1 November 13, 2016 This publication was produced at the request of the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared independently by the LEAD Evaluation Team and The QED Group, LLC. Authors: Melanie Sanders-Smith, Doaa Abdelaal, Ola Hosny, Dr. May Gadalla, Dr. Soheir El-Sherif, Engi Gamal Eldin Final Performance Evaluation of the Leadership for Education and Development Scholarship Program (LEAD) FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LEADERSHIP FOR EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM (LEAD) November 13, 2016 Task Order No. AID-263-TO-16-00004 DISCLAIMER The authors’ views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Services to Improve Performance Management, Enhance Learning and Evaluation (SIMPLE) and the evaluation team are grateful to the implementing partner, the American University in Cairo (AUC), for its cooperation on the evaluation. The LEAD program had ended several months earlier, so staff had already moved on to other jobs. Nevertheless, they made themselves available to formally meet with the team and to answer additional questions throughout the data collection phase. Similarly, the university was out of session during data collection, but AUC faculty and staff made time to meet with the team. This cooperation made it possible for the evaluation team to do their work. SIMPLE and the evaluation team would also like to acknowledge the assistance of USAID/Egypt officers: Nader Ayoub (Activity Manager/LEAD Agreement Officer’s Representative), for providing guidance and input at all stages of this evaluation; Dr. Arturo Acosta (Deputy Director and Team Leader of Higher Education), Seba Auda (Evaluation Manager), Hanan Abbas (Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist from the Program Office), and Albert Carrera and Shaymaa Shaatoot (Contracts Officers from the Procurement Office), for helping to expedite Mission processes wherever possible and facilitating interactions with the implementing partner. SIMPLE and the evaluation team are also grateful to North South Consultants Exchange (NSCE), the local subcontractor that hosted the team throughout the evaluation, for providing highly professional and timely logistical and field support. The team further wishes to thank the scholarship recipients themselves who responded to the survey and who engaged the team in rich conversations and interactions. It was a privilege and pleasure to meet these exceptional young men and women and to benefit from their insights about LEAD. We wish them continued success as they advance their careers and contribute to Egypt’s development. Finally, SIMPLE wishes to express its appreciation to the evaluation team leader (Melanie Sanders-Smith), senior evaluators (Doaa Abdelaal and Ola Hosny), economists (Dr. Soheir El-Sherif and Engi Gamal Eldin), and senior statistician (Dr. May Gadalla) for their professionalism, commitment, and dedicated efforts in meeting deadlines and completing the numerous tasks for which they were responsible. Their diverse technical backgrounds enhanced the design of the evaluation tools, which allowed for deeper levels of analysis. COVER PHOTO: A group photo celebrating the successful completion of the USAID-funded LEAD program. The event was attended by USAID Mission Director and officials, Egyptian government representatives, partner NGOs, AUC faculty and staff, and LEAD alumni. This event took place on April 20, 2016 in Moataz Al Alfi Hall, AUC New Cairo campus. The photo was taken by the AUC Photographer is Mohamed Fahmi. CONTENTS Acronyms.............................................................................................................................................................................. i Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................................... ii Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1 Background.......................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Methods & Limitations...................................................................................................................................................... 4 Findings, Conclusions & Recommendations................................................................................................................ 7 Annexes ............................................................................................................................................................................. 28 Annex I: Evaluation Statement of Work .................................................................................................................... 29 Annex II: Evaluation Methods and Limitations.......................................................................................................... 43 Annex III: Data Collection Instruments..................................................................................................................... 53 Annex IV: Sources of Information ............................................................................................................................... 68 Annex V: Quantitative Data.......................................................................................................................................... 77 Annex VI: Disclosure of Any Conflicts of Interest............................................................................................... 113 i ACRONYMS AUC The American University in Cairo BCR Benefit-Cost Ratio BOT Board of Trustees BUE British University in Egypt CBA Cost-Benefit Analysis DEC USAID Development Experience Clearinghouse EQ Evaluation Question FUE Future University in Egypt FYE First Year Experience GI Group interview GOE Government of Egypt GPA Grade point average GUC German University in Cairo 4ICU 4International Colleges and Universities IRR Internal rate of return ISSA AUC’s Office of International Students and Study Abroad KII Key informant interview LEAD Leadership for Education and Development Scholarship Program LOTUS Leadership Opportunity Transforming University Students Scholarship Program LPI Leadership Performance Index LSP Local Scholarship Program MEK Misr El Kheir MOHESR Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research MOP Ministry of Planning MSA Modern Sciences and Arts NGO Non-governmental organization NPV Net Present Value NSCE North South Consultants Exchange OSD AUC’s Office of Student Development QED The QED Group, LLC QS Quacquarelli Symonds ROI Return on investment SDR Social discount rate SIMPLE Services to Improve Performance Management, Enhance Learning and Evaluation SOS AUC’s Support Office for Students SOW Statement of Work USAID US Agency for International Development ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 2004, USAID/Egypt began funding the Leadership for Education and Development (LEAD) Scholarship Program. Partnering with the American University in Cairo (AUC), 414 beneficiaries studied at one of Egypt’s top universities. AUC selected bright, motivated young people and launched them into promising careers, equipped with a high-quality education in which they learned to think critically and solve problems creatively. As AUC students, they honed their English language, leadership, and other soft skills. They demonstrated great potential in their applications to the program and their experience at AUC both boosted their confidence to pursue ambitious careers and strengthened their commitment to community service. Alumni describe the experience as “transformative” and USAID should watch with interest how these future leaders help transform Egypt. EVALUATION PURPOSE AND QUESTIONS The purpose of this evaluation is to provide USAID/Egypt with information to make decisions about LEAD’s efficacy and relative importance in the higher education portfolio. It is hoped that the findings of this report are taken into consideration in designing future scholarships programs. The primary audiences are the Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research (MOHESR) and USAID. The final evaluation report will be accessible to the public via USAID’s Development Experience Clearinghouse (DEC) within three months of report completion. Although LEAD began in 2004, the statement of work (SOW) for this evaluation pertains to the cooperative agreement that was in place from 2007 to 2016. Only six of the eight LEAD cohorts are evaluated here; i.e., Cohorts 3 through 8. The scope tasked the team with answering five questions: 1. To what extent are the students and alumni of the LEAD equipped with the skills to potentially assume positions of leadership in academia, government, industry and business? 2. To what extent are the students and alumni satisfied with the program services (English Language training, computer training, team building, and library and research skills)? 3. To what extent has the LEAD succeeded to achieve gender balance with the program services (English Language training; computer training; cohort development, team-building, library and research skills, study skills, etc.)? 4. What is the Return on Investment of the LEAD? 5. To what extent does AUC have the institutional capacity and resources to achieve sustainable results? PROJECT BACKGROUND LEAD was designed to support economically disadvantaged youth who cannot afford quality education. The scholarship program targeted promising, but economically disadvantaged, students from public schools in all 27 governorates. The students had achieved a minimum score of 85% on the Thanaweya Amma and demonstrated leadership and community participation during their pre-university years. By providing disadvantaged youth with the opportunity to earn an undergraduate degree at AUC, LEAD was supporting the development hypothesis that such opportunities will contribute to a better educated workforce that responds to Egypt’s labor market needs. The cooperative agreement with AUC states that LEAD’s primary objectives were to: (a) train and equip these students with the skills necessary to become leaders in their societies, and (b) enable students to become agents of change in Egypt's development. The agreement did not specify that students had to return to their home governorates upon graduation, nor did it target specific development sectors, so students were free to choose any field of study from among the majors offered at AUC. From 2007-2016, LEAD offered full scholarships to 308 students; 154 females and 154 males. The scholarship included tuition, fees, books, health insurance, housing, monthly allowance, English language iii training, and access to all AUC services. Some students also participated in US Study Abroad, attended international conferences, or served as interns to NGOs and businesses. In addition, LEAD held an annual leadership conference, retreats, training in leadership, and a variety of other activities. Each cohort was assigned a student life coordinator to provide guidance and support. EVALUATION METHODS AND LIMITATIONS The team used a mix of quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis methods. The evaluation began with a document review, followed by the development of data collection tools. The team relied on data from an online survey (n=104), LEAD databases, qualitative data from group discussions with alumni (n=29), and interviews with individuals from USAID/Egypt, LEAD, AUC, hosts of internships and US Study Abroad, and employers (n=54) to answer questions 1, 2, 3, and 5. Data collection was a challenge since LEAD had ended, AUC was not in session during data collection, many stakeholders were on vacation, contact lists were incomplete and contained outdated information, and alumni displayed survey fatigue, as demonstrated in declining response rates to LEAD annual surveys. For example, LEAD staff provided data for Cohorts 4-8 before LEAD ended. Unfortunately, details about Grade Point Average (GPA) and Leadership Performance Index (LPI) scores were missing for Cohort 3. Other missing data included contact information for some dismissed and withdrawn students. Also, contact information for alumni had not been maintained and was no longer accurate. This became apparent when the team attempted to contact alumni to participate in focus groups and respond to the online survey. The team reported these concerns to SIMPLE who reported them to USAID/Egypt. The answer to Question 4 (Return on Investment [ROI]) was based on a Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA). The CBA calculated three basic indicators: Net Present Value (NPV), Benefit/Cost (B/C) ratio, and Internal Rate of Return (IRR). Calculating the costs was straightforward, but quantifying the benefits was challenging and required many assumptions about the Egyptian labor market and social value of higher education. It was also problematic to benchmark the ROI analysis in the absence of a counterfactual or information about alternative investment options. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Evaluation Question (EQ1): To what extent are students and alumni of LEAD equipped with the skills to potentially assume positions of leadership in academia, government, industry and business? Summary of key EQ1 findings: A majority of alumni thought AUC-managed activities and services, more so than LEAD-managed activities, “contributed” or “fully contributed” to development of their leadership skills (see Table 1 below). Overall ratings for US Study Abroad (managed by AUC but funded by USAID and Orascom Construction Industries), extracurricular activities, and academic courses were 77.8%, 60%, and 59.4%, respectively, followed by LEAD-managed retreats (44.4%) and student life coordinators (44.4%). Very few alumni (18.6%) thought the LPI was an effective way of monitoring their engagement in leadership-related activities. LEAD’s support package included: (a) a full academic scholarship, including English language courses as needed , (b) student life coordinators to provide guidance and support, (c) annual conferences designed to develop and practice leadership skills and set future goals, (d) retreats to other governorates to broadened students’ understanding of Egypt and strengthened cohort team building experiences, (e) leadership training and civic engagement activities, (f) USAID/Egypt-funded US Study Abroad, international conferences, and internships, and (g) other LEAD-specific activities (e.g., book review sessions; and meet-the-expert sessions on current affairs). Additionally, LEAD students had access to the full range of AUC services, including First Year Experience (FYE) orientation, library and research skill development, mentoring and study skills development, psychological counseling, career counseling, computer support, and extracurricular activities. iv LEAD alumni compare favorably to their AUC colleagues in English language, leadership, and other soft skills that are valued in the private sector in Greater Cairo/Giza and abroad. The largest percentage of LEAD alumni surveyed (30%) specified that they are working in international or multinational companies, followed by Egyptian companies (28.6%), international/multinational organizations (21.4%), NGOs (4.3%), and the public sector (5.7%). Few alumni (11%) currently live in governorates outside the Cairo/Giza area, with 68.3% currently residing in Cairo/Giza and 20.7% outside of Egypt. Existing job titles indicate that alumni have already begun assuming positions of leadership in their places of work. Table 1: LEAD-Managed compared to AUC-Managed Services Conclusions EQ1: LEAD alumni are well equipped with the skills to potentially assume positions of leadership, with alumni crediting AUC-managed activities with making the greatest contribution to development of their leadership skills. Furthermore, alumni’s current career paths suggest they are assuming positions of leadership in the private sector in Cairo/Giza and abroad, though less likely to assume positions in the government or in their home governorates. To further illustrate this point, the majority of alumni (58.6%) who responded to the survey work in the private sector. A significant number (35.7%) work in NGOs, as well as international and multinational organizations, while very few (5.7%) work in the public sector/government. Evaluation Question 2 (EQ2): To what extent are students and alumni satisfied with the program services (English language training, computer training, team building, and library and research skills)? Summary of key EQ2 findings: Regarding the overall LEAD experience, 67% of alumni considered it positive/extremely positive and 94.7% are likely to recommend such a program to others. The graphs above show that alumni were more satisfied with AUC-managed activities than LEAD-managed activities. LEAD students who participated in US Study Abroad, which was funded by USAID/Egypt and Orascom Construction Industries and managed by AUC, gave it the highest satisfaction rating of all the activities (78.9%). Alumni were also very satisfied with library and research skill development (78.4%), English language courses (77.2%), and academic courses (70.6%). Of LEAD-managed services, retreats ranked the highest (53.4%), followed by staff-led and student-led orientations at 39.2% and 36.7% respectively. Conclusions EQ2: While LEAD sought student feedback and modified the program over time in response, alumni were only minimally satisfied with LEAD-managed activities/services. LEAD missed the opportunity to provide a better experience for students in two key areas: orientation and student life coordinators. Fully effective LEAD orientations and student life coordinators would have better addressed the unique challenges of LEAD students and helped them adjust to their new environment. LEAD-Managed Services AUC-Managed Services v Evaluation Question 3(EQ3): To what extent has lead succeeded to achieve gender balance with the program services (English language training, computer training, cohort development, team building, library and research skills, study skills, etc.)? Summary of key EQ3 findings: An equal number of females and males (154 each) were admitted to the LEAD program. Although there were no reported gender differences in services offered, there was a statistically significant difference between genders on the LPI, GPA, US Study Abroad, and graduation rates. 1 Similarly, 61.1% of those dismissed from LEAD were males (n=27). Conclusions EQ3: LEAD succeeded in achieving gender balance in selection of scholarship recipients and provision of program services. Females exceeded male performance on (a) LPI scores, (b) enrollment in US study abroad, and (c) graduation rates but are relatively comparable on cumulative GPAs; i.e., equivalent to a 0.078 higher cumulative GPA for females across Cohorts 4 - 8. Evaluation Question 4 (EQ4): What is the return on investment of LEAD? Summary of key EQ4 findings: The Internal rate of return (IRR) is estimated to be an average of 18% for all LEAD graduates. The lowest IRR is for graduates from the School of Humanities and Social Sciences (11%) and the highest for students from science and engineering (19%). The average IRR is double the social discount rate of 8% and falls within the estimated range of 18-21% for private/public university graduates when lifetime earnings are forecast equal to LEAD graduates. While costs were relatively straightforward to calculate, non-monetary benefits were not quantifiable and, thus, not included in the analysis. Had they been included, the IRR for LEAD graduates would have been higher than 18%. Conclusions EQ4: Investing in LEAD is considered an acceptable opportunity cost of capital from the standpoint of Egypt’s national economy. Moreover, investments in higher education at other private or public universities might yield a higher IRR, but not necessarily the same employment results. Evaluation Question 5 (EQ5): To what extent does AUC have the institutional capacity and resources to achieve sustainable results? Summary of key EQ5 findings: AUC has demonstrated its commitment to supporting financially disadvantaged students through its strategic plan and efforts to increase its share of LEAD program costs. The university’s institutional capacity includes a full range of services and activities to help students from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds adjust to AUC and succeed in their studies. These services help make it one of Egypt’s top-rated universities, but also the one with the highest tuition. AUC utilizes several internal mechanisms to assist disadvantaged students. These include full-tuition scholarships to 20 students each year under the Public School Scholarship Fund (PSSF), scholarships to five Upper Egyptians under Empower, and the shift from merit- to needs-based financial assistance. AUC has also been successful in securing resources from external sources such as Al-Ghurair Foundation, Orascom Construction Industries, and Misr El-Kheir. Conclusions EQ5: AUC has the institutional capacity and commitment to sustain a LEAD-type scholarship program, but limited internal funds for assisting disadvantaged students. Still, the university is capable of attracting external funding for such scholarship programs, though not of the same scale as LEAD. Given AUC’s high tuition cost, it may not be an appropriate option for donors wishing to 1 The average LPI scores for females in Cohorts 4-8 (n=103) was 2.81 out of a maximum possible score of 4.0 and 2.60 for males (n=97). Females (n=137) represent 51.5% of the graduates and males 48.5% (n=129). LEAD records also show that the average cumulative GPA for females in Cohorts 4-8 (n=114) was 3.276 on a 4-point scale and 3.198 for males (n=104). vi maximize the number of scholarships. It is currently the only option in Egypt, however, if donors wish to fund liberal arts education at a top-ranked university. RECOMMENDATIONS As the LEAD program is now completed, actionable recommendations for the implementing partner are no longer relevant. The recommendations, therefore, focus on broad issues that USAID/Egypt should consider when designing future scholarship programs. The overarching recommendation is that USAID/Egypt consider what they wish to achieve with future scholarship programs. This will drive other decisions. If USAID wishes to prioritize development of potential leaders in the private sector in Egypt and abroad: Recommendation 1: A future program should consider funding scholarships at universities where students graduate with strong English language and soft skills that are valued in the private sector, especially multinational companies. If USAID wishes to prioritize development of potential leaders in the government and NGO sectors: Recommendation 2: A future program should consider funding scholarship programs that focus on ways to keep students connected to Egypt and their communities, e.g., serving-learning experiences in home governorates where students were volunteering before leaving for university, practicums or capstone projects that encourage students to contribute to Egypt’s development, and guidance on re￾integrating back into students’ home communities. If USAID wishes to continue funding scholarships at AUC, but at reduced costs: Recommendation 3: Minimize the support package for AUC to include only: • Tuition, books, housing, living allowances, and other required fees • Funding for English language training and semester abroad • Student life coordinators with higher caseloads and support from peer mentors, 5-10 years of relevant work experience, and job training • A first semester orientation program that focuses on the unique challenges of LEAD-type scholars and how they can take advantage of the extracurricular activities and support offices at AUC • An M&E system that uses feedback from students to improve services, and follow-up to ensure improvements are reported back to those students If USAID wishes to achieve greater gender balance in program outcomes: Recommendation 4: Future programs should monitor male students closely to ensure they are getting the support they need to continue their studies through graduation. If USAID wishes to achieve a high ROI: Recommendation 5: If USAID’s overriding concern is to achieve higher returns on its investments in higher education, it may choose to restrict its financing of programs of study to focus on Engineering (19% internal rate of return) and Business (15% internal rate of return) as opposed to the Humanities and Social Sciences (11% internal rate of return) and/or the School of Humanities (11% internal rate of return). However, if USAID is interested in continuing to offer a broad range of programs of study to economically disadvantaged youth to a variety of high quality Egyptian private universities, USAID should not be dissuaded from investing in AUC, despite their higher costs, given that the internal rates of return across all programs of study, subjects of this evaluation, exceed the social discount rate. Overall, the recommendation regarding sustainability is: Recommendation 6: Given that AUC has the commitment, institutional capacity, and potential resources to sustain funding for disadvantaged students, consideration should be given to the extent to which additional funding to AUC is valuable in advancing USAID/Egypt’s long-term strategy. 1 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this final performance evaluation of the Leadership for Education and Development (LEAD) Scholarship Program is to “provide USAID/Egypt with information to make decisions about the program’s efficacy and relative importance in the higher education portfolio. It will provide findings to be taken into consideration in the design of future scholarships programs” (Refer to Annex 1 for the Evaluation Statement of Work). Given this mandate and the fact that LEAD has already ended, the recommendations that follow each set of findings and conclusions will focus on the design of future programs rather than actionable recommendations for the implementing partner. The audience for the evaluation is the Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research (MOHESR), USAID/Egypt – particularly the Office of Education and Health, USAID/Washington, and the implementing partner, the American University in Cairo (AUC). It will be shared with relevant stakeholders and submitted to the Development Experience Clearinghouse (DEC) for public access and use. The statement of work lists five specific evaluation questions relevant to LEAD Cohorts 3-8: 1. To what extent are the students and alumni of the LEAD equipped with the skills to potentially assume positions of leadership in academia, government, industry, and business? 2. To what extent are the students and alumni satisfied with the program services (English language training, computer training, team building, and library and research skills)? 3. To what extent has the LEAD succeeded to achieve gender balance with the program services (English language training, computer training, cohort development, team building, library and research skills, study skills, etc.)? 4. What is the Return on Investment of the LEAD? 5. To what extent does AUC have the institutional capacity and resources to achieve sustainable results? The main tasks – data collection and analysis – were undertaken with these five questions in mind. The methodology for these tasks is described below in the section, “Methods and Limitations,” and further detailed in Annex II. As the implementing partner (AUC) and a majority of the alumni are in Cairo, all evaluation tasks were completed in Cairo between August 1 and September 1, 2016. Data analysis and report writing took place from September 3-25, 2016. The evaluation team was composed of six personnel: a team leader, two local evaluators, a statistician, and two economists. Support was provided by an evaluation manager from Services to Improve Performance Management, Enhance Learning and Evaluating (SIMPLE) and by The QED Group’s subcontractor, North-South Consulting Exchange (NSCE). 2 BACKGROUND IDENTIFYING INFORMATION Title: Leadership for Education and Development (LEAD) Scholarship Program Cooperative Agreement: 263-A-00-07-00023 Total Cost: USAID—US$37,788,144; Partner cost share: US$10,908,800 Dates: March, 7, 2007 to July 30, 2016 Implementing Partner: The American University in Cairo (AUC) Geographic Coverage: All 27 governorates Beneficiaries: 308 students admitted to program; 266 graduated to date CONTEXT The Egyptian higher education system continues to be challenged by inequitable access, poor quality, and gross inefficiencies. It is plagued by its poor reputation for producing graduates lacking in expert thinking and complex communication skills much needed in a knowledge-based economy. The Government of Egypt (GOE) and Egyptian policymakers recognize that a serious reform effort is needed to improve the higher education system in order to stay competitive in the global society. In support of the GOE’s efforts to reform its education systems, USAID/Egypt has provided significant support to primary and higher education in Egypt in the areas of school based reform, institutional support, and scholarships. In Egypt, the quality of private education is reputed to be of higher quality than public education, with the gap narrowing at the secondary stage but widening tremendously at the higher education stage. Amidst this educational gap is the increasing divergence between more economically advantaged youth and their economically disadvantaged cohorts who cannot afford quality private education. These gaps result in the more economically advanced portion of the student population gaining access to the more productive and profitable jobs in Egypt and abroad. USAID/Egypt’s past and present scholarship programs—Leadership for Education and Development (LEAD) Scholarship Program, Leadership Opportunity Transforming University Students (LOTUS) Scholarship Program, and Local Scholarship Program (LSP)—have all aimed to address the education imbalance and develop the potential of economically disadvantaged students to contribute to the country’s development. USAID STRATEGY LEAD contributes to USAID/Egypt’s Development Objective 22, “Improved Access to Quality Education in Selected Governorates,” by expanding access to quality higher education opportunities for excellent high school graduates from economically deprived backgrounds across Egypt. The program also contributes to Intermediate Result 22.1, “Access Expanded to Girls and Women,” by equally targeting male and female students in each of the governorates for an equal number of scholarships. The development hypothesis is that increased scholarship opportunities for targeted youth will contribute to a better educated workforce that responds to Egypt’s labor market needs. 3 OVERVIEW OF LEAD AUC started implementing LEAD in July 2004. The final LEAD agreement with AUC, the subject of this evaluation, was awarded in March 2007 and ended in July 2016. The original cooperative agreement states that LEAD’s objectives were to: 1. Train and equip students with the necessary skills to become leaders in their societies. 2. Enable these students to actively contribute to development-oriented program services and activities. LEAD allowed financially disadvantaged graduates of public high schools who scored a minimum of 85% on the Thanaweya Amma (i.e., final year exams for secondary students) to attend AUC. LEAD selected both a female and a male student annually from all 27 governorates and awarded them a full scholarship, except for Cohort 8 which was a smaller cohort; i.e., 30 scholarship recipients (15 females and 15 males) as opposed to 50 as in Cohorts 3 through 7. The scholarship included tuition, fees, books, medical insurance, housing, a monthly allowance, English language training, and an activities/support package. Selection of students was also based on their demonstrated leadership and community participation during the pre￾university years. Once accepted to the program, students were free to choose their majors from among those offered at AUC. They were also expected to demonstrate leadership and engage in community service, as well as maintain a grade point average (GPA) of not less than 2.0 throughout the program. LEAD’s support package included: • Student life coordinators assigned to each cohort to provide guidance and support • Orientation to help students adjust to AUC • Annual conferences that provided a venue for students to share their experiences and concerns, develop and practice leadership skills, and set future goals • Retreats that broadened students’ understanding of Egypt by way of travel to other governorates and strengthened cohorts through team building experiences • Leadership and civic engagement activities, including training on topics such as the art of debating, project budgeting, emotional intelligence, and boosting self-esteem • Other activities, for example, movie nights on individual, social, and developmental challenges; book review sessions; and meet-the-expert sessions on current affairs • US Study Abroad, 1 international conferences, and internships for a portion of the students LEAD students additionally had access to the full range of AUC services, including, First Year Experience (FYE) orientation, intensive English training, library and research skill development, mentoring and study skills development, psychological counseling, career counseling, computer support, and extracurricular activities. 1 The US Study Abroad component was managed by AUC’s Office of International Students and Study Abroad, but funded by USAID/Egypt and Orascom Construction Industries. 4 METHODS & LIMITATIONS The evaluation team used a mix of quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis methods (refer to Annex II for a detailed description of the methods and limitations used in this evaluation, including documentation of steps taken to ensure confidentiality). The team began with a review of program documents (refer to Annex IV), followed by the development of quantitative and qualitative tools for data collection (refer to Annex III). An online survey of alumni was the primary source of quantitative data used to evaluate questions 1, 2, 3, and 5. The survey was sent to students from Cohorts 3-8, as well as continuing and dismissed students and students who had voluntarily withdrawn. In total, 104 people responded to the survey, a 35% response rate. 2 The questions addressed alumni’s satisfaction and perceptions, in addition to demographics. The team also accessed LEAD’s alumni database for GPAs, LPI scores, and the employment status of graduates Cohorts 4-8. 3 The qualitative tools aimed to collect information and perceptions to supplement and add context and depth to the statistical analysis. The team conducted group discussions with alumni, LEAD program staff, and AUC faculty and staff. Five discussion sessions with a total of 29 alumni were held. Fifty-four stakeholders were interviewed as a group or individually, and comprised former LEAD staff, AUC faculty and staff, members of AUC’s Board of Trustees, representatives from organizations that hosted interns, direct supervisors and human resource managers, and host universities participating in the US Study Abroad component. The main limitations with regard to evaluation questions 1, 2, 3, and 5 were as follows: • Timing: SIMPLE obtained information from the LEAD Project Program Office prior to demobilization. However, the SIMPLE evaluation team requested additional documentation once they began their work, but accessing LEAD information was a challenge because the program had already ended. Moreover, former staff could only provide limited additional information. Data collection in August was compromised by the fact that AUC was not in session and potential informants were on vacation. This left the team little option but to work with a small sample size. • Alumni participation: The contact information provided to the team was outdated. Furthermore, alumni may have been experiencing survey fatigue, as indicated in the constantly declining response rate to LEAD’s annual surveys. To counter this, the team designed a short survey to be completed in less than ten minutes and made it available via Survey Monkey for three weeks. The team shared the link on social media groups for alumni and followed up several times. Twenty-one percent of those who completed the survey were unwilling to provide demographic information (n=22), thereby limiting the strength of the cross-tabulations. • Documentation: LEAD staff provided GPA and LPI data for Cohorts 4-8 before LEAD ended. Unfortunately, details were missing for Cohort 3. Other missing data included contact information for some of the dismissed and withdrawn students. Additionally, contact information for alumni 2 According to “Survey Response Rates,” on SurveyGizmo.com, internal surveys generally receive a 30-40% response rate (or more), compared with the 10-15% response rate for external surveys. 3 The evaluation team’s understanding is that the original SOW was to evaluate Cohorts 4-8 and LEAD responded by providing data associated with those cohorts. However, after LEAD ended, the SOW was changed to also include Cohort 3. Unfortunately, LEAD staff had moved on at this point and data had been turned over to USAID. 5 had not been maintained and was no longer accurate. This became apparent when the team attempted to contact alumni to participate in focus groups and respond to the online survey. The team reported these concerns to SIMPLE who in turn reported them to USAID/Egypt. • Correlations: Twenty-two of the 104 alumni who responded to the online survey did not fill out the section on demographics. Most of those 22 had completed the rest of the survey but abandoned it before starting the demographic section, which began by asking their name. One of the explanations could be that respondents did not want to be connected to their previous responses or simply that they were no longer interested in completing the survey. Because they did not provide any demographic information, it was not possible to follow-up with them. This limited the team’s ability to fully analyze the other responses, for example, by gender, cohort, and home governorate. The team conducted a descriptive analysis on the quantitative data, using Stata 11 software, which focused on frequency distribution and correlations. A content analysis, focusing on themes and correlating them with gender and cohort, was done on the qualitative data. A Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) was done on Question 4, Return on Investment (ROI), to evaluate the social profitability of the investments. This analysis covered the full span of the learning and lifetime earnings for LEAD alumni and emphasized the social (as opposed to private) profitability of investments/ recurrent costs incurred in the course of the LEAD scholarship program. The scope of the CBA analysis contained: (a) stream of program costs (for Cohorts 3-8) based on figures from LEAD’s final modification budget; (b) estimates of LEAD graduates' lifetime earnings, which are estimates of age-earnings based on data derived from multi-sector salary surveys; and (c) the appropriate social discount rate (SDR), which reflects the opportunity cost of capital as estimated/used in the context of Egypt’s national planning/ policymaking endeavors. The team measured ROI by calculating the Internal Rate of Return (IRR), which reflects lifetime magnitudes of costs derived from LEAD’s initial budget and 14 modifications, and estimated benefits of the lifetime earnings of LEAD graduates.2 The IRR was benchmarked against a Social Discount Rate (SDR) of 8%,3 classified by field of study (i.e., Business, Science and Engineering, Humanities and Social Sciences, and Global Affairs and Political Policy) and gender. The IRR is used as a CBA indicator to measure LEAD’s lifetime social profitability of the investments. Moreover, an adjustment to lifetime earnings, based on idle times related to military service and job search (18 months for males and one year for females), was considered in the analysis. There were several limitations to the ROI analysis: • Costs: The full costs were limited by the absence of data on students’ private monetary expenditures and opportunity costs of foregone earnings during their university studies. • Benefits: The full benefits are limited to lifetime earnings, excluding earnings from the civil service and entrepreneurial activities. They are further limited to benefits that can easily be monetized and, therefore, do not include non-monetary and other non-quantifiable or intangible benefits. This is a common limitation faced by similar evaluations due to the uncertainties implied when assigning numerical values to those types of benefits. 2 The sources used were multi-sector salary surveys for Egypt (2014-2016), updated and consolidated by occupation and length of expertise. 3 The 8% SDR rate is used in Egypt’s Sustainable Development Strategy of 2015. This was confirmed in discussions with officials from the Ministry of Planning (MOP). 6 • IRR’s Benchmarking: Limited by the absence of similar evaluations of higher education initiatives, counterfactual analysis was conducted using the average tuition fees and costs of private higher education in Egypt (as a proxy of the free market – non-subsidized cost), with different scenarios of lifetime earnings, compared with LEAD. 7 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS EVALUATION QUESTION 1 (EQ1): TO WHAT EXTENT ARE STUDENTS AND ALUMNI OF LEAD EQUIPPED WITH THE SKILLS TO POTENTIALLY ASSUME POSITIONS OF LEADERSHIP IN ACADEMIA, GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRY, AND BUSINESS? One of the objectives of LEAD, as stated in the cooperative agreement between USAID and AUC, is “to train and equip these students with the necessary skills to become leaders in their societies.” Furthermore, one of the expected outcomes is “Providing activities that would develop these students’ leadership skills and enable them to be involved in extracurricular student activities and services on campus.” LEAD’s leadership component included all of the following: • LEAD conferences: Eleven annual conferences were held at AUC and addressed topics such as political awareness, educational reform, the environment, street children, entrepreneurship, sexual harassment, and breast cancer. The conferences brought together senior officials from USAID, officials from the Egyptian Government, partner NGOs, social workers, and education experts. In some cases, there was Egyptian media coverage of the conferences. One of the conferences’ main objectives was “to provide students with hands-on experience organizing and planning major events.”4 • International and regional conferences: Students had the opportunity to apply for conferences held outside of Egypt. A total of 60 students (33 females and 27 males) traveled abroad for conferences.5 • Retreats: The primary purpose of the annual retreats was cohort development and team building, and included training on topics such as “Changing Your Mindset,” “Self-Awareness,” and “Subcultures of Egypt.” The retreats further provided the opportunity to get to know Egypt, as students traveled to such places as Marsa Matrouh, Ain Sokhna, Hurghada, Sharm El-Sheik, and El￾Gouna. Students were involved in selecting the locations and timing of the retreats. • Training: Training sessions were conducted for LEAD students on such topics as the art of debating, project budgeting, emotional intelligence, and boosting self-esteem. • Thematic activities: These included meet-the-experts sessions, movie nights, and book reviews on topics selected by the students. • LEAD student life coordinators: Each student life coordinator worked with a specific cohort to provide “continuous support, life coaching experience, and mentoring to students.”6 • A Leadership Performance Index (LPI): This was designed by LEAD to “measure the scholar’s learning and growth in leadership, civic engagement, and professional endeavors.”7 Students were given LPI scores based on portfolios that encouraged self-reflection and critical thinking, professional performance (punctuality and discipline), and learning from LEAD training. 4 American University in Cairo, Leadership for Education and Development Program (Cairo: AUC, 2014), 14. 5 According to LEAD’s Annual Technical Progress Reports, three students travelled in 2010-2011; six in 2011-2012; eight in 2012- 2013; 25 in 2013-2014; and 11 in 2014-2015. 6 American University in Cairo, Leadership for Education and Development Program (Cairo: AUC, 2014), 7. 7 Ibid., 17. 8 In addition, LEAD students had access to the following AUC services and activities that are available to all AUC students: • Study Abroad: US Study Abroad opportunities were managed by AUC’s Office of International Students and Study Abroad (ISSA), and were funded by LEAD and Orascom Construction Industries. They were generally held for one semester (except for two students funded by Orascom Construction Industries who completed a full year abroad) at such schools as Georgetown University, State University of New York (New Paltz and Stoney Brook), and the universities of Arizona, Chicago, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, Rochester, and Virginia. The number of students who participated in US Study Abroad reached 206 (83 males and 123 females), including 25 LEAD students who were funded by Orascom Construction Industries. 8 • Internships: Many of the internships were organized through AUC’s Career Center. They were typically one-month placements at companies such as IBM, Chipsy Factory, Ghabbour Auto, Toyota Service Center, Tatweer International, Shlumberger, Maersk Shipping Agency, Henkel, and SODIC.9 Students also interned at NGOs, such as Association of Upper Egypt, Hope Village Society, and Egyptian Initiatives for Personal Rights. • Career counseling: AUC’s Career Center helps students explore career options, beginning with selecting a major. The center organized special sessions for LEAD, for example, on self-assessment. The office also helps students write their resumes and prepare for job interviews; hosts an annual career day and semi-annual employment fairs; and provides information on job opportunities. • Counseling and mentoring: AUC’s Support Office for Students (SOS) provides counseling for emotional wellness as well as student mentoring for academic success. • Academic courses: Students received English language training, their GPAs could not fall below 2.0, and they were expected to graduate within five years. • Extracurricular activities: AUC’s Office of Student Development (OSD) oversees extracurricular activities and encourages students to help lead and participate in them. The activities are voluntary for AUC students, but mandatory for LEAD students. Data are not available from AUC regarding the specific activities chosen by LEAD students and was not part of the evaluation team’s data collection efforts. The evaluation team analyzed quantitative and qualitative data from the online survey (n=104) and discussions with alumni (n=5 discussion groups) to determine the extent to which alumni thought LEAD￾managed and AUC general services and activities contributed to development of their leadership skills; their perspective on LPI as a tool for measuring progress in leadership development; whether alumni are applying their newly acquired leadership skills inside and outside of work; and whether employers recognize and value those skills. Finding 1.1: Alumni agreed that AUC-managed activities contributed to development of their leadership skills. 8 LEAD Annual Technical Progress Report 2014-2015, 6. 9 Ibid., 4. “The career center saw our potential. They gave us extra help in writing our resumes because they knew we are doing extra things” – Alumnus in group discussion. 9 The alumni who responded to this question on the survey (n=101) rated the following AUC-managed activities as contributing or fully contributing to development of their leadership skills: US Study Abroad (77.8%), extracurricular activities (60%), academic courses (59.4%), career center (43.4%) and internships (35.6%) (refer to Graph 1). Graph 1: Percent of Alumni who thought AUC-Managed Services Contributed/ Fully Contributed to Leadership Development (n=101) Most alumni considered US Study Abroad the most beneficial activity. In both the comment section of the survey and group discussions, they pointed out that: • The experience of being completely independent for the first time in their lives allowed them to engage in self-discovery and identify a leadership style that best suits them; • Exposure to a variety of leadership styles, teaching techniques, and cultures opened their minds and helped them become more tolerant; Extracurricular activities that alumni specified as contributing to their development as leaders were the student union and community service clubs. Both helped them practice their leadership skills. Finding 1.2: The percent of alumni who agreed that LEAD-managed activities contributed to the development of their leadership skills was low. Graph 2 shows the extent to which alumni thought the LEAD-managed services contributed to development of their leadership skills. 10 Survey respondents (n=101) rated retreats and student life coordinators highest (44.4% each), followed by leadership training (38.1%), book reviews, movies, and meet-the-expert sessions (33.7%), international and regional conferences (26.5%), and annual conferences (19.2%). In the comment section of the survey, alumni cited the annual conferences and retreats as 10 The categories, “contributed” and “fully contributed,” correspond to ratings of 6 and 7 on the 7-point scale used in the online survey. 10 practical ways of furthering their leadership skills, especially since they participated in the design and management of these activities. Graph 2: Percent of Alumni's who thought LEAD-Managed Activities Contributed/ Fully Contributed to Leadership Development (n=101) Finding1.3: Alumni rated the Leadership Performance Index (LPI) an ineffective method of monitoring students’ level of engagement in leadership-related activities. Only 18.6% of the respondents to this question on the online survey (n=98) thought the LPI was “effective” or “fully effective,” while 40.2% considered it “ineffective” or “completely ineffective.” The highest level of satisfaction was recorded for Cohort 6 and the lowest for Cohorts 7a and 7b. There was no significant difference between males and females. Moreover, there is a moderate positive correlation coefficient (0.55)11 between the alumni’s rating of LPI and their overall level of satisfaction with the LEAD program. In discussion groups, alumni described how the timing of LPI requirements sometimes interfered with their academics. Moreover, the requirements added to their already heavy workloads and were well beyond what other AUC students were required to do. Initially, they said, greater emphasis was placed upon the quantity of activities, with insufficient attention given to how the activities helped students develop. The LPI system was altered in view of the group discussions held with staff and students for the 2008 midterm evaluation of LEAD. 12 However, students were still not satisfied because they believed LPI emphasized quantity of information rather than a meaningful description of the impact of the experiences. 11 The correlation coefficient is a measure that determines the degree to which two variables' movements are linearly associated and varies from negative 1 for full negative relationship to 1 for full positive relationship. The closer the coefficient is to 0 the weaker is the relationship. 12 LEAD Annual Technical Progress Report October 2008-September 2009, 9. 11 One cohort was so dissatisfied that it again pushed for reform of the system to limit the number of pages for the “Best Works Portfolio” and to place more emphasis on students’ self-reflection and critical thinking, rather than quantity. Conclusion 1.1: LEAD alumni are well-equipped with the skills to potentially assume positions of leadership, with the greatest contributions coming from AUC-managed activities. Finding 1.4: Alumni are making use of their acquired leadership skills in the workplace. The online survey asked alumni to indicate the ways they were making use of their leadership skills since completing their scholarship program. Of the 96 respondents who answered this question, 65.6% indicated that they have applied leadership principles (i.e., delegation, teamwork, time management). Also high on the list was gaining new expertise (59.4%), which is a sign of a great leader (refer to Graph 3 for the full range of responses).13 Graph 3: Percent of Alumni Applying Leadership Skills on the Job (n=96) Finding 1.5: The majority of alumni currently live in the Cairo/Giza area or abroad. Of those surveyed, 68.3% (n=56) currently reside in Cairo/Giza, while 20.7% (n=17) live outside of Egypt. Only 11% (n=9) are living in governorates outside the Cairo/Giza area. Twenty-five percent of those living abroad are pursuing advanced academic degrees. Other possible explanations for not returning to their home governorates may be related to the Egyptian labor market (e.g., lack of relevant jobs or low salaries). Still, home governorates are benefitting from remittances and the inspiring example of LEAD alumni. Some alumni spoke of the desire to return to their home governorates in the future, either to work or to establish projects or NGOs to benefit their communities. 13 Kenneth Mikkelsen & Harlod Jarche, "The Best Leaders Are Constant Learners," Harvard Business Review, October 16, 2015; and Bill Taylor, “The Best Leaders Are Insatiable Learners,” Harvard Business Review, September 5, 2014. 12 In all discussion groups, alumni described the challenges of returning to live in their home governorates. They talked about how much their perspectives and attitudes have changed and about the wide gap that now exists between themselves and their families and friends. Although the LEAD Handbook indicates that students were “encouraged to seek civic engagement opportunities in their home governorates and communities,”14 the evaluation team could not verify that this happened. Nor are there any indications that LEAD helped students or families with re-integration. Finding 1.6: Current job titles indicate that alumni have already begun assuming positions of leadership. LEAD’s database shows that alumni have assumed positions of leadership, with those who graduated earliest having higher positions. A sample of titles includes: • Academia: Instructor, teaching assistant, research assistant, academic advisor • Government: Judge, first lieutenant, economic researcher • Industry and business: founder, chief executive officer, corporate officer, territory executive, business process consultant, marketing executive, account executive, regional manager, quality assurance and quality control manager, operations manager, regional financial analyst, engineer (process, product support, quality, contract, software, property risk), human resource business partner, broadcast journalist, social media manager The majority of alumni (58.6%) who responded to the survey work in the private sector. A significant number (35.7%) work in NGOs, as well as international and multinational organizations, while very few (5.7%) work in the public sector/government. Finding 1.7: Outside of work, alumni are making use of acquired leadership skills. One of the objectives of LEAD was to “enable these students to actively contribute to development￾oriented program services and activities.”15 While some alumni are working professionally in development￾related organizations or in corporate social responsibility within companies, others are volunteering outside of work. In their non-work activities (n=98), 69.4% who responded to the online survey are involved in knowledge sharing, which is a sign of collaborative leadership. Another 61.2% are engaged in volunteer efforts, which is consistent with AUC’s culture and the idea that generous leaders give back to their communities or neighbors. Conclusion 1.2: The current career paths of LEAD alumni suggest they are most likely to assume positions of leadership in the private sector in Cairo/Giza and abroad, and less likely to assume positions in the government or in their home governorates. Recommendation 1.1: If USAID prioritizes development of potential leaders in the private sector in Egypt and abroad, future program design may want to consider funding scholarships at universities, such as AUC, where students graduate with strong English language and soft skills that are valued in the private sector, especially multinational companies. 14 American University in Cairo, Leadership for Education and Development Program (Cairo: AUC, 2014), 14. 15 LEAD Cooperative Agreement, 2007, p. 9. 13 Recommendation 1.2: If USAID prioritizes development of potential leaders in the government and NGO sectors, future program design may want to consider funding scholarship programs that focus on ways to keep students connected to Egypt and their communities (e.g., serving-learning experiences in their home governorates where students were volunteering before leaving for university, capstone projects that encourage them to contribute to Egypt’s development, and guidance on re-integrating into their communities). EVALUATION QUESTION 2 (EQ2): TO WHAT EXTENT ARE STUDENTS AND ALUMNI SATISFIED WITH THE PROGRAM SERVICES (ENGLISH LANGUAGE TRAINING, COMPUTER TRAINING, TEAM BUILDING, AND LIBRARY AND RESEARCH SKILLS)? Overall, 66% of survey respondents (n=104) rated their experience with LEAD as positive or extremely positive. Not one person rated the experience as extremely negative, and only 3% rated it as negative. The negative ratings were given by someone who withdrew from the program and two others who did not provide their names. No explanation was provided as to why the three survey respondents rated their experiences as negative. To dive deeper into the question of satisfaction, the evaluation team examined how alumni felt about the LEAD-managed and general AUC services listed in EQ2. The team closely investigated LEAD student life coordinators, as they triggered extreme opinions among alumni who participated in the discussion groups. Finding 2.1: Alumni were satisfied with AUC-managed services/activities. As Graph 4 demonstrates, the level of satisfaction with AUC services was high. Data from the online survey show that the highest level of satisfaction was with US Study Abroad, with 78.9% “satisfied” or “very satisfied” (ratings of 6 or 7 on a 7-point scale); followed by library and research skill development (78.4%), English language courses (77.2%), and academic courses (70.6%). Gender differences in ratings of services were minimal (more detailed gender differential findings are discussed for EQ3), while differences among cohorts stood out a bit more, with Cohorts 4 and 8 giving the highest ratings and Cohorts 7a and 7b the lowest. No evidence was available to explain why some cohorts rated activities higher than other cohorts. As in EQ1, US Study Abroad received the highest ratings. This may beg the question, why not fund the full degree program in the United States if students are so satisfied with the experience abroad?4 This question was addressed in discussion groups with alumni (n=5 groups). All but one who responded did not find this option appealing because: (a) they needed the first few years at AUC to adjust before traveling abroad; (b) they valued the opportunity to be in Egypt where they could connect with local issues and build networks; (c) they preferred to be with a mutually supportive cohort, rather than alone; and (d) they feared a difficult transition back home after being away for so long. Alumni also commented on the high quality of education at AUC. They talked about how a liberal arts education changed their perspective and helped them become more tolerant. The classes gave students opportunities to learn and practice presentation skills, as well as strengthen their analytical skills. Alumni appreciated the freedom to choose their majors and classes. Faculty noted that LEAD scholars were 4 This question arose from the interviews conducted and was then included as part of the discussion group guide used with alumni. 14 outstanding students and above average. Initially, LEAD students stood out as their English was not as good and they dressed differently. However, it did not take long for them to fit in. While not addressed in the online survey, discussion group participants talked openly about psychological counseling services that are offered to all AUC students. They appreciated the services and took advantage of them. According to the counseling office, LEAD students (male and female) accessed the service at about the same rate as non-LEAD students, although AUC does not have the data to support this. The counseling office further indicated that issues among LEAD and non-LEAD students were similar and typical of their age group and phase in life. While LEAD students initially faced challenges of cultural adjustment and bullying from non-LEAD students (and, to a lesser extent, from faculty), they coped with these problems on their own and with support from other LEAD students. Graph 4: Percent of Alumni Satisfied or Very Satisfied with AUC-Managed Services (n=104) Finding 2.2: The level of satisfaction was low for LEAD-managed activities. Alumni who responded to the survey (n=104) were generally less satisfied with LEAD-managed activities than AUC-managed activities (refer to Graph 5). In fact, retreats were the only LEAD activities rated above 50% (i.e., 53.4% of respondents were “satisfied”/“very satisfied”). Still, it only rated higher than the lowest rated AUC-managed activity (i.e., internships at 42.1%). Satisfaction with LEAD services varied by cohort, with Cohorts 5 and 8 being the most satisfied and Cohorts 3 and 7b the least satisfied. Conferences received the most ratings of dissatisfied/fully dissatisfied (refer to EQ1 for a discussion of this issue). The next lowest rated activities were orientations, with 39.2% of survey respondents dissatisfied/ fully dissatisfied, and student-led orientations at 36.7%. The pace of the orientations was one of the problems noted by alumni in discussion groups. Earlier cohorts stated that too much information was given too soon, which they could not absorb well enough. Later cohorts complained that information was spread out too much and some topics addressed too late to be fully useful. Alumni also commented that they were insufficiently orientated on how to function well in the AUC environment. Others maintained that some information (e.g., personal hygiene) was presented in a condescending and insulting way. LEAD used student feedback to make adjustments to the orientation program, for example, having students from former cohorts take the lead (student-led orientations). However, alumni in the discussion groups reported that these changes were not well received initially because students were not given sufficient guidance on how to present effective orientation sessions. 15 Graph 5: Percent Satisfied or Very Satisfied with LEAD-Managed Services (n=104) Finding 2.3: Alumni had extreme opinions about LEAD student life coordinators. Some 44.4% of the survey respondents who rated the contributions of the student life coordinators (n=99), thought they contributed/fully contributed to student development, while 12.1% rated them as not contributing. The extreme nature of these ratings is further highlighted by considering the number of respondents who gave the highest rating (7 on a 7-point scale), which was highest of any other LEAD services or activities, at 24.2%. On the flip side, the number of respondents who gave the lowest possible rating (1 on a 7-point scale) was 8.1%, which was higher than everything except regional and international conferences. There was a statistically significant difference among cohorts in their rating of coordinators. 16 Cohort 3 gave an average rating of 3.6 on a 7-point scale, while Cohort 5 assigned a rating of 5.9. Interestingly, Cohort 3 had the highest number of dismissed students, which may have resulted in more negative feelings about the coordinators and other aspects of the program. Alumni in discussion groups also noted that some coordinators appeared more concerned with administrative details, rules and penalties, and numbers, than showing genuine interest in the students. They did not help students deal with the culture shock or homesickness. Alumni were not happy with the high turnover among coordinators as that made it difficult to develop relationships and some alumni were displeased with the fact that coordinators occasionally overstepped their bounds by bypassing students in their communications with faculty – a challenge that non-LEAD students did not face. Despite the negative comments, 44.4% of alumni rated coordinators a 6 or 7 on a 7-point scale. They saw them as a unique feature of LEAD and as playing an important role. Alumni expressed gratitude for 16 The p-value is less than 0.01, which indicates a statistically significant difference. The p-value is defined as the probability, under the assumption of the hypotheses being tested, of obtaining a result equal to or more extreme than what was actually observed. The smaller the p-value, the larger the significance because it tells the investigator that the hypothesis under consideration may not adequately explain the observation. For typical analysis, using the standard α = 0.05 cutoff, the null hypothesis (“null hypothesis" usually refers to a general statement or default position that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena) is rejected when p < .05 and not rejected when p > .05. 16 coordinators’ interest and commitment, citing the long hours they worked routinely and sacrifice of their personal time to accompany students on retreats and conferences. Alumni further appreciated coordinators taking their input and feedback into account and adapting the program to best suit the needs of the students. Many of those who had a positive experience with the coordinators now consider them friends and have remained in contact. Finding 2.4: Overall, alumni rated their LEAD experience positively and are highly likely to recommend the program to others. Of the surveyed alumni (n=94), 66% rated their overall experience as positive or very positive and only 3.2% rated it negatively. None rated it extremely negative. The highest level of overall satisfaction was recorded for Cohorts 5 and 8 and the lowest for Cohort 3. Even those not highly satisfied indicated they would recommend a LEAD-like program to others. As much as 94.7% of those who answered this question (n=94) said they are likely to recommend it. It was clear in the discussion groups and key informant interviews that alumni recognized and appreciated the value of the LEAD experience. They believed it had transformed their lives and was a turning point. Finding 2.5: There is a positive correlation between whether LEAD staff sought alumni’s opinions about LEAD services and the level of alumni satisfaction. LEAD documentation and interviews show that the standard practice was to assess student satisfaction at the end of activities by way of short, written questionnaires. The coordinators also sought input from students on various topics. The staff then used student input and feedback to make changes in orientations, retreats, annual conferences, thematic activities, and the LPI. More females than males in the online survey (n=103), and more students in Cohort 5, reported that LEAD staff had sought their opinions. Furthermore, Cohort 5 was the most satisfied that their opinions had been considered. Those alumni whose opinions were sought had an average overall satisfaction rate that was significantly higher than those who reported not being consulted about how services should be delivered. 17 The average satisfaction rate of consulted alumni was 6.10 on a 7-point scale, while alumni who were not consulted had an average satisfaction rate of 4.54. Conclusion 2.1: While LEAD sought student feedback and modified the program over time in response to that feedback, alumni were still only minimally satisfied with LEAD-managed compared to AUC-managed activities/services. Conclusion 2.2: There was a missed opportunity for LEAD to provide a better experience for students in two key areas: orientation and student life coordinators. Recommendation 2.1: To achieve greater satisfaction from an AUC scholarship program at a reduced cost, future higher education scholarship initiative designs should consider only: 1. Full tuition, books, housing, living allowances, and other required fees 2. Funding for English language training and semester abroad (AUC provided these services under LEAD) 17 The p-value is less than 0.01, indicating a significant difference. 17 3. Student life coordinators with greater caseloads and support from peer mentors, 5-10 years of relevant work experience, and job training 4. An orientation program in the first semester that focuses on the unique challenges of LEAD￾type scholars and how to take advantage of the extracurricular activities and support offices at AUC 5. A monitoring and evaluation system that includes collecting and using student feedback to improve services and following up to ensure improvements are reported back to students EVALUATION QUESTION 3 (EQ3): TO WHAT EXTENT HAS LEAD SUCCEEDED TO ACHIEVE GENDER BALANCE WITH THE PROGRAM SERVICES (ENGLISH LANGUAGE TRAINING, COMPUTER TRAINING, COHORT DEVELOPMENT, TEAM BUILDING, LIBRARY AND RESEARCH SKILLS, STUDY SKILLS, ETC.)? LEAD’s original aim was to achieve gender balance in the selection of scholarship recipients, with one female and one male selected from each governorate. Although not stated in the cooperative agreement with AUC, the working assumption was that there would also be gender balance in the delivery of program services. To answer EQ3 more broadly, the team examined the gender balance in the selection of scholarship recipients and services offered, as well as gender differences in satisfaction levels. Next, the team assessed gender differences in achievement both during and at the end of the scholarship program. Finding 3.1: LEAD achieved a perfect gender balance in program admissions. LEAD records show that the total number of students admitted to the scholarship program in Cohorts 3-8 was 308. There was an equal number of females and males (154). Thus, LEAD succeeded in attaining a perfect gender balance in admissions. Finding 3.2: There were no reported differences between females and males in terms of services offered, but some difference in terms of the services used. Feedback from alumni, LEAD staff, and AUC staff verified that all services were offered equally to both females and males. Alumni indicated no gender biases in the nature of or access to the services offered. Although the available data cannot be used to determine precisely whether both genders took equal advantage of the services, neither LEAD nor AUC staff noted any major differences in the use of those services. US Study Abroad was offered equally to females and males, but, as Table 1 shows, females were more qualified to participate. This resulted in more females (123) than males (83) being selected to study abroad. Table 1: US Study Abroad Selection Criteria, by Gender Criteria Percent Males Percent Females GPA of 2.8 or above 80.8 84.2 LPI of 3.0 or above 27.9 44.9 Both Criteria Met or Exceeded 26.7 41.6 18 Finding 3.3: The level of satisfaction among female versus male alumni varied by activity.18 The online survey revealed that the satisfaction level among females (n=71) was statistically significantly greater than males for US Study Abroad and academic courses. 90.9% of females and 72% of males were “satisfied”/“very satisfied,” while 77.6% of females and 65.6% of males were “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with academic courses. There were two areas in which males were more satisfied than females (i.e., AUC’s First Year Experience [FYE] and LEAD’s student life coordinators), but the differences were not statistically significant. For FYE, 54.6% of males and 43.8% of females gave satisfactory or very satisfactory ratings, while 53.1% of males and 46.9% of females rated LEAD’s coordinators similarly. Conclusion 3.1: LEAD succeeded in achieving a gender balance in the selection of scholarship recipients and in providing program services. Finding 3.4: Females thought activities contributed to their leadership skills more than males. More female alumni considered the five activities shown in Graph 6 as having contributed or fully contributed to the development of their leadership skills. Finding 3.5: Females’ GPA and LPI achievements were higher than those of males. According to LEAD records, the average cumulative GPA for females in Cohorts 4-8 (n=114) was 3.276 on a 4-point scale and 3.198 for males (n=104).19 The higher GPAs for women were likely not attributable to easier programs since females enrolled in the full range of majors. Roughly twice as many females studied business (48 females vs. 20 males), twice as many males studied engineering (86 males vs. 45 females), a roughly equal number of males and females studied social sciences (16 males vs. 21 females), and three times as many females studied global affairs and political science (23 females vs. 7 males) (refer to Table 31, Annex V). Similarly, the average LPI score for females in Cohorts 4-8 (n=103) was 2.814 (out of 4.0) and 2.606 for males (n=97). Both genders rated as low the effectiveness of LPI in measuring progress in leadership development. 18 This analysis is somewhat limited because: (a) the LEAD databases shared with the evaluation team did not include Cohort 3, and (b) of the 104 respondents who completed the online survey, only 82 provided their gender and roughly 59.76% of those were female. 19 Although this evaluation dealt with Cohorts 3-8, the team was only able to access GPA and LPI data for Cohorts 4-8. It is worthy to note that in comparing the means of cumulative GPA (3.276 females and 3.188 males) the difference in means was statistically significant at level 0.1. However, if the two male students who were dismissed from LEAD and continued using financial aid are excluded, there will be no statistically significant difference. 19 Graph 6: Alumni's Rating of Leadership Activities, by Gender (% who thought activities contributed/fully contributed to development of leadership skills, n=101) Finding 3.6: More males than females were dismissed from the program. LEAD records show that of those who were dismissed from LEAD Cohorts 3-8, 63% were males (n=17) and 37% were females (n=10). The students were dismissed mainly because their GPA and LPI scores fell below the required standards noted in the LEAD Handbook. The number of students who voluntarily withdrew from the program was roughly the same for males (n=5) and females (n=4). Finding 3.7: The graduation rate for female students was higher than that for males. Of the 308 students admitted in Cohorts 3-8, 266 have graduated. Females (n=137) represented 51.5% of the graduates, while males represented 48.5% (n=129). This means that 88.4% of women and 83.2% of men who entered the scholarship program completed it. This is consistent with completion rates at US universities.20 Finding 3.8: There are few significant gender differences in post-LEAD achievements. There were no statistically significant gender differences in post-LEAD achievements (e.g., applying leadership skills on the job or to non-work related activities, or length of time to find first job). Of those who provided information about their sector of employment (n=70), all who reported working in the public sector are female (4 females). However, LEAD records show that there are also male alumni occupying positions in the government: a judge in the Egyptian State Council and a diplomatic attaché at the Egyptian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. There is a significant difference in the number of unemployed females (15.9% or n=13) versus males (8.5% or n=6) (total n=82). However, it should be noted that the national unemployment rate for females 20 http://nces.ed.gov/das/epubs/2005169/gender_4.asp accessed on 24 Sep 2016. 20 currently stands at 20-30%.21 The top reasons alumni gave for being unemployed are that they are either searching for jobs (n=7) or in graduate school (n=6). Only one online respondent gave maternity leave as the reason for not currently working, while another indicated military service. Conclusion 3.2: Females’ achievements in terms of GPA, LPI scores, and completion rates in the LEAD program were greater than males, with no apparent advantages given to them from LEAD or AUC. Recommendation 3: To achieve greater gender balance in terms of program outcomes, male students should be monitored more closely to ensure they are getting the support they need to continue their studies through graduation. EVALUATION QUESTION 4 (EQ4): WHAT IS THE RETURN ON INVESTMENT (ROI) OF THE LEAD)? Finding 4.1: The average internal rate of return (IRR) for LEAD graduates is 18%. Table 2 presents the calculations of the social parameters and profitability indicators for Cohorts 3-8. As seen, the IRR for all graduates from Cohorts 3-8 is 18%. This is more than double the 8% social discount rate (SDR), a rate that is considered the acceptable opportunity cost of capital from the perspective of Egypt’s national economy (refer to Annex V for details of the calculations).22 Findings at the school level range from 11% (for both the schools of Humanities/Social Sciences and Global Affairs/Public Policy) to 19% (for the School of Sciences and Engineering). With an IRR of 18%, the School of Business ranks one percentage point behind the School of Science and Engineering. From a gender perspective, the IRR calculations do not reveal significant differences between males and females (17% and 16%, respectively). This result is due to an assumed five-year reduction in lifetime earnings associated with women temporarily exiting the labor market for child care years. 21 Ragui Assaad and Caroline Krafft, “The Evolution of Labor Supply and Unemployment in the Egyptian Economy: 1988-2012.” http://erf.org.eg/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/806.pdf (accessed September 17, 2016). 22 The discount rate is the interest rate used to determine the present value of future cash flows. The discount rate takes into account not just the time value of money, but also the risk or uncertainty of future cash flows. The greater the uncertainty of future cash flows, the higher the discount rate. The social discount rate is the opportunity cost of capital from the perspective of the national economy, or the community in the broad sense. 21 Table 2: ROI Calculations (Egyptian pounds) Social Profitability Parameter/Indicator Present Value23 of Costs (1) Present Value of Benefits (2) Net Present Value (NPV) (2-1) Benefit/Cost Ratio24 (2/1) Internal Rate of Return (IRR)25 Egyptian pounds Percent All Graduates 203.69 700.51 496.82 344 18 School of Business 52.07 119.80 67.73 230 15 School of Science & Engineering 100.31 499.73 399.41 498 19 School of Humanities & Social Sciences 28.33 38.53 10.20 136 11 School of Global Affairs & Public Policy 22.97 32.86 9.89 143 11 Males (of all graduates) 98.78 405.16 306.38 410 17 Females (of all graduates) 104.91 295.35 190.44 282 16 * All figures given in present value terms The Benefit/Cost ratio (BCR) is estimated at 344% for all 266 graduates. In line with the IRR findings, the School of Science and Engineering ranks first among the four schools, with a BCR of 498%. The Schools of Humanities and Social Sciences and Global Affairs and Public Policy rate the lowest at 136% and 143%, respectively. Note that the School of Science and Engineering’s BCR is twice that of the School of Business (230%). Given a minor difference of four percentage points in terms of the IRR, the large difference observed in the BCR merits the following clarification: the IRR indicates profitability, it does not reflect the magnitude of benefits or costs. Contrariwise, the BCR is affected by the magnitudes of both benefits and costs. Given that the number of graduates from the School of Science and Engineering (131) is close to double the corresponding number of graduates for the School of Business (68), the difference of the resultant gender-based BCR is correspondingly large. Also, the gender-based difference of the BCR (410% for males vs. 282% for females), compared to the narrow gap of the IRR (17% for males versus 16% for females), is explained by the number of males in the 23 Present value (PV) is the current worth of a future sum of money or stream of cash flows, given a specified discount rate. Future cash flows are discounted at the discount rate, and the higher the discount rate, the lower the present value of the future cash flows. 24 Benefit/Cost Ratio (BCR) attempts to identify the relationship between the costs and benefits of an investment project or program. BCRs are most often used to detail the relationship between possible benefits and costs, both quantitative and qualitative, of undertaking new projects or evaluating completed ones. The BCR is calculated by dividing the total discounted value of the benefits by the total discounted value of the costs. BCR is usually formatted in absolute number terms (e.g., 2.3), rather than in percentage terms (e.g., 230%). However, the latter is being used here for the purpose of comparison with the findings in the “Merit and Needs-Based Scholarship Program (MNBSP) Evaluation Report.” This report was prepared by Management Systems International (MSI) under the Independent Monitoring and Evaluation Contract (IMEC) for USAID/Pakistan and the Higher Education Commission (HEC), Government of Pakistan (GOP), Contracted Under No. GS-23F-8012H and Order No. AID-391- M-11-00001. 25 Internal rate of return (IRR) is a metric used in capital budgeting and project evaluation to measure the profitability of potential or existing investments. Internal rate of return is a discount rate that makes the net present value (NPV) of all cash flows from a particular project equal to zero. 22 School of Science and Engineering (the top-ranked school in terms of profitability), which is nearly double that of females from the same school (86 vs. 45). Finding 4.2: The IRR for non-LEAD AUC graduates is estimated at 19%. The IRR for the non-LEAD AUC education scenario is estimated at 19%. The factor underlying the slightly higher IRR of this scenario is related to the additional cost of the LEAD program, compared to the regular non-LEAD education offered by AUC. Finding 4.3: The IRR for graduates of other private and public universities is 18-21%. The counterfactual for graduates of other private and public universities is an IRR ranging from 18% to 21%. The range reflects different assumptions regarding the lifetime earnings of graduates, as compared to the assumptions set for LEAD graduates. The basic assumptions are: (a) earnings of other institutions are equal to LEAD graduates’ earnings, (b) earnings of other institutions are estimated at 85% of LEAD graduates’ earnings, and (c) earnings of other institutions are estimated at 75% of LEAD graduates’ earnings (refer to Annex V for calculations of the counterfactual scenarios). Conclusion 4.1: Investments in LEAD are worthwhile from a social point of view, given that the IRR is double the social discount rate. Conclusion 4.2: Investments in higher education at other universities would yield a higher IRR, but not necessarily the same employment results regarding employer satisfaction with LEAD alumni’s English, leadership skills, and other soft skills (see Finding 1.5). Recommendation 4: If USAID’s overriding concern is to achieve higher returns on its investments in higher education, it may choose to restrict its financing of programs of study to focus on Engineering (19% internal rate of return) and Business (15% internal rate of return) as opposed to the Humanities and Social Sciences (11% internal rate of return) and/or the School of Humanities (11% internal rate of return). However, if USAID is interested in continuing to offer a broad range of programs of study to economically disadvantaged youth to a variety of high quality Egyptian private universities, USAID should not be dissuaded from investing in AUC, despite their higher costs, given that the internal rates of return across all programs of study, subjects of this evaluation, exceed the social discount rate. EVALUATION QUESTION 5 (EQ5): TO WHAT EXTENT DOES AUC HAVE THE INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY AND RESOURCES TO ACHIEVE SUSTAINABLE RESULTS? The evaluation team’s statement of work suggested finding “indicators that the AUC valued LEAD and… is prepared to increasingly take on the costs of the program…Overall, USAID has funded approximately 83 percent of the LEAD program and AUC contributes the remaining 17 percent. USAID’s intention was that AUC – a major beneficiary of the program – would increase its funding over the life of the project” (refer to Annex I for the Statement of Work). To address the question of sustainability, the team relied primarily on a document review and interviews with key informants at AUC, including faculty, staff, senior leadership, and members of the Board of Trustees. The new president of AUC arrived too late for the team to secure an appointment with him. 23 Finding 5.1: AUC has demonstrated its commitment to supporting economically disadvantaged students. AUC’s strategic plan highlights diversity as one of its five values and its top priority is detailed in the plan.26 The strategy to diversify the student body, economically, socially, and nationally, includes the following: • “We will deliberately focus attention on our enrollment strategy and admissions process to ‘build a class’ that is diverse not only in nationality and socio-economic background but also in skills, talents and interests.”27 • “Among our Egyptian undergraduates, we believe a modest increase in enrollments of students from outside greater Cairo would enhance our diversity and better serve Egypt. We are targeting an increase of students from public schools and/or governorates outside Cairo, Giza and Alexandria to 10% of the total Egyptian undergraduate complement—approximately doubling the (non-LEAD) proportion of such students today.”28 This commitment to diversification was echoed in key informant interviews. The five faculty members available for meetings commented on how much they valued LEAD students in their classrooms. The students enriched the learning environment by adding perspectives other than those of the stereotypical AUC student who has lived in a “bubble,” and sharing experiences from across Egypt. They worked hard, which inspired their classmates; helped peers with homework; and insisted on practicing English as much as possible. In turn, non-LEAD students gained a greater appreciation for their own good fortunes and some even defended LEAD students against bullying. A member of the Board of Trustees confirmed that the faculty supported LEAD and saw it as an important way to fulfill AUC’s mission and contribute to Egypt’s development. It also resonated with AUC leadership. He expressed his pride in having helped “provide a world-class education to students from all the governorates of Egypt, which has changed their lives, the lives of their families, and their communities.” He emphasized that diversity is part of AUC’s mission, which LEAD helped fulfill. AUC’s commitment has been further demonstrated by the slight increase in AUC’s financial concessions and contributions to LEAD. When the cooperative agreement was signed in 2007, it was expected that AUC would cover 21% of the costs including a 30% reduction in tuition, 30% reduction in student housing, 80% of the project director’s salary and benefits, meeting expenses for one off-campus event per year, and sales tax on various expenses.29 AUC’s cost share rose to 22.4% in the final budget modification.30 Finding 5.2: AUC is strongly structured to serve students from a variety of backgrounds. AUC offers a full range of services and activities to all students at no extra cost. Of particular interest are the following AUC offices and services that help students from socially or economically disadvantaged backgrounds adjust to AUC and succeed in their studies: 26 AUC. Our Community of Learning: A Strategic Plan for AUC at its Centennial. (Cairo, April 2015), p. 5. 27 Ibid., p. 13. 28 Ibid., p. 14. 29 USAID. Cooperative Agreement, Program Description. Cairo, 2007), p. 12. 30 USAID. Modification 14 to Cooperative Agreement. (Cairo, 2016). “LEAD is one of the most important programs AUC has ever been involved with…What LEAD did was so integral to AUC’s aspirations...The Board of Trustees really believes in it…and I have a missionary zeal for it!” – Member of AUC’s Board of Trustees 24 • Office of Student Financial Affairs and Scholarships helps make it possible for students to study at AUC through financial aid, scholarships, fellowships, and work-study programs. This includes eight LEAD students who were unable to complete their degrees before LEAD ended in July 2016. • First Year Experience (FYE) is a mandatory program to orient students to AUC as well as the academic, personal, and social competencies needed to succeed there. • Support Office for Students provides students, especially those who are struggling academically, with academic counseling and mentoring. • Student Counseling Center services include, but are not limited to, psychological counseling and wellness workshops. • Office of Student Development provides opportunities for students to integrate with others who have similar interests through a wide variety of extracurricular activities and community service opportunities. • Office of Residential Life assists with the transition to independent living and adjustment to university life. • International Students and Study Abroad office helps with placement in study abroad programs and provides an orientation program. While these services are free to students, the cost of participating in Study Abroad is not included in tuition. • Career Center – The office, formerly known as the Office of Career Advising and Placement Services, provides services such as helping students choose majors, self-assessments, career planning, exploring career and graduate study options, customized counseling on writing resumes and preparing for interviews, an annual career day, semi-annual employment fairs, and information on job opportunities. The quality of some of these offices has been recognized by USAID. For example, AUC’s Career Center is a model that is being used to build the capacity of other universities’ career centers through Career Development Centers, a USAID-funded program. Similarly, the English Language Institute’s intensive English program is used by USAID’s university partners in the LOTUS program. Conclusion 5.1: AUC has the institutional capacity and commitment to sustain a LEAD-type scholarship program. Finding 5.3: AUC offers high quality education with a high price tag. The quality of AUC is recognized in the 2016 Quacquarelli Symonds World University Rankings, which once again rated AUC as one of the top 450 universities in the world.31 It is the only university in Egypt in the top 450. 4International Colleges and Universities (4ICU) rates AUC as the top university in Egypt, followed by Cairo University, Alexandria University, Mansoura University, Ain Shams University, and German University in Cairo (GUC).32 Other university rating systems rank AUC second behind Cairo University33 and fourth behind Alexandria University, Cairo University, and Mansoura University.34 31 Quacquarelli Symonds is a London-based organization that rates universities worldwide according to academic reputation, student-to-faculty ratio, citations per faculty, employer reputation, international faculty ratio, and international student ratio. See http://www.topuniversities.com. 32 See http://www.4icu.org/eg/. 33 See http://answersafrica.com/best-universities-in-egypt.html/2. 34 See http://webometrics.info/en/aw/Egypt. 25 AUC is unique in Egypt because of its liberal arts education. As a liberal arts institution, the university not only provides “knowledge and skills in particular fields but preparation for a life that reflects critical thinking, ethical principles, and self-directed lifelong learning. We do this not only—and perhaps not even principally—in the classroom but also in the wide array of co-curricular activities in which we encourage our students to participate. We are committed to educating the ‘whole person’ and to contributing to lives that are well-examined and well-lived.”35 With its high quality also comes the highest tuition rate in Egypt. According to AUC’s fee schedule for the 2016/2017 academic year, a student taking 15 credit hours per semester would pay US$18,992 per year in tuition and fees.36 This is much higher than the annual tuition rates for other private universities in Egypt:37 • British University in Egypt (BUE): $12,500 (engineering program) • German University in Cairo (GUC): $11,010 (Category C) • Future University in Egypt (FUE): $ 9,773 (engineering program) • Modern Sciences and Arts (MSA): $ 4,909 (engineering program) Tuition at Egypt’s public universities is subsidized by the government and therefore very low in comparison to that of private universities. Conclusion 5.2: If donors wish to maximize the number of scholarships, AUC is not an appropriate option. However, if donors wish to fund liberal arts education at a top-ranked university, AUC is currently the only option in Egypt. Finding 5.4: AUC uses internal resources to assist economically disadvantaged students. Since 1990, AUC has offered full-tuition scholarships to 20 students each year under the Public School Scholarship Fund (PSSF). Scholarship recipients are graduates of public schools, financially disadvantaged, and come from a variety of governorates. AUC funds a majority of these scholarships, with additional support coming from individual and corporate donors.38 As the number of active LEAD cohorts phased down over the last few years, AUC redirected some of its LEAD cost share funds toward a new scholarship program called Empower. Empower is modeled after LEAD and aimed at diversity by funding scholarships for public and private school students from five governorates in Upper Egypt: Assiut, Beni Suef, Minya, Sohag, and Fayoum.39 Another initiative, which began in Fall 2015, is an effort to shift internal funding away from merit-based to needs-based financial assistance. As part of AUC’s diversity targets, it “has already begun restructuring our financial aid policies to ensure that they better reflect University priorities, including our commitment to diversity and access for talented Egyptian students of limited means, international students from regions without substantial government funding for international study, and international study abroad experiences for our own local degree candidates. Thus, by 2019, all University-funded achievement awards will have 35 AUC. Our Community of Learning: A Strategic Plan for AUC at its Centennial. (Cairo, April 2015), p. 10. 36 See http://www.aucegypt.edu/admissions/tuition-and-fees. Conversion of Egyptian pounds to US dollars was based on the Central Bank of Egypt’s prevailing rate of 8.8 on 18 September 2016. 37 BUE: http://www.bue.edu.eg/index.php/tuition-fees; GUC: http://www.guc.edu.eg/en/admission/undergraduate/tuition_fees/#fees; FUE: https://www.fue.edu.eg/tuitionfees; MSA: http://www.msa.edu.eg/msauniversity/admission/tuition-fees. 38 See http://www.aucegypt.edu/admissions/scholarships/egyptian-public-schools. 39 See http://www.aucegypt.edu/admissions/scholarships/empower. 26 been phased out (no such awards have been made for the incoming class in fall 2015); as students with achievement awards graduate, the funds will be reallocated to ensure that the University lives within a sustainable financial aid budget and provides aid only to those whom the University deems qualified.”40 Finding 5.5: AUC has secured funds from foundations and corporations to fund LEAD and LEAD-type scholarships. As part of its strategic plan, AUC aims to “…raise scholarships and fellowships, and many of these can be targeted at recruiting and retaining students with exceptional talent or achievement. Among the scholarship and fellowship opportunities identified for highlighting in our fundraising are: undergraduate scholarships for students from the Egyptian governorates and undergraduate public school scholarships...”41 AUC has had some success with this effort, securing funds in 2013 from the Misr El Kheir (MEK) Foundation for scholarships benefiting students from Assuit, Beni Suef, Sohag, and Fayoum. AUC is also partnering with Orascom Construction Industries on the OC-AUC scholarship program, which provides “five full-tuition annual scholarships to public or private high school graduates from eight governorates in Upper Egypt (Assiut, Beni Suef, Minya, Sohag, Fayoum, Qena, Luxor, and Aswan) to pursue an undergraduate degree in economics at AUC.”42 In May 2016, AUC signed an agreement with Al-Ghurair Foundation for a LEAD-type program, targeting capable students from disadvantaged backgrounds. AUC is one of four universities in the region receiving funds from the Foundation. While 31 students are expected to benefit in the first year, AUC is hoping that the Al-Ghurair Foundation will be impressed and want to increase AUC’s portion of funding. The program has the potential to scale to the size of LEAD, as the Foundation is committed to providing scholarships to a minimum of 15,000 students in the region over the next 10 years. 43 It is important to note that AUC has shared the successes of LEAD with potential donors to help secure funding for LEAD-type programs, including, most recently, with the Al-Ghurair Foundation. The university has also integrated aspects of LEAD into AUC’s Lazard Academy and the Leadership Academy, both of which provide leadership training to students and civic education sessions. These programs may also benefit from LEAD’s database to access a wider variety of trainers for their programs. 44 A member of the Board of Trustees noted that AUC has a budget for scholarships and since diversity is a huge part of their mission, LEAD-type programs will assume a high priority. Conclusion 5.3: While AUC has limited internal funds for assisting disadvantaged students, they have the capacity to attract external funding for LEAD-type scholarship programs, though perhaps not at the same scale as LEAD. Recommendation 5: Given that AUC has the commitment, institutional capacity, and potential resources to sustain funding for disadvantaged students, consideration should be given to the 40 AUC. Our Community of Learning: A Strategic Plan for AUC at its Centennial. (Cairo, April 2015), p. 15. 41 Ibid., 15. 42 See http://www.aucegypt.edu/admissions/scholarships/egyptian-students. 43 See http://www.aucegypt.edu/media/media-releases/auc-signs-mou-al-ghurair-foundation-provide-scholarships-high-achieving￾arab. 44 LEAD. Sustainability Plan. (Cairo, no date). 27 extent to which additional funding to AUC is advantageous in advancing USAID/Egypt’s long-term strategy. 28 ANNEXES 29 ANNEX I: EVALUATION STATEMENT OF WORK Leadership for Education and Development (LEAD) Undergraduate Scholarship Program Final Performance Evaluation I. ACTIVITY BACKGROUND INFORMATION A. Activity Identifying Information Award Title: Leadership for Education and Development (LEAD) Undergraduate Scholarship Activity Cooperative Agreement: 263-A-00-07-00023 Total Estimated USAID Amount: $39,906,506 Start date: March, 7, 2007 End Date: July 30, 2016 Program Manager: Nader Ayoub Evaluation Program Manager: Seba Auda Implementing Partner: The American University in Cairo Governorates of Implementation: Nationwide Universities: The American University in Cairo (AUC) B. Background The Egyptian higher education system continues to be challenged by inequitable access, poor quality and gross inefficiencies. It is plagued by its poor reputation for producing graduates lacking in expert thinking and complex communication skills much needed in a knowledge based economy. The Government of Egypt and Egyptian policymakers recognize that a serious reform effort is needed to improve the higher education system in order to stay competitive in this global society. In support of the GOE’s efforts to reform their education systems, USAID/Egypt has over the years provided significant support to primary and higher education in Egypt, in the areas of school based reform, institutional support and scholarships. In Egypt, the quality of private education is reputed to be higher than public education, with the gap decreasing in the secondary stage and then increasing tremendously at the higher education stage. This results in increased gaps between the more economically advantaged youth and their poorer cohorts who cannot afford quality private education. These gaps are manifested in significant differences in graduates’ 30 employment potential for more productive and profitable jobs, which favor the more economically advanced part of the student population. Within this context, USAID/Egypt’s past and present scholarship programs have aimed to address this gap and develop the potential of the economically disadvantaged to contribute to the development of Egypt. The activity being evaluated under this Statement of Work (SOW), the American University in Cairo’s (AUC’s) Leadership for Education and Development (LEAD) Scholarship Program, has been implemented by AUC since July 2004. The most recent agreement with AUC for LEAD was awarded in 2007 and is scheduled to end in July 2016 (This is the award that is going to be evaluated). The activity was designed to facilitate access to the AUC for qualified graduates of public high schools in all Egyptian governorates who would not otherwise have had the means and opportunity to attend. LEAD enables 54 students per year, including female and male students from all 26 governorates in Egypt and Luxor City, to attend AUC under a full scholarship. Selected students must have demonstrated leadership and community participation qualities during their pre-university years. Students selected to participate in LEAD are encouraged to select from a broad range of majors that contribute to Egypt’s development. Students are also expected to demonstrate leadership and engage in community service throughout the program. Select students attend semester abroad programs in the United States. LEAD also organizes a conference each year on a topics salient to Egypt, such as the development of civil society and entrepreneurship. The conference provides a venue for students to share their experiences and concerns, develop and practice leadership skills, and set future goals. LEAD contributes to USAID/Egypt’s Strategic Objective (SO) 22: “Improved Access to Quality Education in Selected Governorates” by expanding access to high quality higher education opportunities for excelling high school graduates from economically deprived backgrounds and from all Egyptian governorates. The program also contributes to Intermediate Result 22.1: “Access Expanded to Girls and Women” by equally targeting male and female students and providing comparable numbers of scholarships to males and females in each of the governorates. C. Development Hypothesis The activity’s development hypothesis is that increased scholarship opportunities for targeted youth will contribute to a better educated workforce that responds to Egypt’s labor market needs. D. Activity Objectives LEAD’s objectives include: 1. To train and equip these students with the necessary skills to become leaders in their societies; and 2. To enable LEAD students to become change agents contributing to Egypt's development. Through the below approaches: 1. To competitively award Egyptian public school students, who could not otherwise afford a quality education, full tuition scholarships to complete their undergraduate studies at AUC; 2. To provide equal opportunity for girls from underprivileged communities to complete their undergraduate education at AUC; and 31 3. To competitively award a select number of LEAD students for semester abroad study in the US. E. Main Activities The LEAD scholarship process has a number of stages, including: 1) recruitment, 2) screening, 3) selection and 4) award and implementation. 1. Recruitment Process—To recruit students, AUC, in collaboration with USAID, makes an announcement of the LEAD Scholarship program through the leading Egyptian newspapers and applicants send their applications to the AUC LEAD Program Office. 2. Screening Process—An AUC/LEAD committee that includes AUC faculty members, Egyptian Association for Education Resources (ERA) Director, AUC Career Services Manager, Director of Graduate Students Services, representative from the Office of Institutional Testing, and Academic Advisors from AMIDEAST, carries out the first screening of applications based on a scoring matrix. The Committee then nominates 20 potential scholars from each governorate, 10 males and 10 females, to be tested and interviewed and notifies them. Nominations are based on the fulfillment of the following criteria: • An active member in the public school Student Union body, or in the local community • A score of not less than 85% in Thanaweya Amma. • Adequate knowledge of the English language • Adequate written communication skills, as demonstrated by the essays • Orientation/commitment to public service • Potential for further leadership development 3. Selection Criteria--A rigorous selection process is carried out to evaluate each applicant's academic abilities and involvement in extracurricular and/or community service activities. Final selection is based on placement exam scores, essays, proof of activities and the outcomes of the interviews. Students are interviewed and tested on campus. Final interviews take place in either the select student’s governorate or a neighboring governorate. In keeping with standard practice at the AUC, the ultimate decision to admit students to the University rest exclusively with the University. 4. Award and Implementation—The LEAD scholarship program has a number of components. The program offers a broad diversity of enrichment activities, including summer internships in NGOs, development agencies, and other social service organizations, and a semester abroad component for selected outstanding students (approximately one third of the scholarship recipients). During the semester students must participate in one or two special, one-day activities. These one-day activities allow for follow-up with students and provide students with some essential leadership skills and enrichment. Particular focus is given to topics related to development issues/challenges facing Egypt and the Arab region, such as illiteracy, women's and children's health, desert development, refugee and migration issues, etc. AUC draws widely from its own faculty and from outside experts (NGO leaders, public officials, business executives, etc.) to carry out these one-day workshops. Through the semester students have opportunities in intensive English Language training; computer training; cohort development and teambuilding; and other pre-academic preparation (e.g., library and research skills, study skills, etc.). 32 Students must meet the following criteria in order to retain their scholarships: • Student is able to satisfactorily fulfill the requirements of his/her chosen degree program with a GPA not less than 2.00. • Student engages in at least one extracurricular or community service activity each academic year during the course of his/her study. • Attending the orientation program, scholarship meetings, and the annual mid-year conference. • Student must work towards graduating within six years from initial enrollment. F. Results to Date LEAD has achieved the following results to date: • The total number of students in 2004 and 2007 award is approximately 200 males and 200 females from public school students with full scholarships to AUC. • To date, 282 LEAD students (140 males and 142 females) have successfully graduated, including with degrees in economics, mass communication, business, engineering, and other specializations. • 82% of LEAD graduates have gained employment in major national and multinational organizations and local and international NGOs. • Of the employed LEAD graduates, 47% are working in the services sector; 34% in the industrial sector; and 13% in the development sector. • From the LEAD graduates who were successful to find jobs, 25% are also pursuing a master's degree, or are enrolled in PhD programs in Egypt and abroad. • Many LEAD graduates are contributing to their communities through active voluntary endeavors in their home governorates. G. Gender Considerations The program also targets a gender balance as it aims to select, equally, male and female students from all 26 governorates. The program has succeeded in developing and sustaining a gender balance among program recipients. H. Sustainability Considerations The issue of sustainability is an important and, in the case of the LEAD, complex issue. In order to determine sustainability the Evaluation Team is to look for indicators that the AUC valued LEAD and— separate from this—is prepared to increasingly take on the costs of the program. LEAD greatly contributes 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 and, absent of LEAD, most governorates would be without any representation at the AUC. Overall, USAID has funded approximately 83 percent of the LEAD program and AUC contributes the remaining 17 percent. USAID’s intention was that AUC—a major beneficiary of the program— would increase its funding commitment over the life of the project. To promote sustainability of the LEAD program vision in offering exceptional academic opportunities to underprivileged students from different governorates, AUC currently offers a number of LEAD-like scholarships, like the Empower, MEK-AUC and OCI-AUC scholarships. These scholarships follow the LEAD model in recruitment and selection, residence in AUC dorms, a monthly stipend in addition to leadership and community development training and retreats and support by a Student Life Coordinator. 33 Empower scholarship offers five annual scholarships to disadvantaged Thanaweya Amma students with leadership potential from five Upper Egyptian governorates: Assiut, Beni Suef, Minya, Sohag, and Fayoum. In fall 13, AUC admitted five MEK students from Assiut, Beni Suef, Sohag and Fayoum governorates to complete their undergraduate non-science degree at AUC. The Misr El Kheir (MEK) Foundation is an Egyptian not-for-profit foundation committed to developing Egyptian citizens and communities. The Foundation shares the costs of the MEK scholarship program with AUC to provide students with full tuition scholarships in addition to leadership training, books, stipends, transportation and housing. MEK Scholarship does not currently accept new applications. AUC also partnered with Orascom Construction Industries to offer a new OCI-AUC scholarship program. The scholarship provides five full-tuition annual scholarships to public/private high school graduates from eight governorates in Upper Egypt: Assiut, Beni Suef, Minya, Sohag, Fayoum, Qena, Luxor and Aswan to pursue an undergraduate degree in “Economics” at AUC. I. Linkage with USAID/Egypt Assistance Objectives LEAD contributes to USAID/Egypt’s Strategic Objective (SO) 22: “Improved Access to Quality Education in Selected Governorates” by expanding access to high quality higher education opportunities for excelling high school graduates from economically deprived backgrounds and from all Egyptian governorates. The program also contributes to Intermediate Result 22.1: “Access Expanded to Girls and Women” by equally targeting male and female students and providing comparable numbers of scholarships to males and females in each of the governorates. J. Modifications A number of modifications have occurred over the course of the agreement, including: • MOD#1 (1/28/2008): to fully fund and obligate this Cooperative Agreement by $7,437,185+ L.E 24,007. This brought the total to $13,350,185+ L.E 155,228. • MOD#2 (3/3/2008): to delete the following: Attachment A, SCHEDULE, A.2 PERIOD OF COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT, No.2 page 4 “Funds obligated hereunder are available for program expenditures for the estimated period March 7, 2007 to March 6, 2008”. • MOD#3 (2/8/2009): to increase the total estimated amount by $8,458,100 and L.E 106,267 from “$13,350,185 and L.E 155,228”; to incrementally fund the obligated amount by $8,458,100 and L.E 106,267 thereby increasing the total obligation from “$13,350,185 and L.E 155,228” to “$21,808,285 and L.E 261,495”; to increase the Total Cost –Sharing amount to “$4,946,497” and to extend the completion date by one year from “July 31,2013” to “July 31, 2014”. • MOD#4 (4/1/2009): to incorporate the budget breakdown and correct the cost share amount. • MOD#5 (10/26/2009): to increase the Total Estimated Amount by $9,000,000 and L.E 110,248 from $21,808,285 and L.E 261,495 to $30,808,285 and L.E 371,743; to increase the Total Obligated Amount by $9,000,000 and L.E 110,248 from $21,808,285 and L.E 261,495 to $30,808,285 and L.E 371,743; to increase the Total Cost-Sharing Amount by $2,699,493 from $4,925,290,43 to $7,624,783,43; and extend the completion date by one year from July 31,2014 to July 31,2015. • MOD#6 (2/21/2010): to replace the reporting section with the following: the recipient must submit the federal Financial form (SF 425) on quarterly base via electronic format to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (http//www.dpm.pac.gov). The recipient must submit a copy of the FFR at the same time to the Agreement Officer’s Technical Representative (AOTR) • MOD#7: to re-align the budget of Cohort 3 & 4, 5 and 6; and to revise the amount allocated for social insurance to re-state the amount in USD instead of L.E. Social Insurance amount will be 34 $27,236,25 instead of L.E 155,228.00 for cohort 3 & 4, $18,791.69 instead of L.E 106,267.00 for Cohort 5, and $20,136.62 instead of L.E 110,248.00 for Cohort 6. • MOD#8 (9/8/2010): to add a new cohort to this agreement to be names as cohort VII for the period 2010-2016; Revise the agreement budget by adding a separate budget for cohort VII; Revise the Program Description by including cohort VII; Increase the Total Estimated Amount by $9,750,000 and $15,856 (FT800) from $30,808,285 and $66,165 (FT800) to $40,558,285 and $82,021 (FT800); Increase the Total Obligated Amount by $9,750,000 and $ 15,856 (FT800) from $30,808,285 and $66,165 (FT800) to $40,558,285 and $82,021 (FT800); Increase the Total Cost￾Sharing Amount by $3,248,330 from $7,231,299 to $10,479,629; Add Corporate Cost Sharing for cohort VII for $ 75,000; and Extend the completion date by one year from July 31, 2015 to July 31, 2016. • MOD#9 (3/21/2011): 1. Revise Section A.5 Reporting and Evaluation; Revise Section A. 10 Substantial involvement; and Revise Section A.6 indirect Cost Rate as per AUC's latest NICRA 2010 approved by DHHS. • MOD#10: Revise the agreement budget by adding a separate budget for an outreach, recruitment, screening and selection Plan nationwide in anticipation of adding cohort VIII of 30 additional students from 27 governorates, subject to funds availability; Revise the Program Description by including an outreach, recruitment, screening and selection Plan nationwide for the anticipated addition of cohort VIII of 30 additional students from 27 governorates, subject to funds availability; increase the Total Estimated Amount by $107,685 from $40,558,285 and $82,021 (FT800) to $40,665,970 and $82,021 (FT800); and increase the Total Obligated Amount by $107,685 from $40,558,285 and $82,021 (FT800) to $40,665,970 and $82,021 (FT800). • MOD#11: Add a new cohort to this agreement to be named as cohort VIII for the period 2011- 2016; Revise the agreement budget by adding a separate budget for cohort VII ;Revise the Program Description by including cohort VII; increase the Total Estimated Amount by $4,392,000 and $4,087 (TA-X) from $40,665,970 and $82,021 (TA-X) to $45,057,970 and $86,108 (TAX);increase the Total Obligated Amount by $1,000,000 and $4,087 (TA-X) from $40,665,970 and $82,021 (TA-X) to $41,665,970 and $86,108 (TA-X); increase the Total Cost-Sharing Amount by $1,558,215 from $10,479,629 to $12,037,844; Add 1 new clause. • MOD#12 (2/5/2013): to fully fund the balance of the subject Cooperative Agreement thus raising the obligated amount by $3,392,000 from $41,665,970 to $45,057,970. • MOD#13: to de-obligate a total amount of $5,151,463 to decrease the total budget from $45,056,970 to $ 39,906,506; to realign the budgets for cohorts VI, VII and VIII; to apply new NICRA effective 7/1/2014 on the re-aligned budget; to decrease cost share amount by $1,129,044 to decrease cost share amount from $12,037,844 to $10,908,800; and to incorporate the revised program description. II. EVALUATION RATIONALE A. Purpose The purpose of this final performance evaluation of the LEAD Undergraduate Scholarship Program is to provide USAID /Egypt with information to make decisions about the program’s efficacy and relative importance in the higher education portfolio. It will provide findings to be taken into consideration in the design of future scholarships programs. The lessons learned of the LEAD final evaluation will benefit decision makers in similar scholarships programs; for example, Local Scholarship Program (LSP) and Leadership Opportunity Transforming University Students (LOTUS) Scholarship Program. 35 B. Audience and Intended Uses The audience for the evaluation will be the Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research (MOHESR), the USAID/Egypt Mission, specifically the education team, the implementing partner (AUC), and USAID/Washington. The evaluation results will be shared with MOHESR, as well as other stakeholders, and education NGOs in a workshop setting. The final evaluation report should be made accessible to the public via USAID’s Development Experience Clearinghouse (DEC) within three months of report completion. III. EVALUATION QUESTIONS This section presents the fundamental questions that the evaluation will answer. The evaluation will produce a comprehensive analysis of the outcomes and the causal contributors to those outcomes. The specific evaluation questions are: 1. To what extent are the students and alumni of the LEAD equipped with the skills to potentially assume positions of leadership in academia, government, industry and business? 2. To what extent are the students and alumni satisfied with the program services (English Language training, computer training, team building, and library and research skills)? 3. To what extent has the LEAD succeeded to achieve gender balance with the program services (English Language training; computer training; cohort development, team-building, library and research skills, study skills, etc.)? 4. What is the Return on Investment of the LEAD? (That will be left to the Evaluation Team to propose the methodology to answer that question) 5. To what extent does AUC have the institutional capacity and resources to achieve sustainable results? IV. EVALUATION DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY A. Evaluation Design This is a final performance evaluation and is intended to focus on how LEAD is implemented, what it has achieved, and whether expected results were attained according to the project design. It will provide findings to be taken into consideration in the design of future scholarships programs. It will collect and evaluate the data and evidence necessary to address the fundamental evaluation questions. The Evaluation Team will use a mix of quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis methods to answer the questions in this evaluation. The evaluation must follow the principles and guidelines for high quality evaluations outlined in the USAID Evaluation Policy (January 2011). The final report will be reviewed using the Checklist for Assessing USAID Evaluation Reports (http://www.usaid.gov/results-and-data/information-resources/program-evaluations). Proposed data collection methods include document review, on-campus survey of current beneficiaries, group discussions of alumni and current beneficiaries, key informant interviews of employers and participating university. To facilitate analysis, the data will, to the extent feasible, be collected and reported in a way that enables disaggregation across multiple dimensions. These dimensions include, but are not limited to, gender, academic discipline, degree type, geographic area and sector of employment. 36 B. Data Collection Methods The Evaluation Team should consider a range of possible methods and approaches for collecting and analyzing the information which is required to address the evaluation questions. The evaluation team shall share data collection tools with USAID for review, feedback and/or discussion with sufficient time for USAID’s review before they are applied in the field. The data collection methodology will include a mix of tools appropriate to the evaluation’s questions. These tools will include a combination of document review, key informant interviews and focus group discussions with key informants. The methods are expected to be a mix of qualitative and quantitative approaches. The evaluation team will specify the percentage of the sample size. The selection of beneficiaries to be interviewed will be based on the diversity of different academic programs, gender, and geographic location, as well as practical considerations for completion of the evaluation. As for the return on investment question, the “investment” per student is simply USAID’s fully loaded costs, including overhead, of attaining the degree. However, it is much more difficult to reliably and credibly monetize the return to education programs. So, it is expected that the Evaluation Team will propose a methodology to collect the data. They will then discuss it with the USAID for approval. The team will conduct a desk review of all resources sent to them prior to coming to Egypt and during the Team Planning meeting. Document Review – The Evaluation Team will collect and review all relevant project documents from USAID, AUC and other sources identified during the evaluation. USAID and the implementing partner will provide the Evaluation Team with relevant soft copies of a package of briefing materials, including: program agreement and amendments, quarterly and annual reports, budget information as relevant and appropriate to be shared, Performance Monitoring Plan, and as appropriate, other documents requested by the Evaluation Team such as evaluation, audit and assessment reports. Key Informant Interviews– The Evaluation Team will conduct key informant interviews with the officials of AUC, USAID and recipient universities’ administration to collect information necessary for answering the evaluation questions. Online and On-campus Surveys – USAID expects to base the quantitative portion of the evaluation on a large-scale online survey, to be sent to all graduates of the universe of LEAD alumni and on-campus survey of current recipients. The acceptable response rate is assumed to be not less than 50 percent. The AUC maintains a database of LEAD alumni and current students. The Evaluation Team will access these lists; it will include all alumni in an on-line survey, and a random sample of students in an on-campus survey that the Evaluation Team will specify its percentage. Focus Group Discussions – The Evaluation Team will conduct group discussions with samples of LEAD alumni and current beneficiary students. If possible, the team will recruit participants randomly from lists of alumni. The qualitative interviews will provide evidence of the effect of the LEAD program on the graduates’ employment. 37 C. Relevant Documentation USAID and the implementing partner will provide the Evaluation Team with soft copies of a package of briefing materials, including: • Activity’s agreement and modifications • Project’s design documents and modifications • Activity’s quarterly and annual reports • Budget information as relevant and appropriate to be shared • Activity’s Performance Monitoring Plan • Audit findings of the USAID/Egypt’s LEAD Activity • LEAD midterm evaluation report • Contact information for key informants • Current student and alumni database The Evaluation Team should complete the document review prior to arriving in Egypt. The Evaluation Team may also request and review additional resources to the extent necessary to perform its work. D. Data Quality Standards The Evaluation Team must ensure that the data they collect clearly and adequately represents answers to the evaluation questions, is sufficiently precise to present a fair picture of performance, and is at an appropriate level of detail. E. Data Analysis Plan Prior to the start of data collection, the Evaluation Team will develop and present, for USAID/Egypt review and approval, a data analysis plan which will emphasize the unit of analysis; for example, the students receiving the scholarship. The unit of analysis will also be disaggregated by gender and geographic area. The Evaluation Team will explain how focus group interviews will be transcribed and analyzed, how the qualitative data from the focus group discussions and in-depth interviews with the key informants and other stakeholders will be integrated with quantitative data from the different relevant documents to reach conclusions about the effectiveness of the LEAD program. F. Data Limitation USAID recognizes that it takes several years after graduation and entry into the workforce to achieve the ultimate objective of producing citizens who contribute to Egypt’s economic and social development. Therefore, the evaluation will collect the best available data and make evidence-based inferences while recognizing the limits of the analysis. USAID expects that all issues affecting validity be discussed and documented during evaluation planning. Measures to mitigate these issues will be addressed with all team members and USAID in the implementation phase and detailed in the final report. 38 V. EVALUATION PRODUCTS A. Deliverables Evaluation Team Planning Meeting: A team planning meeting must be held in Egypt at the onset of the evaluation. This meeting will allow USAID/Egypt to discuss the purpose, expectations, and work plan of the assignment with the Evaluation Team. In addition, USAID/Egypt and the Evaluation Team must: • Finalize team members’ roles and responsibilities; • Review and finalize evaluation questions; • Review and finalize the evaluation timeline; • Present and discuss data collection methods, instruments and tools, analysis, and guidelines; and • Review and clarify any logistical and administrative procedures for the assignment. A well-written, detailed methodology and data analysis plan (including an evaluation design matrix, data analysis plan, and evaluation work plan) must be prepared by the Evaluation Team, discussed, and approved by USAID during the planning meeting. USAID will provide the Evaluation Team with a stakeholder analysis that includes an initial list of interviewees, from which the Evaluation Team can work to create a more comprehensive list. The Evaluation Team will construct a preliminary interview schedule that includes different stakeholders, and then share with USAID the updated lists of interviewees and schedule as meetings/interviews take place and informants are added to/deleted from the schedule. The finalized list must be sent to USAID no later than five working days after submission of the preliminary interviewees’ schedule. Debriefing with the USAID and Implementing Partner: After five (5) working days of conducting the field work, the Evaluation Team must present its preliminary findings to USAID/Egypt and to the implementing partner. The Contractor will prepare a power point presentation in English and to present first to the USAID/Egypt team and then to key stakeholders, in a debriefing meeting, the key findings and draft recommendations from the evaluation. The debriefing must include a discussion of findings, including project achievements and challenges, as well as preliminary recommendations for the future activity designs and implementation. All recommendations should be presented as actionable recommendations and shall identify the recommended institution and or office responsible. The Contractor shall collect comments and recommendations expressed in the debriefing meeting and shall incorporate them in the Draft Report. The team must consider any USAID/Egypt comments, as appropriate, when revising the draft evaluation report. Draft Evaluation Report: After one (1) week of the debriefing presentation and prior to departing Egypt, the Evaluation Team must submit a draft report of the findings and recommendations to the USAID Evaluation Manager. The written report must clearly describe findings, conclusions and recommendations for future programming. USAID will provide written comments on the draft report within seven (7) to ten (10) working days of receiving the document. Final Evaluation Report: The final evaluation report must be submitted within seven (7) working days of receiving USAID’s comments. The final report must not exceed 30 pages in length (not including appendices, lists of contacts, etc.). The format must include an executive summary, table of contents, glossary, methodology, findings, and conclusions. The report must be submitted initially in English, electronically, and later, the executive summary will be translated into Arabic. 39 At the time of submission of the final English language report, the survey instruments, interviews, and data sets must be submitted on a flash drive to the Evaluation Program Manager. All data instruments, data sets, presentations, meeting notes, and final report for this evaluation will be presented to USAID/Egypt’s Evaluation Program Manager. All data on the flash drive will be in an unlocked and editable format. All quantitative data collected by the Evaluation Team must be provided in machine￾readable, non-proprietary formats as required by USAID’s Open Data policy (see ADS 579). The data should be organized and fully documented for use by those not fully familiar with the project or the evaluation. USAID will retain ownership of the survey and all datasets developed. The Evaluation Team must submit an executive summary to accompany the final report. The executive summary should be 3–5 pages in length and summarize the purpose, background of the project being evaluated, main evaluation questions, methods, findings, conclusions, and recommendations and lessons learned (if applicable). The executive summary must be easy to read for wide distribution to local audiences. The executive summary must be submitted in English and Arabic in hard copy and electronically. USAID/Egypt intends to disseminate the evaluation report and expanded executive summary within USAID, the implementing partner and the Ministry of Higher Education. Payment. In consideration for the work to be performed by the Contractor, the Government intends to pay the Contractor an agreed upon firm fixed price upon the following conditions: (1) 70% of the fixed price upon acceptance of the final evaluation report in English in accordance with Section V.B., Evaluation Report Requirements; and (2) the remaining 30% of the fixed price upon acceptance of the final evaluation report translated into Arabic. B. Evaluation Report Requirements The format for the evaluation report is as follows: 1. Executive Summary—concisely state the most significant findings and recommendations (2 pp); 2. Table of Contents (1 pp); 3. Introduction—purpose, audience, and summary of task (1 pp); 4. Background—brief overview of LEAD project in Egypt, USAID project strategy and activities implemented in response to the problem, brief description of LEAD, purpose of the evaluation (2 pp); 5. Methodology—describe evaluation methods, including threats to validity, constraints and gaps (1 pp); 6. Findings/Conclusions/Recommendations—for each evaluation question, the report will state findings, conclusions and recommendations in clearly demarcated sub-sections; also clear distinctions will be made between findings, conclusions, and recommendations (15–20 pp); 7. References (including bibliographical documentation, meetings, interviews and focus group discussions); 8. Annexes—annexes that document evaluation scope of work, evaluation methods and limitations, copies of the actual data collection tools, documents reviewed, schedules, interview lists and tables— should be concise, relevant and readable. Annexes should also include a disclosure of any conflict of interest by evaluation team members. The final report will be reviewed using the Checklist for Assessing USAID Evaluation Reports (http://www.usaid.gov/results-and-data/information-resources/program-evaluations). 40 The final evaluation report must conform to the Criteria to Ensure the Quality of the Evaluation Report found in Appendix I of the USAID Evaluation Policy. The Evaluation Program Manager will determine if the criteria are met. This evaluation will not be considered “final” until the Evaluation Program Manager has confirmed, in writing, that the report has met all of the quality criteria. General evaluation report guidelines include: • The evaluation report must represent a thoughtful, well-researched and well organized effort to objectively evaluate what worked in the project, what did not, and why; • The report must include the evaluation Scope of Work as an annex. All modifications, whether in technical requirements, evaluation questions, evaluation team composition, methodology, budget, or timeline must be agreed upon in writing by the AO. • Evaluation methodology must be explained in detail and all tools used in conducting the evaluation such as questionnaires, checklists and discussion guides must be included in an Annex in the final report; • Limitations to the evaluation must be disclosed in the report, with particular attention to the limitations associated with the evaluation methodology (selection bias, recall bias, unobservable differences between comparison groups, etc.) and what is being done to mitigate the threats to validity; • Evaluation findings must be presented as analyzed facts, evidence, and data and not based on anecdotes, hearsay or the compilation of people’s opinions. Findings must be specific, concise and supported by strong quantitative or qualitative evidence; • Sources of information must be properly identified and listed in an annex; • Recommendations must be supported by a specific set of findings; and • Recommendations must be action-oriented – organized according to whether recommendations are short-term or long-term, practical, and specific, with defined responsibility for the action. The final evaluation report must be submitted to USAID/Egypt’s Evaluation Program Manager in electronic format (Microsoft Word) as well as printed and bound copies (five copies in English and five in Arabic for the expanded executive summary. The entire report must be no longer than 30 pages, single-spaced in Times New Roman font, size 12 type fonts. In accordance with AIDAR 752.7005, the contractor will make the final evaluation reports publicly available through the Development Experience Clearinghouse within 30 calendar days of final approval of the formatted report. VI. EVALUATION MANAGEMENT A. Logistics USAID will provide overall direction to the Evaluation Team, identify key documents, and assist in facilitating a work plan. USAID will assist in arranging meetings with key stakeholders identified by USAID prior to the initiation of field-work. The Evaluation Team is responsible for arranging other meetings as 41 identified during the course of this evaluation and advising USAID/Egypt prior to each of those meetings. The Evaluation Team is also responsible for arranging transportation as needed for site visits in and around Cairo. B. Team Composition and Roles USAID envisions that the Evaluation Team will be composed of a team leader (key personnel position), three (3) team members and a logistics coordinator, although the bidder can propose alternative staffing. All attempts should be made for the Evaluation Team to be comprised of male and female members. Per USAID Evaluation Policy, all team members will be required to provide a written disclosure of conflicts of interest. The Team members’ qualifications are as follows: Key Personnel—Team Leader: A senior international consultant with 10 years’ experience in conducting evaluations for higher education scholarships programs. S/he should be familiar with evaluating higher education programs, particularly student support programs (i.e. scholarship and fellowship programs) and be knowledgeable about the higher education sector and development needs in Egypt. S/he should also have a minimum of 5 years in leading evaluation teams, interpersonal relations and writing skills. The Evaluation Team leader will be responsible for designing and implementing the evaluation and for writing the evaluation report. The Team Leader will: • Finalize and negotiate with USAID/Egypt the evaluation work plan; • Design the evaluation plan. • Establish evaluation team roles, responsibilities, and tasks; • Facilitate the Team Planning Meeting (TPM) • Ensure that the logistics arrangements in the field are complete; • Manage team coordination meetings in-country and ensure that team members are working to schedule; • Coordinate the process of assembling individual input/findings for the evaluation report and finalizing the evaluation report; • Lead the preparation and presentation of key evaluation findings and recommendations to USAID/Egypt team prior to departing Egypt. • Design the Evaluation Plan. Recommended Team Members: Senior-level Economist/Evaluator: A senior international Economist with at least 10 years’ experience in evidence based policy research and in conducting quantitative analyses including assessing returns on investment for higher education programs, particularly student support programs (i.e. scholarship and fellowship programs) and be knowledgeable about the higher education sector and development needs in Egypt. Two mid-level local Evaluation Specialists: An mid-level evaluation specialist with minimum 5 years’ experience in monitoring and evaluating and designing education projects, with strong writing skills, excellent understanding of the higher education system in Egypt, as well as familiarity with USAID programs. They should also have proven experience in conducting evaluations in Middle Eastern countries, in the areas of employment, vocational training, labor market and gender. They should have experience in drafting high quality reports. They will participate in different evaluation activities and may be assigned specific tasks by the Team Leader as appropriate. These individuals will be responsible for focus group interviews with LEAD alumni and current students and interviews with AUC and relevant officials and 42 recipient universities. They will also design the online questionnaire and all interview guides and analyzing survey data. Team members will also write specific sections of the report. The Team Members will coordinate in: • Designing the evaluation plan. • Developing a data collection plan. • Conducting field visits, surveys, and interviews. • Collecting the data. • Recording and summarizing the data. • Analyzing the data collected. • Preparing reports and presentations for discussing the findings. Logistics coordinator: Three (3) to five (5) years’ experience in handling travel related logistics and providing administrative support. The person should be fluent in written and spoken Arabic. The Logistics Coordinator will: • Provide administrative support to Evaluation Team members. • Be responsible for setting up meetings with USAID and stakeholders. C. Period of Performance The evaluation is envisioned to be carried out over a 13-week period, beginning on June 6, 2016 and final report and close out concluding by August 28, 2016. Please note the AUC staff will not be available after July 31st. Therefore, all data collection and any interaction with the AUC staff must be completed by that date. [END OF RFTOP] 43 ANNEX II: EVALUATION METHODS AND LIMITATIONS The mixed methods approach to data collection and analysis draws upon multiple sources of information to address the evaluation questions. Multiple sources of information are used to corroborate the findings, enrich the analysis, and minimize the effect of biases inherent in any single source. Table II.1 summarizes data sources, data collection methods, sampling or selection approach, and data analysis methods used for each evaluation question. The LEAD final performance evaluation utilized four categories of information and data sources: (a) program documents, (b) quantitative data from primary (survey) and secondary sources (LEAD administrative records), (c) qualitative data from key informant interviews and individual and group interviews, and (d) return on investment data. Each source and its limitations are discussed below. 1. Program Documents A review of program documents preceded the development of primary data collection tools to provide contextual and programmatic information about the LEAD program as a whole. LEAD provided the documents for the team to review upon initiating the assignment (refer to Annex IV for the list of documents). The documents included in the desk review were culled from a much larger pool of reports for the nine years of the LEAD program. They oriented the team and provided a sense of the scope and depth of the activity at the start of the evaluation and helped ground the findings after data collection. 2. Quantitative Data Sources The evaluation team used two quantitative datasets in the analysis: secondary datasets on students and component tracking provided by LEAD; and an online survey of LEAD alumni (n=104) designed by the evaluation team and administered via Survey Monkey. 2.1.Secondary Data Sources The following databases were received from LEAD: 1. A folder with three Excel files. The ‘Graduated Students GPAs.xlxs’ file included the cumulative GPAs of graduated students for Cohorts 4-8 (n=220). The ‘Dismissed-Withdrawn-Inactive Students GPA.xlxs’ file included the names of dismissed, withdrawn, and inactive students (n=26). Finally, the ‘Current Students GPAs.xlxs’ file had the current students’ names for Cohorts 4-8 (n=9). 2. Files of LPI scores per semester and cumulative; one file for each cohort (from Cohorts 4-8), i.e., the LPI folder. 44 TABLE II.1: Evaluation Methods, Data Collection, and Analysis Evaluation Question Answer & Evidence Needed Data Information Description Comparison Explanation Data Sources Data Collection Methods Sampling or Selection Approach Data Analysis Methods EQ1: To what extent are the students and alumni of the LEAD equipped with the skills to potentially assume positions of leadership in academia, government, industry, and business? x x x Project relevant documents as listed in Annex IV Document review Selected program documents provided by USAID and LEAD (e.g., cooperative agreement, annual reports, quarterly reports, etc.) Content analysis LEAD databases with GPAs and LPI scores Secondary data Total population of Cohorts 4-8 (data not available to evaluation team for Cohort 3) Cross tabulations Graduates, LEAD program staff, and AUC faculty and staff. In addition, partnering NGOs that offered internships, direct supervisors and HR managers, and host US universities that participated in the study abroad component Key informant interviews, group interviews/ discussions, telephone interviews Total population of scholarship recipients, and purposive sample of stakeholder Content analysis, coding of qualitative data, tally sheets, cross tabulations Graduates Online survey Total population of scholarship recipients Descriptive and statistical analysis 45 Evaluation Question Answer & Evidence Needed Data Information Description Comparison Explanation Data Sources Data Collection Methods Sampling or Selection Approach Data Analysis Methods EQ2: To what extent are the students and alumni satisfied with the program services (English Language training, computer training, team building, and library and research skills)? x x x Project relevant documents Document review Selected program documents provided by USAID and LEAD (e.g., annual surveys, periodic reports) Content analysis Graduates Group discussions Total population of scholarship recipients Content analysis, coding of qualitative data, tally sheets, cross tabulations, descriptive analysis Graduates Online survey Total population of scholarship recipients Descriptive and statistical analysis EQ3: To what extent has the LEAD succeeded to achieve gender balance with the program services (English Language training; computer training; cohort development, team￾building, library and research skills, study skills, etc.)? x x x Project relevant documents Document review Selected program documents provided by USAID and AUC (e.g., annual periodic reports) Content analysis LEAD program staff Key informant and group interviews Purposive sample Content analysis, coding of qualitative data, tally sheets, cross tabulations Graduates Group discussions Total population of scholarship recipients Content analysis, coding of qualitative data, tally sheets Graduates Online survey Total population of scholarship recipients Descriptive and statistical analysis, cross tabulations 46 Evaluation Question Answer & Evidence Needed Data Information Description Comparison Explanation Data Sources Data Collection Methods Sampling or Selection Approach Data Analysis Methods EQ4: What is the Return on Investment of the LEAD?6 x x x LEAD program staff Key informant and group interviews Purposive sample Content analysis, coding of qualitative data, tally sheets, cross tabulations Project relevant documents Document review Selected program documents provided by USAID and AUC (e.g., budgets) Content analysis, cost benefit analysis Other documents Literature review Selected studies and publications (e.g., Egypt’s Sustainable Development Strategy, 2015) Content analysis Graduates Online survey Total population of scholarship recipients Descriptive and statistical analysis EQ5: To what extent does AUC have the institutional capacity and resources to achieve sustainable results? x No x LEAD program staff; AUC faculty, staff, administration and Board of Trustees; donor (MEK) Key informant interviews, group interviews/ discussions Purposive sample of stakeholders Content analysis, coding of qualitative data, tally sheets, cross tabulations Project relevant documents Document review Selected program documents provided, AUC documents, and information available on AUC and other websites Content analysis 6 The statement of work states that “the return on investment methodology will be determined by the evaluation team.” Refer also to Evaluation Question No. 4. 47 3. The ‘Alumni Tracking - New Database March 31 FINAL.xlxs’ file contained geographic information for all graduated students for Cohorts 1-8, including names, gender, major, and contact information. The total number of observations was 365, of which 220 were from Cohorts 4-8 and 46 from Cohort 3. 4. The ‘LEAD IV - VIII Study Abroad Students. Xlxs’ file which included the contact information for students who travelled abroad from Cohorts 4-8, sponsored by USAID (n=126) and Orascom Construction Industries (n=14). The four databases were merged, using the names given in the files, by cohort and gender to conduct correlations on GPA, LPI, and US Study Abroad. The names were deleted from the final file to preserve the anonymity of the data. 2.2. Limitations in the Secondary Data Sources Unfortunately, the team did not have access to the full set of documents and they were difficult to obtain since the program had already ended. The biggest challenge was not having full data for Cohort 3, except for the alumni tracking file, which provided only gender, major, and contact information, but not GPA, LPI, or travel abroad. A second limitation was data inconsistency among the databases in terms of spelling and reporting. Graduates’ names were spelled differently across databases, which caused extra effort to avoid duplication and elimination while merging the files. In addition, various databases recorded the status of graduates differently. For example, some students were reported as being sponsored simultaneously by USAID and Orascom Construction Industries for US Study Abroad, without further clarification. Moreover, the content of annual and quarterly reports was not systematic and often mixed data with the previous cooperative agreement pertaining to Cohorts 1 and 2. A third limitation was the lack of digitized information on the background characteristics of LEAD applicants and selected students. This information would have allowed the team to analyze the gender and geographic balance in applications to the program and, hence, the admission rates. 2.3. Primary Data Sources: Online Survey of LEAD Program Graduates The evaluation team developed an online survey that included 39 questions in all: five on LEAD program services, seven on leadership development, five on general topics, and twenty-two on demographics. The response options included yes/no, multiple choice, single choice from a drop down menu, open￾ended, and scale. The scales were from one to seven, starting from extremely negative responses to extremely positive. For example, in the questions related to satisfaction, one equaled “extremely unsatisfied” and seven equaled “extremely satisfied.” When reporting the number of alumni who were satisfied or extremely satisfied, ratings of 6 and 7 were counted. The online survey was sent to all LEAD graduates, as well as withdrawn and dismissed students, but not to inactive or continuing students (n=297). The survey was developed by the evaluation team and reviewed and tested internally. Finally, it was posted on Survey Monkey – an online survey development cloud-based software – on August 15, 2016 and disabled on September 4, 2016. An e-mail was sent to all LEAD beneficiaries in Cohorts 3-8 for whom an e-mail address was available (n=297). This included 266 graduates, eight continuing students, 15 dismissed students, six withdrawn students, and two inactive students. Three e-mails were incorrect and one was missing for one of the 48 students. Follow-up e-mails were sent on August 22, 28, and 31, and telephone calls made to all beneficiaries with working numbers on August 16, 17, 23, 24, 30, and 31 to confirm receipt of e-mails. The total number of respondents was 104, which represented 35 percent of targeted students. Table II.2 shows a summary of the respondents by gender and cohort. Table II.2: Distribution of Survey Respondents by Cohort and Gender Cohort Male Female Missing Gender Total 3 5 11 0 16 4 4 7 0 11 5 6 5 0 11 6 8 10 0 18 7a 4 8 0 12 7b 5 4 0 9 8 1 4 0 5 Missing Cohort 0 0 22 22 Total 33 49 22 104 2.4. Limitations Encountered with Online Survey A total of 104 alumni responded to the survey, but not all answered every question. Moreover, not all questions were relevant to each person. Therefore, in the analysis of the survey data, the calculations were based upon only the actual responses, subtracting non-responses and “not-applicable” responses from the 104. An important limitation of the online survey was the high number of missing values on the demographic questions (Questions 18-34) (i.e., name, e-mail address, cohort, major, year of graduation, field of work, etc.). Of the 104 respondents, 22 did not answer these questions (21.2 percent of all respondents). Such omissions limited the ability of the statistician to merge survey responses with secondary historical data made available by LEAD. A second limitation was that only a few graduates shared the contact information of their work supervisors. Seventeen out of 59 employed graduates gave the name of their supervisors and only 12 (20 percent of those employed) provided the needed contact information. Moreover, only eight employers were available for interviews. Finally, only 40 respondents (63.5 percent of all working students) answered the net monthly income question (Question 39). a. Analysis of Quantitative Data The team mainly used descriptive analysis for the quantitative data. For much of the data, this meant simply summing numerical data or describing the number or percentage of a distribution that shared a particular characteristic, e.g., 32% of survey respondents were male and 68% was female. Frequency distributions were also used to analyze the data, e.g., 54% of respondents were “satisfied” or “extremely satisfied.” Using the Stata 11 statistical software package, the team also looked for significant correlations. The two main demographic characteristics for the correlations were gender and cohort. The statement of work 49 also suggested analysis by geographic area, which was done using alumni’s current geographic location rather than their home governorates. The strength of the correlations was tested and the team reported only those that showed a significant difference between males and females, and among the six cohorts. 3. Qualitative Data Sources To answer evaluation questions 1, 2, 3, and 5, the team used three methods to collect qualitative data: (a) group discussions with LEAD graduates, (b) face-to-face individual and group interviews with LEAD staff and faculty, partner NGOs, and USAID managers, (c) phone interviews with employers, including direct supervisors and human resource managers, US universities that hosted Study Abroad students, and members of AUC’s Board of Trustees. 3.1.Group Discussions The team held five group discussions with a total of 29 LEAD graduates. Originally, the team targeted a random sample of beneficiaries, but there were very few commitments to attend a group discussion. Hence, the total population was targeted and multiple dates and locations were offered to increase the options. Despite these and multiple follow-up efforts, the response rate was low. Some of the possible explanations include timing (data collection took place during the summer holidays), graduates’ fatigue with completing surveys, and the fact that some alumni had graduated long ago and/or are living abroad. There was also a number of graduates who stated their commitment to attend, but did not show up. Tables II.3 and II.4 show the distribution of participants in the group discussions by gender and cohort. TABLE II.3: Distribution of Participants in Group Discussions by Gender Group Discussion Gender Participants 1 Female 3 Male 5 2 Female 2 Male 1 3 Female 2 Male 0 4 Female 4 Male 3 5 Female 7 Male 2 TOTAL 29 TABLE II.4: Distribution of Participants in Group Discussions by Cohort Cohort Participants 3 3 4 3 5 4 6 7 7 7 8 5 TOTAL 29 50 The protocol for the discussions focused on program services, leadership, and overall challenges and recommendations, all of which were linked to the evaluation questions (refer to data collection protocols and survey instruments in Annex III). Group discussions ran from an hour (abbreviated due to alumni time constraints) to two hours, about an hour and 30 minutes on average. In each, one evaluator facilitated the discussion while the second took notes. All group discussions were conducted in English, and held either on AUC’s new or old campuses at a venue provided by the university. The evaluation team contacted students via e-mail to inform them of the time, place, and purpose of the group discussions, as well as the importance of their participation, and followed up with phone calls. No LEAD staff was present during the discussions. 3.2. Key Informant Individual and Group Interviews The evaluation team prepared tailored interview protocols for each category of key informant and group interviews and focused the questions directly on the informants’ roles within the LEAD program. The interviews were constructed to elicit factual information as well as perceptions, opinions, and recommendations. A total of 54 key informants were interviewed either in a group or individually, and included former LEAD staff, AUC faculty and staff, members of the AUC Board of Trustees, NGOs that hosted interns, employers such as direct supervisors and human resource managers, and US universities that hosted study abroad students (refer to Annex IV for the list of key informants). Once again, the main limitations were incomplete or out-of-date contact information and data collection in August when the university was not in session and many people were on vacation. As with the group discussions, the team typed and coded notes from each interview according to the key themes and used a separate Excel tally sheet for NGOs representatives, AUC faculty, human resource managers, and supervisors. 3.3. Analysis of Qualitative Data The team typed up notes from discussion groups and interviews. Using a deductive approach to content analysis, the team grouped the data in the notes according to evaluation question, then identified recurrent themes and patterns. The themes were recorded on an Excel “tally sheet” with separate worksheets for each of the following groups: alumni, NGO representatives, AUC faculty, human resource managers, and supervisors. For each group, themes were coded as follows: 0=not mentioned, 1=negative, 2=neutral, and 3=positive. Qualitative analysis was used to explain and supplement the quantitative analysis. 4. Return on Investment 4.1. Methodology The Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) methodology was used to assess the social profitability of investments in the LEAD program for Cohorts 3-8. The methodology is based on the comparison of the program’s lifetime costs and benefits, using the appropriate social discount rate. The CBA was conducted from the perspective of the national economy of Egypt, rather than that of the program’s beneficiaries (i.e., LEAD’s alumni and their households). As a human capital social investment, costs and benefits of LEAD are not limited to the direct monetary costs and benefits. Rather, they extend to indirect (monetary and non-monetary) costs and benefits, as well as intangible, non-quantifiable impacts of the investments. 51 Costs and benefits are based on constant prices. No adjustments for inflation were made to the future stream of benefits. The indicators used for assessing the program’s social profitability are the internal rate of return on total investments (IRR) and the Benefit/Cost ratio (BCR). To calculate the latter, the team also derived the Net Present Value (NPV). The CBA was further applied on a counterfactual basis in order to compare the LEAD program with other possible scenarios, namely: (a) enrollment in public or private universities in Egypt other than AUC, and (b) enrollment in AUC, with the absence of LEAD-specific extracurricular activities and other relevant services. Below are the bases and assumptions underlying the estimation of the program’s lifetime streams of costs and benefits. 4.2 Costs The costs of the program are represented by the investment expenditure incurred by USAID throughout the period 2007/2008-2015/2016, as well as the cost share provided by AUC throughout the same period. Based on the program’s budget and final modifications on September 19, 2016 (Modification No. 14), total investments (including AUC cost share) amounted to US$48.7 million. The evaluation team classified annual costs by school of study, based on the numbers of credit hours per school. Also, gender-based classifications of costs were conducted for the purpose of evaluating the social profitability achieved for males and females, respectively. Refer to Annex V for details of the costs’ line items and classifications. Non-monetary costs for the LEAD program could qualify on one or both of the two categories: (a) program-related expenditure by LEAD students and their households, and/or (b) foregone earnings due to student enrollment in the program rather than joining the labor market. Actually, neither case was presumed to have taken place. Firstly, the program’s full cost was borne by USAID and AUC, and secondly, the universal alternative scenario for LEAD students was to join another higher education institution and not the labor market. As high school graduates with high scores, it is unlikely those students would have missed the opportunity to proceed with higher education. 4.3 Benefits Benefits of the program are reflected in the stream of lifetime earnings of LEAD alumni. To estimate those earnings, the evaluation team constructed age-earnings profiles for the program graduates. Salary surveys of private sector businesses and international organizations operating in Egypt were documented, reviewed, cross checked, and classified. Classification of the salary surveys data was based on occupation and years of experience. Annex V Tables V-50-V.60 show sources and findings of the salary surveys. In addition to the local job opportunities, provision was made for a percentage of the alumni working abroad. The percentage – assumed at 15-20% – was based on findings of the online survey of the alumni. Data of the age-earnings profiles were used to project the future stream of the program’s benefits. The assumptions underlying such a stream are: (a) duration of the lifetime earnings is 30 years for males and 25 years for females (to account for maternity and other family-related interruption of the career life); and (b) unemployment duration prior to joining the labor market is one year for females (for job search) and 18 months for males (for military services and job search). 52 4.4. Social Discount Rate (SDR) The evaluation team consulted officials of the Egyptian Ministry of Planning about the social discount rate used in the context of the recently published (2015) Sustainable Development Strategy of Egypt. The rate was reported at an average of 8%. Accordingly, 8% was used to discount the streams of the program’s costs and benefits. Tables V.40-V.47 in Annex V show detailed calculations of the costs and benefits, classified by school and gender. Summary findings of the calculations are presented below. 4.5 Limitations There were certain limitations with respect to estimating the program’s return on investment, particularly on the assessment of future streams of benefits. These limitations are outlined below. 4.5.1. Costs In comparison with the assessment of LEAD investment costs, which are documented and classified by type of expenditure, comparable costs of counterfactual scenarios were based on the best estimates of the evaluation team. For example, the costs of education in public and private universities in Egypt had a major constraint, i.e., the absence of reliable data on the households’ expenditure on higher education. Given the subsidized tuition fees of public universities, the team relied on the corresponding tuition fees of private universities as proxy for higher education costs. The rationale was the fact that such fees are set in a free-market, with no subsidies included. 4.5.2. Benefits A major limitation is that non-monetary benefits of LEAD were not included in the numerical analysis of the program’s benefits. This results in an underestimation of the actual levels of the social profitability indicators. Literature on the spillovers of higher education reveals a wide range of impacts on graduates’ communities and workplaces: productivity, revenues generated for other workers, as well as other intangible socio-economic development and value-related benefits at the community and national levels (community service development, pro-democracy activities, etc.). Also, monetary lifetime earnings exclude civil service employment and entrepreneurial incomes. Data about these two fields of work are not reliable. In addition, estimates of lifetime earnings are based on current facts and figures of the labor market in Egypt. This entails the fact that analysis refers to a static, rather than a dynamic case. A dynamic analysis of labor markets forces need to consider projected labor-market imperfections (information constraints, geographical disparities, gender-related differentials, employer’s power in the market - monopsony, trade unions, etc.). 4.3. Social Discount Rate The 8% social discount rate is applied to all sectors of development in Egypt, i.e., it is not specific to the education sector. Accordingly, the evaluation team considered this rate to be overestimated. As a human capital, priority field of investment in Egypt, higher education is worth a lower discount rate, which would result in more realistic – not underestimated - figures of the present value of benefits. In other terms, a lower discount rate would be conducive to higher present values of the benefits generated through education investments, hence, the higher social profitability of those investments, under which the LEAD program is classified. 53 ANNEX III: DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS Table III.1: List of Data Collection Instruments Type of Instrument Targeted Subjects 1 Online survey LEAD Alumni 2 Group Discussion Guide LEAD Alumni 3 Group Interview Guides LEAD Staff AUC Faculty NGO Internship Hosts 4 Key Informant Interview Guides LEAD Program Director LEAD M&E Manager AUC President AUC Board of Trustee Members Sponsors of LEAD Scholarships US University Study Abroad Hosts Employers Human Resources Managers Terminated/Voluntary Withdrawn Students 54 Online Survey – LEAD Alumni Welcome! This survey is shared with you because you received a LEAD Scholarship. USAID/Egypt has contracted our project, Services to Improve Performance Management, Enhance Learning and Evaluation (SIMPLE) to conduct an evaluation of the LEAD Scholarship Program and AUC's management of it. Your answers will provide guidance for future USAID scholarship programs. It should take only 5-10 minutes to complete the survey. A few things to note: • There are four sections: satisfaction with LEAD, effectiveness of the leadership activities and leadership experience post-LEAD, overall comments, and the survey ends with demographic questions that will help us analyze the data. • To protect your confidentiality, reports and data sets will not contain information that will personally identify you. The results of this study will be used ONLY for evaluation purposes. • You may navigate between the pages by using the arrows at the bottom of each page. • If you need to take a break from the survey, your responses will be saved. Once you hit the “submit” button you cannot return to the survey. Thanks! A. LEAD Program 1. Using the scale below, please rate your level of satisfaction with the following activities provided through the LEAD program. If you did not participate in the activity, check "N/A" (not applicable). (matrix box 1=very unsatisfied, 7=very satisfied, not applicable) a. LEAD orientation b. Student-led orientation c. Cohort development/team building d. Retreats e. Annual leadership conferences f. International and regional conferences g. Other LEAD activities (workshops, expert sessions, book reviews, movies, etc.) h. Other (please specify) (open text) 2. Using the scale below, please rate the services provided by AUC that are provided to all students, including LEAD students. Check N/A if you did not use the service. (matrix box 1=very unsatisfied, 7=very satisfied, not applicable) a. First Year Experience (FYE) orientation b. English language courses c. Computer support/UACT d. Library and research skill development e. Study skill sessions by mentoring office f. Academic courses g. Semester abroad/ISSA h. Internships 55 i. Career counseling j. Extracurricular activities (student union, clubs, assistantships, volunteer service, etc.) k. Other (please specify) (open text) 3. Which of the above services were you most satisfied with and why? (optional)? (single text) 4. Did LEAD staff seek your opinion about how their services should be delivered or improved? (y/n) 5. If LEAD sought your opinion, to what extent were your opinions considered? (scale from never to always) B. Leadership Development 6. Please rate the degree to which each of the following services offered by AUC or LEAD contributed to development of your leadership skills. The scale ranges from "no contribution" to "full contribution." If you did not use the service, check "N/A". (scale of 1-7, with 1=no contribution, 7=full contribution, n/a) a. Support from LEAD student life coordinators b. LEAD mini-activities (i.e., workshops, expert sessions, book reviews, movies, etc.) c. Annual conferences d. International or regional conferences e. Leadership training f. Retreats g. Internships h. US Study Abroad i. Academic courses in your program j. AUC Career Advising and Placement Services (CAPS) k. Extracurricular activities (student union, clubs, assistantships, work, etc.) l. Work (paid or unpaid) m. Other (please specify) (open text) 7. What is the activity that benefited you most and why? (Optional) (open text) 8. How would you rate the effectiveness of Leadership Performance Index (LPI) used in measuring leadership development? (rating 1=completely ineffective, 7=fully effective) 9. In addition to evaluating LEAD, we'd like to know if you have made use of your leadership skills in any of the following ways since graduating from the program. (check all that apply) Work related (if currently or previously employed since graduation) a. Participated in strategic planning b. Led a project c. Developed new ideas d. Taught/trained others e. Organized activities, events, etc. f. Gained new expertise g. Accepted a leadership role h. Applied leadership practices (e.g., teamwork, time management, delegation, etc.) i. None of the above j. Other (specify) 10. Not work related (check all that apply) 56 a. Volunteer efforts b. Advocacy for social issues c. Research d. Knowledge sharing e. None of the above f. Other (specify) 11. Approximately how many days did you spend over the past 12 months participating in community service/civic activities? (drop down menu with <6, 6-12, 13-24, 25-36, 37-48, >48) 12. Approximately how many days do you anticipate spending in community service/civic activities over the next year? (drop down menu with <6, 6-12, 13-24, 25-36, 37-48, >48) C. Other 13. If given the opportunity, would you be willing to advocate for scholarship funding with potential sponsors? (yes/no) 14. In what ways do you think you would be a model to inspire a potential sponsor to fund scholarships? (Optional) (open) 15. Overall, how would you rate your experience with LEAD? (1=extremely negative, 7=extremely positive) 16. Are you likely to recommend a scholarship program like LEAD to others? (y/n) 17. If you have suggestions for future scholarships programs, please share. (Optional) (comment box) D. Demographics 18. Full name (open) 19. Email address (open) 20. Cohort (drop down menu: cohort numbers) 21. Major during LEAD (drop down menu) 22. Year graduated (drop down menu: 2007-2016) 23. Highest level of education (drop down menu: bachelors, masters, PhD) 24. Gender (drop down menu: male/female) 25. Home governorate (drop down menu: all governorates) 26. Current residence (drop down menu: all governorates, “outside Egypt”) 27. Date of first job post LEAD (drop down menu: months and years) 28. Currently job status (drop down menu: employed, consultant, self-employed, unemployed) \ 29. If not currently working, why not: (drop down menu with the following options: a. Military b. Own illness or disability c. Maternity/paternity leave d. Personal or family responsibilities e. Pursuing post-graduate studies f. Currently looking for a job g. Waiting for new job to start h. Layoff, expecting to return to work 57 i. No suitable work available j. Not applicable k. Other (please specify) 30. Have you worked since LEAD? (yes/no) 31. In what sector are you working (if not currently employed, refer to most recent jobs since graduation) (drop down menu: public/government, NGO, international/multinational organizations, private [Egyptian], private [multinational], other: specify] 32. In what area of economic activity are you currently working (if not currently employed, refer to most recent jobs since graduation) (drop down menu: service, industrial, development, education, oil/gas/energy, other: specify) 33. What is your occupation (if currently unemployed, refer to most recent job since graduation) (drop down menu: manager, professional, technician/assistant professional, clerical, services/sales, agricultural/fishery, craft/trades, plant/machine operator)? 34. Are you working in a field related to your major in the LEAD program? (if currently unemployed, refer to most recent job since graduation) (yes/no) 35. Would you be comfortable with us interviewing your supervisor? (yes/no) 36. Supervisor’s name (open text) 37. Supervisor's email address and/or telephone number (open text) 38. Company/organization's name (open text) 39. Approximate net monthly income (optional) (drop down menu: <2K, 2000-3999, 4000- 5999…10000-14999, 15000-19999, 20000-25000, >25K) 58 Group Discussion Guide – LEAD Alumni Program Services Introduction: USAID has funded many scholarship programs over the years, but LEAD was unique because it brought students from throughout Egypt to study at an American university in Egypt. 1. From your perspective, what was unique about LEAD compared to other scholarship programs? 2. What do you think was the best thing about LEAD? (Ask each person to give a brief answer.) 3. What were the challenges you faced when you started at AUC that perhaps were different from non-LEAD students? 4. Did LEAD help you with these challenges? What kinds of services did LEAD provide to help you adjust and support you throughout the program? What services did you get that other AUC students didn’t get? How well do you think LEAD did in addressing your challenges? What could they have done better/differently to help you? What else could they have done? 5. What services did AUC provide that were especially helpful or unhelpful? 6. How would your experience have been different if you would have traveled abroad for your entire degree program? 7. How long did it take you until you felt like you fit in and was able to function at full capacity in the AUC environment? A. Leadership (45 minutes) Introduction: As you were aware, an objective of the LEAD program was to equip you to become leaders in your fields. 1. To what extent do you think LEAD succeeded in that? 2. What were some of the most useful things LEAD did to help strengthen your leadership potential? Least useful? 3. How are you different as a result of these efforts to help develop your leadership potential? 4. How do others perceive you differently as a result of LEAD? Family? Friends? 5. Are there any specific experiences or skills from the LEAD program that have made a difference in getting your first job or getting into graduate school? 6. In what ways does your LEAD experience distinguish you from other AUC graduates? From graduates from other universities? Another objective was to help you become change agents to contribute to Egypt’s development… 7. What kinds of contributions do you see yourself making in the future? What are your dreams? 8. What additional support would be helpful in developing your leadership potential? B. Overall (15 minutes) 1. What changes, if any, would you recommend for future scholarship programs? 2. Is there anything you came expecting to talk about that we have not asked about? 59 Group Interview Guides Group Interview - LEAD Staff 1. When you were working on LEAD, how did you describe it to friends and family? a. How would you describe the LEAD students? b. What do you consider the main components of the program? c. In what ways is LEAD different from other AUC scholarship programs? d. What do you consider LEAD’s greatest successes? i. In terms of benefits to the students? ii. In terms of benefits to the university? 2. How did the program change over time? a. What was the basis for making changes? b. How did you address feedback from USAID? Students? Colleagues? 3. Tell us about the services of AUC that were used by LEAD students. a. Over time, were changes made in what services were offered? b. Were you aware of how often LEAD students used the various services? i. Were some services used more by women? By men? ii. Were there any services especially designed for women? Men? iii. Was there a disproportionate use of some services by LEAD students? c. Was there a way to know if LEAD students were satisfied with the services? i. How did this differ among cohorts, fields of study and gender? ii. Was this information tracked? d. When you became aware of students’ dissatisfaction with any of the services, how were you able to communicate this to those responsible for the services? (How was your working relationship with the service centers?) e. Were changes ever made as a result of feedback from LEAD students? 4. What efforts did LEAD make to help students develop their leadership capacity? a. How were the students expected to engage with LEAD in terms of leadership development? i. How were the expectations communicated? ii. How was their participation measured? (how was LPI used, what were opportunities and constraints of using LPI) iii. What were the rewards for high participation? Consequences of low participation? b. What activities were the most popular among students? i. Where can we get data about attendance at activities? ii. Did you collect feedback on satisfaction? c. Which activities do you think had the biggest impact on the students? d. How are LEAD graduates different than other AUC graduates? What is the reason for the difference? e. Are there some that would make especially good models for convincing potential sponsors to fund LEAD-like programs? 5. If you could design another LEAD-like program, a. What aspects of LEAD would you replicate? b. Which would you change? 6. Is there anything else you would like to share? 60 Group Interview - AUC Faculty 1. In addition to teaching, in what ways have you been involved in LEAD activities? 2. Were you informed before starting classes, which students were on the LEAD scholarship? 3. In class, were LEAD students distinguishable from other students? a. Any specific examples? b. Any female students’ examples? 4. The LEAD program focused on leadership skills development. Did you notice changes in the LEAD students over time? 5. What extra support would have enhanced LEAD students’ chances for success while at AUC? 6. How did having LEAD students affect the dynamics of the AUC community? 7. Would you like to see more LEAD-like students in your classes? 8. Are you following the progress of any of the LEAD students in their career or community services? 9. Anything else you think we should know about the LEAD program or students? Group Interview - NGO Internship Hosts 1. Have you been hosting interns from the LEAD program? If yes, a. How many LEAD interns have you had? b. When was that? c. How long does each intern typically stay? Is that an appropriate amount of time? 2. Have you hosted other non-LEAD interns i.e., AUC or other universities? If yes, have you noticed any differences between LEAD and non-LEAD interns? 3. Before receiving LEAD interns: a. How were you expected to manage the internship? (number of hours, types of tasks, reporting, etc.) b. Was it expected that you include a variety of experiences (e.g., technical skills development, soft skills development, work-related learning, etc.)? c. What were your expectations of the LEAD interns? i.e., knowledge, experience, skills, competencies, attitudes, attributes, and behaviors are you looking for? d. What types of tasks were you planning to assign to LEAD interns? And are there different assignments for female and male interns? 4. After receiving the LEAD interns: a. To what extent have you been satisfied with the LEAD intern(s) you have hosted? b. How would you rate their skills? (communication skills, numeracy, information technology, learning how to learn/personal development planning, problem solving, team working, etc.)? c. Did LEAD interns bring any special perspectives, experiences, or skills? Any differences between the male and female interns? 61 d. Did they have any unique challenges? Any gender differences with challenges? e. Did you have a system for tracking and measuring their contributions? Did you report this evaluation back to the LEAD office? 5. In what ways has your NGO benefited from your association with AUC? 6. If given the opportunity, would you host any other interns from LEAD-like scholarship programs? 7. Do you have any recommendations for how to make the internship a better experience for you and/or the interns? 62 Key Informant Interview Guides Key Informant Interview – LEAD Program Director 1. How would you describe LEAD in terms of: a. The overall goal? b. The key components or most important aspects? c. How it benefited LEAD students? d. What difference it will make for Egypt’s development? 2. Tell us about the progression of LEAD over time. a. What were the biggest challenges the program faced when you started? b. What are some of the significant changes that have been made? c. How did LEAD decide what changes would need to be made? d. In what ways is the program different from when you started? e. What changes did you wish you could have made before the program ended? 3. How would you describe the LEAD students? a. What unique traits do they have? b. Were there significant variations by cohort? Governorate? Gender? c. To what extent do you think that LEAD students stood out? d. What special needs did they have? e. What did LEAD do to address those needs? 4. In terms of the LEAD objective “to train and equip these students with the necessary skills to become leaders in their societies” a. To what extent did LEAD students come with this potential? b. Where there any noticeable difference in the potential of male and female students? c. In what ways did LEAD help students develop their leadership potential? d. Did students take full advantage of LEAD’s efforts to develop students’ leadership potential? e. Were there opportunities to seek and incorporate feedback from the students to improve the leadership development activities? 5. How did LEAD work with other parts of AUC? (CAPS, UACT, etc.)? a. Were the general services of AUC offered any differently to LEAD students? b. Which services were particularly important to LEAD students’ success? 6. What were the benefits of having LEAD at AUC? a. How did having LEAD students on campus change the dynamics? b. How do the benefits of the LEAD experience compare to the costs (financial and non￾financial) AUC incurred in implementing it? c. Did AUC learn any lessons that can be applied to other scholarship programs? 7. What is the likelihood that AUC will manage more LEAD-like scholarship programs? a. Does AUC appear interested in continuing scholarships for disadvantaged students from throughout Egypt? 63 b. Does AUC have the institutional and financial capacities to implement other similar scholarship programs? c. What other factors would be considered? 8. Is there anything else you would like to share with us about LEAD? Key Informant Interview – LEAD M&E Manager 1. Please give us an overview of the LEAD M&E system. a. What were the main ways you monitored LEAD’s performance indicators? b. What was your role in monitoring students’ progress? c. How did other team members contribute to the M&E effort? d. What were the strengths of the system? Weaknesses? 2. What efforts were made to measure LEAD students’ satisfaction with program services (ELT, computer training, team building, library and research skills)? a. How were they measured? How frequently? b. How were these data tracked and reported? c. What data are available to us? d. Do you recall if there were any differences in satisfaction levels by gender? e. To your knowledge, were the data ever used for decision making? How? 3. How were you involved in measuring the extent to which LEAD helped students develop leadership skills? a. What efforts were made to track inputs? b. To track outputs? c. Did you have any responsibilities related to LPI? If so, what? i. How was it administered? ii. What was the students’ level of engagement in developing/modifying the LPI? iii. Was there any self-assessment involved? iv. How were the scores measured? Tracked? v. Were any changes made during the program period? In the evaluation report of 2008, it was mentioned 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” (p. 21). To what extent was this issue considered? vi. Who was responsible for taking action when scores dropped below the threshold? 4. To your knowledge, were M&E data used in making decisions regarding any aspect of LEAD? a. Who was your primary client in terms of M&E data? b. What changes in the system might have made the data more useful? 5. Is there anything else you would like to share with us about LEAD? 64 Key Informant Interview – AUC President 1. How much are you involved in AUC’s scholarship programs? How much do you know about LEAD? 2. Do you have any sense of AUC’s overall experience with LEAD? a. Greatest successes? What about LEAD is AUC most proud? b. Did any of the challenges/issues of the program surface to your level? 3. AUC was required to cover 21% of the cost of the program (30% tuition discount, 30% housing discount, portion of project director’s salary). a. Was this a reasonable expectation? b. What issues do cost-sharing requirements cause AUC? c. What other costs does AUC absorb when administering a program like this? Monetary? Non-tangible? 4. Is AUC interested in continuing with a LEAD-like scholarship program? a. If so, how would you rate (on scale from 1-10, with 10 being the highest) AUC’s institutional capacity to implement similar programs in terms of: i. Infrastructure (brick-and-mortar) ii. Organizational structure (current offices that handle needs) iii. Human resources (skills of staff, number of staff) iv. Financial b. If not, why not? 5. Does AUC have the financial capacity to take on something like this without USAID assistance? a. What other sources does AUC rely on for such programs? b. What are the key factors AUC considers when making decisions about whether to sponsor such programs and the level of contributions? c. In the case of LEAD, what would need to change with the program to make it more sustainable? 6. Using a scale of 1-10, how would you rate AUC’s level of interest in continuing with a LEAD-like program? Level of commitment? Key Informant Interview – AUC Board of Trustee Members 1. How much are you involved in AUC’s scholarship programs? How much do you know about LEAD? (be prepared to provide a brief summary) 2. Do you have any sense of AUC’s overall experience with LEAD? a. Greatest successes? What about LEAD is AUC most proud? b. Any challenges? 3. Would you like to see AUC continue scholarship programs for disadvantaged youth from throughout Egypt? a. If so, why? What are the benefits? b. If not, why not? 4. To what extent is this sort of scholarship program a priority for AUC? 65 5. What are the key factors AUC considers when making decisions about whether to sponsor such programs? a. Is this something AUC could handle on its own? (covered 21% of LEAD costs) b. What other sources would be pursued for co-funding this sort of program? Key Informant Interview – Sponsors of LEAD Scholarships 1. Tell me about your experience with LEAD: a. What is your relationship with LEAD? b. How do you communicate with LEAD? c. What is your expectation in terms of their reporting on the scholars you fund? 2. What have been your contributions to the program so far: a. Non-financial: Design input? Selection of scholarship recipients? Other? b. Financial: Number of scholarships? What expenses do scholarships cover? 3. What is the likelihood these contributions will continue? a. Do you anticipate any increases or decreases in funding? b. What factors affect your decisions about funding? 4. On a scale of 1-10 (10=highest), how would you rate your organization’s commitment to funding scholarships at AUC for disadvantaged youth? 5. Is there anything else you would like to share with me about LEAD or similar scholarship programs? Key Informant Interview – US University Study Abroad Hosts 1. Can you give me a brief overview of your experience with the LEAD program? a. What did you like/not like about it? b. How were LEAD students compared to other students from AUC, other students from Egypt, other international students? 2. What were the unique challenges of hosting LEAD students? a. Successes? Greatest satisfaction? b. Is a semester the right amount of time? 2 semesters? 1 year? 3. Two key components of LEAD are leadership development and community service. a. Did AUC communicate this to you? b. What were AUC’s expectations of your university in terms of leadership development and community engagement for the students you hosted? c. Did your program include any efforts to develop their leadership skills/do community service? d. Did the LEAD student(s) take advantage of the opportunities? e. What successes or challenges did your LEAD student(s) experience with this? 4. What was the impact the program had on the Egyptian students? On your university? a. In what ways were the students different at the end of the semester compared to when they arrived? 66 b. Were there any noticeable differences between the male and female students you hosted? c. In what ways did your university benefit from having LEAD students on your campus? 5. Would you be interested in hosting more Egyptian students who come from disadvantaged backgrounds? Why or why not? 6. Do you have any recommendations on how to make the experience smoother or more meaningful for the Egyptian students? Key Informant Interview – Employers 1. How long have you supervised Mr./Ms. _____? 2. Non-AUCians that you supervise? 3. Were you involved in hiring _____? a. If yes, what are the most important factors that influenced your decision? (academic qualifications, work experience, interview, recommendations, etc.) • When looking at resumes, to what extent is the university a factor? • How might you consider AUC resumes differently? • What you looking for during an interview? • How are AUCians different? LEAD? • How did the LEAD scholarship factor in? b. What characteristics does ___ have that set him/her apart from others that applied for the job? • compared to other AUCians • compared to other universities – public, private 4. Among your staff, how would you compare ___ to other workers? • other AUCians • other universities – public, private • specific leadership characteristics and potential • Have you noticed any change in the quality of AUCians over time? 5. Has _____ met/exceeded the expectations you had when your hired him/her? Why/Why not? 6. What do you consider to be the most important characteristics for succeeding in your field? a. Does _____have them? b. Do you sense that ___ has the potential to excel in your field? Why/Why not? 7. Do you recall _____ ever mentioning anything about their experience at AUC or with LEAD? If yes, what impression did you have about their experience? Key Informant Interview – Human Resources Managers 1. What are the most important factors that influence your hiring decisions? (academic qualifications, work experience, interview, recommendations, etc.) 67 2. When looking at resumes and conducting interviews, to what extent is the university a factor? • Do you consider AUC candidates differently from candidates from other universities? • Would having a scholarship like LEAD on their resume make a difference? (FYI – LEAD is a scholarship for individuals from all governorates who meet the admission requirements for AUC and have demonstrated their commitment to leadership and community participation.) • What are you looking for during an interview? • Do AUCians interview differently? If so, how? 3. What characteristics or skills do AUCians have that set them apart from other candidates? • Have you noticed any differences in the quality of AUC candidates over time? 4. In terms of advancement/promotion in your organization, how do AUCians compare to non￾AUCians? 5. Are there salary differences between AUC and non-AUC graduates? Key Informant Interview –Terminated/Voluntary Withdrawn Students 1. Would you be willing to tell me a little about your departure from LEAD? a. After how many semesters? 2. What special support did you receive from LEAD staff to help you succeed? a. Which of AUC’s services were helpful? Not helpful enough? b. What additional services might have helped you stay in the program? 3. What did you do after you left the LEAD program? a. [If studying] What are your plans on the professional and personal levels after graduation? b. [If working] Is you career developing in the path you thought it would be? 4. Despite leaving the program, have you benefited from your time with LEAD? How? 5. Are you in contact with any of the LEAD alumni? How? 6. If you had another chance at the scholarship, what would you do differently? 7. Would you recommend a scholarship like LEAD to your family and friends at home? Why/why not? 8. Are there any other comments you would like to add about your experience with the LEAD program? 68 ANNEX IV: SOURCES OF INFORMATION Table IV.1: List of Project Documents Reviewed Annual Reports 1 Year End Progress Report LEAD, June 2007 2 Annual Technical Progress Reports: October 1, 2008 - September 30, 2009 October 1, 2009 – September 30, 2010 October 1, 2010 – September 30, 2011 October 1, 2011 – September 30, 2012 October 1, 2012 – September 30, 2013 October 1, 2013 – September 30, 2014 October 1, 2014 – September 30, 2015 Quarterly Reports 3 LEAD Quarterly Reports: January- March 2007 April- June 2007 July- September 2007 October- December 2007 4 Quarterly Narrative Progress Reports: January 2008 - March 2008 April 2008 - June 2008 July 1 - September 30, 2008 October 1 - December 31, 2008 5 Quarterly Technical Progress Reports: January 1 - March 31, 2009 April 1 - June 30, 2009 July 1 - September 30, 2009 6 Technical Progress Quarterly Reports: October 1- December 31, 2009 January 1 – March 31, 2010 April 1 – June 30, 2010 July 1 – September 30, 2010 Oct 1 – Dec 31, 2010 January 1 – March 31, 2011 April 1 – June 30, 2011 July 1 – September 30, 2011 January 1 – March 31, 2012 April 1 – June 30, 2012 July 1 – September 30, 2012 October 1 - December 31, 2012 January 1 – March 31, 2013 July 1 – September 30, 2013 April 1 – June 30, 2013 October 1 - December 31, 2013 January 1 – March 31, 2014 July 1 – September 30, 2014 April 1 – June 30, 2014 69 October 1 - December 31, 2014 January 1 – March 31, 2015 April 1 – June 30, 2015 July 1 – September 30, 2015 October 1- December 31, 2015 January 1 – March 31, 2016 April 1 – June 30, 2016 Audit Reports 7 Audit of USAID/Egypt Leadership for Education and Development Scholarship Initiative Program, Audit Report No. 6-263-11-002-P, November 10, 2010, Cairo, Egypt 8 Evaluation of the American University in Cairo (AUC) Leadership for Education and Development (LEAD) Scholarship Program, Final Report, 2008 Miscellaneous Project Documents 9 List of LEAD Stakeholder groups 10 LEAD Thematic Activities (Sept 2013 - August 2014) 11 Leadership for Education and Development (LEAD) Fall 2014 Handbook 12 Alumni Tracking - New Database March 31, 2016 Final 13 List of US Study Abroad Universities 14 Sample of US Universities Hosting LEAD Students Sustainability Reports 15 Academic Strategic Priorities 2015-2018: “A Community of Learning: Enhancing the Academic Enterprise” 16 Our Community of Learning: A Strategic Plan for AUC at its Centennial, April 2015 17 Leadership for Education and Development Program, 11 Successive Years, 2004-2015 18 LEAD Sustainability Plan Monitoring and Evaluation 19 USAID/LEAD Monitoring and Evaluation Framework 20 A Tentative M&E Framework for The Leadership for Education & Development (LEAD) Program 21 Guidelines for M&E Tools LPI and GPA Scores 22 LEAD LPI Scores Cohort 4-8 23 Current Students GPAs 24 Graduate Students GPAs 25 Dismissed and Withdrawn Students Alumni Surveys 26 2013-2014 Alumni Survey 27 2014-2015 Alumni Survey 28 2015-2016 Alumni Survey 29 LEAD Alumni Fall 2012 – Report 30 LEAD Alumni Survey Report, Fall 2012 Cooperative Agreements 31 Cooperative Agreement No. 263-A-00-07-00023-00 32 Agreement Modification #1, 2008 33 Agreement Modification #2, 2008 34 Agreement Modification #3, 2009 35 Agreement Modification #4, 2009 36 Agreement Modification #5, 2009 70 37 Agreement Modification #6, 2008 38 Agreement Modification #7, 2008 39 Agreement Modification #8, 2010 40 Agreement Modification #9, 2011 41 Agreement Modification #10, 2011 42 Agreement Modification #11, 2011 43 Agreement Modification #12. 2011 44 Agreement Modification #13, 2015 List of External Documents American University in Cairo. Leadership for Education and Development Program. Cairo: AUC, 2014. Asian Development Bank. Cost Benefit Analysis For Development: A Practical Guide. Manila: Asian Development Bank, 2013. Assaad, Ragui, and Caroline Krafft. The Egyptian Labor Market in an Era of Revolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015. ____. “The Evolution of Labor Supply and Unemployment in the Egyptian Economy: 1988-2012.” Working Paper 806, Economic Research Forum, 2013, http://erf.org.eg/wp￾content/uploads/2014/02/806.pdf (accessed September 17, 2016). Barnett, W. Steven. The Perry Preschool Program and Its Long-Term Effects: A Benefit-Cost Analysis. Ypsilanti: High/Scope Educational Research Foundation, 2000. Barsoum, Ghada, Mohamed Ramadan, and Mona Mostafa. Labour Market Transitions of Young Women and Men in Egypt. Geneva: International Labour Office, 2014. Belt, Juan A. B., and Clarence Zuvekas. "Strengthening Cost-Benefit Analysis in USAID, 2011-2013: Lessons Learned and Future Directions." Washington, DC: USAID, 2014. Bennett, Ken. "Managing Experiential Education: Work-Integrated Learning in the Context of a Cost￾Benefit Analysis." Journal of Cooperative Education and Internships 42 (2008): 34-44. Blundell, Richard, Lorraine Dearden, and Barbara Sianesi. Estimating the Returns to Education: Models, Methods and Results. London: Centre for the Economics of Education, London School of Economics, 2001. Boardman, Anthony, David Greenberg, Aidan Vining and David Weimer. Cost-Benefit Analysis. Boston: Prentice Hall, 2011. Brand, Jennie E. "Civic Returns to Higher Education: A Note on Heterogeneous Effects." Social Forces 89 (2010): 417-433. Butler, Declan. "Egypt's Youth's Key to Revival'." Nature, February 2011. 71 Carneiro, Pedro, James J. Heckman, and Edward Vytlacil. "Estimating Marginal Returns to Education." IZA Discussion Paper 5275, 2010. http://ftp.iza.org/dp5275.pdf (accessed September 25, 2016). ____. "Understanding What Instrumental Variables Estimate: Estimating Marginal and Average Returns to Education." Working Paper 2003. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.552.5201&rep=rep1&type=pdf (accessed September 25, 2016). Doss, Daniel A., Don Wayne Jones, William Sumrall, and Russ Henley. "A Net Present Worth Analysis of Considered Academic Programs at a Private, Regional, Higher Education Institution." Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies in Education 4 (2015): 55-77. Dunn, Briggs P., and W. Robert Sullins. "Cost-Benefit Analysis: Applicability in Higher Education." Journal of Education Finance 8 (1982): 20-32. El Gerby, Sarah. "Assessing the Socio-Economic Characteristics of Higher Education Subsidies Beneficiaries in Egypt." MA Thesis, The American University in Cairo, 2012. Eldin, Engi Gamal. Analytical Report to View Disaggregated Indicators Measuring the Views of Business Owners on Labor Market Requirements and Consistency of Higher Education in Egypt. Cairo: The Egyptian Cabinet Information and Decision Support Center, 2011. Fadl, Noha. "The Labor Market in Egypt." Policy Brief 033, Egypt Network for Integrated Development, 2015. http://www.enid.org.eg/Uploads/PDF/PB33_labor_market_eg.pdf (accessed September 25, 2016). The Population Council. Higher Education in Egypt: Does free education achieve equitable opportunities? Cairo: Population Council, 2012. Frontier Economics. Rates of Return to Investment in Science and Innovation. London: Frontier Economics Ltd., 2014. Glewwe, Paul. Education Policy in Developing Countries. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2013. Hallak, J. The Analysis of Educational Costs and Expenditure. Paris: UNESCO, International Institute for Educational Planning, 1969. Hanushek, Eric A. "Economic Growth in Developing Countries: The Role of Human Capital." Economics of Education Review 37 (2013): 204–212. Jimenez, Emmanuel, and Harry Anthony Patrinos. "Can Cost-Benefit Analysis Guide Education Policy in Developing Countries?" Policy Research Working Paper, The World Bank, 2008. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EDUCATION/Resources/278200-1099079877269/547664- 1099079934475/547667-1135281504040/wps4568.pdf (accessed September 25, 2016). Marriott, Niall, and Hugh Goyder. Manual For Monitoring and Evaluating Education Partnerships. Paris: UNESCO, International Institute for Educational Planning, 2009. 72 Mikkelsen, Kenneth and Harold Jarche. "The Best Leaders are Constant Learners." Harvard Business Review, October 16, 2015. Mincer, Jacob. "Human Capital and Economic Growth." Economics of Education Review 3 (1984): 195-205. Nazier, Hanan. "Higher Education Externalities in Egyptian Labor Markets." Advances in Management & Applied Economics 3 (2013): 193-217. Economic Research Forum. Labor Market Panel Surveys (LMPS) 2013. "http://www.erf.org.eg/cms.php?id=erfdataportal" \t "_blank" \o "http://www.erf.org.eg/cms.php?id=erfdataportal" http://erf.org.eg/data-portal/. Version 2.1 of Licensed Data Files; ELMPS 2012. ____, Higher Education Graduates Survey (HEGS), 2014. "http://www.erf.org.eg/cms.php?id=erfdataportal" \t "_blank" \o "http://www.erf.org.eg/cms.php?id=erfdataportal" http://erf.org.eg/data-portal/. Version 1.0 of Licensed Data Files; Egypt HEGS 2012. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and The World Bank. Higher Education in Egypt. Paris: OECD, 2010. Patrinos, Harry Anthony, Cris Ridao-Cano, and Chris Sakellariou. "Estimating the Returns to Education: Accounting for Heterogeneity in Ability." Policy Research Working Paper 4040, The World Bank, 2006. Peter, Katharin, and Laura Horn. “Gender Differences in Participation and Completion of Undergraduate Education and How they Have Changed Over Time.” NCES 2005-169. US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 2005. Psacharopoulos, George, and Harry Anthony Patrinos. "Returns to Investment in Education: A Further Update." Education Economics 12 (August 2004): 111-134. Psacharopoulos, George, and Maureen Woodhall. Education for Development: An Analysis of Investment Choices. New York: Oxford University Press, 1985. European Commission, Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy. Guide to Cost-Benefit Analysis of Investment Projects. Brussels: European Union, 2015. Sieverding, Maia. "Female Disadvantage in the Egyptian Labor Market: A Youth Perspective." SYPE Policy Brief 4, The Population Council. http://www.popcouncil.org/uploads/pdfs/2012PGY_SYPEPolicyBrief4.pdf (accessed September 25, 2016). Stearns, Jenna. “Estimating Marginal Returns to Education.” Department of Economics, University of California, n.d. Taylor, Bill. "The Best Leaders are Insatiable Learners." Harvard Business Review, September 5, 2014. 73 Ulku, Hulya. "R&D, Innovation, and Economic Growth: An Empirical Analysis." Working Paper 04/185, International Monetary Fund, 2004. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2004/wp04185.pdf (accessed September 25, 2016). United States Agency for International Development (USAID). A Performance Evaluation of the Cairo Intiative Scholarship Program (CISP), Final Report. Cairo: USAID, 2015. ____. "ABE-BE Egypt, Evaluation of the American University in Cairo "AUC" Leadership For Education and Development "LEAD" Scholarship Program." Evaluation Report, n.d. ____. Egypt Labor Market Assessment. Washington, DC: USAID, 2015. ____. Merit and Needs-Based Scholarship Program (MNBSP) Evaluation Report. Karachi: USAID, 2013. ____. Mid-Term Evaluation of The Program To Extend Scholarships and Training To Achieve Sustainable Impacts PHASE II. Washington, DC: USAID, 2015. ____. Sustainability of Career Development Centers in Egypt Public Universities. Washington, DC: USAID, 2015. ____. USAID Lebanon University Scholarship Program Midterm Evaluation. Washington, DC: USAID, 2015. ____. Egypt Education Legacy: 35 Years of a Partnership in Education. Washington, DC: USAID, 2012. Woodhall, Maureen. Cost-benefit Analysis in Educational Planning. Paris: UNESCO, International Institute for Educational Planning, 2004. 74 Table IV.2: List of Key Informants Interviewed Date Interviewed Key Informant /Institution August 10, 2016 SIMPLE Finance Officer August 16, 2016 USAID Activity Manager August 16, 2016 USAID M&E Manager for Education August 16, 2016 USAID Deputy Director of Education August 17, 2016 Eight representatives from the LEAD Office August 18, 2016 M&E Consultant, LEAD August 18, 2016 LEAD, Former M&E Manager August 22, 2016 Five AUC Faculty Members August 22, 2016 AUC Director of International Students and Study Abroad August 22, 2016 AUC Director of Student Development August 23, 2016 Representative from Egyptian Association for Comprehensive Development-Cairo August 23, 2016 Representative from Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights August 23, 2016 Manager, Misr El Kheir August 25, 2016 Representative from Hope Village August 26, 2016 Dean of International Studies, Bard College August 27, 2016 Human Resources Manager (Peugeot) August 28, 2016 Alumni Supervisor (Media Production Company) August 28, 2016 Alumni Supervisor (AUC/ISSA) August 28, 2016 Alumni Supervisor (Doehler) August 28, 2016 Alumni Job Supervisor (IIE) August 28, 2016 Alumni Job Supervisor (AMIDEAST) August 28, 2016 Alumni Job Supervisor (USAID) August 28, 2016 Alumni Job Supervisor (HarassMap) August 28, 2016 Representative from Human Resources (Population Council) August 28, 2016 Alumni Job Supervisor (Barclays) August 28, 2016 Member, AUC Board of Trustees August 29, 2016 Representative from AUC Office of Residential Life August 29, 2016 Member, AUC- Board of Trustees August 29, 2016 Representative from AUC Career Center August 29, 2016 Director of Development, AUC Institutional Advancement Office August 29, 2016 Representative from AUC Empower Scholarship August 29, 2016 Representative from AUC Career Center August 30, 2016 AUC Vice President for Student Affairs August 30, 2016 Representative from Human Resources (Ledico) August 30, 2016 Representative from Human Resources (Microsoft) August 30, 2016 Representative from Wellesley College August 31, 2016 Representative from Human Resources (Groupe Scholaire Oasis) August 31, 2016 AUC - Director of SOS August 31, 2016 Phone KII (MSS) - Representative from SUNY at New Paltz August 31, 2016 Representative from Human Resources (Al Futtaim) August 31, 2016 Representative from Human Resources (Thomas Cook) September 1, 2016 Executive Director, AUC Career Center September 1, 2016 Representative from American University 75 Table IV.3: Interview Schedule Date Key Informants Time From To Venue 10-Aug. KII - SIMPLE Finance Officer 1:00 3:00 Meeting held at NSCE office 16-Aug. KII - USAID Activity Manager 10:00 11:00 At USAID 16-Aug. KII - USAID M&E Manager for Education 11:00 12:00 At USAID 16-Aug. KII - USAID Deputy Director of Education Office 1:30 2:30 At USAID 17-Aug. GI - LEAD team 1:00 2:00 AUC New Campus GI - LEAD senior management 3:00 5:00 AUC New Campus GI - LEAD finance team 3:00 5:00 Meeting with ROI researchers at AUC New Campus Group meeting #1 with alumni 6:00 7:30 AUC New Campus 18-Aug. KII - LEAD staff 2:30 3:30 Phone Interview KII - LEAD Staff 10:30 11:30 Meeting held at NSCE office 20-Aug. Group meetings #2 and #3 with alumni 1:00 5:00 AUC Old Campus 22-Aug. GI - AUC Faculty Members 10:00 12:00 AUC New Campus KII - Faculty Member 12:30 1:30 AUC New Campus KII - Faculty Member 12:30 1:30 AUC New Campus KII - AUC Director of International Students and Study Abroad 2:00 3:00 AUC New Campus KII - AUC Director of Student Development 3:00 4:00 AUC New Campus 23-Aug. KII - NGO - Egyptian Association for Comprehensive Development- Cairo 10:30 11:30 EACD Office KII - NGO - Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights (EIPR) 12:00 1:00 EIPR Office KII - Sponsor - Misr el Kheir Association (MEK) 1:30 2:30 MEK Office Group meetings #4 and #5 with alumni 6:00 8:00 AUC Old Campus 25-Aug. KII - NGO Hope Village 11:00 12:00 At Hope Village office 28-Aug. KII - Supervisor (Barclays) 9:52 10:10 Phone Interview KII - Supervisor (Media Production Company) Phone Interview KII - Supervisor (AUC/ISSA) 2:05 2:15 Phone Interview KII - Supervisor (Doehler) 3:00 3:10 Phone Interview KII - Supervisor (IIE) 1:00 1:15 Phone Interview KII - Supervisor (AMIDEAST) 11:00 11:13 Phone Interview KII - Supervisor (USAID) 12:20 12:25 Phone Interview KII - Supervisor (HarassMap) 3:50 4:10 Phone Interview KII - NGO (New Women 1:00 2:00 Phone Interview 76 Foundation) KII - AUC Board of Trustees 6:00 6:30 Phone Interview 29-Aug. KII - AUC Office of Residential Life 10:00 11:00 At AUC KII - AUC Career Center 11:00 12:00 At AUC KII - AUC - Institutional Advancement Office 12:00 1:00 At AUC KII - AUC Empower Scholarship 1:00 2:00 At AUC KII - AUC Career Center 2:00 3:00 At AUC KII - AUC Board of Trustees 6:00 6:30 Phone Interview 30-Aug. KII - AUC Vice President for Student Affairs 2:00 3:00 At AUC KII - Wellesley College 9:00 9:30 Phone Interview 31-Aug. KII - AUC Director of SOS 10:00 10:30 Phone Interview KII - SUNY at New Paltz 3:00 3:30 Phone Interview 1-Sept. KII - Executive Director, Career Center 1:00 2:00 Phone Interview 77 ANNEX V: QUANTITATIVE DATA A. Analysis of the Secondary Data Part I: General Descriptive Statistics of LEAD Students Table V.1: Students Graduated by Cohort and Gender Cohort 3 Cohort 4 Cohort 5 Cohort 6 Cohort 7a Cohort 7b Cohort 8 Total Male 25 20 22 25 16 7 14 129 Female 23 24 23 27 14 13 13 137 Total 48 44 45 52 30 20 27 266 Table V.2a: US Study Abroad Status for Males, by Cohort (Ref: LEAD IV - VIII Study Abroad Students.xlxs) Cohort Percentage of Males who Travelled Abroad Didn't travel Sponsored by USAID Not Sponsored by USAID Total Number of Students 4 45.0 55.0 0.0 20 5 40.91 59.09 0.0 22 6 56.0 40.0 4.0 25 7A 50.0 50.0 0.0 16 7B 28.6 71.4 0.0 7 8 28.6 71.4 0.0 14 Total 44.23 54.81 0.98 104 Table V.2b: US Study Abroad Status for Females, by Cohort (Ref: LEAD IV - VIII Study Abroad Students.xlxs) Cohort Percentage of Females who Travelled Abroad Didn’t travel Sponsored by USAID Not Sponsored by USAID Total Number of Students 4 29.2 58.3 12.5 24 5 39.1 60.9 0.0 23 6 55.6 37.0 7.4 27 7A 21.4 64.3 14.3 14 7B 15.4 76.9 7.7 13 8 7.7 76.9 15.4 13 Total 32.5 58.8 8.8 114 78 Graph V.1a and V.1b: Percentage of Students Travelling Abroad, by Cohort and Gender Part II: Analysis of Gender Differences Cumulative GPAs and LPIs of Graduated Students Here, the differences in GPAs and LPIs by cohort and gender are investigated for only students who graduated using USAID funds. Applying the t-test to compare the means of the cumulative GPAs for females and males shows a weak insignificant indication that females perform better than males.7 Likewise, a t-test comparison between the cumulative LPI means for females and males shows that the differences are significant at a very low p-value (0.000). The relationship between the cumulative GPA and LPI also shows a weak positive correlation coefficient (significantly different from 0) among males, and a slightly stronger one among females (refer to Table V.6). 7 It must be noted that there were two male graduated students who had low GPAs and who were dismissed but were able to get financial aid to graduate. Including these two in the analysis results in a significant difference in GPAs in favor of females. 79 Graph V.2: Median Cumulative GPA and LPI, by Cohort and Gender Table V.3: Median Cumulative GPA and LPI, by Cohort and Gender Cohort Median C.GPA (Males) Median C.GPA (Females) Median C.LPI (Males) Median LPI (Females) 4 3.283 3.256 2.94 3.075 5 3.433 3.478 2.635 2.75 6 3.237 3.131 2.7 2.7 7A 2.9775 3.373 2.345 2.89 7B 3.483 3.452 1.94 2.68 8 3.2725 3.423 2.29 2.72 Total 3.234 3.37 2.64 2.84 Table V.4: Mean Cumulative GPA and LPI, by Cohort and Gender Cohort Male Female Mean N Mean N 4 C.GPA 3.148 20 3.229 24 C.LPI 2.942 20 3.042 24 5 C.GPA 3.389 23 3.312 23 C.LPI 2.668 23 2.935 23 6 C.GPA 3.172 25 3.123 27 C.LPI 2.705 19 2.550 23 7A C.GPA 2.974 16 3.336 14 C.LPI 2.573 16 2.952 13 7B C.GPA 3.310 7 3.389 13 C.LPI 2.057 6 2.578 9 8 C.GPA 3.277 14 3.442 13 C.LPI 2.144 14 2.649 11 Total C.GPA 3.201 104 3.276 114 C.LPI 2.602 97 2.814 103 80 Table V.5: Testing the Differences of Mean Cumulative GPA and LPI, by Gender Testing the Difference in Mean of Male Female P-Value8 Mean N Mean N C.GPA 3.201 104 3.276 114 0.11 C.LPI*** 2.602 97 2.814 103 0.003 Table V.6: Correlation Coefficient between Cumulative GPA and LPI for Males, Females, and Total Gender Correlation between C.GPA & C.LPI P-Value for being different than 0 Males 0.202** 0.06 Females 0.385*** 0.0001 Total 0.295*** 0.0000 Notes: *p-value <0.1; i.e., statistically significant at level 0.1, less than one in ten chance of being wrong. **p-value <0.05; i.e., statistically significant at level 0.05, less than one in twenty chance of being wrong. ***p-value <0.01; i.e., statistically significant at level 0.01, less than one in one hundred chance of being wrong. Gender Differences and Travelling Abroad Travelling abroad required a minimum GPA of 2.8 and LPI of 3.0. Since the GPA and LPI prior to travel were unavailable, the analysis used the final cumulative GPA and LPI to compare females and males. As Table V.7 shows, a higher percentage of females (41.57%) were able to achieve both requirements to travel abroad than males (26.74%). A t-test was used to test this difference and shows that, although the percentage of females above the LPI criterion was significantly higher than that of males, the difference was not significant (p-value was 0.009). When both criteria were fulfilled, the difference was significant, as it was affected by females' higher performance in LPI. Table V.7: Percent of those who Fulfilled the Travel Criteria, by Gender (%) Males Females P-Value Above GPA Criterion 80.77 84.21 0.25 Above LPI Criterion*** 27.91 44.94 0.009 Above Both Criteria*** 26.74 41.57 0.019 8 The p-value is defined as the probability, under the assumption of the hypotheses being tested, of obtaining a result equal to or more extreme than what was actually observed. The smaller the p-value, the larger the significance because it tells the investigator that the hypothesis under consideration may not adequately explain the observation. For typical analysis, using the standard α = 0.05 cutoff, the null hypothesis (“null hypothesis" usually refers to a general statement or default position that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena) is rejected when p < .05 and not rejected when p > .05. 81 B. Online Survey Data Analysis EQ1: To what extent are students and alumni of LEAD equipped with the skills to potentially assume positions of leadership in academia, government, industry, and business? Table V.8a: Level of Contribution of AUC or LEAD Activities to Development of Leadership Skills (%), by Gender Activities Male Female Total Low (1-2) Medium (3-5) High (6-7) Low (1-2) Medium (3-5) High (6-7) Low (1-2) Medium (3-5) High (6-7) Support from LEAD student life coordinators 3.13 43.75 53.13 20.41 32.65 46.94 12.12 43.43 44.44 LEAD mini-activities (i.e. workshops, expert sessions, book reviews, movies, etc.) 3.03 66.67 30.30 10.42 50.00 39.58 10.2 56.12 33.67 Annual conferences 15.15 66.67 18.18 22.92 56.25 20.83 20.2 60.61 19.19 International or regional conferences 40.00 40.00 20.00 30.77 38.46 30.77 36.73 36.73 26.53 Leadership training 6.06 57.58 36.36 2.13 51.06 46.81 5.15 56.7 38.14 Retreats 12.50 46.88 40.63 2.04 46.94 51.02 7.07 48.48 44.44 Internships 21.74 39.13 39.13 20.00 42.5 37.50 21.92 42.47 35.62 US Study Abroad 16.67 16.67 66.67 8.57 0 91.43 11.11 11.11 77.78 Academic courses in your program 6.67 43.33 50.00 2.08 29.17 68.75 4.17 36.46 59.38 AUC activities, e.g., student union, clubs, etc. 6.45 45.16 48.39 2.04 32.65 65.31 4.08 36.73 59.18 AUC's Career Advising and Placement Services (CAPS) 12.12 48.48 39.39 8.33 35.42 56.25 12.12 44.44 43.43 Extracurricular activities (student union, clubs, assistantship, volunteer work, etc.) 0 36.36 63.64 2.04 40.82 57.14 1.00 39.00 60.00 Work (paid or unpaid) 16.67 12.50 70.83 17.78 20.00 62.22 14.81 22.22 62.96 82 Table V.8b: Level of Contribution of AUC or LEAD Activities to Development of Leadership Skills (Number), by Gender Activities Male Female Low (1-2) Medium (3-5) High (6-7) Total Low (1-2) Medium (3-5) High (6-7) Total Support from LEAD student life coordinators 1 14 17 32 10 16 23 49 LEAD mini-activities (i.e. workshops, expert sessions, book reviews, movies, etc.) 1 22 10 33 5 24 19 48 Annual conferences 5 22 6 33 11 27 10 48 International or regional conferences 6 6 3 15 8 10 8 26 Leadership training 2 19 12 33 1 24 22 47 Retreats 4 15 13 32 1 23 25 49 Internships 5 9 9 23 8 17 15 40 US Study Abroad 4 4 16 24 3 0 32 35 Academic courses in your program 2 13 15 30 1 14 33 48 AUC activities, e.g., student union, clubs, etc. 2 14 15 31 1 16 32 49 AUC's Career Advising and Placement Services (CAPS) 4 16 13 33 4 17 27 48 Extracurricular activities (student union, clubs, assistantship, volunteer work, etc.) 0 12 21 33 1 20 28 49 Work (paid or unpaid) 4 3 17 24 8 9 28 45 83 Table V.9: Effectiveness of LPI in Measuring Leadership Development, by Gender Level of LPI Effectiveness Gender Male Female Missing Total N/A N 0 0 1 1 % 0 0 4.55 0.96 1 Fully Ineffective N 5 8 4 17 % 15.15 16.33 18.18 16.35 2 N 9 9 4 22 % 27.27 18.37 18.18 21.15 3 N 3 6 2 11 % 9.09 12.24 9.09 10.58 4 N 6 6 5 17 % 18.18 12.24 22.73 16.35 5 N 5 5 2 12 % 15.15 10.2 9.09 11.54 6 N 3 12 0 15 % 9.09 24.49 0 14.42 7 Fully Effective N 1 2 0 3 % 3.03 4.08 0 2.88 Missing N 1 1 4 6 % 3.03 2.04 18.18 5.77 Total N 33 49 22 104 % 100 100 100 100 Table V.10: Percentage of Alumni Using Leadership Skills in Work Related Activities, by Gender Work Related Activities Male Female Total Participated in strategic planning 54.55 38.78 47.9 Led a project 57.58 48.98 55.2 Developed new ideas 54.55 38.78 55.2 Trained/taught others 54.55 38.78 51.0 Organized activities, events, etc. 54.55 38.78 51.0 Gained new expertise 54.55 63.27 59.4 Accepted leadership role 57.58 53.06 56.3 Applied leadership practices 60.61 65.31 65.6 None of the above 3.03 14.29 9.4 Total Number of Observations 33 49 96 84 Table V.11: Percentage of Alumni Using Leadership Skills in Non-Work Related Activities, by Gender Activities Male Female Total Volunteer efforts 51.52 65.31 61.2 Advocacy for social issues 39.39 32.65 36.7 Research 54.55 51.02 49.0 Knowledge sharing 63.64 75.51 69.4 None of the above 12.12 2.04 8.2 Total Number of Observations 33 49 98 Table V.12: Current Residency by Gender Current Governorate Gender Male Female Total Outside Egypt N 9 8 17 % 27.27 16.33 20.73 Cairo N 18 31 49 % 54.55 63.27 59.76 Dakahlia N 0 2 2 % 0 4.08 2.44 Fayoum N 0 1 1 % 0 2.04 1.22 Gharbia N 1 1 2 % 3.03 2.04 2.44 Giza N 4 3 7 % 12.12 6.12 8.54 Luxor N 1 0 1 % 3.03 0 1.22 Monufia N 0 1 1 % 0 2.04 1.22 Qalyubia N 0 1 1 % 0 2.04 1.22 Red Sea N 0 1 1 % 0 2.04 1.22 Total N 33 49 82 % 100 100 100 85 Table V.13: Employment Sector by Gender Sector of Employment Gender Male Female Total Public/Government N 0 4 4 % 0 9.30 6.25 NGO N 2 8 10 % 6.45 18.60 15.63 International/Multinational Organizations N 8 7 15 % 25.81 16.28 23.44 Private Companies- Egyptian N 9 13 22 % 29.03 30.23 34.38 Private Companies - International N 12 11 23 % 38.71 25.58 35.94 Total N 31 43 64 % 100 100 100 Table V.14: Highest Level of Education, by Gender Highest Degree Male Female Total Bachelors N 24 41 65 % 75 83.67 80.25 Masters N 7 7 14 % 21.88 14.29 17.28 PhD N 1 1 2 % 3.13 2.04 2.47 Total N 32 49 81 86 EQ2: To what extent are students and alumni satisfied with the program services (English language training, computer training, team building, and library and research skills)? Table V.15a: Level of Satisfaction with LEAD Program Activities (Total) Level of Satisfaction with the Following Activities: Low (1-2) Medium (3-5) High (6-7) Total No. of Observations Excluding N/A LEAD orientation N 16 43 38 104 97 % 16.49 44.33 39.18 Student-led orientation N 12 45 33 104 90 % 13.33 50.00 36.67 Retreats N 5 43 55 104 103 % 4.85 41.75 53.40 Annual leadership conferences N 18 61 23 104 102 % 17.65 59.80 22.55 International and regional conferences N 15 22 20 104 57 % 26.32 38.60 35.09 Other LEAD activities (workshops, expert sessions, book reviews, movies, etc.) N 9 55 37 104 101 % 8.91 54.46 36.63 Table V.15b: Level of Satisfaction with LEAD Program Activities (Males) Level of Satisfaction with the Following Activities: Low (1-2) Medium (3-5) High (6-7) Total Number of Observations LEAD orientation N 4 13 14 31 % 12.9 41.94 45.16 100 Student-led orientation N 4 12 12 28 % 14.29 42.86 42.86 100 Retreats N 1 15 17 33 % 3.03 45.45 51.52 100 Annual leadership conferences N 5 19 8 32 % 15.63 59.38 25 100 International and regional conferences N 4 8 6 18 % 22.22 44.44 33.33 100 Other LEAD activities (workshops, expert sessions, book reviews, movies, etc.) N 19 13 32 % 59.38 40.63 100 87 Table V.15c: Level of Satisfaction with LEAD Program Activities (Females) Level of Satisfaction with the Following activities: Low (1-2) Medium (3-5) High (6-7) Total Number LEAD orientation N 8 18 20 46 % 17.39 39.13 43.48 100 Student-led orientation N 6 21 18 45 % 13.33 46.67 40 100 Cohort development/team building N 8 16 25 49 % 16.33 32.65 51.02 100 Retreats N 4 17 28 49 % 8.16 34.69 57.14 100 Annual leadership conferences N 8 31 10 49 % 16.33 63.27 20.41 100 International and regional conferences N 6 9 12 27 % 22.22 33.33 44.44 100 Other LEAD activities (workshops, expert sessions, book reviews, movies, etc.) N 6 24 19 49 % 12.24 48.98 38.78 100 Table V.16a: Level of Satisfaction with AUC Services and Activities (Total) Level of satisfaction with the following activities Low (1-2) Medium (3-5) High (6-7) Total Observations First Year Experience (FYE) orientation N 18 35 48 101 % 17.82 34.65 47.52 English language courses N 3 18 71 92 % 3.26 19.57 77.17 Computer support/UACT N 5 29 68 102 % 4.90 28.43 66.67 Library and research skill development N 3 19 80 102 % 2.94 18.63 78.43 Study skill sessions by mentoring office N 7 32 36 75 % 9.33 42.67 48.00 Academic courses N 1 29 72 102 % 0.98 28.43 70.59 Semester abroad N 6 9 56 71 % 8.45 12.68 78.87 Internships N 14 30 32 76 % 18.42 39.47 42.11 Career counseling N 9 39 46 94 % 9.57 41.49 48.94 Extracurricular activities— student union, clubs, assistantships, volunteer service N 5 29 65 99 % 5.05 29.29 65.66 88 89 Table V.16b: Level of Satisfaction with AUC Services and Activities (Males) Level of Satisfaction with the Following Activities: Low (1-2) Medium (3-5) High (6-7) Total number of observations First Year Experience (FYE) orientation N 4 11 18 33 % 12.12 33.33 54.55 100 English language courses N 1 3 25 29 % 3.45 10.34 86.21 100 Computer support/UACT N 1 12 20 33 % 3.03 36.36 60.61 100 Library and research skill development N 2 5 26 33 % 6.06 15.15 78.79 100 Study skill sessions by mentoring office N 1 15 10 26 % 3.85 57.69 38.46 100 Academic courses N 1 10 21 32 % 3.13 31.25 65.63 100 Semester abroad/international student office services N 3 4 18 25 % 12 16 72 100 Internships N 7 9 10 26 % 26.92 34.62 38.46 100 Career counseling N 4 12 16 32 % 12.5 37.5 50 100 Extracurricular activities (student union, clubs, assistantships, volunteer service, etc.) N 2 8 22 32 % 6.25 25 68.75 100 90 Table V.16c: Level of Satisfaction with AUC Services and Activities (Females) Level of Satisfaction with the Following Activities: Low (1-2) Medium (3-5) High (6-7) Total Number of observations First Year Experience (FYE) orientation N 13 14 21 48 % 27.08 29.17 43.75 100 English language courses N 1 9 34 44 % 2.27 20.45 77.27 100 Computer support/UACT N 3 10 36 49 % 6.12 20.41 73.47 100 Library and research skill development N 1 6 42 49 % 2.04 12.24 85.71 100 Study skill sessions by mentoring office N 3 11 20 34 % 8.82 32.35 58.82 100 Academic courses N 11 38 49 % 22.45 77.55 100 Semester abroad/international student office services N 1 2 30 33 % 3.03 6.06 90.91 100 Internships N 6 12 18 36 % 16.67 33.33 50 100 Career counseling N 2 17 26 45 % 4.44 37.78 57.78 100 Extracurricular activities (student union, clubs, assistantships, volunteer service, etc.) N 3 13 32 48 % 6.25 27.08 66.67 100 To further compare satisfaction with LEAD program activities versus satisfaction with AUC services and activities, two simple means for the satisfaction level of both LEAD and AUC activities were computed and compared using paired t-test9 for all students and then for male and female students separately. Results show a significant increase in the satisfaction level with AUC services and activities over the LEAD activities among the three groups (refer to Table V.17). 9 Since each student is reporting the satisfaction level for both, paired t-test is used. 91 Table V.17: Testing the Differences in Mean Satisfaction Level for LEAD and AUC Activities, by Gender Variable Observations Mean Std. Err. 95% Confidence Interval Total*** Mean Satisfaction level for LEAD 100 5.029 0.106 4.819 5.240 Mean Satisfaction level for AUC 100 5.454 0.104 5.248 5.659 Male*** Mean Satisfaction level for LEAD 33 4.958 0.171 4.610 5.307 Mean Satisfaction level for AUC 33 5.462 0.196 5.063 5.862 Female*** Mean Satisfaction level for LEAD 49 5.214 0.154 4.904 5.523 Mean Satisfaction level for AUC 49 5.667 0.127 5.411 5.922 ***P-Value<0.01 Table V.18: Number and Percent Who Reported that LEAD Staff Sought their Opinion, by Cohort Cohort 3 4 5 6 7a 7b 8 Missing Total N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % Yes 8 50 9 81.82 10 90.91 16 88.89 10 83.33 7 77.78 5 100 8 36.36 73 70.19 No 8 50 2 18.18 1 9.09 2 11.11 2 16.67 2 22.22 0 0 13 59.09 30 28.85 Missing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4.55 1 0.96 Total 16 100 11 100 11 100 18 100 12 100 9 100 5 100 22 100 104 100 Table V.19: Percent Who Reported that LEAD Staff Sought their Opinion, by Gender Did LEAD Staff seek your Opinion? Gender Male Female . Total Yes N 24 41 8 73 % 72.73 83.67 36.36 70.19 No N 9 8 13 30 % 27.27 16.33 59.09 28.85 Missing N 0 0 1 1 % 0 0 4.55 0.96 Total N 33 49 22 104 % 100 100 100 100 92 Table V.20: Testing Differences in Satisfaction Level of Alumni by Whether LEAD Sought their Opinion Did LEAD Seek your Opinion*** % Satisfied/Very Satisfied Std. Err. N 95% Conf. Interval Yes 77.14 0.050 70 67.31 86.98 No 33.33 0.096 24 14.47 52.19 P-Value 0.000 Table V.21: Correlation Coefficient between Overall Experience with LEAD and the Extent their Opinions Were Considered Correlation between Both (having N/A in Q5 as 0) Correlation between Both excluding N/A 0.64*** 0.59*** *** Significant at p-value 0.05 Table V.22: Overall Rating of LEAD Experience, by Gender Overall Rate Male Female Total Extremely Negative N 0 0 0 % 0 0 0 2 N 0 2 3 % 0 4.17 3.19 3 N 3 1 5 % 9.09 2.08 5.32 4 N 2 5 9 % 6.06 10.42 9.57 5 N 6 5 15 % 18.18 10.42 15.96 6 N 13 13 30 % 39.39 27.08 31.91 Extremely Positive N 9 22 32 % 27.27 45.83 34.04 Total N 33 48 94 % 100 100 100 Table V.23: Would Recommend LEAD Program, by Gender Would you Recommend LEAD to Others? Gender Male Female Missing Gender Total Yes N 1 2 2 5 % 3.03 4.17 15.38 5.32 No N 32 46 11 89 % 96.97 95.83 84.62 94.68 93 EQ3: To what extent has LEAD succeeded to achieve gender balance with the program services (English language training, computer training, cohort development, team building, library and research skills, study skills, etc.)? Table V.24: T-Test of Gender Differences in Rating of Activities’ Contribution to Leadership Skills Level of Contribution Male Female P-Value % of High and Fully Contributed % of High and Fully Contributed Females have Higher Percentage Retreats 40.63 51.02 0.18 US Study Abroad 66.67 91.43 0.04 Academic courses in your program 50 68.75 0.05 AUC activities, e.g., student union, clubs, etc. 48.39 65.31 0.10 AUC's Career Advising and Placement Services (CAPS) 39.39 56.25 0.08 Table V.25: Current Employment Status, by Gender Current Employment Status Gender Male Female . Total Employed N 24 35 0 59 % 72.73 71.43 0 56.73 Consultant N 1 0 0 1 % 3.03 0 0 0.96 Self Employed N 2 1 0 3 % 6.06 2.04 0 2.88 Unemployed N 6 13 0 19 % 18.18 26.53 0 18.27 . N 0 0 22 22 % 0 0 100 21.15 Total N 33 49 22 104 % 100 100 100 100 Table V.26: Work History, by Gender Have ever Worked? Gender Male Female Yes N 31 44 % 93.94 89.8 No N 2 5 % 6.06 10.2 Total N 33 49 % 100 100 94 95 Table V.27: Reasons for Not Working, by Gender (Count) Gender Reason Not Working Male Female Total Military 1 0 1 Maternity/paternity 0 1 1 Post Graduate Studies 2 4 6 Looking for a Job 1 7 8* Waiting for new job to start 1 0 1 No suitable work available 0 1 1 Total 5 13 18 Note: *Of the eight, four graduated in 2014 (two of whom worked before) and four in 2016 (three worked before). No major stands out as having a higher percentage of unemployed. Table V.28: Reasons Females Not Working, by Current Residency (Count) Governorate Maternity Post Grad. Looking Not Suitable Total Outside Egypt 0 3 1 0 4 Cairo 0 1 3 1 5 Fayoum 0 0 1 0 1 Gharbia 0 0 1 0 1 Giza 0 0 1 0 1 Red Sea 1 0 0 0 1 Total 1 4 7 1 13 Time to work: (First Job) Fourteen students (around 20.6%) started their first job while they were at school, with an average time of 3-4 months for graduates to start a new job. It took those who started their job after graduation roughly 5-6 months to start their first job. Female students started their first job quicker after graduation, with about one month less than male students (5.5 months vs 6.4), but the difference is not significant given that some male students had to do their military service first. 10 Table V.29: Average Time Starting First Job (in Years), by Gender Gender Average Time to Work in Years Number of Observations Male 0.530 23 Female 0.446 30 Total 0.483 53 Note: Although 104 answered the survey, only 82 filled out the demographic and work section. Of these, 71 reported ever working. Sixty-eight of that number gave the starting time: 14 started prior to graduation, 1 reported 0 time, and the remaining 53 students took 5-6 months. 10 There was no information as to whether male students served in the military or not. 96 EQ4: What is the Return on Investment of the LEAD? Table V.30: LEAD Program Present Value of Costs, Benefits, Benefit/Cost Ratio and IRR Social Profitability Parameter/Indicator Present Value of Costs (EGP) Present Value of Benefits (EGP) Net Present Value "NPV" (EGP) Benefit/Cost Ratio Internal Rate of Return (IRR) All Graduates 203,691,701 700,507,336 496,815,635 344% 18% Males 98,782,818 405,161,716 306,378,898 410% 17% Females 104,908,884 295,345,621 190,436,737 282% 16% School of Business 52,071,563 119,803,221 67,731,659 230% 15% Males 15,315,166 41,807,809 26,492,644 273% 15% Females 36,756,397 87,579,670 50,823,272 238% 15% School of Science & Engineering 100,314,334 499,725,033 399,410,699 498% 19% Males 65,855,212 337,522,708 271,667,496 513% 19% Females 34,459,122 162,202,325 127,743,203 471% 19% School of Humanities & Social Sciences 28,333,056 38,533,491 10,200,435 136% 11% Males 12,252,132 17,540,044 5,287,912 143% 11% Females 16,080,924 20,993,447 4,912,523 131% 11% School of Global Affairs & Public Policy 22,972,748 32,861,333 9,888,585 143% 11% Males 5,360,308 8,291,154 2,930,846 155% 11% Females 17,612,440 24,570,179 6,957,739 140% 11% Source: Computed by the researcher based upon the Salary Survey Database. Table V.31: LEAD Students by School and Gender School of Business School of Sciences and Engineering School of Humanities and Social Sciences School of Global Affairs and Public Policy Total Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female 3 6 3 13 10 1 3 3 7 23 23 4 1 11 19 7 2 1 0 4 22 23 5 3 7 19 11 0 4 1 1 23 23 6 2 9 15 8 7 5 0 6 24 28 7a/7b 3 12 14 6 4 5 2 4 23 27 8 5 6 6 3 2 3 1 1 14 13 Source: Computed by the researcher based upon the LEAD Database. 97 Table V.32: Incremental Annual Costs of LEAD, by USAID and AUC Shares (US$) Year USAID Share AUC Share Total 2007 11,932,441 2,745,104 14,677,545 2008 7,146,209 2,180,186 9,326,395 2009 7,368,006 1,176,965 8,544,972 2010 7,818,446 3,248,330 1,1066,776 2011 3,523,041 1,558,215 5,081,256 Total 37,788,144 10,908,800 48,696,945 Source: Computed by the researcher based upon the LEAD Budget. Table V.33: Annual Costs of LEAD, by USAID and AUC Shares (US$) Year USAID Costs AUC Cost Share Total Costs 2007/2008 2,386,488 549,021 2,935,509 2008/2009 3,815,730 985,058 4,800,788 2009/2010 5,289,331 1,220,451 6,509,782 2010/2011 6,853,021 1,870,117 8,723,138 2011/2012 7,557,629 2,181,760 9,739,389 2012/2013 5,171,141 1,632,739 6,803,880 2013/2014 3,741,899 1,196,702 4,938,601 2014/2015 2,268,298 961,309 3,229,607 2015/2016 704,608 311,643 1,016,251 Total 37,788,144 10,908,800 48,696,945 Source: Computed by the researcher based upon the LEAD Budget. Table V.34: Annual Costs of LEAD Males, by USAID and AUC Shares (US$) Year USAID Costs AUC Cost Share Total Costs 2007/2008 1,157,357 266,254 1,423,612 2008/2009 1,850,486 477,716 2,328,202 2009/2010 2,565,127 591,873 3,157,000 2010/2011 3,323,457 906,936 4,230,394 2011/2012 3,665,166 1,058,072 4,723,237 2012/2013 2,507,809 791,817 3,299,626 2013/2014 1,814,680 580,356 2,395,036 2014/2015 1,100,039 466,199 1,566,238 2015/2016 341,709 151,135 492,844 Total 18,325,829 5,290,358 23,616,187 Source: Computed by the researcher based upon the LEAD Budget. 98 Table V.35: Annual Costs of LEAD Females, by USAID and AUC Shares (US$) Year USAID Costs AUC Cost Share Total Costs 2007/2008 1,229,131 282,766 1,511,897 2008/2009 1,965,244 507,342 2,472,586 2009/2010 2,724,204 628,578 3,352,783 2010/2011 3,529,563 963,181 4,492,744 2011/2012 3,892,463 1,123,688 5,016,151 2012/2013 2,663,332 840,922 3,504,254 2013/2014 1,927,219 616,347 2,543,565 2014/2015 1,168,259 495,110 1,663,369 2015/2016 362,900 160,508 523,408 Total 19,462,315 5,618,442 25,080,757 Source: Computed by the researcher based upon the LEAD Budget. Table V.36: Annual Costs of LEAD Graduates of School of Business (US$) Year USAID Costs AUC Cost Share Total Costs 2007/2008 610,080 140,351 750,431 2008/2009 975,450 251,819 1,227,269 2009/2010 1,352,160 311,995 1,664,155 2010/2011 1,751,900 478,075 2,229,975 2011/2012 1,932,025 557,743 2,489,769 2012/2013 1,321,946 417,392 1,739,338 2013/2014 956,576 305,924 1,262,499 2014/2015 579,866 245,748 825,614 2015/2016 180,125 79,668 259,794 Total 9,660,127 2,788,716 12,448,843 Source: Computed by the researcher based upon the LEAD Budget. Table V.37: Annual Costs of LEAD Graduates of School of Sciences and Engineering (US$) Year USAID Costs AUC Cost Share Total Costs 2007/2008 1,175,301 270,382 1,445,683 2008/2009 1,879,175 485,123 2,364,298 2009/2010 2,604,896 601,049 3,205,945 2010/2011 3,374,984 920,998 4,295,981 2011/2012 3,721,990 1,074,476 4,796,466 2012/2013 2,546,690 804,093 3,350,783 2013/2014 1,842,815 589,353 2,432,168 2014/2015 1,117,094 473,427 1,590,521 2015/2016 347,006 153,478 500,485 Total 18,609,951 5,372,379 23,982,330 Source: Computed by the researcher based upon the LEAD Budget. 99 100 Table V.38: Annual Costs of LEAD Graduates of School of Humanities and Social Sciences (US$) Year USAID Costs AUC Cost Share Total Costs 2007/2008 331,955 76,368 408,323 2008/2009 530,759 137,019 667,779 2009/2010 735,734 169,762 905,496 2010/2011 953,240 260,129 1,213,369 2011/2012 1,051,249 303,478 1,354,727 2012/2013 719,294 227,110 946,404 2013/2014 520,490 166,459 686,948 2014/2015 315,515 133,716 449,231 2015/2016 98,009 43,349 141,358 Total 5,256,246 1,517,390 6,773,635 Source: Computed by the researcher based upon the LEAD Budget. Table V.39: Annual Costs of LEAD Graduates of School of Global Affairs and Public Policy (US$) Year USAID Costs AUC Cost Share Total Costs 2007/2008 269,153 61,920 331,072 2008/2009 430,345 111,097 541,442 2009/2010 596,541 137,645 734,186 2010/2011 772,897 210,915 983,813 2011/2012 852,364 246,063 1,098,427 2012/2013 583,211 184,144 767,355 2013/2014 422,019 134,966 556,985 2014/2015 255,823 108,418 364,241 2015/2016 79,467 35,148 114,615 Total 4,261,821 1,230,316 5,492,137 Source: Computed by the researcher based upon the LEAD Budget. Table V.40: Annual Costs of Male LEAD Graduates of School of Business (US$) Year USAID Costs AUC Cost Share Total Costs 2007/2008 179,435 41,280 220,715 2008/2009 286,897 74,065 360,962 2009/2010 397,694 91,763 489,457 2010/2011 515,265 140,610 655,875 2011/2012 568,243 164,042 732,285 2012/2013 388,808 122,762 511,570 2013/2014 281,346 89,978 371,323 2014/2015 170,549 72,279 242,828 2015/2016 52,978 23,432 76,410 Total 2,841,214 820,211 3,661,424 Source: Computed by the researcher based upon the LEAD Budget. 101 Table V.41: Annual Costs of Female LEAD Graduates of School of Business (US$) Year USAID Costs AUC Cost Share Total Costs 2007/2008 430,644 99,071 529,716 2008/2009 688,553 177,755 866,308 2009/2010 954,466 220,232 1,174,698 2010/2011 1,236,635 337,465 1,574,100 2011/2012 1,363,783 393,701 1,757,484 2012/2013 933,138 294,630 1,227,768 2013/2014 675,230 215,946 891,176 2014/2015 409,317 173,469 582,786 2015/2016 127,147 56,236 183,384 Total 6,818,913 1,968,505 8,787,419 Source: Computed by the researcher based upon the LEAD Budget. Table V.42: Annual Costs of Male LEAD Graduates of School of Sciences and Engineering (US$) Year USAID Costs AUC Cost Share Total Costs 2007/2008 771,571 177,503 949,074 2008/2009 1,233,657 318,477 1,552,134 2009/2010 1,710,085 394,582 2,104,666 2010/2011 2,215,638 604,624 2,820,263 2011/2012 2,443,444 705,381 3,148,825 2012/2013 1,671,873 527,878 2,199,751 2013/2014 1,209,787 386,904 1,596,691 2014/2015 733,359 310,799 1,044,159 2015/2016 227,806 100,757 328,562 Total 12,217,220 3,526,905 15,744,125 Source: Computed by the researcher based upon the LEAD Budget. Table V.43: Annual Costs of Female LEAD Graduates of School of Sciences and Engineering (US$) Year USAID Costs AUC Cost Share Total Costs 2007/2008 403,729 92,879 496,609 2008/2009 645,518 166,645 812,163 2009/2010 894,812 206,467 1,101,279 2010/2011 1,159,346 316,373 1,475,719 2011/2012 1,278,546 369,095 1,647,641 2012/2013 874,817 276,215 1,151,032 2013/2014 633,028 202,450 835,478 2014/2015 383,735 162,627 546,362 2015/2016 119,201 52,722 171,922 Total 6,392,731 1,845,474 8,238,205 Source: Computed by the researcher based upon the LEAD Budget. 102 Table V.44: Annual Costs of Male LEAD Graduates of School of Humanities/Social Sciences (US$) Year USAID Costs AUC Cost Share Total Costs 2007/2008 143,548 33,024 176,572 2008/2009 229,518 59,252 288,769 2009/2010 318,155 73,411 391,566 2010/2011 412,212 112,488 524,700 2011/2012 454,594 131,234 585,828 2012/2013 311,046 98,210 409,256 2013/2014 225,077 71,982 297,059 2014/2015 136,439 57,823 194,262 2015/2016 42,382 18,745 61,128 Total 2,272,971 656,168 2,929,140 Source: Computed by the researcher based upon the LEAD Budget. Table V.45: Annual Costs of Female LEAD Graduates of School of Humanities/Social Sciences (US$) Year USAID Costs AUC Cost Share Total Costs 2007/2008 188,407 43,344 231,751 2008/2009 301,242 77,768 379,010 2009/2010 417,579 96,351 513,930 2010/2011 541,028 147,641 688,669 2011/2012 596,655 172,244 768,899 2012/2013 408,248 128,900 537,148 2013/2014 295,413 94,476 389,890 2014/2015 179,076 75,893 254,969 2015/2016 55,627 24,603 80,230 Total 2,983,275 861,221 3,844,496 Source: Computed by the researcher based upon the LEAD Budget. Table V.46: Annual Costs of Male LEAD Graduates of School of Global Affairs/Public Policy (US$) Year USAID Costs AUC Cost Share Total Costs 2007/2008 62,802 14,448 77,250 2008/2009 100,414 25,923 126,337 2009/2010 139,193 32,117 171,310 2010/2011 180,343 49,214 229,556 2011/2012 198,885 57,415 256,300 2012/2013 136,083 42,967 179,049 2013/2014 98,471 31,492 129,963 2014/2015 59,692 25,298 84,990 2015/2016 18,542 8,201 26,743 Total 994,425 287,074 1,281,499 Source: Computed by the researcher based upon the LEAD Budget. Table V.47: Annual Costs of Female LEAD Graduates of School of Global Affairs/Public Policy (US$) 103 Year USAID Costs AUC Cost Share Total Costs 2007/2008 206,350 47,472 253,822 2008/2009 329,932 85,174 415,106 2009/2010 457,348 105,528 562,876 2010/2011 592,554 161,702 754,256 2011/2012 653,479 188,648 842,128 2012/2013 447,129 141,177 588,305 2013/2014 323,548 103,474 427,022 2014/2015 196,131 83,121 279,252 2015/2016 60,925 26,947 87,871 Total 3,267,396 943,242 4,210,638 Source: Computed by the researcher based upon the LEAD Budget. Table V.48: Total Costs of LEAD Graduates, by LEAD and non-LEAD Activities (including both USAID and AUC Cost Shares) and Cohort (US$) Cohort Non-LEAD activities LEAD activities Total Costs 3 and 4 11,690,298 2,987,247 14,677,545 5 7,157,696 2,168,699 9,326,395 6 6,623,939 1,921,124 8,545,063 7a and 7b 8,943,298 2,123,479 11,066,776 8 4,054,322 1,026,935 5,081,256 Total 38,433,985 10,263,051 48,697,036 Source: Computed by the researcher based upon the LEAD Budget. Table V.49: Annual Costs of LEAD Graduates, by LEAD and Non-LEAD Activities (including both USAID and AUC Cost Shares) (US$) Year Non-LEAD activities LEAD activities Total Costs 2007/2008 2,338,060 597,449 2,935,509 2008/2009 3,769,599 1,031,189 4,800,788 2009/2010 5,094,387 1,415,414 6,509,801 2010/2011 6,883,046 1,840,110 8,723,156 2011/2012 7,693,911 2,045,496 9,739,407 2012/2013 5,355,851 1,448,047 6,803,898 2013/2014 3,924,312 1,014,307 4,938,619 2014/2015 2,599,524 630,083 3,229,607 2015/2016 810,864 205,387 1,016,251 Total 38,469,554 10,227,482 48,697,036 Source: Computed by the researcher based upon the LEAD Budget. 104 Table V.50: Annual Salaries for Administration (Egyptian pounds) Grade Years of Experience Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7 Step 8 Step 9 Step 10 Min. Midpoint Max. 1 0 - <2 22,440 23,562 24,740 25,977 26,756 27,559 28,386 29,237 30,115 31,018 2 2 - <5 29,400 30,870 32,414 34,034 35,055 36,808 38,648 40,581 42,610 44,740 3 5 - <8 42,000 44,100 46,305 48,620 50,079 51,581 53,129 54,723 56,364 58,055 4 8 - <11 54,480 57,204 60,064 63,067 66,221 69,532 73,008 76,659 80,492 84,516 5 11 - <14 81,600 85,680 89,964 94,462 97,296 100,215 103,221 106,318 109,508 112,793 6 14 - <17 108,000 113,400 119,070 125,024 128,774 132,637 136,617 140,715 144,937 149,285 7 17 - <20 144,000 151,200 158,760 166,698 171,699 176,850 182,155 187,620 193,249 199,046 8 20 - <25 178,800 187,740 197,127 206,983 213,193 219,589 226,176 232,962 239,950 247,149 9 25+ 219,600 232,776 246,743 261,547 269,394 277,475 285,800 294,374 303,205 312,301 * Based on multi-sector salary surveys in Egypt (2014-2016). ** Gross salaries, exclusive of fringe benefits. Table V.51: Annual Salaries for Human Resources (Egyptian pounds) Grade Years of Experience Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7 Step 8 Step 9 Step 10 Min. Midpoint Max. 1 0 - <2 28,800 30,240 31,752 33,340 34,340 35,370 36,431 37,524 38,650 39,809 2 2 - <5 34,800 36,540 38,367 40,285 41,494 43,569 45,747 48,034 50,436 52,958 3 5 - <8 49,200 51,660 54,243 56,955 58,664 60,424 62,236 64,104 66,027 68,007 4 8 - <11 58,440 61,362 64,430 67,652 71,034 74,586 78,315 82,231 86,342 90,660 5 11 - <14 75,600 79,380 83,349 87,516 90,142 92,846 95,632 98,501 101,456 104,499 6 14 - <17 98,880 103,824 109,015 114,466 117,900 121,437 125,080 128,832 132,697 136,678 7 17 - <20 129,600 136,080 142,884 150,028 154,529 159,165 163,940 168,858 173,924 179,142 8 20 - <25 183,600 192,780 202,419 212,540 218,916 225,484 232,248 239,216 246,392 253,784 9 25+ 248,400 263,304 279,102 295,848 304,724 313,866 323,282 332,980 342,969 353,258 * Based on multi-sector salary surveys in Egypt (2014-2016). ** Gross salaries, exclusive of fringe benefits. 105 Table V.52: Annual Salaries for Marketing (Egyptian pounds) Grade Years of Experience Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7 Step 8 Step 9 Step 10 Minimum Midpoint Maximum 1 0 - <2 28,200 29,610 31,091 32,645 33,624 34,633 35,672 36,742 37,845 38,980 2 2 - <5 33,600 35,280 37,044 38,896 40,063 42,066 44,170 46,378 48,697 51,132 3 5 - <8 44,640 46,872 49,216 51,676 53,227 54,823 56,468 58,162 59,907 61,704 4 8 - <11 57,960 60,858 63,901 67,096 70,451 73,973 77,672 81,556 85,633 89,915 5 11 - <14 78,000 81,900 85,995 90,295 93,004 95,794 98,668 101,628 104,676 107,817 6 14 - <17 100,800 105,840 111,132 116,689 120,189 123,795 127,509 131,334 135,274 139,332 7 17 - <20 136,680 143,514 150,690 158,224 162,971 167,860 172,896 178,083 183,425 188,928 8 20 - <25 180,000 189,000 198,450 208,373 214,624 221,062 227,694 234,525 241,561 248,808 9 25+ 242,400 256,944 272,361 288,702 297,363 306,284 315,473 324,937 334,685 344,726 * Based on multi-sector salary surveys in Egypt (2014-2016). ** Gross salaries, exclusive of fringe benefits. Table V.53: Annual Salaries for Finance (Egyptian pounds) Grade Years of Experience Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7 Step 8 Step 9 Step 10 Minimum Midpoint Maximum 1 0 - <2 31,680 33,264 34,927 36,674 37,774 38,907 40,074 41,276 42,515 43,790 2 2 - <5 37,200 39,060 41,013 43,064 44,356 46,573 48,902 51,347 53,914 56,610 3 5 - <8 54,960 57,708 60,593 63,623 65,532 67,498 69,523 71,608 73,757 75,969 4 8 - <11 69,840 73,332 76,999 80,849 84,891 89,136 93,592 98,272 103,185 108,345 5 11 - <14 100,860 105,903 111,198 116,758 120,261 123,869 127,585 131,412 135,355 139,415 6 14 - <17 125,700 131,985 138,584 145,513 149,879 154,375 159,006 163,777 168,690 173,751 7 17 - <20 166,260 174,573 183,302 192,467 198,241 204,188 210,314 216,623 223,122 229,815 8 20 - <25 213,840 224,532 235,759 247,547 254,973 262,622 270,501 278,616 286,974 295,584 9 25+ 264,000 279,840 296,630 314,428 323,861 333,577 343,584 353,892 364,508 375,444 * Based on multi-sector salary surveys in Egypt (2014-2016). ** Gross salaries, exclusive of fringe benefits. 106 Table V.54: Annual Salaries for Business Studies (Egyptian pounds) Grade Years of Experience Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7 Step 8 Step 9 Step 10 Minimum Midpoint Maximum 1 0 - <2 27,780 29,169 30,627 32,159 33,124 34,117 35,141 36,195 37,281 38,399 2 2 - <5 33,750 35,438 37,209 39,070 40,242 42,254 44,367 46,585 48,914 51,360 3 5 - <8 47,700 50,085 52,589 55,219 56,875 58,582 60,339 62,149 64,014 65,934 4 8 - <11 60,180 63,189 66,348 69,666 73,149 76,807 80,647 84,679 88,913 93,359 5 11 - <14 84,015 88,216 92,627 97,258 100,176 103,181 106,276 109,465 112,749 116,131 6 14 - <17 108,345 113,762 119,450 125,423 129,186 133,061 137,053 141,165 145,399 149,761 7 17 - <20 144,135 151,342 158,909 166,854 171,860 177,016 182,326 187,796 193,430 199,233 8 20 - <25 189,060 198,513 208,439 218,861 225,426 232,189 239,155 246,330 253,719 261,331 9 25+ 243,600 258,216 273,709 290,131 298,835 307,801 317,035 326,546 336,342 346,432 * Based on multi-sector salary surveys in Egypt (2014-2016). ** Gross salaries, exclusive of fringe benefits. Table V.55: Annual Salaries for Engineering (Egyptian pounds) Grade Years of Experience Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7 Step 8 Step 9 Step 10 Minimum Midpoint Maximum 1 0 - <2 32,400 34,020 35,721 37,507 38,632 39,791 40,985 42,215 43,481 44,785 2 2 - <5 30,600 32,130 33,737 35,423 36,486 38,310 40,226 42,237 44,349 46,566 3 5 - <8 41,700 43,785 45,974 48,273 49,721 51,213 52,749 54,332 55,962 57,640 4 8 - <11 53,100 55,755 58,543 61,470 64,543 67,771 71,159 74,717 78,453 82,376 5 11 - <14 77,880 81,774 85,863 90,156 92,861 95,646 98,516 101,471 104,515 107,651 6 14 - <17 105,180 110,439 115,961 121,759 125,412 129,174 133,049 137,041 141,152 145,387 7 17 - <20 140,880 147,924 155,320 163,086 167,979 173,018 178,209 183,555 189,062 194,733 8 20 - <25 190,440 199,962 209,960 220,458 227,072 233,884 240,901 248,128 255,571 263,239 9 25+ 233,820 247,849 262,720 278,483 286,838 295,443 304,306 313,435 322,839 332,524 * Based on multi-sector salary surveys in Egypt (2014-2016). ** Gross salaries, exclusive of fringe benefits. 107 Table V.56: Annual Salaries for Information and Communication Technology (Egyptian pounds) Grade Years of Experience Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7 Step 8 Step 9 Step 10 Minimum Midpoint Maximum 1 0 - <2 28,560 29,988 31,487 33,062 34,054 35,075 36,127 37,211 38,328 39,477 2 2 - <5 35,700 37,485 39,359 41,327 42,567 44,695 46,930 49,277 51,740 54,328 3 5 - <8 44,880 47,124 49,480 51,954 53,513 55,118 56,772 58,475 60,229 62,036 4 8 - <11 62,400 65,520 68,796 72,236 75,848 79,640 83,622 87,803 92,193 96,803 5 11 - <14 89,760 94,248 98,960 103,908 107,026 110,236 113,544 116,950 120,458 124,072 6 14 - <17 111,840 117,432 123,304 129,469 133,353 137,353 141,474 145,718 150,090 154,592 7 17 - <20 144,000 151,200 158,760 166,698 171,699 176,850 182,155 187,620 193,249 199,046 8 20 - <25 196,380 206,199 216,509 227,334 234,154 241,179 248,414 255,867 263,543 271,449 9 25+ 248,160 263,050 278,833 295,563 304,429 313,562 322,969 332,658 342,638 352,917 * Based on multi-sector salary surveys in Egypt (2014-2016). ** Gross salaries, exclusive of fringe benefits. Table V.57: Annual Salaries for Average of Engineering and Information and Communication Technology (Egyptian pounds) Grade Years of Experience Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7 Step 8 Step 9 Step 10 Minimum Midpoint Maximum 1 0 - <2 30,480 32,004 33,604 35,284 36,343 37,433 38,556 39,713 40,904 42,131 2 2 - <5 33,150 34,808 36,548 38,375 39,527 41,503 43,578 45,757 48,045 50,447 3 5 - <8 43,290 45,455 47,727 50,114 51,617 53,166 54,760 56,403 58,095 59,838 4 8 - <11 57,750 60,638 63,669 66,853 70,195 73,705 77,391 81,260 85,323 89,589 5 11 - <14 83,820 88,011 92,412 97,032 99,943 102,941 106,030 109,211 112,487 115,861 6 14 - <17 108,510 113,936 119,632 125,614 129,382 133,264 137,262 141,380 145,621 149,990 7 17 - <20 142,440 149,562 157,040 164,892 169,839 174,934 180,182 185,588 191,155 196,890 8 20 - <25 193,410 203,081 213,235 223,896 230,613 237,532 244,657 251,997 259,557 267,344 9 25+ 240,990 255,449 270,776 287,023 295,634 304,503 313,638 323,047 332,738 342,720 * Based on multi-sector salary surveys in Egypt (2014-2016). 108 ** Gross salaries, exclusive of fringe benefits. 109 Table V.58: Annual Salaries for Consulting (Social Sciences/ Management) (Egyptian pounds) Grade Years of Experience Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7 Step 8 Step 9 Step 10 Minimum Midpoint Maximum 1 0 - <2 26,400 27,720 29,106 30,561 31,478 32,422 33,395 34,397 35,429 36,492 2 2 - <5 33,000 34,650 36,383 38,202 39,348 41,315 43,381 45,550 47,827 50,219 3 5 - <8 43,920 46,116 48,422 50,843 52,368 53,939 55,557 57,224 58,941 60,709 4 8 - <11 57,600 60,480 63,504 66,679 70,013 73,514 77,190 81,049 85,101 89,357 5 11 - <14 80,760 84,798 89,038 93,490 96,294 99,183 102,159 105,224 108,380 111,632 6 14 - <17 108,000 113,400 119,070 125,024 128,774 132,637 136,617 140,715 144,937 149,285 7 17 - <20 143,400 150,570 158,099 166,003 170,984 176,113 181,396 186,838 192,443 198,217 8 20 - <25 183,240 192,402 202,022 212,123 218,487 225,042 231,793 238,747 245,909 253,286 9 25+ 250,440 265,466 281,394 298,278 307,226 316,443 325,936 335,715 345,786 356,160 * Based on multi-sector salary surveys in Egypt (2014-2016). ** Gross salaries, exclusive of fringe benefits. Table V.59: Annual Salaries for Media and Culture (Egyptian pounds) Grade Years of Experience Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7 Step 8 Step 9 Step 10 Minimum Midpoint Maximum 1 0 - <2 23,280 24,444 25,666 26,950 27,758 28,591 29,448 30,332 31,242 32,179 2 2 - <5 30,420 31,941 33,538 35,215 36,271 38,085 39,989 41,989 44,088 46,293 3 5 - <8 42,720 44,856 47,099 49,454 50,937 52,465 54,039 55,661 57,330 59,050 4 8 - <11 53,700 56,385 59,204 62,164 65,273 68,536 71,963 75,561 79,339 83,306 5 11 - <14 78,840 82,782 86,921 91,267 94,005 96,825 99,730 102,722 105,804 108,978 6 14 - <17 106,260 111,573 117,152 123,009 126,700 130,500 134,416 138,448 142,601 146,879 7 17 - <20 141,180 148,239 155,651 163,433 168,337 173,387 178,588 183,946 189,464 195,148 8 20 - <25 183,600 192,780 202,419 212,540 218,916 225,484 232,248 239,216 246,392 253,784 9 25+ 237,060 251,284 266,361 282,342 290,813 299,537 308,523 317,779 327,312 337,131 * Based on multi-sector salary surveys in Egypt (2014-2016). ** Gross salaries, exclusive of fringe benefits. 110 Table V.60: Annual Salaries for Average of Consulting and Media/ Culture (Egyptian pounds) Grade Years of Experience Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7 Step 8 Step 9 Step 10 Minimum Midpoint Maximum 1 0 - <2 24,840 26,082 27,386 28,755 29,618 30,507 31,422 32,364 33,335 34,335 2 2 - <5 31,710 33,296 34,960 36,708 37,810 39,700 41,685 43,769 45,958 48,256 3 5 - <8 43,320 45,486 47,760 50,148 51,653 53,202 54,798 56,442 58,136 59,880 4 8 - <11 55,650 58,433 61,354 64,422 67,643 71,025 74,576 78,305 82,220 86,331 5 11 - <14 79,800 83,790 87,980 92,378 95,150 98,004 100,944 103,973 107,092 110,305 6 14 - <17 107,130 112,487 118,111 124,016 127,737 131,569 135,516 139,582 143,769 148,082 7 17 - <20 142,290 149,405 156,875 164,718 169,660 174,750 179,992 185,392 190,954 196,682 8 20 - <25 183,420 192,591 202,221 212,332 218,702 225,263 232,020 238,981 246,150 253,535 9 25+ 243,750 258,375 273,878 290,310 299,019 307,990 317,230 326,747 336,549 346,646 * Based on multi-sector salary surveys in Egypt (2014-2016). ** Gross salaries, exclusive of fringe benefits. Table V.61: National Currency per US Dollar, Period Average Rate (Annual) Year Exchange Rate US$/EGP 2007 5.64 2008 5.43 2009 5.54 2010 5.62 2011 5.93 2012 6.06 2013 6.87 2014 7.08 2015 7.69 2016 Source: IMF Statistics 111 Graph V.1: Lifetime Earnings for Business Graduates Source: Computed by the Researcher based upon the multi-sector salary surveys in Egypt. Graph V.2: Lifetime Earnings for Engineering and Information and Communication Technology Graduates Source: Computed by the Researcher based upon the multi-sector salary surveys in Egypt. 112 Graph V.3: Lifetime Earnings for Consulting and Media/Culture Graduates Source: Computed by the Researcher based upon the multi-sector salary surveys in Egypt. 113 ANNEX VI: DISCLOSURE OF ANY CONFLICTS OF INTEREST The Disclosure of any Conflict of Interest can be found on file with the COR. 114 U.S. Agency for International Development 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20523