legislative changes cleared the way for USAID to 
request that both projects resume operations on university campuses. On March 4, 2014, before 
proceeding with moving the CDC activities off-campus, both projects were informed that 
the wind-up imposed on the CDC activities was relieved and activities could go back to their 
originally planned and approved program description, work plan and budget. This letter was 
followed with another modification removing the wind-up from the award. Overall, thewind￾up process affected the momentum, activities and morale of both projects, but both LEEP/WL 
and ECDC/AUC are currently operational and back on track. 
A summary of project modifications is as follows: 
ECDC/AUC 
 MOD #1 on 2/26/2014 to fully fund the agreement and include the approved wind-
up plan;
 MOD #2 on 3/19/2014 to remove the wind-up plan; and
 MOD #3 on 3/1/2015 to extend the completion date till September 30, 2016 and change 
the Program Description to remove Assiut University CDC and decrease the Total 
Estimated Cost by $426,982 to $2,301,718. 
LEEP/WL 
 MOD #1 on 2/24/2014 to fully fund the agreement and include the approved wind￾up plan;
 MOD #2 on 3/19/2014 to remove the wind-up plan; 
 MOD #3 on 7/30/2014 to change the Program Description to substitute Fayoum 
University CDC with Helwan University and re-align the budget; and 
 MOD #4 on 4/23/2015 to extend the completion date until December 31, 2015 and revise 
the Program Description to remove Port Said University CDC and re-align the budget.
Evaluation Rationale 
A. Purpose 
The purpose of this mid-term performance evaluation is to review, analyze, and evaluate the 
effectiveness of USAID- funded CDCs in achieving program objectives and completing 
deliverables. An evaluation team lead by Kelly Novak Opportunities (KNO), and assisted by 
Career Development & Consultants Academy (CDC), will conduct the mid-term performance 
evaluation of the ECDC/AUC and LEEP/WL components of the CDCs project. 
Objectives of the evaluation include: 
1.Identification of lessons learned with regard to project implementation and building 
relationships with counterparts in the Ministry of Higher Education and public universities 
around CDC establishment; 
2.Assessment of the sustainability of the CDCs at the Egyptian public universities in which they 
have been established; and 
3.Provide recommendations that can be used to inform the design and expansion of futureCDC￾related activities in Egypt’s public universities. 
B. Audience and Intended Uses 
The audience of the evaluation report will be USAID/Egypt Mission, specifically the Office of 
Education and Training and the Program Office. 
USAID/Egypt will review and share the expanded executive summary, final report, and 
evaluation recommendations with the Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE), other donors in 
Egypt working on the Employment Alliance, and the general public via the Development 
Education Clearinghouse (DEC). 
Evaluation Questions 
The evaluation will answer the following questions: 
1. To what extent have the CDCs achieved their goals of this SOW? 
2.If and how did the selection of the geographic location for the CDCs affect their performance? 
To what extent CDCs geographic location affect the performance of CDCs in achieving the 
results? Why? 
3.To what extent are the LEEP/WL and ECDC/AUC projects on track to transitioning the 
management of the CDCs to the host universities? Which factors have contributed to or hindered 
the sustainability of the CDCs? What are the prospects for sustainability post￾project completion? 
4.How do key stakeholder groups (e.g, students, faculty members, university management, 
employers) perceive the value and utility CDCs? How, and to what extent, do key stakeholder 
groups engage with the CDCs and which factors facilitate and inhibit utilization of the CDCs? 
How effective have the CDCs been in connecting graduates with employers and providing them 
with the skills that employers demand? 
5.How effective have the CDCs been in achieving gender balance in the provision of CDC 
services (e.g, training, job placement services, etc.) during implementation? Which factors have 
facilitated or inhibited the CDCs from achieving gender balance in the provision of services? 
Based on evaluation findings, the evaluation team should identify actionable recommendations 
that will help USAID to better design and implement effective CDCs programming going 
forward. In particular, what are the lessons learned from implementation to date that USAID 
should take into consideration in future designs, and what are key considerations for replicating 
CDCs in other geographic locations? 
Evaluation Design and Methodology 
A. Evaluation Design 
This is a mid-term performance evaluation and is intended to focus on how the CDCs projects 
were implemented, what the projects have achieved, whether expected results were attained 
according to the projects’ design and underlying development hypothesis, and how activities 
were perceived and valued by stakeholders, and whether the projects are sustainable. The 
evaluation team will use a mix of quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis 
methods to answer the questions of interest in this evaluation. The evaluation must follow the 
principles and guidelines for high quality evaluations outlined in the USAID Evaluation 
Policy (January 2011). 
B. Data Collection and Analysis 
The evaluation team must develop data collection tools that are consistent with the evaluation 
questions to ensure high quality analysis. KNO will lead a training with the CDC evaluation 
team members to facilitate the development of the data collection tools. 
Data collection methods must include, but are not limited to, a combination of the following: 
 Desk review of relevant documentation (e.g. quarterly reports, output from the project 
monitoring system, etc.); 
 Site visits to CDCs; 
 Key informants interviews (KIIs) (which should include, but are not limited to, KIIs with 
USAID/Egypt Education Team, including the Activity Manager; LEEP/WL staff; 
ECDC/AUC staff; CDCs’ Management; and university management ); and 
 Focus group discussions with beneficiaries (e.g., students, faculty members, employers) 
and other counterparts and stakeholders. 
All beneficiary data must disaggregated by gender and geographic location. The evaluation team 
is expected to conduct site visits to each of the five active CDCs, as well as to each of the closed 
ones if possible. 
Prior to beginning field work, KNO will submit to IIE the following for their review. IIE will 
then submit to the USAID Evaluation Program Manager for review, feedback and/or discussion, 
with sufficient time for USAID’s review, before they are used in the field. CDC will contribute 
to the development of these materials and submit to KNO for their review before KNO submits 
to IIE. 
 A list of interviewees and key stakeholders 
 An evaluation design matrix that details the proposed methodology for data collection 
and analysis 
 Data collection tools 
 A data analysis plan that encompasses the following: 
 How focus groups and key informant interviews will be transcribed and analyzed 
 What procedures will be used to analyze qualitative and quantitative data from key 
informant and other stakeholder interviews 
 How the evaluation will weigh and integrate qualitative data from these sources with 
quantitative data from performance indicators and project performance monitoring 
records to reach conclusions about the effectiveness and efficiency of both projects 
C. Relevant Documentation 
USAID and the implementing partners will provide the evaluation team with soft copies of a 
package of briefing materials, including: 
 Relevant parts of Projects agreement and amendments 
 Relevant parts of Projects’ quarterly and annual reports 
 Budget information as relevant and appropriate to be shared. 
 Projects’ Performance Monitoring Plan 
 Other Documents, as available, appropriate to be shared and requested by the evaluation 
team. 
The evaluation team (KNO and CDC) should complete the document review prior to KNO’s 
arrival in Egypt. The evaluation team may also request and review additional resources to the 
extent necessary to perform its work. 
D. Data Quality Standards 
The evaluation team must ensure that the data they collect clearly and adequately represents 
answers to the evaluation questions, is sufficiently precise to present a fair picture of 
performance, and is at an appropriate level of details. 
E. Data Limitations 
USAID requires that issues potentially affecting the quality (including validity, integrity, and 
reliability) of evaluation data be discussed and documented in the evaluation planning stage and 
assessed on an ongoing basis during evaluation implementation, including during data collection 
and analysis. All limitations and identified measures to address or overcome limitations should 
be discussed by the evaluation team and USAID in the implementation phase and detailed in the 
final report. The final evaluation report should be clear and transparent about any notable 
limitations and if and how they may affect the evaluation’s findings, conclusions, and 
recommendations. 
The evaluation team should be aware that student and alumni data may not be made available by 
university management. 
Evaluation Products 
A. Deliverables 
Evaluation Team Planning Meeting: A kickoff meeting between IIE, USAID, and the 
evaluation team must be held in Egypt at the onset of the evaluation. This meeting will allow 
USAID/Egypt to discuss the purpose, expectations, and work plan of the assignment with the 
evaluation team. In addition, USAID/Egypt and the evaluation team must: 
 Finalize team members’ roles and responsibilities; 
 Review and finalize evaluation questions; 
 Review and finalize the evaluation timeline; 
 Present and discuss data collection methods, instruments and tools, analysis, and 
guidelines; and 
 Review and clarify any logistical and administrative procedures for the assignment. 
USAID will provide the evaluation team with a stakeholder analysis that includes an initial list of 
interviewees, from which the evaluation team can work to create a more comprehensive list. 
KNO will take the lead, with CDC input, in the construction of a preliminary interview schedule 
that includes different stakeholders. KNO will submit to IIE, who will then share with USAID 
the updated lists of interviewees and schedule as meetings/interviews take place and informants 
are added to/deleted from the schedule. The finalized list must be sent to IIE no later than six 
working days after submission of the preliminary interviewees’ schedule. 
Evaluation De-Brief. After conducting the field work, the evaluation team must present its 
preliminary findings to USAID/Egypt. The debriefing must include a discussion of findings, 
including project achievements and challenges, as well as preliminary recommendations for the 
future activity designs and implementation. The team must consider any USAID/Egypt 
comments, as appropriate, when revising the draft evaluation report. 
Draft Evaluation Report. Prior to departing Egypt, the evaluation team must submit a draft 
report of the findings and recommendations to IIE. IIE will review and then submit to the 
USAID Evaluation Manager. The written report must clearly describe findings, conclusions and 
recommendations for future programming. USAID will provide written comments on the draft 
report within seven working days of receiving the document. 
Final Evaluation Report. The final evaluation report must be submitted by IIE to USAID 
within seven working days of receiving USAID’s comments. In order to meet this deadline KNO 
will solicit feedback from CDC and incorporate any edits into the final evaluation report for 
IIE’s review within five working days of receiving USAID’s comments to allow IIE time to 
review before final submission. The final report must not exceed 30 pages in length (not 
including appendices, lists of contacts, etc.). The format must include an executive summary, 
table of contents, glossary, methodology, findings, and conclusions. The report must be 
submitted initially in English, electronically, and later, an Arabic translation must be submitted. 
KNO, with CDC’s input, must submit a flash drive to IIE that includes the survey instruments, 
interviews, and data sets for IIE’s submission to the USAID Evaluation Program Manager with 
submission of the final English report. KNO, with CDC’s input, must submit to IIE an expanded 
executive summary to accompany the final report. The expanded executive summary must 
include a background summary on the evaluation purpose and methodology, and an overview of 
the main data points, limitations, findings, and conclusions. The expanded executive summary 
must be easy to read for wide distribution to local audiences. The expanded executive summary 
must be written in English and Arabic in hard copy and electronically. KNO will be responsible 
for the English version and CDC will be responsible for the Arabic translation USAID/Egypt 
intends to disseminate the evaluation report and expanded executive summary within USAID 
and to stakeholders. 
B. Evaluation Report Requirements 
The format for the evaluation report is as follows: 
1.Executive Summary 
2.Table of Contents 
3.Introduction 
4.Background 
5.Methodology 
6.Limitations 
7.Findings/Conclusions/Recommendations 
8.References 
9.Annexes 
The final report will be reviewed using the Checklist for Assessing USAID Evaluation Reports 
(http://www.usaid.gov/results-and-data/information-resources/program-evaluations). 
The final evaluation report must conform to the Criteria to Ensure the Quality of the Evaluation 
Report found in Appendix I of the USAID Evaluation Policy. The Evaluation Program Manager 
will determine if the criteria are met. This evaluation will not be considered ―final‖ until the 
Evaluation Program Manager has confirmed, in writing, that the report has met all of the quality 
criteria. 
General evaluation report guidelines include: 
 The evaluation report must represent a thoughtful, well-researched and well organized 
effort to objectively evaluate what worked in the project, what did not, and why; 
 The report must include the evaluation Scope of Work as an annex. All modifications, 
whether in technical requirements, evaluation questions, evaluation team composition, 
methodology, budget, or timeline must be agreed upon in writing by the AOR; 
 Evaluation methodology must be explained in detail and all tools used in conducting the 
evaluation such as questionnaires, checklists and discussion guides must be included in 
an Annex in the final report; 
 Limitations to the evaluation must be disclosed in the report, with particular attention to 
the limitations associated with the evaluation methodology (selection bias, recall bias, 
unobservable differences between comparison groups, etc.) and what is being done to 
mitigate the threats to validity; 
 Evaluation findings must be presented as analyzed facts, evidence, and data and not 
based on anecdotes, hearsay or the compilation of people’s opinions. Findings must be 
specific, concise and supported by strong quantitative or qualitative evidence; 
 Sources of information must be properly identified and listed in an annex; 
 Recommendations must be supported by a specific set of findings; and 
 Recommendations must be action-oriented – organized according to whether 
recommendations are short-term or long-term, practical, and specific, with defined 
responsibility for the action. 
The final evaluation report in English must be submitted by KNO to IIE in electronic format 
(Microsoft Word) no later than 2 working days after the receipt of the acceptance decision. The 
entire report must be no longer than 30 pages, single-spaced in Times New Roman font, size 12 
type fonts. All data and materials are to be surrendered to and will remain the property of 
USAID. 
Evaluation Management 
A. Logistics 
IIE will provide overall direction to the evaluation team, identify key documents, and assist in 
facilitating a work plan. USAID, through IIE, will assist in arranging meetings with key 
stakeholders identified by USAID prior to the initiation of field-work.CDC is responsible for 
arranging other meetings as identified during the course of this evaluation and advising KNO and 
IIE prior to each of those meetings. IIE will update USAID/Egypt regarding all meetings. 
CDC is responsible for arranging transportation as needed for site visits in and around Cairo and 
other governorates. USAID, through IIE, can assist with hotel arrangements if necessary but 
CDC will be responsible for arranging the work/office space, computers, internet access, 
printing, and photocopying for the entire evaluation team while in Egypt. CDC also responsible 
for procuring and paying for translation services for interviews, reports and any other evaluation 
related tasks. Evaluation team members will be required to make their own lodging and travel 
payments. USAID personnel, through IIE, will be made available to the team for consultations 
regarding sources and technical issues, before and during the evaluation process. 
Additional considerations: 
 WL and AUC will work with the evaluation team to facilitate access to the CDCs and 
university management; and 
 U.S. citizens (or foreign non- Egyptian nationals) will require GOE security clearance to 
enter public universities. In addition, to be considered is the sensitivity on the part of the 
university management for non- Egyptian nationals conducting interviews with university 
management and beneficiaries. 
ANNEX J: DISCLOSURE OF ANY CONFLICTS OF INTEREST 


U.S. Agency for International Development 
1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 
Washington, DC 20523