Contract Number EDH-1-00-05-00029-00 Task Order No. 08 July 2008 This report was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was pre￾pared by Creative Associates International, Inc and Dev Tech Systems Inc .. 1 Table of Contents Acronyms………………………………………………………………………………….2 1. Executive Summary........................................................................................................ 3 2. Introduction and Background ......................................................................................... 5 2.1 The LEAD Program ............................................................................................. 5 2.2 Evaluation of LEAD............................................................................................. 5 3. The Evaluation: Findings and Recommendations .......................................................... 9 3.1 Major Findings.......................................................................................................... 9 3.1.1 Have the terms of the Cooperative Agreements been met?.............................. 9 3.1.2 Are LEAD students being prepared for leadership?....................................... 15 3.1.3 Are LEAD students contributing to their communities? ................................ 20 3.1.4 Can cost-effectiveness be improved?.............................................................. 22 3.1.5 Is the program sustainable?............................................................................. 24 3.2 Conclusions and Recommendations................................................................... 26 3.2.1 How can LEAD be improved for the short term?........................................... 26 3.2.2 How can LEAD be improved for the long term?............................................ 27 3.2.3 Can LEAD or a modified version of LEAD be replicated inside of Egypt or beyond?..................................................................................................................... 28 Appendices..................................................................................................................... 29 A. Scope of work B. Evaluation design C. List of reference documents D. Calender, persons interviewed and affiliation E. Student questionnaire F. Key informant interview questions G. Focus group questions-students H. LEAD students by governorates I. Total LEAD Budget and 07/08 Budget 2 ACRONYMS ABE-BE Assistance to Basic Education-Basic Education AUC American University in Cairo ELI English Language Institute GPA Grade Point Average LEAD Leadership for Education and Development LPI Leadership Potential Index MFA Ministry of Foreign Affairs MOE Ministry of Education SPSS Statistical Package for the Social Sciences USAID United States Agency for International Development 3 1. Executive Summary A two-person team conducted this evaluation between May and June, 2008. Fieldwork occurred between May 1 and 29, with the final debriefing held on May 27, 2008. The team continued to analyze data and draft the final report during the month of June. The American University in Cairo’s Leadership for Education and Development (LEAD) Scholarship Program was designed to contribute to USAID’s Strategic Objective 22, Improved Access to Quality Education in Selected Governorates, by facilitating access to the American University in Cairo (AUC) for qualified graduates of public high schools in all Egyptian governorates who would not otherwise have had the opportunity to attend. The program also contributes to Intermediate Result 22.1, Access Expanded to Girls and Women, by providing comparable numbers of scholarships to males and females in each of the governorates.1 The LEAD scholarship program was highly successful in recruiting public school graduates, two from each of the 27 governorates—including those in the most remote regions of Egypt. The program has been equally successful at identifying and awarding scholarships to equal numbers of young women and men. Because AUC is considered to be the flagship institution for higher learning in Egypt, the successful recruitment, enrollment, and retention of students who would not have otherwise had the opportunity to attend an American university contributes to an overall increase in access to quality education as well as expanded access for female students in particular. The LEAD program objectives are to: 1) award one male and one female Egyptian public school student from each of the 27 governorates full-tuition scholarships to complete their undergraduate studies at AUC; 2) train and equip these students with the necessary skills to become leaders in their societies; and 3) enable these students to actively contribute to development-oriented programs. As mentioned, the program was able to effectively meet the first objective. In terms of the second objective, process results indicate that there are significant program improvements or adjustments that should be considered in order to more effectively and efficiently train and equip LEAD students to become leaders. Most LEAD students are not satisfied with the leadership training and support they are receiving from the program. Some AUC staff and faculty members and some students believe that a comprehensive plan needs to be developed including an activity schedule that is aligned with the plan. By contrast, while some remain critical of the leadership activities, it is important to note that a significant minority of LEAD students—an estimated 30-40 percent—hold leadership positions in AUC societies, activities, and clubs. Based on this, other faculty members and administrators hold that many LEAD students enter the AUC adequately equipped on the leadership topic as a result of successful recruitment. However, these key informants disapprove of the high rate of participation in these activities because they believe they are simply not required. The overall dissatisfaction with LEAD-related leadership activities coupled with the success of LEAD students in pursuing leadership 1 USAID Cooperative Agreement No. 263-A-00-07-00023-00 March 7, 2007 4 positions suggests LEAD staff would benefit from both a comprehensive leadership plan and carefully aligned activities that hone and develop students’ skills year-by-year, as well as a scaled back approach to leadership training. The third objective of enabling students to actively contribute to development-oriented programs has been a success. An estimated 75 percent of LEAD students are actively participating in community development-related activities, with many of these students taking major roles. Individually, students articulated a strong and often extremely specific description of their current activities as well as their future plans to contribute. The ultimate success of the LEAD scholarship program will not be known until the first wave of graduates enters the labor market and the broader world of development outside of the AUC. It is highly recommended that the LEAD scholars be tracked after program completion and that an outcomes-based assessment be conducted 5-7 years after the graduation of the first cohort of students. It is also recommended that for any additional cohorts (6 and after) a control group be established during the LEAD application process so that a cost-effectiveness analysis of the project can be performed. Only the use of a control group or semi-control group will provide an accurate picture of what these outstanding students might have been able to achieve without the LEAD program. When considering additional cohorts, USAID must consider that it is unlikely that AUC will be able to incur an increase in cost-sharing due to the significant expenses associated with moving the university to its new campus. It is also possible that the AUC will look to decrease, not increase, its contribution to the LEAD program. As a result, if USAID and AUC wish to continue the successful LEAD program, less expensive schemes and additional funding sources should be considered. This effort can best be accomplished by further prioritizing objectives such as focusing attention on specific governorates, on young women only, or on students planning to major in areas that more closely align with development careers and the labor market. It is important to note that this is not a result of lack of commitment on the part of AUC but simply a reflection of the serious financial constraints the university is under at this time. 5 2. Introduction and Background 2.1 The LEAD Program The LEAD program was designed to meet USAID’s Strategic Objective 22 Improved Access to Quality Education in Selected Governorates by facilitating access to the American University in Cairo (AUC) for qualified graduates of public high schools in all Egyptian governorates who would not otherwise have had the opportunity to attend. The program also contributes to Intermediate Result 22.1, Access Expanded to Girls and Women, by providing comparable numbers of scholarships to males and females in each of the governorates.2 The program objectives include these overarching aims as well as: 1. Expanding the base of young people from modest backgrounds with high quality higher education 2. Training and equipping students to become leaders 3. Enabling students to contribute to development-oriented activities3 Since 2004, the LEAD scholarship program has awarded approximately 54 public school students, one male and one female student each from Egypt’s 27 governorates annually with a full scholarship to AUC. The scholarship is designed to cover one year of English language study as well as 4-5 years of undergraduate work at the AUC.4 The LEAD scholarship program is intended to provide a unique chance to students from all over the country, who might not otherwise have the opportunity to study at an American university. The first year of the LEAD program is usually dedicated to English language learning—depending on the level of English of each student upon entrance—after which students begin the standard AUC curriculum. LEAD scholars also engage in leadership training and skills development through conferences, retreats, weekly meetings, and specialized training sessions as well as a study abroad program. Thus far, 2165 students have entered AUC through the LEAD program; the final cohort will enter in fall 2008. 2.2 Evaluation of LEAD The evaluation began on May 5, 2008 when the two-person team arrived in Cairo and met with USAID. The final debrief was held on May 27, 2008 and the team left Cairo on May 29th and continued to analyze data and draft the final report for six additional days. Purpose The purpose of the evaluation was to assess if and to what extent the overarching strategic objective as well as specific project goals (described above) have been met. Project inputs and outcomes were analyzed with attention to quality of programming, satisfaction of students, faculty, and staff, cost, and sustainability. 2 USAID Cooperative Agreement No. 263-A-00-07-00023-00 March 7, 2007 3 LEAD Cooperative Agreements and Quarterly Reports 4 The engineering programs at AUC generally run 4.5-5 years. 5 8 of those 216 left the program. 6 Research Questions To assess the overall performance of the AUC LEAD Scholarship Program, the Team strove to answer the following questions:6 1. To what extent has the AUC LEAD Scholarship Program achieved the terms and conditions of its Cooperative Agreements since 2004, when the activity began? 2. Has the AUC LEAD Scholarship Program trained and equipped recipients with the necessary skills to become leaders in their communities? 3. Has the AUC LEAD Scholarship Program enabled recipients to contribute to development, community service, and leadership activities? 4. Has the program been administered in a cost-effective manner? 5. What mechanisms have been established for AUC LEAD Scholarship Program sustainability? Methodology This evaluation examined process issues and assessed outcomes in comparison with program goals. The team used a mixed-methods approach relying on both qualitative and quantitative data. The evaluation uses several methods for data collection, including 1) document review; 2) a student survey; 3) student focus group interviews; 4) interviews with high-achieving students; 5) interviews with low-performing students; and 6) key informant interviews. More information about research questions and methods for data collection for each research question can be found in the appendices. Sample and Data Collection In order to collect essential information from all or most participants, all LEAD students were invited to meet with evaluators to complete a brief written questionnaire7 . Questionnaires were also emailed to the approximately 15 students who are presently in the US for their year-abroad studies as well as 20 students not able to attend survey collection meetings. In total, 154 of the 208 students (74%) submitted completed questionnaires. In addition, 2 discussions were held with each cohort, with 5-12 students participating in each discussion. To explore the successes and challenges of individual students, 6 low￾performing (GPA 2.5 or lower) and 5 high-performing students (GPA 3.5 or higher) were interviewed. Finally, key informant interviews were held with 27 LEAD and AUC administrators, AUC faculty members, and “friends of the LEAD8 .” Instruments for Data Collection Primary instruments for data collection were: 1) student questionnaire, 2) key informant questions, and 3) focus group questions for students. The student questionnaire had three major sections focusing on demographic information, satisfaction, and challenges faced 6 Sub-questions can be found in the appendices. 7 See appendices for questionnaire. 8 Friends of the LEAD are professionals who formally worked with the LEAD program who have maintained their interest and involvement with the program. 7 by the students. In addition to general information on sex, governorate, and cohort, the demographic section attempted to look at socio-economic status. In the satisfaction section a three-point scale was used to determine perceptions of the LEAD program and quality of education at AUC. The final section explored difficulties faced by the students and their plans for the future. (See appendix E for the complete questionnaire.) The key informant interviews were standardized in order to pinpoint trends across interviewees and groups of interviewees. There were a total of 20 questions and follow￾on questions were also asked when appropriate. LEAD-affiliated interviewees were asked all questions and AUC-affiliated interviewees were asked select questions from the list of 20 based on their knowledge and interactions with the LEAD program. (See appendix F for questions.) Student focus group interviews were also standardized in order to compare and find commonalities across cohorts. The interviews all included ten major questions and follow-on questions were asked as appropriate and as time allowed. (See appendix G for questions.) Table 1: Sample and Data Collection Summary Method Participants Time required Planned frequency Planned no. of participants Actual number of participants Surveys LEAD Students 20 min n/a 150 154 (74%) Cohort focus group discussions (6-8 students) LEAD Students 1.5 hrs 8 (2 per cohort) 48-64 58 Individual interviews Low performing LEAD Students 1 hr 5 (minimum of 1 per cohort) 5 6 Individual interviews High achieving LEAD Students 1 hr 5 (minimum of 1 per cohort) 5 5 Individual and pair interviews Faculty members 1 hr n/a 5 9 Individual and group interviews AUC administration 1 hr n/a 5 7 Individual and group interviews LEAD staff 1 hr n/a 8 9 Individual interviews Friends of LEAD 45 min n/a 1 3 Data Analysis Questionnaire data was entered and analyzed using SPSS and the significance level was set at .05. Particular attention was paid to comparing cohorts and comparing male and 8 female students. Some interesting differences were found when comparing cohorts but no significant differences were found when comparing male and female students.9 As for qualitative data, during interviews and discussions, memos were recorded10. Soon after interviews and discussions are held, notes were reread and additional comments added.11 After several interviews are completed, line-by-line open coding was used to determine distinct categories.12 Coding was used to uncover key themes and issues clustering around interview questions and across data collection methods and samples. Validity The evaluation was designed to generate specific findings from each method of data collection but validity is only ensured by using data from different sources (questionnaires, key informants interviews, student discussions, etc.) and triangulating information. For analysis it was important not to rely heavily on one data collection source but to use all information collected to generate a complete and accurate picture of the LEAD program. Limitations The evaluation is without a control group and therefore can not effectively investigate causation of LEAD programming to participation in community development activities, securing leadership roles, success in university, or future workforce contributions. Specifically, the evaluation can not prove that students planning to take on leadership and service roles would not be in the same place irrespective of the LEAD program. That is, there may be something special about those selected that would have propelled them forward to academic success and leadership and community service regardless of LEAD. Only a control group identifying individuals with similar dispositions, academic achievement, and economic status could fully address this issue. While the lack of a control group is a limitation, the evaluation did reveal if and to what extent access to high-quality higher education has been increased, as well as the effectiveness of the processes used by the program. In addition, this evaluation did not compare average AUC students with LEAD students because the purpose of the program was to cultivate and support a group of disadvantaged students from throughout Egypt—not to out outperform or attempt to compete with privileged AUCians. Also, analysis of ultimate program impact is necessarily limited. In large part, this is because 2008 is the first year LEAD students will graduate from AUC. As a result, it is too early to determine if the program has been successful in training individuals who will become leaders and contributors to their home governorates and communities. At this time, however, the effectiveness of the processes for preparing future leaders can be assessed and will be examined in this study. 9 See Major Findings for specific comparisons. 10 “The researcher’s record of analysis, thoughts, interpretations, questions, and directions for further data collection,” (Merriam, 2002, p. 110). 11 These analysis sessions—rereading of transcripts and adding memos—occurred every 48 hours during data collection. 12 Corbin & Strauss, 1998, p. 114 9 3. The Evaluation: Findings and Recommendations 3.1 Major Findings The major findings are that the LEAD program was successful at increasing access to higher quality education and, further, was extremely successful at targeting young women and students in remote governorates. The program was also found to be extremely successful at recruiting, enrolling, and training students to contribute to communities through development-oriented activities. Leadership training of LEAD was not considered satisfactory. Despite this, many LEAD students are playing leadership roles at the AUC. One student who has shown considerable leadership and overall success is Amira Hassanien. Her story, presented as a case study, is shared throughout the report (See Boxes). The program compared favorably from a cost perspective relative to the alternative of sending students overseas for undergraduate studies. Compared to local options (of lower quality), costs are significant and sustainability is not ensured. The AUC is unable to increase their financial participation at this time. While AUC expressed strong interest in the program they are looking to decrease their financial commitment. At the same time, USAID would like to see AUC sharing more, not less, of program costs. There is no plan in place to seek alternative funding. Some program components, such as year abroad, are high cost and criteria for student selection could be tightened. While cost￾saving measures come with tradeoffs, the financial uncertainty of LEAD requires that such steps be carefully considered. 3.1.1 Have the terms of the Cooperative Agreements been met? The first question for the evaluation was whether the terms of the cooperative agreements between USAID and AUC for the LEAD program have been met. The obligations of the agreements are not unrelated to broader program objectives and other research questions in this evaluation. Much of the information provided in this subsection complements other sections. As findings directly relate to the agreements, however, they will be discussed in this section of the report. Agreements have been amended and renewed but the major focus of LEAD has remained constant since the program began in 2004. LEAD aimed to provide: • Access for female and male students • Access across governorates • Appropriate recruitment • Acceptable retention Amira, Profile of a LEAD Fellow Amira Hassanien is a LEAD 4 computer science student with a 3.7 GPA. The second of two siblings, Amira grew up in Ismailia, on the west bank of the Suez Canal approximately a 90 minute car ride from Cairo. At her high school, Amira was an active student who received high grades, participated in sports and music, and demonstrated a fondness for exploring and visiting new places. "She could do many things at the same time," said her father to describe Amira as a young girl. 10 • Acceptable academic performance • Access to disadvantaged students13 The document review, key informant interviews, and student surveys were used to verify that overall and individually, the six aims listed above were successfully met by AUC. Access and Recruitment Each year LEAD has recruited and enrolled a comparable number of male and female students totaling 106 females and 110 males. In addition, documents, key informant interviews, and student surveys all showed that each of the 27 governorates has been represented by male and female students since year two. Year One, as expected in the first year of any new program, faced some challenges regarding recruitment as well as retention. For Cohort 1, the target was 54 students. Forty-eight students were admitted and enrolled and 4 were subsequently dismissed from the program. Dismissals were a result of mental health issues, theft, or drug use on AUC property. Learning from achievements and challenges of the first year, the target for Cohort 2 was 58 students.14 This target was met and all students remain in LEAD. The target for Cohort 3 was 57 students (again recruiting higher numbers in order to fill the number of funded slots from year one). This target was again met and 3 students were subsequently dismissed.15 For the latest cohort, the target was adjusted to the original 54, with 53 students actually admitted. After having lost 3 students from Cohort 3, the program opted to tighten requirements in terms of test scores and leadership potential, in 13 Disadvantaged was defined as students graduating from a public government school. 14 LEAD attempted address the deficits in some governorates by recruiting more LEAD students in subsequent years. 15 One of the three Cohort 3 students was readmitted after data collection was completed. As a result LEAD will begin the Fall 2008 semester having dismissed 7—not 8—students. 25 19 26 32 28 26 27 25 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 No. of Students I II III IV Cohort Gender Breakdown of LEAD Students Per Cohort Male Female 11 order to boost retention. They also installed a standardized interviewing system to screen for students that might have misrepresented their achievements or who might be particularly nervous or insecure which—it was believed—would cause them to be more susceptible to failure. So far these efforts have paid off. Satisfaction with the updated recruitment process has been higher for both LEAD and AUC administrators. Thus far, only 1 student has been dismissed from Cohort 4. In large part, recruitment efforts mirrored the standard AUC student selection process, with a minimum high school graduation examination score of 85 percent and passing scores on the English as a Second Language test. Additional criteria was also used, such as participation in leadership and development-oriented activities, proof of attendance of a government high school, and proof of permanent residence in one of the governorates. Learning from Year One, LEAD was able to successfully recruit and enroll students meeting their program criteria. Overtime, the recruitment process has evolved and improved. For example, LEAD identified a problem of high school students transferring to public schools in their final year in order to qualify for LEAD. Now applicants must show attendance in these schools for a minimum of three years. In addition, many students were suspected of submitting fraudulent documents verifying participation in leadership and development￾oriented activities. Currently, an interview process is in place to probe the level of participation in these activities, and interview protocols are used to ensure that results are more objective. For Cohort 5, recruitment is expected to be even more rigorous, with a new application form and tightened interview protocols as well as a plan to define weight of all elements of screening and selection (how many points for examination scores, English-language test scores, activities, interview performance, disadvantaged status, etc.).16 Key informant interviews suggested that a clear and transparent document outlining how various criteria will be weighed is required to further ensure a fair and transparent final selection. As one member of last year’s interviewing committee explained, “We want to know who was accepted and based on exactly what guidelines.” Retention All data reflects that retention in the LEAD program is extremely impressive. While some LEAD students and administrators are concerned about the numbers they have lost, they are their own biggest critics. Given the mission of LEAD—to recruit students from all over Egypt including the most remote governorates with the least well-equipped schools—the number of students remaining in the program is notably high. Those students that were dismissed were outliers and were removed. A review of dismissed students (6 of the 8 students) and recruitment information across governorates (minus cohort 3)17 revealed that some governorates may present greater challenges for identifying successful LEAD students. Kalyobeya, New Valley, and South Sinai each missed their recruiting targets twice. Demographic information was made 16 This document is still in process and is expected to be completed in the next month. 17 Unfortunately, a specific breakdown for all cohorts is not available due to computer difficulties at LEAD. A breakdown for cohorts 1, 2, and 4 can be found in appendix H. 12 available for six of the eight students who were dismissed. Of these six, four were male, two were female and dismissed individuals were from the governorates of North Sinai (two students), Kalyobeya, Beheira, Menoufeya, and Giza. Specific reasons for dismissal included: drugs, stealing, failing ELI program multiple times (two students), forgery of Thanaweya Amma certificate, repeated failure to abide by multiple LEAD and AUC regulations followed by refusal to apply for re-admittance. Only Kalybeya had a student that was dismissed and fell short of recruitment targets. Academic Performance Documents, key informant interviews, and student surveys together show that the academic performance of LEAD students is acceptable, according to AUC standards, but with room for improvement. According to the student survey, the average GPA for LEAD students is 3.1— exactly the same as the average for AUC students overall a few years earlier. 18 It is important to note that LEAD students are held to the same academic performance requirements as their fellow AUC peers. The minimum GPA for AUC students is 2.0. This evaluation, however, examined GPAs with a 2.5 GPA benchmark in order to highlight students that are in danger of failing as well as those already on academic probation or other interventions. LEAD documentation from fall 2007 shows that approximately 20 percent of LEAD students have a GPA under 2.5. Our student survey with GPA information from spring 2008 suggested a similar trend with 12 percent of those surveyed under 2.5 and 17 percent of GPA data missing from the forms—some of which were likely to have been lower achieving students as individuals who perceive themselves as failing are often less likely to provide information directly related to their shortcomings. Because LEAD 18 Berenger, R. (2005) The Lake Wobegon Effect and Grade Inflation:The American University in Cairo Case Study. LEAD GPA 2007 181 students 8% 12% 28% 29% 23% under 2.0 2-2.5 2.5-3 3-3.5 3.5-4 LEAD Students 96% 4% enrolled dismissed 13 records of complete GPAs for 2007 were made available to the team—and because they showed similar trends—no additional effort was made to collect missing data on GPAs. There were no significant difference in GPA between male and female students nor was there any significant difference between the four cohorts. Key informants and students reported that there were not clusters of low or high performing students by governorates and thus, given the small number of students per governorates and the large numbers of governorates, it is not possible to determine any significant differences between the governorates. Table 2: Evaluation survey data: Spring 2008 GPA Frequency Percentage Valid Percentage Under 2.5 16 10 12 2.5-3.0 36 23 28 3-3.5 44 28 34 3.5 and above 34 22 26 Total 130 83 100 Missing 26 17 Total 156 100 As the above table indicates, however, LEAD also has an impressive number of students - 26-28 percent (LEAD fall 2007 data and Evaluation survey data respectively) - with GPAs over 3.5. This information was underscored by student and faculty interviews. Specifically, students and faculty discussed the fact that while not all LEAD students are outstanding scholars, the highest￾achieving students in AUC classes are often LEAD or Public School Scholarship Fund19 students. Most faculty members discussed the importance of having LEAD students in their classes because they raise the academic bar for the university. It is important to note that while there was strong qualitative evidence showing the perception of high achievement and increased academic diversity in the classroom, the team has no statistical data on the significance of these perceived trends. One LEAD supporter and faculty member said, “I love the LEAD program and I love the LEAD students. Quite 19 Each year the AUC admits 20 disadvantaged students, primarily from Cairo, and awards them scholarships. These students are the top scorers on the national high school completion examination. Amira as a Learner AUC LEAD recognized Amira’s strengths and provided her the opportunity to build on her skills and broaden her horizons by offering her the opportunity to live in Cairo and study at a western institution. Amira expressed satisfaction with AUC, specifically the learning style required of students: "We study through assignments, and that makes us study from the first day of semester". In contradistinction, Amira disliked courses that emphasized route memorization and exams. Regardless of the course pedagogy, Amira’s dedication to high achievement has been consistent, earning her mostly A’s at AUC. 14 frankly, if it wasn’t for my LEAD students I would not still be teaching at the AUC. Most of them are serious students, serious about learning and it makes teaching worth the while.” Even one faculty member who was highly critical of LEAD stated, “One of my best students is from the LEAD, maybe she is my very best student.” In this way, LEAD not only contributes geographic and socio-economic diversity to AUC, it may also be raising the bar for academic performance in some faculties. It is important to note that there were no significant differences in GPA across cohorts or when comparing male and female students. Disadvantaged Students When examining the issue of recruiting disadvantaged students, it is important to note that the definition frequently used is those who would not be able to afford the AUC without scholarship support. The criterion has been attendance in a public high school. This year an application form is being introduced with additional questions in order to further focus selection to qualifying candidates who demonstrate need beyond merely attendance in a public school. Key informant interviews and student focus groups interviews indicate that approximately 90 percent of LEAD students would not have been able to attend AUC without LEAD support. Of the remaining 10 percent, key informants and students believe that most of those would not have attended—even though financially able to do so—because it would have been a stress on the family, coupled with education being a lower priority among families in more remote regions—especially regarding girls. In an effort to check interview data, the student questionnaire also probed the resources issue. The team found that questions regarding family members’ attendance at the AUC and at universities abroad were not valid as students often listed distant family members who likely do not contribute much to the financial well-being of the family. Questions on the profession of the father and education of the mother were more enlightening. Approximately 30 percent of LEAD fathers do not hold a professional position, are retired, unemployed, or deceased. About 17 percent of the mothers did not graduate from university.20 It is important to note that many of the professional fathers held teaching positions which have low compensation. Many others (of the remaining 70 percent) are government employees who also receive a relatively low salary. Yet, these figures far outweigh national averages, suggesting that overall, LEAD students come from relatively privileged backgrounds. Overall, while LEAD students may be disadvantaged as compared to their AUC peers, they are privileged compared to their former public school classmates whose parents are often non-salaried. It is worth noting that many key informants discussed the importance and the great difficulty of identifying needy students who have the skills and strength of character to thrive at the AUC. If the definition of disadvantaged is to be expanded beyond measuring for attendance in public high school additional questions such as 20 If education of the mother is selected as an indicator for a disadvantaged student, the aim would be to recruit a larger percentage of students with less educated mothers. 15 education level of the mother and profession of the father-ranking the job as professional also approximating salary-could be useful tools. Finally, regarding recruitment of disadvantaged students, key informant interviews and student focus group interviews revealed that approximately 10 percent of LEAD students, including those from more remote governorates, are not originally from those locales. These students legally reside in specific governorates because their fathers are civil servants who have been assigned to those locations. As a result, these students are living in remote governorates but their families are unlikely to remain there. This may decrease the likelihood of those students returning to those areas during their time at AUC and thereafter. These students often have more financial resources and opportunities relative to most of the LEAD students, similar to LEAD students from Cairo or Alexandria. In terms of completion, the last Cohort 1 student was dismissed in summer of 2006. The LEAD and AUC informants interviewed believed that there would be no more dismissals from Cohort 1 or 2 and that any at-risk students from these cohorts had been identified and were either being adequately supported or had been dismissed. Informants were less certain about the newer cohorts but strongly believed that future dismissals would be very few if any. 3.1.2 Are LEAD students being prepared for leadership? The best answer to this question will be available after the first cohort of LEAD students settles into jobs and communities—wherever that might be. At this time, we have used student satisfaction with LEAD—a program designed to boost leadership and development skills—as observed in student surveys and student focus group interviews as the major proxy for success. Satisfaction information was verified though a review and analysis of key informant and document data. These findings should be considered along with findings in section 3.1.3 examining contributions to the community and results in section 3.1.1 addressing students’ academic achievement as they are also important proxies for measuring for leadership preparation. General satisfaction First, it is important to stress that overall, LEAD students are satisfied with their program. As one student stated, “We would never give up our chance to study here [at AUC]! This is the best place for us—for everyone—in Egypt. We are very happy to be the LEAD!” This level of enthusiasm was echoed in student survey results, in which 86 percent of LEAD students rated the program as good or very good. Other results related to the program and ultimately to their preparation as leaders included the following: Amira as a Leader During her tenure at AUC, Amira has been involved and has assumed leadership positions in a number of extracurricular groups such as the Rotary Club and Dance for Life. As the head of Public Relation of the Rotary Club, Amira worked to design a web site for the organization. Additionally, she worked with AUC’s Rotary and Leon clubs to organize a day-long celebration for 100 children with cancer, providing entertainment herself with a puppet show. With Dance for Life, Amira participated in a “Dance for Hope” event with 5000 children and young people from 11 different countries. Amira assumed responsibility roles with Dance for Life, as an IT assistant, director and editor-in-chief of the Dance for Life magazine. Additionally, she was appointed to spearhead the organization of the international meeting of Dance for Life in Egypt. 16 • 78% reported the current LEAD staff to be good or very good. • 65% reported the support they received with personal life to be good or very good. • 59% reported support with academics to be good or very good. • 75% reported the previous staff to be good or very good.21 The need for better academic advising came through loud and clear when talking with students, faculty members, and some members of AUC staff. The American liberal arts education of the AUC is very new to most, if not all, LEAD students. One LEAD coordinator mentioned, “There is a lack of academic support. They [the students] need to figure out what to major in! They are simply not used to the American system.” While they are required to attend the same academic orientation session as other AUC students, they are often without the social capital to seek answers to important questions such as which major is best for them and pressing questions such as when should they declare a major and the implications of delaying a declaration. As one student put it, “We need better academic advice. We rely only on our fellow students. This is fine but I think that it would be better to have a faculty member that cares about students also give us advice so we can make the best decision about what to study and how to manage the AUC system.” Related to this issue, when asked to select the major challenge they are facing, 40 percent indicated academics followed by 17 percent who noted that the social life at AUC was their biggest challenge. While this deficit may not directly impact their future as leaders it does contribute to dissatisfaction with the program and compromises the hefty investment made in the student through LEAD. Perhaps most importantly it is a missed opportunity to provide support and guidance. General satisfaction by cohort revealed some significant variation. In terms of satisfaction with current LEAD staff (including four coordinators, program director, financial manager, M&E coordinator, and support staff), Cohort 3 is significantly more satisfied than Cohorts 1 & 4. Regarding personal support, Cohort 4 is significantly less satisfied than Cohorts 2 & 3. And, when ranking previous staff Cohort 3 was significantly less satisfied with their previous staff than 1, 2, & 4. While the picture is complex with high turn-over of LEAD staff, there may be important lessons to be learned from Cohort 3 implementation, especially regarding the training and support from coordinators. It is important to note, however, that what might be useful for those in their first two years at AUC might be less effective in later years, so LEAD administrators should not simply use the entire program of Cohort 3 as a quick fix to student satisfaction.22 Students are also very anxious about AUC’s imminent move to its new campus, coupled with a housing lottery that could put them in the Zamalek dormitory, a 1-2 hour commute to the new campus. Unfortunately, this move is stressful to the entire AUC community and it will be impossible to house all LEAD students on campus. That said, LEAD 21 For rating 1=poor, 2=good, and 3=very good. Frequencies were determined using SPSS. 22 See page 15 for additional information. 17 students firmly believe that a solution could be found to this problem23. It is the conclusion of the evaluation team that AUC is doing its utmost to serve all students— including those in the LEAD program—and that additional counseling or support services could be offered to students to help them adjust to this difficult situation. It is also important to mention that students are highly satisfied with the new food stipend policy and the end to food coupons. While in the past students could only use coupons on the AUC campus and were the only students presenting coupons instead of cash, now they are given cash and asked to use it to buy food at a location of their choosing. As one student stated: Before we had vouchers and I had to ask for money from my parents. That was hard. Now I can make it on my LEAD money! This is more than just food! They take this as a very positive indicator that they have a voice at the AUC. “You can see Dr. Deena’s report. She met with us, and investigated, and now we have money for food. Now we have enough money to live and eat.” In addition, students see that they are being treated in a way more similar to their fellow AUCians—they are not relegated to eating exclusively in the cafeteria. Perhaps most importantly, many students and some faculty members and administrators feel this may be the beginning of a trend towards empowering students to make their own choices within the LEAD program. Satisfaction with AUC as a university LEAD students are highly satisfied with their education at the AUC. According to the student survey 99 percent felt the overall quality of education was good or very good, and 98 percent felt the quality of instruction (i.e. strength of the teaching) was good or very good. There was no statistical difference between male and female students and no statistical differences among the cohorts. Table 3: Student satisfaction with AUC Overall quality of education at AUC? Very Good 78% Good 21 Poor 1 Quality of instruction at AUC? Very Good 44% Good 54 Poor 2 For many, this begins at the English Language Institute (ELI). One student explained: We are happy here and the quality of education is better! For example I went to ELI. It is much more than memorizing. You really learn English! 23 Many of the students did not seem to comprehend the limited resources of the AUC or the LEAD. Some suggested that the AUC could hire a construction company to quickly build new dorms on location or to lease an apartment building close to the campus. Those in advanced cohorts felt they should have priority at the AUC dorms. Younger students, by contrast, felt they should get the preferred rooms. Others expressed the fact that scholarship students rather than paying students should be placed first. . 18 Also in the area of students’ satisfaction, students found the services at the AUC writing and counseling centers to be highly satisfactory with 92 percent of students rating services as good or very good. In focus group interviews, LEAD students explained that their coordinators encouraged them to use these services and they found them to be professional and easy to access. Interviews with LEAD and AUC staff revealed that the counseling center is in need of additional counselors. With stress associated with the move to the new campus, the demand could increase further. It is interesting to note that this high degree of satisfaction with the AUC centers sharply contrasts with students’ dissatisfaction regarding their academic advising (see pg 12). Student satisfaction with leadership-related activities Leadership activities are meant to be dovetail with other LEAD efforts contributing to the development of academic and personal growth and skills for participation in community development as well as skills needed for filling leadership roles. The discrete leadership activities, however, include regular meetings, yearly conferences, retreats to different governorates, and special training sessions such as meetings with political or business leaders. When considering student satisfaction, perhaps the largest area for improvement is the leadership-focused activities sponsored by the LEAD. It is important to note that there were no significant differences found when comparing male and female satisfaction. Specific means are: Table 4: Ratings for leadership activities using a 3 point scale* *1=poor, 2=good, 3=very good The student survey found that on all of the LEAD activities—weekly meetings, conferences, retreats, and special training sessions—satisfaction was ranked below acceptable. On a 3 point scale, the averages fell between poor and good. Over 40 percent of students ranked weekly meetings and training sessions as poor and approximately 30 percent reported the conferences and retreats to be poor. Focus group and individual student interviews provided more information on their lack of satisfaction. Many students felt that these activities were not improving their leadership potential and, of equal concern, were wasting their time. As explained in an internal AUC report: There is a very clearly defined vision and mission for the LEAD program focusing on providing students with an AUC education, developing their leadership and civic engagement skills and instilling specific values and Item Male satisfaction Female satisfaction Regular meetings 1.7 1.8 Conferences 1.9 1.9 Retreats 1.9 2.0 Special training sessions 1.8 2.0 19 ethics. However, there is no documented coherent strategy for the LEAD program and implementation plan of student activities. Students wanted to know the objectives of the program and of the activities they participate in. An example they gave was that during the last retreat they went to Luxor and then traveled to the New Valley for five hours going and five hours back to spend only 2 hours in the governorate. They questioned the purpose of this visit. They also questioned the timing of retreats during the semester and suggested that they are held during the winter and summer breaks.24 As a result of this report and the new leadership within the LEAD, steps are being taken to address this important issue. While the aim of the conference remains the same— allowing students to plan for a major event and present their ideas in front of their peers, this year the format of the conference has changed and the invitation list has been expanded to include non-AUC students, NGO staff, and others. A student explained: In the past, no one came to our conferences… What was the point? Just AUC and USAID reps and they probably had to come. This year will be in Cairo and people will really come! Based on this evaluation, however, there is still work to be done before students feel the positive effects of change. That said, there are likely best practices within the LEAD program even at this early time. When analyzing leadership training by cohort, the evaluation team found that Cohort 3 was significantly more satisfied with their weekly meetings (2.4 of 3 point scale, between good and very good) than the other cohorts. In focus group interviews Cohort 3 students explained that in their meetings they were empowered to choose the topic for discussion. They also had a voice in selecting the skill set they are working on—at this time public speaking—and are being coached to provide peer feedback. Cohorts 1 and 3 were also significantly more satisfied with the special training sessions, rating these sessions at 2.2 and 2.3 respectively. In interviews Cohort 1 explained that they were very happy with the training sessions they had received especially in the first two years of the program when outside leaders were often brought in to speak with them. Cohort 3 was satisfied with their more recent sessions which included cohort-specific work. Based on students’ opinions, the model being used by Cohort 3 should be considered with other junior cohorts such as 4 and 5. Strategies from the model, such as student selection of training topics, could be used more often in all cohorts. 24 Report on the LEAD Program: The Way Forward by Dr. Deena Boraie, December 2007 Box 1: Cohort 3 Model In response to a higher level of dismissals in the cohort, a new strategy with increased structure and regular interactions among students and with their coordinator is being implemented. Students are required to meet once a week to discuss LEAD and AUC experiences and to present on topics selected by the group. This not only gives students more opportunities to present and provide feedback on their peers, it has created closer relationships in the cohort and with the coordinator. In addition, cohort 3 students are counseled individually in the LEAD office and were often found in the LEAD office meeting informally with each other and the coordinator. Finally, the coordinator is phoning the students over school breaks in order to maintain contact and further enhance the relationship. 20 There were no significant differences in satisfaction by GPA and no conclusions can be drawn on the program environment and student achievement. Specifically, while students in Cohort 3 are more satisfied they were not found to have higher (or lower) GPAs nor were they found to participate in more (or fewer) community activities. It should be noted that the retreats were rated low by all cohorts. These trips to the governorates tend to be more expensive (sometimes including hotel and airfare) and are not appreciated by the students. While some students want this work continued, but improved, most would like to see them phased out and instead focus efforts on their own projects or on observing and contributing to a cutting-edge development project which they could visit on an ongoing basis. As mentioned in the AUC’s Report on the LEAD Program: The Way Forward, the LEAD program has a very clear vision of “providing students with an AUC education, developing their leadership and civic engagement skills, and instilling specific values and ethics”. The lack of alignment of activities and the vision, however, may be contributing to (or at the very least is not correcting for) students’ confusion on the idea of leadership. While some felt that leadership involved making a contribution or making sacrifices, others described leadership as high-level position or entitlement. While this is certainly not the majority of LEAD students it was a trend that came up across cohorts. 3.1.3 Are LEAD students contributing to their communities? In contrast to findings on leadership, students’ contribution to their communities and their satisfaction with the development-oriented focus are overwhelmingly positive. AUC administrators, professors, and student development professionals overwhelmingly reported that LEAD students participate in AUC and community activities in disproportionately high numbers. Nonetheless, no quantitative data was collected to compare LEAD and non-LEAD students regarding such participation. If impressions of AUC staff and professors are to be relied upon, the accomplishments of the LEAD students in the area of development would be impressive by any standards. One administrator shared opinions repeated again and again: Amira Gives Back to her Communities Amira’s sense of community responsibility has led Amira’s pursuit and appointment as a Residential Assistant in the Housing Office for her dormitory floor in Kanzi. Amira stated the following in response to her responsibilities in her dormitory: "I feel like I want to be positive and do more development with the AUC dorms and dorm activities as well." True to her word, Amira has advocated on behalf of her dormitory neighbors and has led the organization of events such as Thanksgiving dinner at the student residence. Despite her achievement in Cairo, Amira has not forgotten her roots in and strong ties to Ismailia. She shared the following about her time in her hometown with the Evaluation Team: "I continue to travel to Ismailia where I meet with my friends and relatives, and take time to bond with my siblings. Recently, Amira had the opportunity to connect her experiences in Ismailia and Cairo when she was selected by LEAD to attend the visit of the US ambassador in Ismailia. Amira’s father proudly described that event as a measure of how much Amira has grown since her time as a LEAD scholar. Watching her speak with the governor and ambassador in a clear and strong manner, he told the Evaluation Team: "She became more independent, I think this is the big impact of LEAD on Amira," 21 They [LEAD students] are just very involved. They are over represented in many areas of the university—involved in Student Union, FYO, and more… They are very involved and maybe 35% are in leadership positions! This is really LEAD 1 and 2. Very impressive. Across all our sources, documents, students’ interviews, student questionnaires, faculty interviews, AUC and LEAD interviews, and interviews with friends of LEAD, the community work and development-oriented efforts of LEAD students were found to be extremely strong. According to the survey results, there are no significant differences between male and female students regarding participation in activities. Questionnaires found that 75 percent of LEAD students are involved in projects where they are giving something back to the AUC or home communities.25 Key informant interviews and an informal review of highly active students found that between 30-40 percent of LEAD students are not only contributing their time but are major participants or leaders in activities. As one student explained: I am from Beni Suef, when I am there I am one of them. In Cairo I have learned about FGM [female genital mutilation] and I went home and talked to people about it! I can make a difference there. Student efforts vary widely and some notable projects include literacy training, poverty￾alleviation through micro-credit, student counsel participation, and public performances in Arabic.26 LEAD has established a Leadership Potential Index to measure student leadership and participation in community activities. The LPI results are very important to students because they are used to determine which students receive incentives such as funding for the semester abroad program or other international summer programs as well as special events in Egypt. The need to improve how leadership and community participation is measured was well known to LEAD staff before this evaluation began. In the past, students were asked to bring proof (e.g. stamped letters or certificates of completion) to their coordinators to receive LPI credits. The LEAD staff is now working to improve the LPI and this should be completed before the fall 2008 semester. One improvement suggested by students and strongly suggested by faculty and some AUC staff is that the LPI must capture student participation in a variety of areas and students focusing their time and talent intensively in one area must be credited on the LPI in a way comparable with students that are participating less deeply in a number of areas. As one student put it, “LPI is needed but must be flexible to measure for progress of each individual.” This could require a more rigorous monitoring system where students working on fewer project submit some verification for their work, coordinators visit their project or performance, or the coordinator visits the advisor to learn more about the student’s involvement. 25 This number could be even higher as only those students that provided examples of their work were entered as contributing. 26 While some would argue that acting, poetry reading, and musical performances are outside of the aim of LEAD, students, LEAD staff, and the evaluation team feel that the public sharing of talents qualifies as making a contribution to ones community. 22 3.1.4 Can cost-effectiveness be improved? Overall, the project has consistently stayed within budget and in instances when programming was under budget, these monies were used to send more students on the semester abroad program—a priority area for former LEAD staff as well as LEAD students. The LEAD program is a costly effort per student. The benefits of these costs, however, will only be clear after students have graduated and settled into their jobs and communities. For the 2007/08 academic year, the cost of LEAD was approximately $10,100 for each of the LEAD students.27 The cost for non-LEAD students was about $7,500 for each student.28 Major differences in cost include expenditures associated with LEAD staff, the semester abroad program, and expenses associated with conferences, retreats, and special LEAD training sessions. (See Appendix I specific budget items.) Costs for sending students to the United States for undergraduate work, by comparison, would be much higher and retention as well as percentage of students returning to Egypt would most likely be significantly lower. When considering efforts to increase effectiveness it is important to consider what appears to be working well and what is less satisfactory as well as the costs of these items. High cost items for LEAD are: 9 Tuition 9 Semester abroad 9 Living allowances 9 Housing 9 Salaries 9 Conferences and retreats29 While the semester abroad program is loved by the students and many AUC administrators see it as key to the development of LEAD students, it is a big ticket component (only AUC tuition is more costly per year) which does not appear to be essential to the program. If resources were not in question, the semester abroad should be continued but, given the financial constraints of the AUC, continuation of this component should be revisited for incoming cohorts. LEAD student and coordinators have been effective in generating their own opportunities for high-achieving students to study abroad for a semester or a summer program. If the 27 Calculated from LEAD in-house budget. 28 Calculated using LEAD in-house budget for AUC expenses (tuition, room, and books) plus $700 per year for food and other expenses. 29 See Appendix I for specific total costs. Amira Goes Abroad Amira has demonstrated a willingness to interact with different groups and cultures by attending Portland University in Portland, Oregon. Amira stated that, "moving from one country to another is certainly moving to a different culture; we should try to explain our culture, traditions and beliefs in a civilized way.” Traveling abroad has also provided Amira the opportunity to meet figures such as Dina Powell, who invited her to represent LEAD in a speech at AMIDEAST’s 50th anniversary celebration. 23 semester abroad is eliminated or reduced, more efforts could be put into securing outside funding for LEAD students to study abroad. An area of consistent waste, according to students, AUC staff, and LEAD staff, was located in the retreats to various governorates. Students often must fly to locations or stay overnight at hotels. By contrast to the expense, the outcome of these trips was found to be short and uninspiring meetings with local officials. While not a major expense, the costs associated with these trips should be reconsidered by LEAD. Other components to be assessed are the conferences and retreats. As mentioned earlier, these activities are not acceptable to most students. As they are revamped, LEAD should consider making changes to reduce costs, including by eliminating or scaling back these trips and retreats (by traveling closer to Cairo or bringing only select students). This year’s conference (planned by LEAD students) is another example of how costs can come down. They scheduled the ‘08 retreat in Cairo, which not only keeps expenses down but also allows for students from Cairo University and others to attend. Minor, but not inconsequential, savings could be made if LEAD students were allowed to live off campus at their own expense—an option not offered to LEAD students until this point. While almost all LEAD students lack the financial resources to pay AUC tuition, some indicated in interviews that they come from families with significant disposable income. In the student survey, over 50 percent said they received additional monies from their families and almost all of these said they could get by on their LEAD allowances. It may not be advisable to allow students to live off-campus during their first year, but those with acceptable GPAs preferring to pay their own expenses off-campus could be happier in their living environment while saving the program money in housing expenses. This is not, however, a recommendation, and the evaluation team feels strongly that the AUC housing and student life offices would be best equipped to interpret these key informant and student suggestions. In terms of return on investment the team explored the intention of students to work as leaders in development-oriented projects in their home governorates. In student surveys and in focus group discussions students were asked to share their thoughts on this. Most LEAD students are committing to contributing their time and skills to giving something back either as part of their job or in a volunteer capacity. Many were very specific about this. Some want to work with LEAD or other scholarship programs, some want to focus on literacy work, others plan to mentor younger colleagues from lower-income backgrounds, and the list goes on. Regarding their intention to return to their home governorates30, however, most students have other plans. In the student survey, students were given a list of options to select to indicate their future plans. The results were: • 39% plan to pursue graduate study • 28% plan to work in Cairo • 15% plan to work in their home governorates • 14% plan to travel 30 Return to home governorate was mentioned as intended outcome by some at USAID, LEAD, and AUC although it is not an objective or aim of the program in the documentation. 24 • 4% other or unknown While those pursuing graduate study could potentially return to their home governorates, those from most needy areas will likely find it difficult to find jobs and supervisors that match their educational background. If students’ return to the home governorate is part of USAIDs overall aim, program elements should be redesigned to address this issue. The evaluation team, however, suggests that the strong desire of students to contribute to Egypt, wherever they are living, is a satisfactory indicator of potential program impact. 3.1.5 Is the program sustainable? The issue of sustainability is an important and, in the case of the LEAD, complex issue. In order to determine sustainability the team looked for indicators that the AUC valued LEAD and—separate from this—is prepared to increasingly take on the costs of the program. While there are other options for funneling money back into LEAD (such as alumni fund-raisers) for the short-run one or more specific backers would need to be identified and AUC is the obvious first choice. The evaluation team found that LEAD greatly contributed to the educational environment at the AUC. Leadership at AUC and the AUC mission statement clearly value and are striving to increase diversity on campus. The admissions office reported that without the LEAD office most governorates would be without any representation at the AUC. Overall, approximately 1,200 new students enter AUC each year. LEAD plus other scholarship programs bring about 100 of these students to AUC classrooms with LEAD providing just over 50 percent of those students. Thus, regarding socio-economic diversity, LEAD students make a significant contribution. In addition, they add to the geographic and cultural diversity at AUC. While there are other scholarship programs, only LEAD aims to represent each of the 27 governorates within Egypt. Beyond the numbers of students, in interviews faculty and staff noted the increase in geographic and socio-economic diversity as a result of LEAD. Most were very enthusiastic but some faculty members are unhappy with the geographic diversity being infused by the LEAD. One faculty member shared: There are issues with the diversity because of the culture shock. They [LEAD students] are not used to Cairo and have not been exposed to the things our AUCians and even the government scholarship students from Cairo are familiar with. This is extra work for professors! Nonetheless, no professors denied the impact. Finally, as mentioned earlier, some faculty members believe that LEAD students—while not all high academic achievers—may be contributing to the academic diversification of the AUC as some create a positive peer effect in their classes. As one professor explained: At the first, some AUCian students considered LEAD as a program that would reduce the level of their university with weak students who come from public schools, but later they discovered that LEAD students exceeded their colleagues. For example, there is a LEAD student… and he was the first on his class and his father came to accept a prize on behalf 25 because [he] was abroad. This was moving for his father and good for students to see a scholarship student get the prize. While there is no hard data to support this, professors’ optimism regarding the change should be considered a positive indicator. The satisfaction of AUC and lead staff may also effect the continuation of the program. LEAD staff are perhaps the biggest advocates of the program. Their eyes are wide open, however, and many see room for improvement in recruitment, implementation, and M&E. Their enthusiasm and the desire for improvement and change will be a resource for continuation of the program. Of equal or greater importance, AUC leadership is overwhelmingly satisfied with the LEAD program. Suggestions for improving the program are varied and often mirrored the variety of suggestions among LEAD students. A number of administrators, however, expressed a desire to “leave the LEAD students alone!” They very much want LEAD to continue but strongly believe that the activities (those same activities that the students found unsatisfactory) should be cut back or eliminated entirely. It is important to note that these administrators did not advocate for removal of coordinators and expressed the necessity of the coordinators both to orient the students and their families in the first year and then support them on a one-on-one basis throughout their AUC careers. Similarly, faculty, for the most part, expressed a desire for continuation of LEAD but shared serious concerns about the approach. And, like some members of the administration, some believed the students were over-programmed. Some faculty members went ever further and described the training sessions and some program requirements as “classist and shockingly unacceptable.” Specifically some faculty members and friends of LEAD were opposed to an orientation program from past years (before current leadership was hired) to train LEAD students on personal hygiene, eating and setting a table properly, and walking in a manner similar to their fellow AUCians.31 Key informants who noted these important issues were also some of the biggest advocates of LEAD and very much want the program to continue but with a more “progressive and empowering approach”. In terms of sustainability, these faculty members may be a huge resource as they are passionate about diversity in their classrooms and many have contacts with the private and non-profit sectors. Increasing their participation, for example by inviting them to join the advisory board, could open doors for other funding opportunities, although it is important to note that funding for additional LEAD programming has not been secured and there is no plan in place to identify alternative funding sources. Overall, USAID has funded approximately 83 percent of the LEAD program and AUC contributed the remaining 17 percent. USAIDs aim regarding sustainability was that AUC—a major beneficiary of the program—would increase their funding commitment in the coming years. Unfortunately, the AUC is currently facing a difficult financial period. The move to the new campus coupled with rising costs across Egypt means that the 31 Students were of mixed options on the utility of the past orientation package. They did stress that the priority should be improved academic orientation both in terms of long-term planning for a major and immediate practicalities such as how to best register for classes. 26 university has no surplus monies. While leadership was extremely supportive of LEAD, they were forthright that it is unlikely that the university could increase the 17 percent contribution and it is possible that in the future they may in fact need to lower their contribution to LEAD. It is envisaged that when financial constraints are clearer the advisory board, students, and others will also contribute to ideas for significant cost￾saving measures and strategies for alternative funding. Nonetheless, at this time it appears that the LEAD is not a sustainable endeavor. 3.2 Conclusions and Recommendations The evaluation team spent a little over 3 weeks in Cairo, May 5-29, working along with the LEAD program and the AUC. All recommendations should be carefully weighed in light of the expertise available at the AUC and within the LEAD program. If recommendations spark dialogue or debate that lead to other ideas or solutions then we have reached our most important goal. 3.2.1 How can LEAD be improved for the short term? In light of the findings, several recommendations are available for consideration for improving the LEAD program immediately. These changes would be relevant to LEAD students currently in the program. Also to be considered are student concerns and suggestions described in 3.2.2 page 12. Due to the new leadership and staff at LEAD and the responsiveness of that office, the team fully expects that some of these suggestions are already being investigated or implemented. • Further explore the competing philosophies of training and support for LEAD students as they align with the program vision. It may be more appropriate to phase in an approach that aims to orient LEAD to the AUC and community development while celebrating the diversity of students, staff, and especially faculty members, rather than one which devalues their differences. • Accommodate a more flexible definition of student contributions in the LPI. This will allow for a more individualized approach to leadership development and would more clearly reward the level of effort in addition to the quantity of activities. • Hold lower cost conferences in which LEAD students would be not only attendees, but participants, and would coordinate this nation-wide effort. These students have expressed dissatisfaction with past conferences and suggested that better, more affordable conferences be held. LEAD should also consider linking the 2009 conference with other universities. • Initiate a newsletter to share information and ideas on various governorates including development projects, styles of dress, and so on, in order to further leverage the potential contributions of a diverse student body. • Coordinate an “Egypt Day” between LEAD and the AUC to showcase all the governorates, based on the AUC’s highly-regarded and much-enjoyed international day. • Provide lower-cost alternatives to the semester abroad program to introduce LEAD students to a world outside Egypt. Some LEAD students are already involved with international students through clubs and dorm living and the team recommends that 27 LEAD further strengthen ties with international students by co-sponsoring projects and events. • Increase efforts dedicated to securing outside funding for LEAD students to study abroad. LEAD students and coordinators have been effective in generating their own opportunities for high-achieving students to study abroad for a semester or study abroad program. • Phase out trips to the governorates and instead allow students to focus on their own projects or on observing and contributing to a cutting-edge develop project which they could visit on an ongoing basis. It is significant to note that the retreats were rated low by all cohorts, as they tend to be more expensive (sometimes including hotel and airfare) and are not liked by the students. • Enhance the student mentoring program and pilot an academic advising program with interested faculty members to assist students with developing and managing their undergraduate careers. • Allow students to live off campus at their own expense. 3.2.2 How can LEAD be improved for the long term? The following suggestions are geared to improve or motivate discussion for improvement of LEAD for in the longer term. • Add additional supports for students to pursue projects in their home governorates while at AUC (such as summer internships). Such a program is envisaged not only to further develop community-development and leadership skills but also to strengthen ties with home governorates. • Limit the number of students being recruited by either 1) directing scholarships to the most remote and needy governorates or 2) directing scholarships to those committed to pursuing majors in areas closely related to development such as economics, political science, and environmental studies. • Offer two scholarship packages: 1) full support to students from only the most remote governorates and 2) tuition, insurance, and books only for those in closer areas. • Plan for a follow-up evaluation to track where students end up geographically and in the labor market. • Establish a control group for cohort 6 in order to track and compare where students find themselves 5-10 years after graduation. The control group would be highly qualified students that were not selected for the LEAD. • Consider bonding LEAD students (beginning with cohort 6) to work 1-2 years in their home governorates to ensure their return. This could only be considered for Cohort 6 and after as this information would need to presented and agreements signed before students begin their studies. • Analyze additional factors such as education level of the mother and profession of the father￾ranking the job as professional and also approximating salary- in order to expand beyond measuring for attendance in public high school. • Enforce clarity of rules in writing regarding course enrollment for double majors and minors, year abroad selection, program requirements (GPA, LPI, etc.), and ability to enroll in summer courses. 28 • Utilize an objective Leadership Potential Index and clear and transparent guidelines for implementing the index. The index is used to assess students during their years with the LEAD program. Those with higher LPI scores receive incentives such as spaces on limited field trips, invitations to receptions, and semester abroad selection. In the past, the LPI was viewed by the students (and others) as unfair and was already being worked before the start of this evaluation. • Design and implement a comprehensive plan that provides for their development year by year. Students do not want to repeat the same programs year after year—regardless of the quality or caliber of speakers or events. • Review commitments made to students in the past and, as the budget allows, consideration of phasing in major changes beginning with Cohort 5. Some possible commitments were support for the pursuit of a double major or minor, allowances for summer courses, and eligibility for additional scholarships. (Unfortunately there was little consensus even among students as to what the commitments were and most— even those agreed upon by all—were undocumented.) 3.2.3 Can LEAD or a modified version of LEAD be replicated inside of Egypt or beyond? The idea of using a university of international ranking within a developing country or region is highly appealing and has many advantages when compared with sending students abroad for studies which can cost more and lead to some emigrating from their home country. The LEAD program has had great success in recruiting the appropriate target group and keeping them in the program. Lower-cost options of LEAD could be highly relevant to countries in the process of improving higher education systems which, at the same time, need to increase the skills of some members of society—for whatever purposes—immediately. For example, masters candidates from Afghanistan are currently being funded for studies in Thailand and India as well as in more expensive programs in the United Kingdom, the United States, and Germany. Within Egypt, it may be worth considering a modified replication of the LEAD in the form of a program that recruits disadvantaged32 students from all the governorates to attend a leading public Egyptian university with targeting supports and programming while at the same time attempting to improve the quality of education through partnerships with an international university or other supporting agency. 32 A greater focus could be placed on SES as these students would not be required to student in a second language. 29 Appendices 30 A. Scope of work SECTION C – DESCRIPTION/SPECIFICATIONS/STATEMENT OF WORK C.1 PURPOSE AND INTENDED USE OF THE EVALUATION FINDINGS: This Scope of Work requests a proposal for a mid-term evaluation of the American University in Cairo (AUC) Leadership for Education and Development (LEAD) Scholarship Program in order to assess the quality of program delivery and results and to make adjustments to the program, if necessary. The evaluation findings will be shared with USAID/Egypt, specifically the Strategic Objective 22 (SO22) Team and AUC management and staff. C.2 BRIEF DESCRIPTION AND PROGRAM GOALS: USAID/Egypt’s LEAD Scholarship Program has been implemented by AUC since July 2004. The Scholarship Program is an activity in USAID/Egypt’s higher education portfolio and contributes to the U.S. Department of State and USAID Strategic Plan (Fiscal Years 2004 – 2009). The scholarship activity contributes to USAID/Egypt’s Strategic Objective (SO) 22: Improved Access to Quality Education as it expands access to high quality higher education opportunities for excelling high school graduates from economically deprived backgrounds and from all Egyptian governorates. `The program also targets a gender balance as it aims to select, equally, male and female students. The AUC LEAD Scholarship program enables 54 students per year, representing a female and male student from all 26 governorates in Egypt and Luxor City, to attend the American University in Cairo under a full scholarship. This program, which started in September 2004, expands access to quality higher education opportunities to academically talented students who could not otherwise receive a western-oriented education. Students are selected from those who have demonstrated leadership and community participation qualities during their pre-university years. Students participating in the program are encouraged to select from a broad range of majors that contribute to Egypt’s development and are expected to demonstrate leadership and engage in community service throughout the program. Select students attend semester abroad programs in the U.S. In addition, AUC LEAD conducts a participative conference on a topic salient to Egypt such as the development of civil society and entrepreneurship each year. The conference provides a venue for students to share their experiences and concerns, develop and practice leadership skills, and set future goals. In total, the activity is designed for five cohorts of students to be financed for up to five and a half years of instruction, including one year for English language training. The fourth cohort of LEAD scholars entered AUC in September 2007. AUC manages the recruitment, selection, and coordination of the LEAD scholars through a small program coordination unit established within AUC’s Department of Student Services. This unit coordinates all academic support for the students and arranges special orientation programs, enrichment activities, and community service projects. 31 Scholarship selection criteria were developed jointly by the Egyptian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) and the Ministry of Education (MOE). (These criteria are available and the evaluation team should review them as a part of the literature/document review). This evaluation will assess the delivery of the AUC LEAD Scholarship Program in reference to the stated program goals and program indicators found in the cooperative agreements with AUC. This process evaluation will examine a variety of different issues including, but not limited to, the characteristics of the students selected; quality of delivery of the program, characteristics of the delivery environment (equipment, facilities, materials, etc.) program sustainability and cost effectiveness. There are two AUC LEAD Cooperative Agreements, No. 263-A-00-04-00030-00 (July 2004) and No. 263-A-00-04-00023-00 (March 2007). The estimated completion date of this program is July 2013. The Program Descriptions for both agreements are the same. The program goals as stated in both agreements (July 2004 and March 2007) are as follows: The AUC LEAD Scholarship Program will: • Award of 216 full tuition scholarships to Egyptian public school students (54 each year for four years) to complete their undergraduate studies at AUC; • train and equip recipients with the necessary skills to become leaders in their communities; and • enable these students to actively contribute to development-oriented program services and activities. The evaluation should also address cost effectiveness in terms of planned and actual costs per participant, overall participant costs, sustainability, and return on investment. The evaluation contractor will report directly to the Education team Leader for Program Design and Monitoring who will facilitate contact with AUC. C.3 EXISTING PREFORMANCE INFORMATION SOURCES AUC LEAD’s monitoring plan including program indicators, quarterly reports submitted to USAID/Egypt, and Cooperative Agreement including Program Description. C.4 DELIVERABLES AND REPORTING Within eight week duration, the contractor will provide USAID with a final report assessing the effectiveness of the AUC LEAD program, including all tasks mentioned above. The final deliverables are the following: A. Revised Technical Proposal (Evaluation Plan): The contractor must submit a revised final evaluation plan to USAID/Egypt covering (a) the overall design strategy for the evaluation, (b) the data collection and analysis plan for the evaluation, and (c) a specific timeline. The revised plan will be submitted at the post-award implementation meeting. (Due: 3 days after arrival in country). B. Draft Evaluation Report and Briefing: The contractor will submit a draft report and conduct a detailed briefing to present preliminary findings and recommendations of the 32 evaluation to USAID one week before completion. USAID will review the report and provide written comments on the draft within 3 days of receipt. (Due 6-7 weeks after the award). C. Final Evaluation Report: The contractor must submit a final report that addresses USAID’s comments. The format of the final report is recommended to include: 1.) Executive Summary of findings, conclusions and recommendations, not to exceed three pages. 2.) Introduction and Background (including program description and methodological summary, not to exceed three pages) 3.) Body of Report organized as follows for each component, not to exceed 40 pages: a) Background b) Major Findings (Evidence) c) Conclusions and Recommendations 4.) Annexes to include the following: scope of work, reference list of documents, list of persons contacted and affiliation, methodology (including a discussion of the limitations of the methodology employed), and other supporting materials. All reports must be submitted in English. The Executive Summary, with findings and recommendations, should be translated into Arabic and submitted to the USAID/Egypt HRH/ET Office. The team must submit five hard copies of the Final Report and one electronic copy in Microsoft Word to USAID. (Due 8 weeks after the award). C.5 EVALUATION TEAM COMPOSITION: The evaluation will be conducted by a two-member team, one American and one Egyptian. The American member of the team will arrive in Cairo to initiate work within two weeks after award and will have eight weeks from the time of arrival to complete the assignment. The Team Leader should be a U.S. Senior Advisor with 5-10 years experience leading and conducting evaluations of development activities, preferably in higher education, with experience in social science evaluation methods, especially rapid appraisal techniques, case studies and other relevant data collection/analysis techniques. The team leader should also have superior management, interpersonal relations and writing skills. The Egyptian member of the team should have advanced degrees in education or a relevant social science and at least 7-10 years experience in Egyptian education, preferably with some experience in higher education. The Egyptian member will facilitate any interviews with Arabic speakers and help review/translate data or reports as needed. Excellent Arabic and English language capacity skills will facilitate communication, data collection and translation efforts. Proposals shall include each team member's name and key skills relevant to this evaluation. Current Curriculum Vitae will also be included as an annex to the proposal. 33 B . Evaluation Design Evaluation of American University in Cairo (AUC) Leadership for Education and Development (LEAD) Scholarship Program I. Purpose: The purpose of the evaluation is to assess if and to what extent the overarching strategic objective as well as specific project goals have been met. Project inputs and outcomes will be analyzed with attention to quality, cost, and sustainability. II. Research questions: To assess the overall performance of the AUC LEAD Scholarship Program, the Team will strive to answer the following questions: 1. To what extent has the AUC LEAD Scholarship Program achieved the terms and conditions of its Cooperative Agreements since 2004, when the activity began? a. Has the program developed and sustained a gender and regional balance among program recipients? If so, how has this balance been achieved? If not, what are some contributing factors? b. What has been the academic record of the students enrolled? Are there regional or gender disparities? If so, what have been the compensatory steps taken to address these disparities? c. What is the retention rate? Are there regional or gender disparities? What have been the compensatory steps taken to address these disparities? If student retention is challenge for the program, what are factors contributing to dropping out? d. For the first cohort, scheduled to graduate in 2008, what is the anticipated completion rate? (Subsequent cohorts will graduate from the new AUC campus, do program administrators expect different completion rates? Why?) e. How has the diversity of LEAD students contributed to the overall educational environment of the university? What has been the impact in AUC classrooms? f. To what extent have disadvantaged students been selected for LEAD? 2. Has the AUC LEAD Scholarship Program trained and equipped recipients with the necessary skills to become leaders in their communities? a. What are the skills and qualities emphasized for LEAD students? b. What is the students’ assessment of the instructional materials? c. What is the students’ assessment of the quality of the staff and facilities? d. What is the students’ assessment of supporting activities, seminars, and retreats? e. How have the characteristics of the program environment (i.e. facilities, housing, materials) affected student achievement? 3. Has AUC LEAD Scholarship Program enabled recipients to contribute to development, community service, and leadership activities? 34 a. What has been the participation rate of LEAD students in development, community service, and leadership activities? Are there regional or gender disparities? b. What are some of the activities that have been undertaken? c. How, if at all, are development, community service, and leadership activities monitored? 4. Has the program been administered in a cost-effective manner effectively? a. What are the overall participant costs? b. How do LEAD recruitment costs compare with those of AUC? c. Has the program coordination unit managed to stay within its budget? If not, what are possible explanations? d. When rate of spending was lower than expected, how were the savings used? e. Are LEAD students satisfied with the program? f. Are AUC and LEAD administrators satisfied with the program? 5. What mechanisms are established for AUC LEAD Scholarship Program sustainability? a. Does AUC leadership value the LEAD program? b. Is AUC leadership interested in or committed to taking over the costs associated with LEAD? c. What, if any, cost-recovery strategies are being used by LEAD administrators and students (e.g. living with relatives, applying for non-LEAD grants)? d. What is the assessment of the Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Education of the program? III. Methodology: This evaluation design is both formative (examining process issues) and summative (assessing final outcomes and comparing them to program goals). The team will use a mixed-methods study relying on both qualitative and quantitative data.33 The evaluation uses several methods for data collection. Primary research questions and methods for data collection include: Finding the Answers: No. Research Questions and Sub-Questions Finding the Answers 1. To what extent has the AUC LEAD Scholarship Program achieved the terms and conditions of its Cooperative Agreements since 2004, when the activity began? a) Has the program developed and sustained a gender and regional balance among program recipients? If so, how has this balance been achieved? If not, what are some contributing factors? - Document review - Student survey - Key informant interviews b) What has been the academic record of the students enrolled? Are there regional or gender - Document review - Key informant interviews 33 There is no control group for this study. If time allows, interviews will be held with public university students with comparable Thanaweya Ama scores and economic backgrounds in order to create a comparison group. 35 No. Research Questions and Sub-Questions Finding the Answers disparities? If so, what have been the compensatory steps taken to address these disparities? c) What is the retention rate? Are there regional or gender disparities? What have been the compensatory steps taken to address these disparities? If student retention is challenge for the program, what are factors contributing to dropping out? - Document review - Key informant interviews d) For the first cohort, scheduled to graduate in 2008, what is the anticipated completion rate? (Subsequent cohorts will graduate from the new AUC campus, do program administrators expect different completion rates? Why?) - Document review - Key informant interviews e) How has the diversity of LEAD students contributed to the overall educational environment of the university? What has been the impact in AUC classrooms? - Key informant interviews f) To what extent have disadvantaged students been selected for LEAD? -Student survey -Key informant interviews 2. Has the AUC LEAD Scholarship Program trained and equipped recipients with the necessary skills to become leaders in their communities? a) What are the skills and qualities emphasized for LEAD students? - Document review - Student focus group discussions b) What is the students’ assessment of the instructional materials? - Student survey - Student focus group discussions - Interviews with low achievers - Interviews with high achievers c) What is the students’ assessment of the quality of the staff and facilities? - Student survey - Student focus group discussions - Interviews with low achievers - Interviews with high achievers d) What is the students’ assessment of supporting activities, seminars, and retreats? - Student survey - Student focus group discussions - Interviews with low achievers - Interviews with high achievers 36 e) How have the characteristics of the program environment (i.e. facilities, housing, materials) affected student achievement? - Key informant interviews - Student focus group discussions - Interviews with low achievers - Interviews with high achievers 3. Has AUC LEAD Scholarship Program enabled recipients to contribute to development, community service, and leadership activities? a) What has been the participation rate of LEAD students in development, community service, and leadership activities? Are there regional or gender disparities? - Key informant interviews - Student survey b) What are some of the development, community service, and leadership activities that have been undertaken? - Document review - Student survey - Key informant interviews - Student focus group discussions c) How, if at all, are development, community service, and leadership activities monitored? - Key informant interviews 4. Has the program been administered in a cost-effective manner?? a) What are the overall participant costs? - Document review b) How do LEAD recruitment costs compare with those of AUC? - Document review - Key informant interviews c) Has the program coordination unit managed to stay within its budget? If not, what are possible explanations? - Document review - Key informant interviews d) When rate of spending was lower than expected, how were the savings used? - Document review - Key informant interviews e) Are LEAD students satisfied with the program? - Student survey - Student focus group discussions - Interviews with low achievers - Interviews with high achievers f) Are AUC and LEAD administrators satisfied with the program? - Key informant interviews 5. What mechanisms are established for AUC LEAD Scholarship Program sustainability? a) Does AUC leadership value the LEAD program? - Key informant interviews - Student focus group discussions b) Is AUC leadership interested in or committed to - Key informant interviews 37 taking over the costs associated with LEAD? c) What, if any, cost-recovery strategies are being used by LEAD administrators and students (e.g. living with relatives, applying for non-LEAD grants)? - Key informant interviews - Student survey - Student focus group discussions IV. Sample and Data Collection: Two discussions will be held with each cohort with 6-8 students participating in each discussion. Brief questionnaires will be distributed and collected from all focus group participants following these discussions. In addition, individual discussions will be held with both low and high-performing students. Five low-performing (GPA 2.5 or lower) and 5 high-performing students (GPA 3.5 or higher) will be interviewed. Also, in order to collect essential information from all or most LEAD students, those students not participating in focus groups will also be invited to meet with evaluators (preferably on the same day as the focus groups for their cohort) and questionnaires will be distributed and collected at that time. Questionnaires will also be emailed to the approximately 15 students who are presently in the US for their year-abroad studies. Data collection from students Purpose Time Required No. of students per discussion Frequency Total No. of students Survey questionnaires 20 min n/a n/a 150 Cohort focus group discussion 1.5 hr 6-8 2 per cohort 48-64 Interviews with low-performing students 1 hr 1 5 5 Interviews with high-performing students 1 hr 1 5 5 Key informant interviews will also be critical to the evaluation. When appropriate, informants will be interviewed as a group. Depending on the anticipated knowledge of the informant and general scheduling constraints, some interviews will be held individually. Key informant interviews will take between 30 minutes and 1.5 hours depending on knowledge, interest, and availability of interviewee(s). V. Data Analysis: SPSS. Questionnaire data will be entered and analyzed using SPSS. Memoing. As for qualitative data, during interviews and discussions, memos—“The researcher’s record of analysis, thoughts, interpretations, questions, and directions for further data collection”—will be added to the transcripts to flag potential trends and processes (Merriam, 2002, p. 110). Soon after interviews and discussions are held, notes 38 will be reread and additional comments added.34 For the first few interviews and analysis sessions, memos will be simple, however, overtime they will become more complex and should begin to reveal major themes as well as data discrepancies (Corbin & Strauss, 1998). Daily memoing was an important part of conducting the research, with additional memo writing also done subsequently. Coding. After several interviews are completed, line-by-line open coding will conducted to determine distinct categories (Corbin & Strauss, 1998, p. 114). The names or labels for the codes, when possible, came directly from the interviewees. Codes are not static and will evolve over the course of the interview cycle. Coding will further uncover key themes and issues which will cluster around interview questions. VI. Validity: The evaluation is designed to generate specific findings from each method of data collection but validity is ensured by collecting data from different sources (questionnaires, key informants interviews, and student discussions) and triangulating information. For analysis it will be important not to rely heavily on one data collection source but to use all information to generate a complete and accurate picture of the LEAD program. VII. Limitations: The evaluation is without a control group and therefore can not prove causation. Specifically, the evaluation can not prove that students planning to take on leadership and service roles would not be in the same place irrespective of the LEAD program. That is, there may be something special about those selected that would have propelled them forward to academic success and leadership and community service regardless of LEAD. Only a control group identifying individuals with like dispositions, academic achievement, and economic status could fully address this issue. While the lack of control group is a limitation, the evaluation is envisaged to reveal if and to what extent access to high-quality higher education has been increased. Analysis of ultimate program effectiveness will also be limited. In large part, this is because 2008 is the first year LEAD students will graduate from AUC. As a result, it is too early to determine if the program has been successful in training individuals who will become leaders and contributors to their home governorates and communities. At this time, however, the effectiveness of the processes for preparing future leaders can be assessed and will be examined in this study. VIII. Protocols The following shows the research questions guiding data collection by method. The research questions will not be asked but will remain in this document in order to remind the researchers of the information needed. Participants will be asked bolded questions. In this way, the document will serve as a guide or quick reference when follow-on questions are needed. 34 These analysis sessions—rereading of transcripts and adding memos—should occur every 48 hours during data collection. 39 1. Survey of LEAD students to determine: 1.a) Has the program developed and sustained a gender and regional balance among program recipients? If so, how has this balance been achieved? If not, what are some contributing factors? 1.f) To what extent have disadvantaged students been selected for LEAD? Background 1. Please provide the following information: 2. Sex: Male/Female 3. GPA: 4. Governorate: 5. Other family members who attended AUC: Please relationship (e.g. father, brother, cousin, etc) 6. Mother completed high-school: Yes/No 7. Mother completed university: Yes/No 2.b) What is the students’ assessment of the instructional materials? 2.c) What is the students’ assessment of the quality of the staff and facilities? 2.d) What is the students’ assessment of supporting activities, seminars, and retreats? 4.e) Are LEAD students satisfied with the program? 8. Are you satisfied with the LEAD program? scale 1-3 - instruction - staff - housing - support services - activities 9. What are your plans for the future--after AUC? tick box 10. What are major challenges you face in the LEAD program? tick box and open￾ended 3.b) What are some of the development, community service, and leadership activities that have been undertaken? 11. Have you participated in any activities or programs to give something back to your home community or AUC? yes/no and list 5.e) What, if any, cost-recovery strategies are being used by LEAD administrators and students (e.g. living with relatives, applying for non-LEAD grants)? 12. Have you received any financial support outside of LEAD? yes/no and list -family -study abroad scholarship -other scholarships or stipends 13. What additional expenses have you paid out of pocket in order to be in the LEAD program? list 2. Key informant interviews The interviewers will begin each key informant interview and focus group discussion by explaining the purpose of the study and the confidentiality and anonymity protections that will be provided for each interviewee. After this, the individual will be asked if s/he is willing to participate in the interview. If the interviewee agrees, the discussion will begin 40 with the introduction questions. Only questions relevant to the interviewee will be asked. If it appears that an interviewee is not able to respond to questions on a particular topic, the other questions for that section will be skipped and the interviewer will move on until all relevant topics are covered. Finally, the wrap-up questions will be asked and the interviewee will be thanked for his/her time and participation. Research questions are listed and questions to be asked are in bold. Questions are divided by affiliation of participants: LEAD-affiliated informants 1.a) Has the program developed and sustained a gender and regional balance among program recipients? If so, how has this balance been achieved? If not, what are some contributing factors? 1.f) To what extent have disadvantaged students been selected for LEAD? 1. Do you feel there is adequate balance and diversity among students? Why or why not? -gender -governorate -socio-economic status 1.b) What has been the academic record of the students enrolled? Are there regional or gender disparities? If so, what have been the compensatory steps taken to address these disparities? 1.c) What is the retention rate? Are there regional or gender disparities? What have been the compensatory steps taken to address these disparities? If student retention is challenge for the program, what are factors contributing to dropping out? 2. Are there any students or groups of students that struggle in the LEAD program? -gender -governorate -socio-economic status -year in program -level of English when entering -major or academic concentration 1.d) For the first cohort, scheduled to graduate in 2008, what is the anticipated completion rate? (Subsequent cohorts will graduate from the new AUC campus, do program administrators expect different completion rates? Why?) 3. What has been the completion rate for cohort 1? 4. What do you expect for completion rates for other cohorts? 3.a) What has been the participation rate of LEAD students in development, community service, and leadership activities? Are there regional or gender disparities? 3.b) What are some of the development, community service, and leadership activities that have been undertaken? 5. Approximately what percentage of LEAD students are taking part in development, community service, and leadership activities? 6. Can you provide some examples? 7. Which students are drawn to these activities? -gender 41 -governorate -socio-economic status -year in program -major or academic concentration 3.c) How, if at all, are development, community service, and leadership activities monitored? 8. How do you track these activities? 9. How is the LPI being used? Are you satisfied with it? 4.c) Has the program coordination unit managed to stay within its budget? If not, what are possible explanations? 10. When has the program gone over budget? Why do you think this happened? 4.d) When rate of spending was lower than expected, how were the savings used? 11. In early years of the program money was spend at a slower pace that expected. How did LEAD program that money? 5.e) What, if any, cost-recovery strategies are being used by LEAD administrators and students (e.g. living with relatives, applying for non-LEAD grants)? 12. Have students received any financial support outside of LEAD? Please describe. -family -study abroad scholarship -other scholarships or stipends LEAD and AUC-affiliated informants 1.e) How has the diversity of LEAD students contributed to the overall educational environment of the university? What has been the impact in AUC classrooms? 13. How has the diversity of LEAD students contributed to the overall educational environment of the university? What has been the impact in AUC classrooms? 2.e) How have the characteristics of the program environment (i.e. facilities, housing, materials) affected student achievement? 14. Have program components influenced student achievement? 15. Which elements are essential to achievement for most LEAD students? 4.f) Are AUC and LEAD administrators satisfied with the program? 16. Are you satisfied with the program? -overall goals -program administration -student selection -student performance 5.a) Does AUC leadership value the LEAD program? 17. How important is the LEAD program to AUC? 18. Do you think university resources should be used to support or expand LEAD? 19. Do you have any recommendations for improving LEAD? 42 5.b) Is AUC leadership interested in or committed to taking over the costs associated with LEAD? 20. Is AUC interested and able to take on the financial responsibility of LEAD? 3. Focus group discussions with LEAD students by cohort (6-8 students per group; 2 groups per cohort). Research questions include: 2.a) What are the skills and qualities emphasized for LEAD students? 1. What, if any, special skills or advantages do you have as a LEAD student that sets you apart from other AUC students? 2.b) What is the students’ assessment of the instructional materials? 2.c) What is the students’ assessment of the quality of the staff and facilities? 2.d) What is the students’ assessment of supporting activities, seminars, and retreats? 4.e) Are LEAD students satisfied with the program? 2. Are you satisfied with the LEAD program? - instruction - staff - housing - support services - activities 2.e) How have the characteristics of the program environment (i.e. facilities, housing, materials) affected student achievement? 3. Which elements of the LEAD program are essential for your academic achievement? 3.b) What are some of the development, community service, and leadership activities that have been undertaken? 4. Have you participated in any activities or programs to give something back to your home community or AUC? 5. Do you participate in any activities, clubs, or sports at AUC? 6. What are your plans for the future--after AUC? 5.a) Does AUC leadership value the LEAD program? 7. Setting aside the LEAD administration, do you feel AUC values the LEAD program? 5.e) What, if any, cost-recovery strategies are being used by LEAD administrators and students (e.g. living with relatives, applying for non-LEAD grants)? 8. Have you received any financial support outside of LEAD? -family -study abroad scholarship -other scholarships or stipends 9. Do you have any relatives who were or are students at AUC? Relatives who studied abroad? Wrap-up 10. Do you have any suggestions for improving LEAD? 43 4. Individual discussions with low-performing LEAD students (2.5 or lower). One discussion per cohort to discuss: 2.b) What is the students’ assessment of the instructional materials? 2.c) What is the students’ assessment of the quality of the staff and facilities? 2.d) What is the students’ assessment of supporting activities, seminars, and retreats? 4.e) Are LEAD students satisfied with the program? 1. Are you satisfied with the LEAD program? - instruction - staff - housing - support services - activities 2. How do you spend your free time? 2.e) How have the characteristics of the program environment (i.e. facilities, housing, materials) affected student achievement? 3. Which elements of the program are essential for LEAD students? 4. Are there program requirements that make it harder for students to succeed? 5. Are there things in your program that are helping you to improve academically? Wrap-up 6. Do you have any suggestions for improving LEAD? 5. Individual interviews with high-performing LEAD students (3.5 or higher). One discussion per cohort to discuss: 2.b) What is the students’ assessment of the instructional materials? 2.c) What is the students’ assessment of the quality of the staff and facilities? 2.d) What is the students’ assessment of supporting activities, seminars, and retreats? 4.e) Are LEAD students satisfied with the program? 1. Are you satisfied with the LEAD program? - instruction - staff - housing - support services - activities 2. How do you spend your free time? 2.e) How have the characteristics of the program environment (i.e. facilities, housing, materials) affected student achievement? 3. Which elements of the program are essential for LEAD students? 4. Are there program requirements that make it harder for students to succeed? 5. Are there things in your program that are helping you to improve academically? Wrap-up 6. Do you have any suggestions for improving LEAD? 44 6. In-depth discussions with individual LEAD students (3-5students) will be used to: a) Check trends found in discussions, interviews, and questionnaires b) Provide additional recommendations for improving LEAD based on issued uncovered in research c) Follow-up on unexpected findings 7. Document review The following research sub-questions will be pursued in the document review: 1.a) Has the program developed and sustained a gender and regional balance among program recipients? If so, how has this balance been achieved? If not, what are some contributing factors? 1.b) What has been the academic record of the students enrolled? Are there regional or gender disparities? If so, what have been the compensatory steps taken to address these disparities? 1.c) What is the retention rate? Are there regional or gender disparities? What have been the compensatory steps taken to address these disparities? If student retention is challenge for the program, what are factors contributing to dropping out? 1.d) For the first cohort, scheduled to graduate in 2008, what is the anticipated completion rate? (Subsequent cohorts will graduate from the new AUC campus, do program administrators expect different completion rates? Why?) 2.a) What are the skills and qualities emphasized for LEAD students? 3.b) What are some of the development, community service, and leadership activities that have been undertaken? 4.a) What are the overall participant costs? 4.b) How do LEAD recruitment costs compare with those of AUC? 4.c) Has the program coordination unit managed to stay within its budget? If not, what are possible explanations? 4.d) When rate of spending was lower than expected, how were the savings used? Specific items to be requested include: a) Cooperative Agreement including program description. b) LEAD organizational chart. c) Scholarship selection criteria developed jointly by the Egyptian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) and the Ministry of Education (MOE). d) Rubric used by LEAD panel for final selection of LEAD students. e) Selection criteria for study-abroad component f) Profiles of study abroad students for each year (sex, governorate, SES). g) Instruments and protocol documents used for LPI measurement. h) AUC LEAD’s monitoring plan including program indicators, quarterly reports submitted to USAID/Egypt including information on leadership training, conferences, and other leadership-focused activities. i) Financial information including budgets and expenditures associated with LEAD. j) An estimate of costs for attending AUC (for non-LEAD students). 45 k) Documentation on gender breakdown by cohorts overtime (e.g. ratio of male/female in cohort 1 for years 1-4). l) Documentation of retention of LEAD students and AUC students in general. m) Documentation of GPA rates for all LEAD cohorts for each year enrolled. n) Student reports and studies. o) AUC’s Report on the LEAD Program: The Way Forward References Berenger, R. (2005) The Lake Wobegon Effect and Grade Inflation: The American University in Cairo Case Study. Paper presented at the IAMCR conference, Taipei. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1998). Basics of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Merriam, S. B. (Ed.). (2002). Qualitative research in practice. San Francisco: Jossey￾Bass. 46 C. List of Reference Documents a) Cooperative Agreement including program description. b) LEAD organizational chart c) Scholarship selection criteria developed jointly by the Egyptian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) and the Ministry of Education (MOE) d) Rubric used by LEAD panel for selection of LEAD students e) Selection criteria for study-abroad component f) Profiles of study abroad students for each year (sex, governorate, SES). g) Instruments and protocol documents used for LPI measurement. h) AUC LEAD’s monitoring plan including program indicators, quarterly reports submitted to USAID/Egypt including information on leadership training, conferences, and other leadership-focused activities. i) Financial information including budgets and expenditures associated with LEAD. j) An estimate of costs for attending AUC (for non-LEAD students). k) Documentation on gender breakdown by cohorts overtime (e.g. ratio of male/female in cohort 1 for years 1-4). l) Documentation of retention of LEAD students and AUC students in general. m) Documentation of GPA rates for all LEAD cohorts for each year enrolled. n) Student reports and studies. o) AUC’s Report on the LEAD Program: The Way Forward 47 D. Calendar, persons interviewed and affiliation May 4, 2008 - May 10, 2008 Sun, May 4 Mon, May 5 Arrive in Cairo 3:30-4:30pm meeting at USAID 5pm LEAD student conference Tue, May 6 3-4pm meet with Sohair Saad, LEAD Program Director regarding eval. Design Draft eval. design Wed, May 7 2-3:45pm meet with Cohort 3 student (Hagar) regarding eval. design Draft eval. Design and send to DevTech and USAID Thu, May 8 2pm meet with USAID to review design Submit final design based on suggestions from meeting Fri, May 9 Draft interview instruments and questionnaires Sat, May 10 11am-2pm observe Cohort 3 training session Collect 38 questionnaires from Cohort 3 Focus group discussions Cohort 3 o 8 students-Cohort 3 o 5 students-Cohort 3 48 May 11, 2008 - May 17, 2008 Sun, May 11 Design SPSS data entry Enter Cohort 3 data Mon, May 12 - 4pm meet with Deena Boraie (former acting director of LEAD), key informant interview Tue, May 13 - 10am-12 noon meet with Wael (LEAD M&E coordinator) to discuss progress of evaluation, review list of needed documents, and organize other student and LEAD staff meetings. - 12-1pm meet with Wael (LEAD M&E coordinator), key informant interview - 1-2pm meet with Prof Khalil (Prof of computer science), key informant interview - 1-2 meet with Sohair Saad (LEAD director) to update her on eval. Status Wed, May 14 - 10am-noon meet with Amir Oraby (Financial officer, LEAD), key informant interview - 10-11am meet with Tom Farkas (Intensive English Coordinator), key informant - 6-7pm Student focus group interview Cohort 2: o 6 students--Cohort 2 o 7 students--Cohort 2 Thu, May 15 - 10:30am meeting with LEAD Assistant Coordinators, key informant interview - 11am student focus group discussion Cohort 1 o 6 students—Cohort 1 - 12 noon meeting with LEAD Coordinators, key informant interview - 2pm meeting with Prof. El-Sheik (Prof of Physics), key informant interview - 6-7:30pm Student focus group discussion Cohort 1 o 5 students—Cohort 1 Fri, May 16 - 5-6pm observation of Cohort 4 meeting - 6-6:15pm Questionnaires for Cohort 4 (only 12—must be redone) - 6:15-7:45pm Student focus group discussion Cohort 4 o 8 students—Cohort 4 Sat, May 17 - 2pm Questionnaires Cohort 2 (22 questionnaires collected and cohort rep working to collect more…) - 3:00pm 2 high-performing individual student interview, Cohort 3 - 3:45pm 2 low-performing individual student interview, Cohort 3 49 May 18, 2008 - May 24, 2008 Sun, May 18 - 1-3pm meeting with Amani, Marian, and Mariam (ELI instructors involved with Cohort 5 recruitment) Mon, May 19 - 12noon meeting with Ghada Hazem (Dir of admissions), Maha Guindi (Executive Director, CAPS), and Samia Saad El Shazly (Director Student Financial Affairs Office) key informant interview - 8pm attend AUC student play, 7 of 8 actors are LEAD students Tue, May 20 - 9am meeting with Sandra Gazis (Cohort 2 program coordinator) Key informant interview - 10am meeting with Dina Rateb (Business prof) key informant interview - 12noon meeting with Kim Jackson (Assoc VP, student life) key informant interview - 3pm meeting with Dr. Iman el Kaffas (former director of LEAD), key informant interview Wed, May 21 - 10am debrief with Sohair - 11am 1high-performing individual student interview, Cohort 2 - 12noon 1 low-performing individual student interview Cohort 4 - 12noon meeting with Marawan Badr (Ambassador, Ministry of International Cooperation) Key informant interview - 1pm meeting with Fatma Youssef (Associate Dean for Residential Life), key informant interview - 1pm 1 low-performing individual student interview Cohort 2 - 2pm 1 high-performing individual student interview Cohort 4 - 2:30pm 1 high-performing individual student interview Cohort 4 - 2pm meeting with Dalia Issa (Manager of Student Cultural Activities), key informant interview - 8pm Questionnaire collection for Cohort 1 & 4 Student focus group discussion o 13 students Cohort 4 - 8pm 1 low-performing individual student interview Cohort 1 Thu, May 22 - 10am meeting with Joshua Gluckman (Prof of computer science), key informant interview - 1:30 meeting with Ashraf el Fiki (Vice President for Student Affairs), key informant interview Fri, May 23 Sat, May 24 - Analyze data 50 May 25, 2008 - May 31, 2008 Sun, May 25 10am meeting with Tagreed, former program officer of Geirhart Center. (Check evaluation findings) Mon, May 26 Tue, May 27 Debrief at USAID Wed, May 28 Wrap-up meeting with LEAD staff Meeting with LEAD staff to identify success story for case study Thu, May 29 Team leader departs Egypt Interview with case study student Interview with case study parent Fri, May 30 Sat, May 31 51 E. Student questionnaire You are being asked to complete this survey as part of LEAD mid-term evaluation. All individual responses will be kept confidential. Please do not write your name on this questionnaire. Results of the entire survey will be available to LEAD students and staff at the end of the evaluation period. Thank you for participating in the LEAD mid-term evaluation. A. Background Please circle or fill-in the appropriate response. 1. Cohort: 1 2 3 4 2. Dorm:_______________________________ 3. Gender: Male Female 4. Current GPA: ____________ 5. Governorate: ___________________________________________________ 6. Please list other family members who attended or are attending AUC. Please relationship (e.g. father, brother, cousin, etc): Name Relationship to you 7. Please list family members who attended university abroad, their relationship to you, and, if known, the name of their university. Name Relationship to you University name 8. Mother completed high-school: Yes No 9. Mother completed university: Yes No 10. Father’s occupation _______________________________________________ 52 B. Satisfaction Please circle the number on the scale that best represents your view. 1= poor 2= good 3= very good No. Questions Response 11. Overall, how would you rate the LEAD program? 1 2 3 12. How would you rate the quality of education you receive at the AUC? 1 2 3 13. How would you rate the quality of teaching at the AUC? 1 2 3 14. How would you rate the transparency and fairness of current LEAD administration? 1 2 3 15. How would you rate the current LEAD staff? 1 2 3 16. How would you rate the support you receive from current LEAD staff? a. a. Support with academics? 1 2 3 b. b. Support with personal life? 1 2 3 17. How would you rate previous LEAD staff? 1 2 3 18. How would you rate your housing? 1 2 3 19. How would you rate the support services you receive from LEAD and AUC? 1 2 3 20. How would you rate the LEAD student recruiting process? 1 2 3 21. How would you rate LEAD activities? a. c. Regular meetings? 1 2 3 b. d. Conferences? 1 2 3 c. e. Retreats? 1 2 3 d. f. Training sessions? 1 2 3 53 C. Challenges and looking forward Please tick mark (9) the best response. If a particular item is presently not applicable, please write NA. 22. What are major challenges you face in the LEAD program? __ Academics __ Adjusting to Cairo __ Social life at AUC __ Other Please specify:_____________________ 23. What are your plans for the future--after AUC? __ Pursue graduate studies __ Seek a job in home governorate __ Seek a job in Cairo __ Take time off __ Become a housewife __ Travel __ Other Please specify: _____________________ 24. Have you participated in any activities or programs to give something back to your home community or AUC? __ Yes __ No If yes, please briefly describe: 25. Have you received any financial support outside of LEAD? __ Yes __ No If yes, from whom? __ Immediate family __ Extended family __ Study-abroad scholarship __ Additional scholarships or stipends __ Other Please specify: _____________________ 26. Have you and your family paid any expenses out-of-pocket in order to be in the LEAD program? (i.e. expenses not covered with LEAD allowances?) __ Yes __ No If yes, please briefly describe: 54 F. Key informant interview questions The interviewers will begin each key informant interview and focus group discussion by explaining the purpose of the study and the confidentiality and anonymity protections that will be provided for each interviewee. After this, the individual will be asked if s/he is willing to participate in the interview. If the interviewee agrees, the discussion will begin with the introduction questions. Only questions relevant to the interviewee will be asked. If it appears that an interviewee is not able to respond to questions on a particular topic, the other questions for that section will be skipped and the interviewer will move on until all relevant topics are covered. Finally, the wrap-up questions will be asked and the interviewee will be thanked for his/her time and participation. Research questions are listed and questions to be asked are in bold. Questions are divided by affiliation of participants: LEAD-affiliated informants 1.a) Has the program developed and sustained a gender and regional balance among program recipients? If so, how has this balance been achieved? If not, what are some contributing factors? 1.f) To what extent have disadvantaged students been selected for LEAD? 1. Do you feel there is adequate balance and diversity among students? Why or why not? -gender -governorate -socio-economic status 1.b) What has been the academic record of the students enrolled? Are there regional or gender disparities? If so, what have been the compensatory steps taken to address these disparities? 1.c) What is the retention rate? Are there regional or gender disparities? What have been the compensatory steps taken to address these disparities? If student retention is challenge for the program, what are factors contributing to dropping out? 2. Are there any students or groups of students that struggle in the LEAD program? -gender -governorate -socio-economic status -year in program -level of English when entering -major or academic concentration 1.d) For the first cohort, scheduled to graduate in 2008, what is the anticipated completion rate? (Subsequent cohorts will graduate from the new AUC campus, do program administrators expect different completion rates? Why?) 3. What has been the completion rate for cohort 1? 4. What do you expect for completion rates for other cohorts? 3.a) What has been the participation rate of LEAD students in development, community service, and leadership activities? Are there regional or gender disparities? 55 3.b) What are some of the development, community service, and leadership activities that have been undertaken? 5. Approximately what percentage of LEAD students are taking part in development, community service, and leadership activities? 6. Can you provide some examples? 7. Which students are drawn to these activities? -gender -governorate -socio-economic status -year in program -major or academic concentration 3.c) How, if at all, are development, community service, and leadership activities monitored? 8. How do you track these activities? 9. How is the LPI being used? Are you satisfied with it? 4.c) Has the program coordination unit managed to stay within its budget? If not, what are possible explanations? 10. When has the program gone over budget? Why do you think this happened? 4.d) When rate of spending was lower than expected, how were the savings used? 11. In early years of the program money was spend at a slower pace that expected. How did LEAD program that money? 5.e) What, if any, cost-recovery strategies are being used by LEAD administrators and students (e.g. living with relatives, applying for non-LEAD grants)? 12. Have students received any financial support outside of LEAD? Please describe. -family -study abroad scholarship -other scholarships or stipends LEAD and AUC-affiliated informants 1.e) How has the diversity of LEAD students contributed to the overall educational environment of the university? What has been the impact in AUC classrooms? 13. How has the diversity of LEAD students contributed to the overall educational environment of the university? What has been the impact in AUC classrooms? 2.e) How have the characteristics of the program environment (i.e. facilities, housing, materials) affected student achievement? 14. Have program components influenced student achievement? 15. Which elements are essential to achievement for most LEAD students? 4.f) Are AUC and LEAD administrators satisfied with the program? 16. Are you satisfied with the program? -overall goals -program administration -student selection 56 -student performance 5.a) Does AUC leadership value the LEAD program? 17. How important is the LEAD program to AUC? 18. Do you think university resources should be used to support or expand LEAD? 19. Do you have any recommendations for improving LEAD? 5.b) Is AUC leadership interested in or committed to taking over the costs associated with LEAD? 20. Is AUC interested and able to take on the financial responsibility of LEAD? 3. Focus group discussions with LEAD students by cohort (6-8 students per group; 2 groups per cohort). Research questions include: 2.a) What are the skills and qualities emphasized for LEAD students? 1. What, if any, special skills or advantages do you have as a LEAD student that sets you apart from other AUC students? 2.b) What is the students’ assessment of the instructional materials? 2.c) What is the students’ assessment of the quality of the staff and facilities? 2.d) What is the students’ assessment of supporting activities, seminars, and retreats? 4.e) Are LEAD students satisfied with the program? 2. Are you satisfied with the LEAD program? - instruction - staff - housing - support services - activities 2.e) How have the characteristics of the program environment (i.e. facilities, housing, materials) affected student achievement? 3. Which elements of the LEAD program are essential for your academic achievement? 3.b) What are some of the development, community service, and leadership activities that have been undertaken? 4. Have you participated in any activities or programs to give something back to your home community or AUC? 5. Do you participate in any activities, clubs, or sports at AUC? 6. What are your plans for the future--after AUC? 5.a) Does AUC leadership value the LEAD program? 7. Setting aside the LEAD administration, do you feel AUC values the LEAD program? 5.e) What, if any, cost-recovery strategies are being used by LEAD administrators and students (e.g. living with relatives, applying for non-LEAD grants)? 8. Have you received any financial support outside of LEAD? -family 57 -study abroad scholarship -other scholarships or stipends 9. Do you have any relatives who were or are students at AUC? Relatives who studied abroad? Wrap-up 10. Do you have any suggestions for improving LEAD? 58 G. Focus group questions-students Focus group discussions with LEAD students by cohort (6-8 students per group; 2 groups per cohort). Research questions include: 2.a) What are the skills and qualities emphasized for LEAD students? 1. What, if any, special skills or advantages do you have as a LEAD student that sets you apart from other AUC students? 2.b) What is the students’ assessment of the instructional materials? 2.c) What is the students’ assessment of the quality of the staff and facilities? 2.d) What is the students’ assessment of supporting activities, seminars, and retreats? 4.e) Are LEAD students satisfied with the program? 2. Are you satisfied with the LEAD program? - instruction - staff - housing - support services - activities 2.e) How have the characteristics of the program environment (i.e. facilities, housing, materials) affected student achievement? 3. Which elements of the LEAD program are essential for your academic achievement? 3.b) What are some of the development, community service, and leadership activities that have been undertaken? 4. Have you participated in any activities or programs to give something back to your home community or AUC? 5. Do you participate in any activities, clubs, or sports at AUC? 6. What are your plans for the future--after AUC? 5.a) Does AUC leadership value the LEAD program? 7. Setting aside the LEAD administration, do you feel AUC values the LEAD program? 5.e) What, if any, cost-recovery strategies are being used by LEAD administrators and students (e.g. living with relatives, applying for non-LEAD grants)? 8. Have you received any financial support outside of LEAD? -family -study abroad scholarship -other scholarships or stipends 9. Do you have any relatives who were or are students at AUC? Relatives who studied abroad? Wrap-up 10. Do you have any suggestions for improving LEAD? 59 H. LEAD Students by Governorate (note: Cohort 3 is missing from data) No. Governorate Cohort 1 female Cohort 1 male Cohort 2 female Cohort 2 male Cohort 4 female Cohort 4 male 1. Alexandria 1 1 1 1 1 1 2. Assuit 1 1 0 1 1 1 3. Aswan 1 1 2 1 1 1 4. Behira 1 0 1 1 1 1 5. Beni Suef 1 1 1 1 1 1 6. Cairo 1 1 1 1 1 1 7. Dakahlia 1 1 1 1 1 1 8. Damietta 1 1 1 1 1 1 9. Fayoum 1 1 1 1 1 1 10. Gharbia 1 1 1 1 1 1 11. Giza 1 1 1 1 1 1 12. Ismailia 1 1 1 1 1 1 13. Kafr el Sheikh 1 1 0 1 1 1 14. Kalyobeya 0 1 2 0 1 1 15. Luxor 1 1 1 1 1 1 16. Marsa Matrouh 1 0 1 2 1 1 17. Menoufia 1 0 1 2 1 1 18. Menya 1 1 1 1 1 1 19. New Valley 1 0 0 2 1 0 20. North Sinai 1 0 1 1 1 1 21. Port Said 1 1 1 1 1 1 22. Qena 1 1 1 1 1 1 23. Red Sea 1 0 1 2 1 1 24. Sohag 1 1 1 1 1 1 25. South Sinai 0 0 1 2 1 1 26. Suez 1 0 1 2 1 1 27. Sharkeya 1 1 1 1 1 1 60 I. Total LEAD Budget and 07/08 Budget Budget Summary35 Budget Item USAID Funding in LE AUC Funding in LE 1. Tuition 33,330,208 14,284,375 2. Tech., Health Insur. & Other Fees 2,353,034 - 3. Books 2,097,533 - 4. Housing 7,672,925 1,124,691 5. Living Allowances for Students 8,716,850 - 6. Salaries and Benefits 2,831,456 322,288 7. Indirect Costs 2,959,374 - 8. Equipment Supplies and Office Space 297,463 - 9. Meeting Expenses 238,608 - 10. Conferences and Retreats 2,199,312 - 11. Semester Abroad 6,644,665 - 12. Advertising and Selection 241,893 - 13. Reserve for 2nd,3rd and 4th cohort 7,046,740 - 14. Sales taxes on supplies, equipment, hotels, etc - 13,481 15. Meeting expenses for all students off campus once per semester - 11,545 Total 76,630,059 15,756,380 Percentage of Funding 83 17 35 USAID Cooperative Agreement No. 263-A-00-07-00023-00 March 7, 2007 61 In-house LEAD budget for 2007-2008 Year 2 FY07-08 LE36 Tuition fees (reduced by 30%) 5,769,792 Health insurance, Student activities & other fees 379,026 Books 315,576 Housing for all students (reduced by 30% for 40 students per year) 1,350,720 Living allowance for all students 1,676,237 Meeting expenses 47,124 Conferences & Retreats 396,263 Semester Abroad - Advertisement & selection 241,893 Reserve item for second, third & fourth cohort expenses 305,000 Fixed Annual Costs Salaries 396,000 Indirect costs 417,798 Equipment, Supplies & Office Space 78,000 USAID contribution 11,373,430 Total AUC Contribution (Details Below) 675,200 AUC's cost sharing: 80% of PI's salary 80% PI benefits 80% PI benefits (scholarship) 30% AUC hostel on 40 students/year 84,000 30% tuition cost sharing 583,200 Sales taxes on supplies, equipment, hotels, etc 6,700 Meeting expenses for all students off campus once /semester 1,300 Total AUC Cost sharing/semester 675,200 36 Conversion rate 5.74LE=1 USD