USAID/KOSOVO TRANSFORMATIONAL 
LEADERSHIP IMPACT AND PERFORMANCE 
EVALUATION PROJECT 
TLP UNIVERSITY PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
FINAL REPORT
February 2020
This document is made possible by the support of the American People through the United States Agency for 
International Development (USAID). The contents of this report were prepared by IBI under contract number AID￾167-TO-15-00002. The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of IBI and do not necessarily reflect the 
views of USAID or the United States Government.
USAID TLP-SP Partnership Program – Performance Evaluation Final Report
2
USAID/KOSOVO 
TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP 
IMPACT AND PERFORMANCE 
EVALUATION PROJECT 
TLP UNIVERSITY PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 
FINAL REPORT
January 2020
USAID TLP Partnership Program Performance Evaluation – Final Report
4
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Acronyms ......................................................................................................................................................6
Executive Summary.......................................................................................................................................7
1 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................9
1.1 Kosovo Country Context.............................................................................................................9
1.2 Description of the TLP Program and the TLP-SP Project..........................................................10
1.2.1 The TLP Program....................................................................................................................10
1.2.2 The TLP-SP Project.................................................................................................................11
1.2.3 The TLP University Partnerships Component .......................................................................11
1.3 Organization of the report .........................................................................................................14
2 Study Objectives and Approach..........................................................................................................15
2.1 Evaluation Objective ...................................................................................................................15
2.2 Evaluation Questions ..................................................................................................................15
2.3 Study Approach...........................................................................................................................16
2.4 Limitations of the Study ..............................................................................................................17
3 Evaluation Question 1: Implementation of The Action Plan, Change Management and Impact on 
Performance ...............................................................................................................................................18
3.1 Implementation of UP’s Action Plan...........................................................................................18
3.1.1 Improving internal and external communications ..................................................................19
3.1.2 Strengthening financial viability ...............................................................................................19
3.1.3 Improving the quality of research and teaching......................................................................21
3.2 University’s commitment to change management......................................................................22
3.3 Change in UP’s administrative performance...............................................................................23
3.3.1 Standardization of administrative processes...........................................................................23
3.3.2 Fiscal accountability and financial management.......................................................................24
3.3.3 Improved data systems ...........................................................................................................25
3.3.4 Improved student services......................................................................................................26
4 Evaluation Question 2: Effect on Academic Performance and Implementation of “Grand Challenges”
27
4.1 Improving academic performance in targeted faculties..............................................................27
4.1.1 Improvement in quality of Teaching .......................................................................................27
4.1.2 Improvement in quality of Research.......................................................................................32
4.1.3 Centers to support improvement in teaching and research (University-wide Activities).....33
4.2 Progress towards meeting the Grand Challenges......................................................................35
USAID TLP Partnership Program Performance Evaluation – Final Report
5
5 Evaluation Question 3: Utilization and sustainability of new technology, systems, knowledge and 
skills38
5.1 Utilization of new technology, systems, knowledge and skills ...................................................38
5.2 Sustainability................................................................................................................................40
6 Conclusions and Recommendations...................................................................................................43
Recommendations ..................................................................................................................................47
7 Annexes...............................................................................................................................................50
Annex1: Scope of Work for the Evaluation ...........................................................................................50
Annex 2: Evaluation Methodology ..........................................................................................................59
Annex 3: Informational Meetings and Interviews with Key Stakeholders..............................................65
Annex 4: Sources of Data and List of Documents Reviewed ................................................................67
Annex 5: Description of University Partnerships ..................................................................................69
Annex 6: Tracking TLP Partnerships ......................................................................................................77
USAID TLP Partnership Program Performance Evaluation – Final Report
6
Acronyms
AC Advisory Committee
ASU Arizona State University
BIRN Balkan Investigative Research Network 
CEO Chief Executive Officer
CES Center for Renewable Energy and Sustainability
CTE Center for Teaching Excellence 
COP Chief of Party
DC Dartmouth College
DCOP Deputy Chief of Party 
EU European Union
FA Faculty of Agriculture & Veterinary
GOK Government of Kosovo 
HE Higher Education
HICD Human and Institutional Capacity Development
IBI International Business Initiatives Corp. (doing business as IBI)
ICT Information and Communications Technology 
IU Indiana University
KHERT Kosovo Higher Education Roundtable
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
MBC Morgan Borszcz Consulting
MEST Ministry of Education, Science and Technology
NGO Non-Government Organization
ORSP Office for Research and Sponsored Projects
TLP Transformational Leadership Project
TLP-SP Transformational Leadership Program – Scholarships and Partnerships Project
USAID United States Agency for International Development
UMN University of Minnesota 
UP University of Prishtina 
U.S. United States
WL World Learning 
USAID TLP Partnership Program Performance Evaluation – Final Report
7
Executive Summary
United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has contracted with IBI to conduct an 
evaluation of the Transformational Leadership Program – Scholarships and University Partnerships (TLP￾SP) components of the Transformational Leadership Project (TLP) program. The evaluation was 
comprised of an impact evaluation of the TLP Scholarships component (henceforth Scholarships 
program) and a performance evaluation of the TLP Partnerships component (henceforth Partnerships 
program). The Scholarships and Partnerships programs were implemented under the TLP-SP project by 
World Learning Inc. (WL). This report covers the activities and progress of the University Partnerships 
component of TLP-SP and its effect on the University of Prishtina and four of its faculties at the end of 
the project. The Scholarships component will be addressed in a separate report. 
The University Partnerships component of the TLP_SP project was designed to improve the quality of 
education and management of University of Prishtina (UP). The performance evaluation of this 
component is designed to assess progress under the Partnerships component, draw conclusions on how 
the selected University faculties have changed as a result of TLP assistance; and examine the impact of 
this change on academic outcomes and change management. The baseline study was carried out in 2015
and the midline study was completed in January 2018. The endline study, upon which this report is 
based, was conducted at the end of the project, data was collected over a two-month period from May 
to June 2019. This report includes the findings from the endline study and the changes noted over time 
– from baseline to endline.
Project Activities 
The TLP Partnerships program has provided strategic advice and capacity building to UP management in 
financial reform, communications, and leadership. It has worked with the University and an Advisory 
Committee (consisting of members from the government, public universities, civil society groups, private 
sector, youth and disadvantaged populations, the TLP-SP project and USAID) on a series of university￾wide activities to address broad challenges and institutional reforms, including student services, teaching 
and assessment, university-sponsored research, online courses and support for incubation centers. It has 
also facilitated partnerships between selected UP faculties and United States universities that specialize 
in those fields. These partnerships have included training for teaching staff with activities in curricular 
development, teaching methodology, and research enhancement. 
Results
Although there were some initial delays, the TLP-SP project made good progress and had a positive 
effect on many aspects of the University. WL and its partners successfully adhered to the timeline and 
maintained focus on the essential steps in the sequenced approach to implementation and achievement 
of the development objectives of the project. The project overcame many challenges in its short life and 
implementation progressed well on all fronts. As a result of the partnerships, many administrative 
changes were put in place, including the development of a new strategy and accompanying rule books, 
for more efficient management of the University and to ensure its stability. Initiatives were also launched 
to collect better and more reliable data to support the university management with more efficient 
management and data-based policy making, improve communication and the image of the university; as 
well as improve the quality of teaching through better staff training and new teaching resources and 
research. New centers were opened and/or revived including one that has introduced the concept of 
multi-disciplinary programs in Kosovo. The program has resulted in access of the select faculties to 
USAID TLP Partnership Program Performance Evaluation – Final Report
8
world class training for the teaching staff, availability of text books, resource books, new syllabi and 
course materials. However, in the faculties there was more individual learning than faculty-wide 
learning. Change across the University is slow and there is some evidence of impact that the university is 
moving towards better quality of education to meet the demands of the labor market.
The TLP-SP University Partnerships program was rated by a member of the senior management team as 
having “been more effective than all other donor programs before them”, a sentiment echoed by the 
University Rector as well as several Deans and Vice-Deans. TLP-SP has embedded itself very successfully 
within UP to the point where the senior management was asking for an extension to the program. Even 
though a sustainability plan was developed, there continue to be questions about sustainability of the 
various initiatives after the end of the project.
Recommendations 
Despite overall progress, there are a few issues that need to be addressed as soon as possible to ensure 
continuity of the ongoing initiatives and future programming support from donor agencies. This report 
makes some specific recommendations to the University of Prishtina and the donor agencies. Specific 
recommendations can be found on page 47 of this report. 
USAID TLP Partnership Program Performance Evaluation – Final Report
9
1 Introduction1
USAID/Kosovo has contracted with IBI International (IBI) to conduct a concurrent evaluation of two 
components of the Transformational Leadership Program (TLP) – an impact evaluation of the U.S. 
Master’s degree scholarships component and a performance evaluation of the University Partnerships 
component (Annex 1). The TLP program is a multifaceted program designed to help Kosovo address the 
demands of a modern market economy and bring transformational change to the country. A brief 
description of the country context, the TLP program and the components being evaluated is below. 
1.1 Kosovo Country Context
Kosovo declared independence from Serbia on February 17, 2008 after years of strained relations 
between its Albanian and Serb populations. It is recognized as an independent country by 114 out of 193 
United Nations (UN) members and by 23 out of 28 EU members.2 Kosovo is a potential candidate for 
EU membership and in recent years, it has accelerated its EU integration process.
Kosovo’s population of about 1.8 million is the youngest in Europe, with an average age of 26 years.
3 A 
lower-middle-income country that has experienced solid economic growth over the last decade, 
Kosovo is one of only four countries in Europe to experience growth in every year since the onset of 
the global financial crisis in 2008. Despite this, Kosovo remains one of the poorest countries in Europe, 
and its average per capita income of approximately U.S. $3,877 (October 11, 2018) is about one-tenth 
that of EU levels.4 More than 80 percent of the population lives under the World Bank standardized 
poverty rate, defined by a threshold of U.S. $5 per day at purchasing power parity, and about 30 percent 
of the population lives below the domestic poverty line, defined by the Kosovo Agency of Statistics as 
Euro 1.72 per day (2011 prices). Kosovo has a relatively low Gini index and flat consumption 
distribution, with poverty rates declining gradually. No significant differences exist between urban and 
rural poverty, but regional differences are notable. Extreme poverty is disproportionately high among 
children, the elderly, households with disabled members, female-headed households, and certain ethnic 
minority households (especially Roma, Ashkali, and Egyptian communities). As in many other countries, 
there is a strong negative correlation between education and poverty in Kosovo.
5
1 This report is a final report on the performance evaluation of the University Partnerships component of the TLP-SP project. It 
combines the findings and conclusions from the baseline and midline report. The contents of Section I: Introduction, and 
Section II: Objectives and Approach, are very similar to the baseline report for the performance evaluation of the University 
Partnerships Component of the TLP-SP project that was prepared in December 2015. In order to publish and make available 
the current report as a stand-alone document, these sections are repeated and updated as necessary. In the compilation of the 
full report in a single volume, these sections will be appropriately edited to avoid duplication.
2 The World Bank group (2018). Country Context. https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/kosovo/overview. There have been 
some reports recently of some countries withdrawing support. See, for instance, B92, News article, TANJUG, December 3, 
2018 found in Wikipedia at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo Accessed on Sep 1, 2019.
3 The World Bank Group (2017): FY17–-21 Country Partnership Framework for Republic of Kosovo. Report No. 112337-XK. 
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/297951496160148830/Kosovo-Country-partnership-framework-for-the-period￾FY17-FY21 accessed on August 25, 2019.
4 See The World Bank Group (2017): Kosovo – Country Snapshot. Accessed on January 5, 2018 at 
http://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/912841507748392027/Kosovo-Snapshot-Fall2017.pdf
5 See The World Bank Group (2016): Kosovo – Country Program Snapshot. Accessed on February 27, 2017 at 
http://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/419461462386476530/World-Bank-Kosovo-Program-Snapshot-April-2016.pdf
USAID TLP Partnership Program Performance Evaluation – Final Report
10
Although Kosovo’s economic growth has outperformed its neighbors and been largely inclusive, it has 
not been sufficient to significantly reduce the high rates of unemployment; provide formal jobs, 
particularly for women and youth; or reverse the trend of large-scale outmigration. In the past two 
decades, since its declaration of independence, Kosovo’s economy has changed substantially. The 
current growth model relies heavily on remittances to fuel domestic consumption but has recently 
shifted toward more investment- and export-driven growth.6 Education is an essential part of Kosovo’s 
efforts to boost economic growth, increase productivity and wages, and reduce high unemployment.
The Kosovo Education Strategic Plans of 2011-16 and of 2017-2021, developed by the Ministry of 
Education, Science, and Technology (MEST) tackle a host of issues related to inclusion, access, quality of 
education, accountability and improved management, as well as implementation of standards at all levels 
of education to ensure that its citizens possess the knowledge and skills that make them employable, 
both within the country and abroad.
7
1.2 Description of the TLP Program and the TLP-SP Project
1.2.1 The TLP Program
As a step towards enhancing the human capital in Kosovo, building a cadre of skilled professionals 
capable of addressing Kosovo’s economic and democratic development priorities and addressing some 
of the gaps in the education system, USAID and the Government of Kosovo (GOK) have jointly funded 
the multi-pronged Transformational Leadership Program (TLP). The TLP program seeks to upgrade the 
knowledge and skills of talented professionals through short- and long-term educational opportunities
and increase the capacity of select faculties at institutions of higher learning in Kosovo through a 
comprehensive, multi-faceted approach comprised of five separate but interrelated activities 
(components).8 These components, executed by a mix of implementing partners, are: 
1. U.S. Scholarships (Master’s degree and professional certificates) – competitively awarded and 
open to all citizens of Kosovo.
2. Immersion Program to strengthen the skills of potential graduate students (especially those from 
marginalized groups).
3. Citizens Corps – a program to help and ensure that returned Master’s graduates fulfill their 
two-year “give back” commitment through either by working in the public sector and/or 
through approved community service.
4. Short-term public service training in Kosovo to upgrade skills of current public service staff in 
key Kosovar government institutions
5. University Partnerships – partnerships between U.S. and Kosovar universities (most notably the 
University of Prishtina) to upgrade university management and pedagogy in selected faculties. 
6 The World Bank Group (2018). The World Bank in Kosovo – Overview. https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/kosovo/ 
overview accessed on August 25, 2019 
7 Kosovo Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (2016). Kosovo Education Strategic Plan 2017-2021 accessed at 
http://www.kryeministriks.net/repository/docs/Kosovo_Education_Strategic_Plan. Pdf on August 25, 2019
8 Description from Contract document: AID-167-TO-15-00002– TLP Impact and Program Evaluation
USAID TLP Partnership Program Performance Evaluation – Final Report
11
1.2.2 The TLP-SP Project
Two of the five TLP components – the Scholarships component and the University Partnerships 
component, collectively referred to as TLP Scholarship and University Partnerships (henceforth TLP-SP 
project) – were implemented under a cooperative agreement between USAID and World Learning Inc. 
(WL) and its partners, Arizona State University (ASU), University of Minnesota (UMN), Dartmouth 
College (DC) and Indiana University (IU).9 Funded by USAID and GOK, in particular by Ministry of 
Education, Science, and Technology (MEST), the TLP-SP project was implemented over a period of five 
years from February 26, 2014 to June 30, 2019, and had the following three objectives: 
● Objective 1: Coordinated and collaborative oversight of the transformational leadership 
initiative through an Advisory Committee (AC)
● Objective 2: U.S. post-graduate degrees (Master’s degrees) and professional certifications for 
selected citizens of Kosovo (Scholarships component)
● Objective 3. Improved university management and pedagogy in selected faculties of the 
University of Prishtina (UP) and/or other universities through partnerships and exchanges with 
U.S. Universities (University Partnerships component)
Established in 2014 in consultation with USAID and the Prime Minister’s office, the AC was designed to
provide “coordinated, collaborative oversight of the Transformational Leadership Initiative” (Objective 
1.2.1 of the TLP-SP project). The AC, which included representatives from GOK, public universities, civil 
society groups, private sector, and youth and disadvantaged populations, was expected to guide/steer
the various components of the TL initiative, help ensure coordination across initiatives, as well as keep 
the GOK engaged and informed. Upon establishment, the AC developed its own mission statement, by￾laws, work plan and action plan to support its strategy. Despite this, its purpose and role are still 
evolving, and the AC has yet to establish a niche for itself. Over the life of the project, the AC was
restructured several times to strengthen its effectiveness and to lay the groundwork for future 
sustainability. In its final incarnation at the end of the project, the AC was established as the Kosovo 
Higher Education Roundtable (KHERT) and was housed in the office of the Minister of Education to 
advise the MEST on higher education reform. However, it seems unlikely that the AC would be 
sustainable after the closure of the TLP-SP project.
The Scholarships and the Partnerships components are the subject of this evaluation (though the findings 
from the evaluation studies for each component will be reported separately). This report focuses on the 
TLP University Partnerships component, briefly described below.
1.2.3 The TLP University Partnerships Component
The TLP University Partnerships component (henceforth called the Partnerships component) was 
designed to support partnerships between universities in the U.S. and Kosovo to upgrade select faculties 
and position them so that they could provide training, knowledge and skills that met the demands of 
modern day and competitive markets. Since the University of Prishtina was the largest public institution 
9 To help the TLP-SP project better respond to the realities on the ground, some of its planned activities were modified during 
implementation to: (i) limit the activities to focus primarily on UP; and (ii) revisit the planned support for the implementation of 
select priorities from the UP Action Plan of 2013 to make it more relevant (see Annex 6 for details).
USAID TLP Partnership Program Performance Evaluation – Final Report
12
of higher education in Kosovo and fed all other institutions in the country, TLP-SP, in agreement with 
USAID, focused the Partnerships program only on UP. Planned support under this component initially 
covered the two-year period from February 15, 2015 to February 14, 2017 (Phase 1) but was later
extended by a little over two years to June 2019 (Phase 2). 
In order to support and enhance capacity of management and academic staff within select UP faculties to 
meet the challenges of 21st century student-centered teaching and applied research, four selected 
faculties of UP – (i) Agriculture and Veterinary, (ii) Economy, (iii) Education, and (iv) Computer and 
Electrical Engineering – were each paired with a U.S. university selected on the basis of its resources and 
capacity to provide support to the faculty. The U.S. partner universities received sub-grants from TLP-SP 
project to implement the designated activities, which they supplemented with own resources. The initial 
sub-grants were for a two-year period (Phase 1 – 2015-17), and were then extended in three cases for 
another two years (Phase 2, through end of project). Table 1 lists the partnerships: 
Table 1: University Partnerships
University of Prishtina Faculty U.S. Partner 
University*
Current Status**
Agriculture and Veterinary 
Includes Department of Veterinary Medicine,
Department of Food Technology and 
Department of Plant Protection 
University of 
Minnesota
Phases 1 (2015-17) and 
2 (2017-end of project) 
completed
Economy
(Includes Faculty of Economy and academic 
staff from Faculty of Philosophy associated with 
the UPs Center for Gender Studies and 
Research
Dartmouth College
Phase 1 completed with 
six month no-cost 
extension
Phase 2 Not extended 
Education
(Includes all departments in the faculty) Indiana University Phases 1 and 2 
completed
Computer and Electrical Engineering
(Services extended to include Department of 
Physics and other natural science departments 
at UP
Arizona State 
University 
(includes support for the 
Faculty and for several 
university-wide Centers)
Phases 1 and 2 
completed
*Note: The U.S. Partners are comprised of teams from various schools and departments within the University. See Annex 5 for 
details.
** Phase 1 and Phase 2 – from Feb 28, 2015 to November 30, 2018. This was further extended to February 2019 as the TLP-SP 
project itself was extended to June 2019.
All departments within the faculties of Electrical and Computer Engineering (including the Department 
of Physics and other natural science departments), Education, and Economy (including academic staff 
associated with the Center for Gender Studies and Research especially from the Department of 
Philosophy) were included in the Partnership. The Faculty of Agriculture & Veterinary included three 
departments –Veterinary Medicine, Department of Food Technology with Biotechnology and 
Department of Plant Protection, enabling a larger pool of participants to benefit from the exchange and 
mentoring activities of the University Partnerships component. A brief description of these partnerships 
USAID TLP Partnership Program Performance Evaluation – Final Report
13
as planned at the time of inception of the project, extracted from the Baseline report (2016),
10 is 
included in Annex 5 for easy reference. 
Activities under the Partnerships component can be grouped into three categories:
1) Those providing support to the Rector and the management team in development and 
implementation of the University strategy and Action Plan;
2) Activities designed to strengthen the academic capacity and research development in four 
faculties selected in collaboration with the Rector and the management team: (i) Agriculture and 
Veterinary; (ii) Economy; (iii) Education; and (iv) Computer and Electrical Engineering. Each of 
these faculties was partnered with a U.S.-based university, namely University of Minnesota 
(UMN), Dartmouth College (DC), Indiana University (IU) and Arizona State University (ASU) 
respectively; and
3) Cross-cutting activities that were expected to benefit more than just the four faculties included 
in the partnerships and hence were based at the university level.
Review of project records and reports and interviews with TLP-SP project staff, USAID, and 
administrators from UP suggest that the project has, with a few changes, completed most of the 
activities planned (as per the annual workplans) for the Partnerships component.11 While the initial 
progress was slow, three of the partnerships made good progress towards their targets in Phase 1 and 
were extended through the end of the project (Phase 2). The Partnership for the Faculty of Economy 
was not extended into Phase 2 as the Dean of Economy and the University partner could not agree on a 
meaningful program that would be useful for the faculty. It is also important to note that while the 
partnership between ECEN and ASU continued into Phase 2, the faculty received very little support in 
this term as most of the resources were diverted by ASU/TLP-SP to supporting the Center for Energy 
and Sustainability (established at the Rectorate level). A summary of planned and completed activities is 
placed in Annex 6. 
Notwithstanding the turnover in TLP-SP project leadership and multiple administration-level changes at 
UP during the first two years of the project, most activities targeted towards the four UP faculties 
participating in the Partnerships program continued in accordance with the work plan. Even though 
several cross-cutting, university-wide activities as well as activities supporting the implementation of the 
priorities from the UP Action Plan were delayed for a period of time because of the changes in the 
Rectorate and UP administration,12 the stability provided by the UP management ensured that most 
were successfully completed in the last two years of the project or were completed to a level where UP 
10 IBI International. Performance Evaluation of the University Partnerships Program: Baseline Study. January 2016
11 Since implementation of the TLP-SP University Partnerships component was started in 2015, which is the second year of the 
TLP-SP project as planned, year one of the University Partnerships component is actually the second year of the TLP-SP project 
overall.
12 There have been four rounds of changes in the Rectorate since the start of the TLP-SP project in 2014. The most recent was 
in Spring 2016. Each change in the Rectorate meant a change in the full management team at UP, and also a change in priorities 
for the University. As expected, each of these changes has had an impact on the performance of the project and, based on the 
priorities of the new management team, also resulted in changes in the planned activities themselves. The current Rector has 
been able to create a more stable environment at the University and consequently a more conducive environment for 
implementation of TLP-SP activities.
USAID TLP Partnership Program Performance Evaluation – Final Report
14
could take over and bring them to a satisfactory conclusion. Overall, everyone interviewed by the
evaluation team was unanimous in strongly appreciating the work done by the TLP-SP team.
1.3 Organization of the report
The rest of the report is organized as follows. Section 2 presents the objectives of the evaluation and 
outlines the approach used to conduct the study. Sections 3 to 5 discuss the three evaluation questions 
that guide the overall evaluation of the Partnerships component. Section 6 presents the conclusions. The 
report has six annexes, which contain: (i) scope of work for this evaluation; (ii) evaluation methodology; 
(iii) list of people interviewed and participants in focus groups for the endline study; (iv) sources of data 
and a list of documents reviewed; (v) description of University Partnerships; and (vi) tables noting 
progress against the activities described for the TLP-SP project and elaborated in its annual work plans.
USAID TLP Partnership Program Performance Evaluation – Final Report
15
2 Study Objectives and Approach
The performance evaluation of the Partnerships component consists of a series of studies that were 
conducted concurrently with the 2015-2019 implementation of the component. The studies were
designed to assess progress under this component against the planned support, document any changes 
in the planned activities within the program description, highlight any challenges to implementation that 
may have affected the outcomes of this component, and provide recommendations to support and 
strengthen the implementation of the program.
13 Data on performance of the component were 
collected annually, and studies were completed at the baseline (2015), midline (2017), and the end of 
the project (2019). This report presents the overall findings of the performance evaluation (including 
the endline study) of the Partnerships component. 
2.1 Evaluation Objective
The Partnerships component was based on the premise that to reduce unemployment rates in Kosovo, 
particularly among the youth, there was an urgent need to improve the quality of education to provide
adequate learning opportunities for students as well as skills required by the labor markets. To do so, 
the premise maintained, management systems in institutions of higher education must be improved, 
teachers must be provided with training to improve the quality of teaching and research, and resources 
available to the students must be increased. The theoretical construct underlying the Partnerships 
component was that, because of their participation in the TLP-SP program, UP and select faculties in UP 
and other institutions of higher education in Kosovo would have improved university management and 
updated technology systems, enhanced quality of teaching methodology and curricula, and strengthened 
research development. These improvements, in turn, would enhance the capacity of these institutions to 
offer longer-term solutions to Kosovo’s education needs.
The performance evaluation of the Partnerships component was designed to assess the extent to which 
the targeted support provided by TLP-SP to UP and select faculties at UP and other universities in 
Kosovo has resulted in improved university management, quality of teaching methodology and curricula, 
and strengthened research development. The results of this performance evaluation will inform 
decision-making by USAID, Government of Kosovo as well as the University of Prishtina and other 
partnering universities and faculties to sustain the investments and use the model to make upgrades and 
investments in other areas and faculties.
2.2 Evaluation Questions
The performance evaluation of the University Partnerships component has been guided by the following 
three sets of questions posed by USAID:
14
1) Has the UP’s Action Plan been effectively implemented? Have tangible measures been adopted 
that show the University’s commitment to change management? How has the TLP Partnerships 
component changed the UP’s administrative performance?
13 Note that since this project is being implemented under a cooperative agreement, the scope of work is defined by the 
program description and activities planned for each year within the program description.
14 Contract document: AID-167-TO-15-00002– TLP Impact and Performance Evaluation
USAID TLP Partnership Program Performance Evaluation – Final Report
16
2) How has the TLP Partnerships component changed academic performance in targeted faculties 
over the course of the project? Have the “Grand Challenges” identified for each partnership 
been effectively implemented?
3) Have the selected faculties been able to utilize, maintain and build up new technology, systems, 
knowledge and skills? What actions have been taken and/or mechanisms put in place to help 
ensure the sustainability of the partnership efforts?
2.3 Study Approach
Conducted concurrently with the implementation of the TLP-SP Partnerships program, this study was 
designed to respond to each of the broad questions above and gather evidence on the extent to which 
participation in the TLP University Partnerships program had helped improve the management and 
quality of teaching at the participating faculties at the University of Prishtina. This is done by following 
the progress of the activities annually, using a variety of qualitative and quantitative methods. The study 
design is briefly summarized below (Annex 2 contains a more detailed description of the methodology).
The assessment methodology employed follows the logic of the activity and examines all initiatives 
within this component to determine progress. To respond to the research questions listed above, data 
were collected on several qualitative and quantitative indicators and sub-indicators (see Annex 2) based 
on criteria drawn from the UP Strategy and Action plan (2013 and 2016), which together informed the 
results of the partnership activities as well as future possible modifications in the activities. To assess the 
changes and the contribution of the TLP University Partnerships program, the evaluation used a mixed￾methods approach, and a variety of data were drawn from different sources and systematically 
integrated.15 Studies were conducted periodically over the evaluation period to collect qualitative and 
quantitative data to assess progress on milestones and against the baseline. This study, the endline study, 
is the last in a series of evaluation studies. The first of these studies, the baseline study, was conducted 
in 2015 and data were collected annually thereafter to reduce the effects of time on recall. The midline 
study was conducted at the end of year 2 of the Partnerships program (2017). Interim data were also 
collected in 2016 and 2018, which informed the midline and endline studies respectively. Data for the 
endline study were collected from May to July 2019, concurrently with the end of the TLP-SP project. 
The baseline and midline studies established the status at the beginning of the project and progress at a 
point two years later respectively. These studies, together with the annual interim data collection, also 
served to identify major issues and problems that posed a present or imminent risk to this component 
and thus needed to be addressed at that stage. 
This endline study followed the methodology used for the baseline and midline studies. Like the interim 
data collection efforts, data for the endline performance evaluation were collected from a variety of 
primary and secondary qualitative and quantitative sources. Primary data were collected through 
surveys, key informant interviews, and focus groups conducted with stakeholders and beneficiaries of 
the program, including management of UP, management and academic staff of the participating faculties, 
and academic and non-academic staff from UP that participated in TLP activities, such as the exchange 
15 See USAID (2013): Conducting Mixed-Method Evaluations. Accessed on November 29, 2015 at 
https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1870/Mixed_Methods_Evaluations_Technical_Note.pdf
USAID TLP Partnership Program Performance Evaluation – Final Report
17
programs, training for leadership and change management, and workshops organized by the Center for 
Teaching Excellence. In collaboration with WL, the implementers of TLP-SP project, secondary data 
were collected from a review of the quarterly and annual reports of the project, work plans, studies 
conducted to inform implementation of the project, databases maintained by TLP-SP and stories 
published by the project. A list of key people interviewed at endline is placed in Annex 3, and the list of 
documents reviewed is placed in Annex 4.
2.4 Limitations of the Study
There are a few caveats and limitations that must be kept in mind as we review the results from this 
study. First, the performance evaluation was conducted over a period of four years (2015 to 2019), and 
even though data were collected annually to reduce the bias due to recall of activities over time, it is 
possible that effects of some of the initiatives undertaken were not reported fully or were missed. 
Second, access to the faculty administrative data, such as student enrolment, number of staff, number of 
publications, etc., was a challenge. The evaluation team had to go through the Deans to get access to the 
person-in-charge which, while not a problem per se, became an issue due to the busy schedule of the 
Deans and an unwillingness on their part to delegate the completion of the survey. Obtaining 
administrative data from faculties participating in the University Partnerships program has also been a 
challenge, with two of the faculties being unable/unwilling to provide complete data for the most recent 
year. Similarly, the survey of students was a challenge, especially since two faculties (Economics and 
Education) were unwilling to allow their students to take the survey at endline.
And finally, the TLP-SP project was implemented under a co-operative agreement between USAID and 
World Learning. Cooperative agreements are designed to be agreements that enable the implementing 
partners to change course to accommodate changes in the field with an agreement from USAID.
Changes made to specific tasks under the broad program description are not always documented 
through contract modifications, and to that extent may have been missed and not featured in the 
progress updates. 
USAID TLP Partnership Program Performance Evaluation – Final Report
18
3 Evaluation Question 1: Implementation of The Action Plan, 
Change Management and Impact on Performance 
This section answers the first set of evaluation questions: Has the UP’s Action Plan been effectively 
implemented? Have tangible measures been adopted that show the University’s commitment to change 
management? How has the TLP Partnerships component changed the UP’s administrative performance?
One of the objectives of the Partnerships component was to support the implementation of UP Action 
Plan of 2013, which provided a roadmap for addressing challenges in the 5 priority areas decided by the 
then Rector: (i) Revenue Generation and Financial Viability; (ii) Student Admissions, Retention and 
Services; (iii) Research; (iv) Academic Staff/Teaching; and (v) Facilities, Infrastructure and Equipment.16
However, following a change in management at UP, the new Rector decided to start afresh with a new 
strategy for UP, and thus a new Action Plan was drafted in 2016. 
Though not a part of the original statement of work, TLP-SP supported the Rector and his team in the 
process of developing the new 2016 strategy and the rule books as well as the new Action plan. TLP-SP 
recruited an international expert to assist the Rector in the planning and design stages of the new 
strategy, whose contributions proved to be very valuable for the end-product. As a result of TLP’s
support, the university was able to successfully draft a new strategy in a very short time and establish 
standards and prepare the rule-books for implementation of this strategy. The new strategy continued 
to prioritize strengthening of financial viability, improvements in quality of research and teaching, and 
improvements in internal and external communications, and since there were no major changes in the 
broad areas of support, TLP-SP continued to use and report against the milestones and targets 
developed for the project at the time of its start-up. Table 1 compares the 2013 and 2016 priorities. 
Table 1: Implementation of UP Action Plan – Strategic Objectives Selected for TLP-SP support
Old Strategic Objectives, 2013 Revised Strategic Objectives, 2016
(i) Enhance revenue generation and financial 
viability
(i) Improving internal and external communications
(corresponding to old objective 3)
(ii) Improve the quality of academic staff and 
teaching 
(ii) Strengthening financial viability (corresponding to old 
objective 1)
(iii) Developing the Rectorate’s management, 
internal communications and public relations 
capabilities
(iii) Improving quality of research and teaching (corresponding 
to old objective 2)
3.1 Implementation of UP’s Action Plan
For purposes of this evaluation, effective implementation of UP’s Action Plan is defined to mean that the 
priority areas selected from those listed in the Action Plan – improving internal and external 
communications, strengthening financial viability, and improving quality of research and teaching – have 
been implemented in a manner likely to be sustainable beyond the life of the project, and that the 
16 The Action Plan was an outcome of the USAID-funded Technical Assistance to the Office of the Rector, implemented by 
Morgan Borszcz Consulting in 2013.
USAID TLP Partnership Program Performance Evaluation – Final Report
19
Rector and his team have been provided the necessary assistance by TLP. Each of these priority areas is 
discussed in turn.
3.1.1 Improving internal and external communications
In order to improve internal and external communication within UP, TLP-SP has assisted the university 
in developing a new Public Relations and Communications (PR) strategy to help improve its image, 
enhance engagement with students and staff to make them feel a part of the university, and create a 
transparent and effective way of communicating internally and externally. Activities undertaken for 
implementing the strategy included updating the UP web site (https://www.uni-pr.edu/), developing a 
new branding plan for the university, publishing pictures, web stories and articles on the university web 
site and other social media sites, and creating an UP alumni association to connect current and past 
students. The PR office was established under the direction of the Vice-Rector for International 
Cooperation and Public Relations, and was equipped with cameras and camcorders and staffed by 
interns with expertise in journalism and video production for managing UP’s presence on social media 
sites. So far, over a hundred web-stories have been published on social media. In addition, five 
educational awareness-raising videos on important topics – such as academic integrity and plagiarism, 
and sexual harassment – were uploaded to the UP website. For current and prospective students, the 
web-site is a way of accessing information on important dates in the UP calendar. The Alumni 
Association was established at the newly revived Career Center in UP. 
Discussions with senior management suggest that the PR office has helped improve the way UP is 
perceived by the community and has helped the “university work with the community, connect with 
businesses.” The web-site is an easy way of communication for all internal and external stakeholders. 
Parts of the UP’s first ever graduation ceremony were also streamed online. Managed by UP IT staff, the 
website is available in Albanian and English, which helps it reach a large audience. The Alumni 
Association is beginning to play an active role in supporting UP in organizing orientation and graduation 
ceremonies for the students at UP. 
Better PR management, transparent rules and stability of senior management have all played important 
roles in changing the public perception of UP. There is less negative press about the University and its 
management, and a general belief that the university management is making a serious effort to end 
corruption. All in all, improvements in internal and external communications are being implemented 
effectively, and the positive momentum generated in the last couple of years bodes well that these 
improvements will be sustained over time and beyond the life of this project. 
3.1.2 Strengthening financial viability 
Financial viability in the context of UP refers to better management of its revenues and expenditures, 
and greater fiscal responsibility to allow for autonomy and self-reliance for UP. UP is a public university, 
fully funded by the government. A significant proportion of its budget goes towards the payment of 
salaries, leaving only a small amount for other strategic interventions. Tuition fees, which is its major 
source of revenue, were reduced significantly by a government order in 2015 that eliminated all tuition 
fees for first year students and lowered what was charged to students in later years. While the 
government has since made up the shortfall, the University has very little by way of discretionary funds 
USAID TLP Partnership Program Performance Evaluation – Final Report
20
to undertake any new initiatives or to expand to new areas. For new initiatives to be sustainable, 
therefore, they must generate their own revenue and not depend on external funding sources.
TLP-SP has implemented several initiatives designed to identify internal and external sources of revenue, 
improve financial practices, and make UP financially viable. 
First, TLP-SP established the Financial Advisory Committee to assist the Rector in designing and 
implementing financial reform. Working closely with the Vice-Rector for Finance and her staff, the 
Financial Advisory Committee developed eight recommendations for financial reform that could be 
implemented within the existing laws and rules governing UP. These recommendations along with the 
supporting draft regulations have been submitted through the Rector and Vice-Rector for Finance to the 
UP Steering Board for ratification. The recommendations include changing the organizational chart to 
maximize oversight and minimize mismanagement, adjusting statute and higher education laws to restore 
management role to the Rector and his senior team, disaggregating university budgets into discrete 
budgetary divisions and departments, tapping into support offered from outside organizations to train 
university staff for additional budget management responsibilities, developing comprehensive financial 
and administrative policies and procedures manuals, normalizing academic staff salaries and ending 
supplemental pay practices, using recovered funds to staff administration and teaching staff, and revising 
tuition and fees structure and realigning incentives for students to ensure revenue inflows needed to 
function as a leading public research university.
The recommendation for normalization of salaries is already being implemented. As a result of this 
reform, UP is saving approximately one million Euros annually, a considerable amount given the tight 
financial situation of UP. These funds are now available for hiring new administrative and teaching staff. 
At the time of data collection (May 2019) a call had been put out for the hiring of 35 new administrative 
staff (10 percent of the current strength). The other recommendations are pending ratification by the 
UP Steering Board and the Ministry of Finance.
Second, TLP-SP assisted in the development of policies and procedures to enable UP to connect its 
financial system with MEST’s financial system and enable seamless transfer of information between the 
two systems and provide transparency and better oversight of the budget.
Third, TLP-SP brought in Baker and Tilly Kosovo LLC, a consultancy, to work with the Vice-Rector and 
Director of Finance to develop a financial policies and procedures manual and write the regulations to 
help make the procurement process work smoothly once the procurement function of the University is 
decentralized. The finance staff at the faculty level have also been trained on procurement rules and 
regulations in preparation for the decentralization. The manual for procurement procedures is already in 
use by the Office of Finance. In addition, after their training the finance staff have a better understanding 
of their roles and responsibilities and are prepared for the decentralization of procurement. However, 
since UP has yet to initiate the decentralization process, the effectiveness of this initiative remains 
uncertain. 
And finally, TLP-SP worked with UP’s various centers to help them generate revenue and become 
USAID TLP Partnership Program Performance Evaluation – Final Report
21
fiscally self-reliant.17 Each of the Centers (except for the Small Animal Clinic, which is in the Faculty of 
Agriculture and Veterinary) has been established at the central/rectorate level with accompanying 
regulations to facilitate their operation and allow for the collection of revenue. As an example, the 
Center for Renewable Energy and Sustainability is charging a fee for its courses and has done so 
successfully for the first cohort of students enrolled18. In addition, Venture UP, an incubator designed to 
support students and researchers in establishment of new ventures, has been established on the UP 
premises. Venture UP, an indirect result of the TLP Partnerships program, is self-sustaining and is 
expected to generate revenue for UP through licensing rights for products developed at the incubator.
19
All of these initiatives have been well received by the senior management at UP. According to the Vice￾Rector for Finance, they could not have achieved this level of progress without the help of TLP-SP. 
While there is some progress towards financial viability, the total extent of the impact remains to be 
seen. 
3.1.3 Improving the quality of research and teaching
UP’s strategy to remain relevant as a center of research and teaching is to improve the quality of 
education by enhancing the quality of faculty and scholarship and fostering research excellence. For 
purposes of this evaluation, improving the quality of research at the university refers to the ability of the 
University to offer targeted support for the academic staff to conduct quality research and attract grant 
funding, resulting in an increase in the research conducted under the UP banner, an increase in the 
number of scientific papers and publications, increased participation in internal and external conferences, 
etc. Similarly, indicators of improved quality of teaching include availability and use of in-service training, 
use of new methods of teaching and learning, use of technology in the classroom, use of technology for 
grading and tracking students, and availability of library and other resources.
TLP-SP has supported UP in the improvement of the quality of teaching and research for the academic 
staff through various university-wide and faculty-specific initiatives undertaken by partnerships between 
UP and four of its faculties – Education, Economy, Engineering and Agriculture and Veterinary – and 
TLP-SP and partner U.S. Universities: Indiana university, Dartmouth College, Arizona State University 
and University of Minnesota. These initiatives include the University-wide initiatives which, as the name 
suggests, are based at the central/Rectorate level and are designed to support staff from across the 
various faculties at UP. These initiatives include the opening of new centers, such as the Office for 
Research and Sponsored programs, or reviving existing centers, such as the Center for Teaching 
Excellence, for improving the quality of research and provision of in-service training to the academic 
staff. It has also included pilot-testing a new continuous grading policy for students prior to rolling it out 
to all faculties.
17 These include the Office for Research and Sponsored Projects (Center for Research), Center for Teaching Excellence (CTE), 
Center for Energy and Sustainability (CES), the Alumni Association and Small Animal Clinic and Institute for Agriculture and 
Veterinary
18 Some issues have been reported with levels of enrollment and payment of fees for the following cohorts, but the provision 
exists. 
19 Venture UP is a direct outcome of a white paper titled, “Building Venture Incubation at the Public Universities in Kosovo –
Strategy, Costs, Benefits and Approach” produced by the TLP-SP Advisory Committee.
USAID TLP Partnership Program Performance Evaluation – Final Report
22
Several initiatives have also been implemented at the faculty level to create a culture of team-work in 
production of scientific papers and research and workshops and seminars to enhance learning of new 
teaching and research methods and subject-specific knowledge. In addition, academic staff have also 
benefitted from exchange visits between UP faculties and their partner universities, which has resulted in 
improved curricula, teaching and reference materials and equipment, and research publications. 
3.2 University’s commitment to change management
The University’s commitment to change management is reflected in the several tangible measures taken 
by the Rector and his senior management team. First, UP’s management team started by designing a 
strategy and supporting rule books to increase transparency and establish standards that could be 
communicated to everyone to enable rule-based action for governance of UP. The premise behind this 
was that in a small country like Kosovo, “where everyone knows everyone else…these standards will 
help implementation and reduce nepotism.” Establishing open and transparent processes serves to 
convey a high level of intent and commitment to change.
Second, UP’s senior management has openly embraced one-on-one coaching and mentoring from an 
expert in the field of organizational change as it thinks through the various reform processes to enhance 
the quality of research and teaching and improve the relevance of UP as a center of learning. This 
willingness to seek outside help suggests both a humility as well as an intent to learn how best to lead 
and manage change in ways that are sustainable. Study tours for UP’s senior management and the 
University Steering Board members have also helped provide exposure to best practices in management 
of similar universities in the U.S. and help expand their own ideas of management.
Third, UP’s senior management has encouraged its mid-level administrative staff (those with 15-20 years 
of experience) and the Deans of various UP faculties to participate in Change Management and 
Leadership seminars organized for them by TLP-SP project. Attended by all the Deans and 54 
management staff (50 percent female and 80 percent from UP), these change management seminars 
focused on the practical aspects of change management, communications and leadership including 
delegating to others, demonstrating communication between multiple levels and the fact that leadership 
can be exercised within their current job descriptions. Mid-level management reported that these 
seminars have been useful as they are now more comfortable with communicating with their supervisors 
and those that they supervise. For many of them this was a first exposure to training on leadership.
Surveys and focus groups with participants of the Change Management and Leadership seminars 
indicated that this was the first such training for over two-thirds of the participants, and most reported 
that the training had given them the skills for communicating with their senior and junior peers. Most 
agreed that the training was relevant for them and that it took into account the higher education 
context, though many also reported that the training was too general and did not address issues specific 
to their levels. The participants felt that as a result of TLP-SP, there was now a “critical mass” at UP to 
manage change and there was a common perception that even though they were not fully engaged in 
supporting staff with their projects, the Rector, senior management and the Deans had changed as a 
result of the change management training and had greater appreciation and respect for the work of their 
USAID TLP Partnership Program Performance Evaluation – Final Report
23
staff. At the same time, there is also a feeling of discontent stemming from the fact that while the 
seminars successfully trained the mid-level managers on new ways of managing their work, they have not 
been empowered to implement the new ideas.
And finally, UP has provided training to its finance staff on procurement processes to update their skills 
on financial management and reporting, and to other administrative staff on managing and coordinating 
activities of UP’s various centers, such as the Career Center, the Office of Sponsored research, the 
Center for Teaching Excellence, etc. Members of the University Steering Board, a select group of the 
mid-level management, and finance and administrative staff, were taken on study tours to expose them
to best practices of administration in similar universities in the U.S. Study visits for Center coordinators 
focused on management of similar centers as well as on new ways of incorporating technology in the 
centers. All these visits have resulted in a high level of individual learning and an appreciation for use of 
technology to help with knowledge management. Participants also reported that the study tours 
provided them with a lot of exposure and novel ideas on how to problem-solve. 
Perhaps the most compelling evidence of commitment to change is the ownership that UP’s 
management has taken of the reform process. After an initial intense period of coaching and mentoring 
and the development of a new strategy and policy, the management team assumed the responsibility of 
implementing the change in its own way and at its own pace without any external assistance or pressure. 
UP’s senior management is now working on the reforms on its own schedule and together with UP’s 
Steering Board, which is suggestive of a commitment that is likely to be sustained. 
3.3 Change in UP’s administrative performance
A necessary part of improving the quality of education offered by UP is to improve its functioning by 
strengthening management and administrative performance. Indicators of change in its administrative 
performance include standardization of administrative processes; fiscal accountability and management; 
training for administrative staff; improved data systems (systems for information, communication and 
technology), including access to and availability of data for decision-making; and improved student 
services (credit-bearing internships, career support, alumni relations). While UP has made progress 
across several of these changes, it is still too early to assess the impact of this progress. The initiatives 
and resulting improvements as well as interim impacts are discussed below.
3.3.1 Standardization of administrative processes
With assistance of TLP-SP, UP has undertaken several initiatives to standardize administrative processes 
including developing rule books as a way of communicating the process for implementing the strategy, 
developing an HR manual for all employees of UP; and developing a Deans framework (to be 
implemented) to help the Rector and senior management evaluate the Deans in a non-punitive manner 
against a set of criteria. 
The development of the strategy and associated rule books has been an inclusive effort and has involved 
all levels of the Rectorate staff as well as faculty Deans. The rule books, developed with assistance from 
TLP-SP, have provided a common means of communicating the steps to be taken in implementing the 
strategy as well as the standards to be followed in its implementation. The inclusive process for 
USAID TLP Partnership Program Performance Evaluation – Final Report
24
developing the rule books has had the benefit of establishing ownership of the strategy and the 
standards as well as helping UP’s senior management in its communication and negotiations with the UP 
Senate and Steering board. 
UP has developed an HR manual as a main reference document for communication of HR policies, 
programs and procedures for the employees of UP. The manual outlines the core performance 
expectations for administrators and staff, as well as the processes for hiring and promotion of academic 
staff across all faculties in UP. The existence of a written, consolidated source of directives and 
processes ensures everyone had the same information regarding policies and procedures, increases the 
likelihood of equitable application of these criteria and policy guidelines, and reduces nepotism and 
corruption. The administrators have been given the power to enforce these regulations. While some of 
the administrators complained that “enforcing these regulations was leaving them with no friends,” they 
felt that the regulations were fair and would help improve the current status at the university. The fact 
that the Senate, for the first time pushed, back on about 70 percent of promotion requests for academic 
staff because they did not meet the standards outlined in the regulations, could be considered to be an 
effect of the rule books and change management training..
Another attempt to professionalize UP management is the development of a Dean’s Leadership 
Framework outlining all responsibilities of Deans. Also called the Dean’s Score Card, the framework, 
developed with assistance from TLP-SP and other resources such as the Fulbright exchange program, is 
intended to be a non-punitive instrument that can enable the Rector to monitor a Dean’s performance 
each year against certain criteria and enable identification of over and underachievement. It can also 
serve as a tool for showcasing best practice and as a peer learning platform. The tool has full support of 
the Rector, but at the time of data collection, was still to be shared with the Deans whose buy-in would 
be necessary for it be successful.
3.3.2 Fiscal accountability and financial management
As discussed earlier, UP is working on financial reforms that would enable it to have greater financial 
viability and autonomy. The proposals for these reforms along with the draft regulations to support 
them have been submitted to UP’s Steering Board for review and concurrence. 
This TLP program identified a perceived need need to move away from the highly centralized model of 
financial management currently in use at UP and give the Rector and the Deans greater flexibility in 
managing the University and their Faculties respectively. At this point, the UP Steering Board meets 
monthly (or more frequently, if needed) to approve all financial decisions for the university. These 
decisions range from hiring new personnel to participation of academic staff in conferences and to 
procurement. Also, in the course of writing the strategy and the rule books, it became more apparent 
to the senior management that much of the decision-making and personnel management within the 
university goes through the General Secretary of the University. For instance, the staff in the office of 
the Vice-Rector for Finance report to the General Secretary and not to the Vice-Rector, creating a 
complicated chain of command. The desire for more control, especially over their own budgets, was 
also echoed in interviews with Deans of the four UP faculties participating in the TLP University 
USAID TLP Partnership Program Performance Evaluation – Final Report
25
Partnerships program.
20 As a part of supporting the development of a new strategy and the rule books, 
TLP-SP has also helped UP draft the financial regulations for possible decentralization of some budget 
lines to the Faculty level (still in process of approval by the Senate and UP Board). The administrative 
positions of Chief Technical officer and Chief Financial Officer of UP exist but are currently(at the time 
of this evaluation) filled with academic staff. TLP-SP has supported the Rectorate in writing the job 
descriptions for these positions so that they can be filled with professionals with experience in these 
roles leading to more streamlined management. 
3.3.3 Improved data systems
Over the past few years there has been a growing recognition that the UP management’s ability to make 
evidence-based decisions was being hampered by incomplete information on such issues as number of 
students enrolled, number of students that have graduated, years in program, and so on. An example of 
such data issues is that prior to the establishment of the data center, UP was thought to have on its rolls 
approximately 51,000 students. However, following consolidation of the data, the actual number is
about 18 percent lower, closer to 42,000. An effort to collect administrative data21from the four 
faculties engaged in the partnership by this evaluation team have resulted in very mixed outcomes, in 
that only one faculty could provide the data easily and consistently over the past four years. The 
remaining three provided baseline data with a lot of cajoling in 2015, but have since declined, indicating 
that it was difficult for them to generate this information. 
There are several data management systems at the university, but these systems don’t “talk” to each 
other. The SEMS data system – an administration and course management system, currently in place at 
UP and owned by the IT department – was supposed to be able to generate this administrative
information at the University and faculty level, but the data was not available either due to an inability of 
the individuals managing the system to generate data from the system, or an unwillingness to do so. In 
addition, the University has created another system, linked with the SEMS system, to support it in the 
process of seeking re-accreditation22. The accreditation will be at the institutional level as well as at the 
program level, and 90 courses (including new courses developed as a result of the Partnerships 
program) will be up for accreditation. One of the requirements of this process is quality assurance. All 
courses are being put on SEMS and as per the quality assurance requirements of the accreditation 
agency, students will be able to evaluate the courses in the system. 
In an effort to improve the availability of administrative data, UP, with assistance of TLP-SP, has worked 
on identifying what administrative data are needed for effective decision-making as well as sources of 
this data, and has established a system for collecting the missing data. In addition, a new software has 
been developed in collaboration with the UP IT department that connects with and has the ability to 
mine and synthesize data in real time from all systems at UP, both old and new. It is expected that once 
the system is fully functional, it will be able to help UP management with decision-making by quickly and 
20 However, there does not appear to be a consensus on the definition of decentralization, with the faculties looking at it as a
procurement function in which decentralization would allow them to have their own bank accounts (rather than a subaccount
within the University budget) and the ability to manage procurement at the faculty level.
21 Administrative data from the faculties includes the number of students enrolled overall and by year, number of academic staff, 
publications by staff, etc.
22 UP is a part of the Bologna process and is required to go through periodic re-accreditation. 
USAID TLP Partnership Program Performance Evaluation – Final Report
26
efficiently generating the data needed to respond to their queries. At the time of this evaluation, the 
center was in the process of automating reports to support the university with periodic updates on 
student and faculty data. 
3.3.4 Improved student services
UP has revived the Career Development Center to enhance services to students and help improve their 
readiness for the workforce. The Career Development Center will offer guidance to students on finding 
internships and job opportunities. At this point, it offers current students access to the Career Center 
database that includes information on current students at the University and information about 
companies that they may apply to for internships and/or work opportunities. The database enables the 
students to connect with potential employers, sign up for trainings, and apply for jobs and create CVs 
using pre-loaded templates. Career Center is in the process of working with the UP Faculties to develop 
a program to enhance “service learning” and “credit-bearing internships.”
In addition, it has established an Alumni Association under the Office of Academic Development to 
increase the students’ exposure and interaction with the alumni. The Alumni Association, registered as 
an NGO, is located on UP premises. As it shares space with the Career center and has access to 
facilities for printing, internet, and allied services, it offers students an opportunity to interact with the 
alumni who may be there using these services. The Association has a webpage and a database linked to 
the Career Center database and offers current students with access to information on UP’s large and 
diverse alumni base to enable them to connect with alumni to seek mentorship, internships and 
potential work opportunities. The Alumni Association is also supporting the Office of Academic 
Development through organizing new-student orientation days to welcome the new students and 
graduation ceremonies to celebrate completion of their course. The first graduation ceremony was 
broadcast live on UP website. 
Following recommendations from the TLP-SP Advisory Committee, Venture UP, an incubator, was set 
up at UP to provide opportunities for students and researchers interested in starting new ventures.
Founded by a TLP-SP Scholarship recipient, Venture UP is an independent NGO, based on UP premises, 
providing aspiring entrepreneurs, especially from UP, with workspace and services such as internet, legal 
advice, assistance with development of marketing materials and support on pitching ideas to the 
community. It is providing training to 500-700 UP graduates annually in skills to improve their 
employability. Even though Venture UP is not a direct outcome of the Partnerships program, it has been 
included here due to its tangential relationship to the University. 
USAID TLP Partnership Program Performance Evaluation – Final Report
27
4 Evaluation Question 2: Effect on Academic Performance 
and Implementation of “Grand Challenges” 
This section answers the second set of evaluation questions: How has the TLP Partnerships component 
changed academic performance in targeted faculties over the course of the project? Have the “Grand 
Challenges” identified for each partnership been effectively implemented?
4.1 Improving academic performance in targeted faculties 
Improving academic performance at UP refers to improvements in both the quality of teaching and the 
quality of research being conducted at UP. Improvement in quality of teaching includes use of more 
modern student-centered methods of active learning and teaching, improvements/changes in curricula 
and syllabi used by the faculty, and availability of adequate resource materials and modern equipment for 
teaching in the classroom. Improvement in research refers to improvements in both quality and quantity 
of sponsored research and the support needed for the conduct of research. 
The TLP-SP Partnerships Component, has helped improve the academic performance at UP through a 
two-pronged approach. One, it has created and supported partnerships between four select faculties at 
UP and four U.S. university partners on targeted initiatives, including elements of staff exchange visits
(U.S. to UP and UP to U.S.), and support for the faculty in terms of equipment, materials, textbooks, etc. 
It has also included small research grants and support for research clusters in each of the faculties.
23 And 
two, it has enabled the establishment of centers that support improvements in teaching and research at 
UP, which support not only the four faculties in the Partnerships program but also the remaining 
faculties at UP. These faculty-specific partnerships and university-wide activities are discussed in turn.
4.1.1 Improvement in quality of Teaching
4.1.1.1 Faculty-specific partnerships
Faculty of Education: 
The partnership between the Faculty of Education and Indiana University covered the full span of four 
years and was one of the more successful partnerships brokered by TLP-SP. The partnership included 16 
exchange visits of teaching staff to the U.S. and 40 visits of staff from U.S. to UP. Exchange staff at the 
Faculty of Education reported being engaged in research, meetings, discussions, classroom observations, 
and collaboration with the faculty at Indiana university. They stated being able to observe professors 
teaching classes while using different ways of teaching, including active teaching and learning methods, 
and being encouraged to attend seminars. In addition, the faculty provided them with books and 
materials that they could bring back with them. One staff member reported that she had received so 
much material from their visit that she had not been able to review it yet. Another reported that she 
had learned new ways of teaching research and presentation. Others reported that it was only after a 
23The U.S. partner universities were a part of the TLP-SP implementing team led by World Learning Inc. and received sub￾grants from WL. The partner universities included Arizona State University, Indiana University, University of Minnesota and 
Dartmouth College. The initial grants were for a two-year period (2015-17) to implement the designated activities, which they 
supplemented with own resources. These sub-awards were extended through 2019 and in one case, Arizona State University, 
expanded to include university-wide initiatives as well. 
USAID TLP Partnership Program Performance Evaluation – Final Report
28
lapse of almost two years that they were they able to start using and incorporating the new skills into 
their teaching.
The visiting faculty from Indiana University have held workshops on various topics to demonstrate and 
share new methodologies with the staff. The workshops included qualitative and quantitative research 
methods, proposal writing, grounding courses and developing syllabi for student centered teaching and 
discussions on pedagogy. They have also helped UP’s Faculty of Education organize an annual scientific 
summer symposium at UP. In addition, the partnership has supported the translation and printing of a 
textbook on research methods, a much needed resource for the faculty. It has also been instrumental in 
enhancing the resource repository of the Faculty with a broad range of textbooks and other resource 
materials as well as access to key instructional and academic research resources through the Indiana 
University library. According to the Dean of Education, the joint cooperation between Faculty of 
Education and Indiana University has been “one of the more influential programs” at the Faculty of 
Education and the TLP-SP project has been an invaluable source of assistance. According to the Dean, 
some academic staff have changed their teaching styles and one of them is developing a manual on 
teaching methods. 
Faculty of Agriculture & Veterinary: 
The partnership between the Faculty of Agriculture & Veterinary and University of Minnesota was also a 
successful partnership, and lasted the full four years of the duration of the TLP project. The Faculty of 
Agriculture & Veterinary has expanded its participation from one department (Veterinary Medicine) and 
has added two more (Department of Food Technology with Biotechnology and Department of Plant 
Protection), enabling a larger pool of participants to benefit from the exchange and mentoring activities 
of the Partnerships component. It included 29 staff exchange visits (13 UP to U.S. and 16 U.S. to UP). At 
the Faculty of Agriculture & Veterinary, the exchange staff observed classes using multiple methods of 
teaching, attended seminars including an experiential learning course on “Focus on Food Production”, 
participated in discussions with faculty and gained laboratory experience in veterinary pathology. They 
also went on field visits to observe the use of technology in dairy and food animal farms and processing 
facilities, as well as in food safety and safe meat-processing techniques. 
The visiting faculty presented workshops on various topics, including active learning teaching strategies, 
mentoring students and strategies for success of graduate students, an introduction to extension 
services and models, and an intensive seminar – Farm to Table – focusing on the poultry system. In 
addition, they offered guest lectures and/or co-taught courses in their field of specialization including 
soils, food microbiology, infectious diseases, small animal radiography and personal safety, small animal 
anesthesia and emergency procedures, and followed up with the UP to U.S, exchange staff on their use 
of new content, discussion activities, and assessment techniques. They also used their time at UP aiding 
the faculty staff in understanding and setting up equipment that was lying unused and planning for new 
clinics for providing services. They also brought in parts for making the equipment functional and 
provided training to the UP staff on use of the equipment. 
At the Faculty of Agriculture & Veterinary, the assistance provided by the Partnerships program has 
been more technical rather than academic in nature, and has enabled the faculty to provide a bridge
between UP and the private sector and offer veterinary and agriculture services. With technical 
USAID TLP Partnership Program Performance Evaluation – Final Report
29
assistance from the Partnerships program, the faculty has established a newly-furbished Small Animal 
Clinic ready for use and has the strategy and business plan for an institute of agriculture and veterinary. 
In addition, small animal radiography equipment available at the faculty has been installed and missing 
parts provided to make it functional, and both the veterinary faculty members and students have been 
provided training on small radiography and personal safety resulting in the first small animal inhalant 
anesthesia clinic in Kosovo. The initiative for the Small Animal Clinic was so successful that the faculty 
received Euros 170,000 from UP as funding for a building to house the clinic and the institute. Finally, 
with the assistance of University of Minnesota, the Faculty of Agriculture & Veterinary has developed the 
strategy and the plans for launch of an institute for provision of agriculture and veterinary services. UP 
has approved the plans for the institute, which is currently pending approval from the UP senate. 
According to the Dean of Agriculture, the partnership has resulted not only in enhanced curriculum for 
the Faculty, but also in exposure to new techniques that can be practiced by the Faculty staff. He felt 
that the exchange program had resulted in a great deal of personal learning for the participants who 
were able to review the syllabi and observe the way the faculty organized themselves and taught classes 
at the University of Minnesota. The Dean reported that to ensure sustainability of the initiative, the 
faculty was focusing on sending junior academic staff from UP to the semester-abroad program. These 
staff have returned with curricula, books, etc., and have shared their experience with their students –
but there was no formal mechanism to share knowledge with other colleagues or for the faculty 
management to track any changes. 
Faculty of Economy:
The partnership of the Faculty of Economy with Dartmouth College was expanded during Phase 1(2015-
17) to include teaching staff from the department of Philosophy, which increased the pool of participants 
in the exchange program (6 from UP to U.S. and 20 from U.S. to UP). However, the partnership lasted 
only for the first phase as the partners could not arrive at an agreement for a meaningful work plan for 
the second phase. 
The visiting faculty from Dartmouth worked with UP staff to help facilitate the delivery of an 
Experiential Learning module in an existing class at the university. The visiting professor and his team of 
graduate students demonstrated the use of surveys for collection of data to provide information to a 
client. The pilot module lasted for three weeks and had three groups of UP students working closely 
with three Kosovo companies on real-life business cases. The exercise was very well received. In 
addition, they presented a seminar on Building Grassroots Organizations, launched clubs and provided 
training on Active Learning techniques.
Interviews with staff from the Faculty of Economy, who participated in exchange visits during that time, 
indicate that, while at Dartmouth, they closely shadowed the faculty who were teaching the experiential 
course on “Business Consulting” using the “active learning via consulting” approach so that they could 
present the module upon their return to UP. The UP exchange staff have successfully piloted the course 
at UP and have now submitted it for accreditation. The exchange visitors from the department of 
Philosophy attended the GRID Spring Symposium focused on the topic of Gender Matters – Feminist 
Ecologies and Materialism while at Dartmouth. 
USAID TLP Partnership Program Performance Evaluation – Final Report
30
While there were no formal means of assessing sharing or use of the learning, the Faculty of Economy 
was the only one to insist that the returned exchange visitors hold brown bags discussions and share 
their experience with their colleagues in the faculty with the aim of helping to improve their practice. 
Even though the partnership lasted only for the first phase, it was effective in having a lasting impact on 
the Faculty of Economy in terms of the use of training and course materials.
Faculty of Engineering: 
The partnership of the Faculty of Engineering (ECEN) with Arizona State university (ASU) started out 
on a solid footing with exchange visits from ASU to ECEN and planning for a multidisciplinary program 
at ECEN that would offer advanced degrees for studies in energy and sustainability. However, the 
partnership did not fulfill the needs of the Faculty and eventually the university moved the Center for 
Energy and Sustainability to a central level at the Rectorate. 
During 2015-16, the first year, the partnership delivered four sets of seminars intended for a broad 
audience of ECEN academic staff and students, as well as members of the wider public interested in 
computer engineering and energy in Kosovo. Attended by over 150 faculty members, students, and 
interested community participants, these seminar presentations had the desired effect of building 
broader interest in the field of energy and related studies. At the same time, three ECEN faculty went to 
the U.S. for a semester-long exchange visit under the semester in residence program. Under the 
guidance of specially chosen ASU faculty mentors, these staff pursued syllabi intended for use and 
classroom delivery upon their return. It included courses and seminars on “photovoltaics, ” 
“introduction to sustainability,” and traditional courses in energy engineering at the ASU Fulton School 
of Engineering as well as from the ASU School of Sustainability. In addition to regular coursework, a 
special weekly seminar was arranged for the visiting scholars, using the seminar to introduce them to 
specialists working in the field of renewable energy and sustainability.
Due to difficulties (related to visa issues and limited interest) in finding enough staff to go on the 
exchange visits, the program was expanded to include academic staff from the physical sciences and to 
increase the number of visits of U.S. partners to UP. This resulted in a total of 45 exchange visits, of 
which 9 were from UP to U.S. (3 academic staff, 6 management) and 36 from the U.S. partners to UP. 
But most of these visitors to UP were directed towards setting up the multi-disciplinary Center for 
Energy and Sustainability at the Rectorate level. Moving the Center from the faculty to the central level 
resulted in a significant reduction in the resources available for the partnership at ECEN and weakened 
its position.
4.1.1.2 Effect of the Faculty exchange program
As described above, most of the partnership activities were facilitated through exchange visits of 
academic and management staff from the partner universities to UP and vice-versa. The semester-in￾residence program, a part of the exchange visits component, which allowed academic staff from UP to 
spend a semester in the United States participating in courses and seminars, developing course materials
and building relationships with the faculty at the partner university, was modified to meet the needs of 
UP’s academic staff. For a multitude of reasons, including instability at the university, financial concerns, 
language barriers and family responsibilities, especially for those with young children, there was less￾than-anticipated interest in the program, with fewer academic staff applying to the program. All four of 
USAID TLP Partnership Program Performance Evaluation – Final Report
31
the participating faculties re-visited the program and revised the conditions of participation so as to 
encourage participation.24 On their side, the U.S. partner universities also had to make some 
adjustments to their plans for the exchange visits based on the experience with the first cohort of 
exchange visits. These changes included ensuring more hands-on planning with participants at the 
beginning of the program to ensure their expectations were realistic, the workload manageable and in 
line with the participants’ goals, and that the participants came in groups of two or more. These 
modifications resulted in the distinct advantage of a program custom-tailored for each faculty. The 
program continued in Phase 2 for three of the four participating faculties (all except the Faculty of 
Economy). 
The most successful component of the faculty-specific partnerships was the exchange visits by the faculty 
from the U.S. University partners to UP. This component enabled the U.S. faculty member to present 
seminars, lectures and workshops at UP, and have a much larger impact than that of individual academic 
staff from UP going to the United States. Many academic and non-academic staff from UP, graduate 
students and in some cases even members of the private sector (as in the case of Engineering), were 
able to attend the seminars and benefit from the discussion and presentations. The visiting academic staff 
presented on topics such as grant writing, development of syllabi and other topics for improvement of 
teaching. In some faculties, for example the Faculties of Agriculture & Veterinary and Engineering, the 
visiting faculty also co-taught courses demonstrating active learning techniques and techniques for 
management of large classes and presented seminars of specific interest to those faculties. 
Across all four partnerships, academic staff that participated in the semester-in-residence program (UP 
to U.S. exchange) were unanimous in their appreciation of the program and the level of exposure to 
various kinds of teaching methods and technologies. Approximately three quarters (between 70 and 85 
percent) of the respondents to a survey of participants of the exchange program reported that during 
their visit to the U.S. they were able to attend and observe classes at their host university, spend time at 
the library and visit institutions outside the university that were relevant to their field of interest. A little 
over half also reported attending conferences (52 percent) and engaging in individual consultations with 
a U.S. professor (65 percent). Respondents also reported being able to develop new syllabi (44 percent), 
developing a whole new program/curriculum (30 percent) and engaging in field work related to their 
area of interest (35 percent). Two-thirds (65 percent) of the respondents reported bringing back books 
and course materials from their visit to the U.S. They agreed (strongly agreed or agreed) that they had 
introduced new elements into their courses based on their semester abroad experience (70 percent) 
and that these changes were likely to be sustainable due to support from the management (52 percent). 
Exchange program participants reported learning new teaching methods (87 percent), new ways of 
organizing the classroom (78 percent) and managing large and midsize classes (65 percent). Focus groups 
with participants and interviews with Faculty management also supported this data. Focus group 
participants also reported that they observed classes where the professors were using interactive 
24 For example, Faculty of Education negotiated for a reduction in the duration of the program from a full semester (almost four
months) to two months. The Faculty of Agriculture & Veterinary proposed sending 3 people for 40 days each in place of one 
for 120 days. The exchange staff under the partnerships at Faculty of Economy and the Faculty of Agriculture & Veterinary 
included academic staff from other faculties (Economy has included staff associated with Center for Gender Studies, staff came 
from department of Philosophy; and Agriculture & Veterinary has included Veterinary Medicine) so as to have a large enough 
pool for selection of candidates. Still others, like the Faculty of Engineering which was not able to send academic staff to the 
U.S. for various reasons, requested that the program be substituted with increased visits to UP by U.S. faculty.
USAID TLP Partnership Program Performance Evaluation – Final Report
32
teaching methods, including gymnastics, circular seating arrangements, etc., and while they found them 
interesting, they would be hesitant to use them in Kosovo.
4.1.2 Improvement in Quality of Research 
The TLP program, through exchange of academic staff between UP and the U.S. Universities, has 
facilitated the exposure of academic staff to research methods and new methods for development of 
courses. In a survey of exchange staff (UP to U.S.), almost all reported that during their exchange visit 
they had access to the library (96 percent), and a little over three-fifth also reported access to research 
journals and databases (61 percent). Seventy percent of surveyed exchange staff reported developing 
professional relationships with the host faculty, while a little less than half reported receiving mentoring
(48 percent) and support (44 percent) from the host faculty for developing their research competencies. 
About a third of survey respondents reported being able to work on their own research projects (30 
percent) and writing papers (35 percent), while only 13 percent reported collaborating on research 
projects and 17 percent writing papers with U.S. colleagues. Respondents who reported working with 
colleagues in the U.S. partner universities also reported continuing to work with them even after their 
return to Kosovo. These findings were also supported by comments from exchange program 
participants in focus groups and by the management of the faculties. 
The visiting faculty presented workshops and seminars on writing and publishing scientific papers, on 
mentoring graduate students, and on grant-writing. They also encouraged the academic staff at UP to 
work in teams, demonstrating this concept by creating research clusters. As a result of these 
presentations, academic staff and students at the Faculty of Economy, for instance, have learned new 
ways of conducting market research and presenting the data. Despite their almost complete focus on 
developing service clinics, the Faculty of Agriculture &Veterinary has also benefited from the research 
training, as evidenced by co-authored research papers. Mini-research grants have also been provided 
through the Center for Energy and Sustainability. Administrative records from TLP-SP show five 
research projects being implemented under the ECEN/ASU partnership.25
The largest beneficiary of the research component appears to have been the Faculty of Education. Under 
guidance/mentoring of professors from Indiana University, the Faculty of Education organized itself into 
seven research clusters, which were provided with mentoring in-person and via email and Skype by 
faculty from IU. These research clusters are working collaboratively on research papers for publication 
and to present at the Scientific Summer Symposium: Enhancing Education Research at the Faculty of 
Education. The first drafts of these papers were presented by the faculty at the symposium and will be 
revised for submission to journals. Regardless of whether the research clusters develop into a 
sustainable research model, exposure to research methods will improve the quality of teaching and 
learning in the faculty. Over the course of the partnership, the academic staff at the Faculty of Education 
have come a long way. For some this has been a first introduction to using email and online materials;
for others, who were more advanced to begin with, it has been a higher level of collaboration and 
access to scientific journals. As a result of the research clusters and expanded professional networks, 
two research papers have already been published and others are in process. The research clusters have 
25 However, according to the Dean of ECEN, these projects are not located at ECEN and are in fact being conducted at the 
Center for Energy Sustainability.
USAID TLP Partnership Program Performance Evaluation – Final Report
33
also had the effect of changing the culture at the Faculty with more of the academic staff working 
together in teams on research papers. A team of professors has jointly applied to the U.S. Embassy for 
grants on science teaching.
Overall, the partnerships have helped each of the faculties in the program improve their curriculum as 
well as the instruction methods through several different ways, including sharing of curricula and syllabi 
by faculty at partner universities, helping UP academic staff develop new courses based on their learning, 
demonstrating active teaching and learning methods either by having the exchange staff observe classes 
during the semester-in-residence program or through co-teaching courses during visits of partner 
university faculty to UP, lectures on teaching methods and development of curricula, and assistance with 
expanded library resources. 
4.1.3 Centers to support improvement in teaching and research (University￾wide Activities) 
In addition to the faculty-specific partnerships and exchange program, the project has supported the 
improvement in quality of teaching and research at UP by establishing and/or reviving various centers, 
including the Center for Teaching Excellence, Centre for Energy and Sustainability, and Office for 
Research and Sponsored Projects.
26 These are described below. 
Center for Teaching Excellence (CTE): With support and technical assistance from the Partnerships 
component, CTE has been revived and relaunched with the express purpose of providing UP academic 
staff with in-service training to improve teaching and research.27 Staffed by 22 trainers (12 newly 
certified) over the past four years, CTE has offered 12 workshops and trainings on various topics of 
interest to 267 academic staff at UP. Some of the earlier trainings and workshops offered with assistance 
from TLP-SP provided trainers (ASU and WL experts) included workshops on teaching methodology, 
course management, syllabi preparation, hybrid teaching methods, student evaluation/assessment, 
leadership and mentorship of MA and PhD candidates, research grant writing and a lecture series on 
renewable energy – Measuring Your Carbon Footprint: The Greenhouse Effect (delivered to ECEN 
Faculty and students).
The center is now offering two trainings on a regular basis – a two day basic training and a shorter 
advanced training – that all academic faculty must complete. The basic training covers topics such as 
theories of learning/teaching, teaching/learning styles, classroom management, interactive techniques in 
teaching, learning assessments, etc. Advanced training includes modules on syllabus design, problem￾based learning, action research in classrooms, active and interactive university classroom, and designing 
learning outcomes. In response to demands from academic staff for more in-depth courses, the center 
has developed courses on differentiated instruction (how to modify instruction to reach every student in 
26 Other initiatives included in the original plan of the project, such as the Center for Continuous Education and the provision 
of online courses, were modified and/or dropped in line with the changing priorities of the UP administration. An additional 
center recently approved by UP is DataUP, which follows the working principles of “Domestic Data Center” and will serve the 
big data analysis needs inside the university and externally. As it is a recent addition to UP and is just starting up, it has not been 
included in this evaluation.
27 The Center for Teaching Excellence was established at UP in 2004 with donor support. However, lack of support after the 
project ended resulted in the Center becoming an inactive body, that existed only on paper.
USAID TLP Partnership Program Performance Evaluation – Final Report
34
the classroom) and use of technology in the classroom. It also has the capacity to offer trainings on use 
of online course management systems, specifically working with the “CourseSites” software. 
Surveys and focus groups with participants of the workshops and seminars offered by CTE reveal that 
over two-thirds of the respondents found the training very relevant for them. The format used for 
presentation was conducive to learning and easy to use and adapted to the UP context. They reported 
that as a result of the training they felt empowered to make a change in their practice. However, a large 
proportion of the respondents said that university policies did not allow them to make any changes to 
the way they taught. They noted that while workshops were a good beginning, the topics covered 
provide only a broad over-view and there was a need to include opportunities for hands-on practice for 
skills learned. They observed that in some cases the training was very high level while for others it was 
too basic, suggesting the need to ensure that the seminars and trainings offered were at the ability level 
of the participants, even if it meant having separate sessions for academic staff from social sciences and 
natural sciences (including engineering) as well as by years of teaching experience. Participants from 
focus groups reported that the activity of teaching students varied by discipline, because of which having 
common courses across the board for all academic staff was useful for introducing the concepts – but 
needed more discipline-specific examples to make it relevant. Finally, they asked for the training to 
address the training topics in greater detail than was possible in the 45 minutes, which was the 
maximum allowed in the current program. 
Our research revealed evidence of tension between the senior trainers and the junior, newly certified 
trainers. For the UP academic staff to be supported by the CTE, this tension must be resolved. 
Centre for Energy and Sustainability (CES): Launched in September 2017, CES offers a multi￾disciplinary certificate program in sustainable and renewable energy. A first of its kind at UP and in the 
region, CES was developed as a vehicle to generate practical solutions and policies to address problems 
of global warming, climate change, conservation, etc. Initially planned to be a part of the Faculty of 
Engineering, it was established as a stand-alone center at the central level in UP. With oversight from 
the Vice-Rector for Teaching, the center draws its staff from several UP faculties. CES offers a 
Certificate program in “Renewable Energy and Sustainability” for UP students as well as for the private 
sector.28 This course consolidates courses currently taught in different faculties, which were updated 
with assistance from TLP-SP and ASU to meet the needs of certificate participants. Offered in addition 
to the Bachelor’s degree awarded by UP, this certificate program is expected to lead to better 
employment opportunities for the students. Students pay a nominal fee of Euros 35 to enroll in the 
certificate program and have the flexibility of completing the coursework in one semester or over a 
period of two years. The first round of the certificate program was offered to two cohorts of 50 
students each in 2018-19. However, the program has not been very successful, and after the initial 
enrollment of students, there has not been enough interest in the program. In the second semester, the 
students did not pay their fees and not enough students enrolled for the following semester. The 
program is currently being reorganized both in terms of content (to make it less geared for science 
students) and administration. 
28 Initial discussions for the launch of this center were held at the faculty for Engineering, however, due to its multidisciplinary 
nature, the center was established at the University level.
USAID TLP Partnership Program Performance Evaluation – Final Report
35
Office for Research and Sponsored Projects (ORSP): Following recommendations from the Advisory 
Committee, UP established the ORSP in 2017 to encourage and facilitate the engagement of its 
academic staff in sponsored research and generate revenue for UP. Located in a space provided by the 
University, the center is fully furnished and functional with a coordinator and two staff members. The 
center has access to research tools such as “COS” and “PIVOT” for finding grants opportunities. 
The center is helping improve the quality of research by working with staff members at the various 
faculties to provide training as needed on basics of current day research such as ability to use a 
computer, to have an email to access online journals and reference materials to hosting seminars and 
workshops on writing grant proposals and responding to funding opportunities.
29 The staff also send out 
periodic emails informing academic staff about upcoming grant and research opportunities. In addition, 
the center staff have worked carefully to update and correctly track research and publication 
information for all of the UP’s teaching staff. This improvement in data quality is said to have contributed 
to UP’s significant increase (several hundred points) in rank on the Webometrics platform.
While ORSP is a step in the right direction for UP to be recognized as a research university, there is a 
need to ensure it becomes a central point in all research. Conversations with academic staff at the 
faculties participating in the Partnerships program suggest that not all staff interested in conducting 
research were even aware of ORSP’s existence (Only 60 percent of the respondents in a survey of 
academic staff that had participated in the Partnerships exchange program reported being aware of the 
program). Also, at this point, ORSP is able to offer only the very basic services such as disseminating 
information on grant opportunities, photocopying and printing. It is not able to, for various reasons 
including lack of staff, offer support for writing proposals, developing proposal budgets or post-award
project management, things that can make it attractive to prospective researchers. Finally, ORSP needs 
to market itself to the faculties, since not all Vice-Rectors and Deans have bought into the idea of a 
common research center.
4.2 Progress towards meeting the Grand Challenges 
For purposes of this evaluation, effective implementation of the Grand Challenges for each partnership 
means that: (i) the Grand Challenges were identified; (ii) information about these challenges was shared 
with key stakeholders, including UP senior management and perhaps even externally with the public; and 
(iii) the Faculties, with assistance of the senior management of UP, actively worked towards developing a 
program that would enable them to meet the challenges.
TLP-SP, with help of its Advisory Committee (AC), identified the challenges facing higher education 
institutions in the fields of Engineering, Agriculture, Education, and Economics as they prepare students 
for the workforce, so that its activities could be designed in a way to help mitigate these challenges. 
Called the “Grand Challenges,” these are: 
29 The seminars and workshops were offered by TLP-SP partner/sub Arizona State University.
USAID TLP Partnership Program Performance Evaluation – Final Report
36
Grand Challenges as identified by Advisory Committee
● Engineering: Sustainable energy, information technology and new materials
● Agriculture & 
Veterinary:
Development of profitable agricultural production, changes to regulations and laws, innovation 
in production techniques, understanding the importance of environmental impact, training in 
contemporary modes of marketing and management, and strengthening of extension services
● Education: Workforce development, innovation and technology, and specific needs and challenges facing 
key industries and sectors
● Economy: Enhancing managerial skills, research capacity in institutes, collaboration with ICT, ways of 
developing incubators, and incentives to develop interdisciplinary work
However, as was noted at the time of the baseline study and again at midline, once the Grand 
Challenges were identified, there was no public communication of the identified issues and they were 
not actively considered by the members of the Partnership program as they designed and/or planned 
their activities. Neither the four selected UP faculties nor their U.S. Partners seemed to have any 
knowledge about these Grand Challenges. However, many of the activities undertaken by the 
Partnerships component support these Grand Challenges. Some examples are presented below:
● The Faculty of Engineering has held seminars on topics such as ‘Electricity Regulation and its 
Impact’ as well as ‘Signal Processing and Machine Learning with Application to Power Systems’. 
and ‘Renewable Energy, Sustainability, and Measuring Carbon Footprint.’ During their semester￾abroad, the exchange staff focused on the topic of renewable energy and received a lot of 
exposure. One of them has designed and accredited a new course on this topic. However, the 
planned Master’s program at the Faculty did not materialize. Resources were instead diverted to 
helping UP with establishing the Center for Renewable Energy and Sustainability at the central 
level (under the Vice-Rector for Teaching) that will provide certificates in energy audit. In sum, 
these initiatives together are helping the faculty prepare students to address the Grand 
Challenge of sustainable energy, information technology and new materials in Kosovo, albeit not 
at the same level as would have been achieved by having a Master’s program focusing on 
Renewable Energy within the Faculty. 
● The Faculty of Agriculture & Veterinary, with workshops on topics such as ‘Farm to Table: Dairy 
Systems in Kosovo’ and introduction of new technologies such as X-Rays for animals is 
addressing its own challenge of innovation in production techniques. Similarly, with the repair 
and upgrade of existing machines the department of Veterinary Medicine is able to offer 
anesthesia services, a first for the country. Setting up a small animal hospital in the University 
and plans for setting up an institute at the faculty (a strategy and business plan has been 
approved by the Rector and is pending approval by the Senate), to provide services and linkages 
with the private sector are also steps in the same direction. All of these initiatives together are 
addressing the challenge of innovation in production techniques as well as the strengthening of 
extension services, a part of the Grand Challenge.
● The use of “active learning via consulting” approach by the Faculty of Economy is enhancing 
their own research capacity as well as that of the private sector institutions they work with. 
Based on the use of research methods and hands on data collection and analysis this approach 
will enhance the decision-making capacity of the private sector institutions. Introduction of a 
course that includes these research methods (pending accreditation) will enhance the 
management skills of the graduates from the Faculty of Economy, again partially supporting the 
USAID TLP Partnership Program Performance Evaluation – Final Report
37
Grand Challenge of “enhancing managerial skills, research capacity in institutes, collaboration 
with ICT, ways of developing incubators, and incentives to develop interdisciplinary work.” 
● In addition, originating from the recommendations of the Advisory Committee, the incubation 
center at UP – Venture UP – has been established as an NGO, but the fact that it is located on 
UP premises and has an MOU with the University makes it an integral resource for university 
graduates. To the extent that this is an incubator and offers training on skills for the workforce 
and provides resources for new enterprise, it is helping meet the Grand Challenge for the 
Faculty of Economy and support students and young academic staff from other faculties in UP 
and other Universities in Kosovo.
● As a way of preparing its students to be prepared for the workforce the Faculty of Education is 
beginning to introduce more technology in its classrooms, as well as seminars and lectures that 
include training on use of computers, email, English language, etc. It is also supporting research 
clusters as a means of broadening the exposure for the academic staff and students to the 
current trends and innovations. Workshops on topics, such as use of quantitative research and 
data analysis, qualitative research and mixed methods, and applied research methods, are 
designed to build the capacity of the Faculty to conduct primary and secondary research. The 
academic staff have also been introduced to the Qualtrics platform, a powerful online tool for 
collecting qualitative and quantitative data. The Faculty hosted the first ever Scientific 
Symposium, now an annual activity, with support from TLP-SP and the TEMPUS project. All 
these initiatives together are a step towards meeting the Grand Challenge of “workforce 
development, innovation and technology, and specific needs and challenges facing key industries 
and sectors” for the Faculty of Education. 
In addition, the various university wide cross-cutting activities under the TLP-SP Partnerships program 
were designed to together improve the quality of academic staff and teaching, thereby also meeting the 
essence of the Grand Challenges”. In sum, even though no formal connection has been made between 
the activities and the expected cumulative effect of finding a solution to the challenge, good progress has 
been made towards meeting the Grand Challenges.
USAID TLP Partnership Program Performance Evaluation – Final Report
38
5 Evaluation Question 3: Utilization and sustainability of new 
technology, systems, knowledge and skills
This chapter responds to Evaluation Question 3: Have the selected faculties been able to utilize, maintain 
and build up new technology, systems, knowledge and skills? What actions have been taken and/or mechanisms 
put in place to help ensure the sustainability of the partnership efforts?
5.1 Utilization of new technology, systems, knowledge and skills
All four faculties participating in TLP-SP – Agriculture & Veterinary, Economy, Education, and 
Engineering – have made significant but varying degrees of progress in building up new technology, 
systems, knowledge and skills. Using resources from TLP-SP as well as from other ongoing donor￾funded programs at UP, the faculties have updated their technology and systems to track and monitor 
progress of students, provide them with access to online course materials, connect them upon 
graduation with alumni for internships and work opportunities, and give them access to the latest 
knowledge and research materials available. Across all the four faculties engaged in the Partnerships 
program, online courses are generating significant interest among academic staff and students, though 
the offerings have been limited and the uptake slow. Focus groups with the staff and interviews with the 
Deans indicate that the staff are ready to use online courses as a part of their teaching – or at the very 
least, use the online platforms for posting their materials or syllabi for their courses – but since there 
are two competing systems – CourseSites, which enables staff to upload up to five courses each, and 
SEMS, the old system in existence at UP – staff are awaiting a decision by the University which system to 
use so that they do not end up duplicating efforts. 
In terms of equipment support, the faculty of Engineering has received white boards, computers and 
projectors to modernize their classrooms and the faculty of Agriculture has received support with 
making existing equipment functional and some new equipment to support the creation of the small 
animal clinic. Specifically, the Faculty of Agriculture & Veterinary has, with assistance from TLP-SP, 
fulfilled its long-standing vision of setting up clinics and providing services to the public. The Faculty has 
also developed the design and strategy for establishing an Agricultural institute within the Faculty and has 
submitted it to the Board for approval. Existing equipment that was unusable has been repaired and put 
in use with support in terms of new parts and technical knowhow from the partner University. 
The selected faculties are beginning to use the technology, knowledge and skills offered by the 
Partnerships program to enhance the quality of teaching and research, which are discussed in detail 
below. 
Teaching methods
Across all four faculties, the exchange program staff reported receiving exposure to active learning and 
teaching methods, group work and use of technology in the classrooms. The visiting staff from the 
partner universities also provided training on teaching methods, curriculum development and research 
skills to the participating faculty staff, who also received training on management of large classrooms 
while using group work and active teaching methods.
USAID TLP Partnership Program Performance Evaluation – Final Report
39
Some of the returning staff reported using the new teaching methods in their teaching at UP, while 
several others reported being unable to use the new skills as they could not make the connection 
between the new teaching methodology and its application to the context in Prishtina as the class sizes 
in Prishtina were much larger than those in the U.S. and the classrooms did not have the kind of 
technology as in the U.S. classrooms. Still others reported feeling self-conscious in using the active 
learning techniques in their classrooms in UP. 
The experience across the four faculties is mixed. At the Faculty of Education, academic staff have been 
slow in adopting and incorporating new teaching methods that they learned from the visit to the partner 
universities in the U.S. Likewise, there has been minimal use of the new methods in the faculties of 
Engineering and Agriculture & Veterinary. In the former, only one of the three academic staff that went 
to the U.S. is currently at the faculty, and he is using new approaches in his teaching. In the Faculty of 
Agriculture and Veterinary, staff have been unable to use new methodologies in their classes at UP as 
the classrooms are not internet-enabled. Staff are trying to include quizzes and electronic pages to 
assess students, but the large class sizes and the lack of technology is making it difficult. At the Faculty of 
Economy, however, the academic staff have been faster in incorporating the new methods of teaching, 
grading, etc., into their course work, and the Professor as well as the two teaching assistants who went 
to the U.S. are all implementing active learning in their approach to their courses. 
The returning exchange staff was expected to share their new knowledge and skills with colleagues 
within the Faculty, and hence spread the knowledge through peer-to-peer learning. This has not 
happened, however, since there is no formal mechanism, such as brown bag seminars, to do so. The 
only exception is the Faculty of Economy, where the Dean requested the returned exchange staff to 
demonstrate the new methods to the other staff. 
One of the goals of the faculty-specific partnerships was to help the Faculty gain new and updated 
curricula and course materials. The semester abroad participants from all four faculties reported that 
having developed new syllabi with the help of the partner university or bringing back enough materials 
for whole new courses. Several exchange staff reported that the faculty in their host institutions were 
very generous with sharing materials in hard and soft copy. Even though it had taken time, almost two 
years in some cases, for the academic staff to do this, they have incorporated the new teaching methods 
and the course materials into their own teaching and some of them are planning to submit these 
new/updated courses for the next round of accreditation. The Faculty of Economy has developed a new 
course on Business Consulting, which was introduced following the staff visit to Tuck School of Business 
at Dartmouth and will shortly be submitted for accreditation. The Faculty of Electrical Engineering is 
planning to introduce three new courses at the next round of accreditation. No new courses have been 
developed at the Faculty of Education or at the Faculty of Agriculture and Veterinary at this point.
Research methods
In an effort to improve the research culture at UP, the Partnerships program has helped create research 
clusters in which academic staff could work in teams and write papers that they could present at 
symposia and conferences at UP and in the region. Thirteen such research projects have been 
implemented: 7 in the Faculty of Education, one in Agriculture and 5 that are based in the Center for 
Renewable Energy and Sustainability but reported (by TLP-SP) under Engineering. 
USAID TLP Partnership Program Performance Evaluation – Final Report
40
At the Faculty of Education, the research clusters have worked on various topics of interest and the staff 
participating in research clusters have published two papers in scientific journals and others are in 
progress. However, there is no mechanism to ensure sustainability of these clusters. Interviews with 
management and staff have revealed that the clusters were operating as long as the U.S. partner was 
involved and present on the ground to facilitate their meetings. At this point it does not appear that 
these clusters are sustainable and embedded in the work culture of the institution. 
The Faculty of Engineering had hoped that the TLP would provide opportunities for joint research 
projects between them and the U.S. partner. However, this has not happened at the level that the 
Faculty had hoped for. Five research clusters designed for the Faculty of Engineering were created at the 
Center for Renewable Energy and Sustainability and provided with seed grants for research, but they 
have not moved very far along. 
The other two faculties have not invested much in research methods. At the Faculty of Economy, the 
visiting faculty introduced a course on Onsite Global Consulting that included components of primary 
data collection. The Faculty of Agriculture has focused on development of clinics and provision of 
services as the focus of the partnership, so that there was only one research project at the Faculty.
5.2 Sustainability
TLP-SP has helped UP take several actions to help ensure the sustainability of the partnership efforts.
Some of them are aimed at implementation of the Action Plan, others to improve student services, and 
yet others to improving academic performance. These are discussed below.
Initiatives to support the implementation of the Action Plan
Working closely with the Rector and his team of senior and mid-level management staff, TLP-SP has 
helped the UP team take ownership of the change and make it sustainable over time. UP management 
staff, at all levels, provided input into the development of the Action Plan and the accompanying rule 
books. They were also engaged in the process of deciding the specific areas of TLP-SP support for 
implementing the Action Plan and making the changes more acceptable. 
The one-on-one coaching and training for the Rector and the senior management as well as the 
Leadership training offered to the mid-level management staff has helped create a mass of administrators 
with a new understanding of their roles and responsibilities and training in leadership and risk-taking. 
The Rector has worked hard to build a relationship with the Steering Board, and the resulting mutual 
cooperation has helped bring stability to the university and gather the support needed for change. As 
pointed out by some key stakeholders, “there has been no hung board” and the university is functioning 
in a more normal manner. Yet there have been some suggestions from the Rectorate to slow down the 
pace of change to accommodate the culture of Kosovo. The Rector and his team have done well in 
leading change so far; how they do after the end of the project remains to be seen. 
Similarly, the submission to the Steering Board of the planned reforms of the financial systems together 
with draft regulations is an indicator of the University’s efforts to make the reforms permanent. One of 
USAID TLP Partnership Program Performance Evaluation – Final Report
41
these reforms, normalization of academic staff salaries, has been approved by the Board and has already 
been implemented, resulting in a large saving for the university. If the remaining regulations are approved 
by the Board, they will enable the administrators to follow through with the changes. Similarly, the fact 
that there is now an HR Manual, which presents all the rules and regulations governing staff employees 
in one place and which can be shared internally within UP and externally, is an important step in the 
direction of transparency in the hiring and promotion processes.
TLP-SP has helped the university develop an overarching system for data collection, which fills a gap in 
the way data is currently being collected. In addition, a software program has been developed to query 
the existing data systems and to mine the data from these systems. Templates have been developed to 
create periodic reports on administrative data to assist the management with decision-making. However, 
the accuracy and completeness of the reports generated depends on the data provided by the faculties, 
and to be sustainable and useful in the long-run there must be a way to ensure that the faculties provide 
complete and accurate data. 
Initiatives to improve student services
To improve the level of services available to students, UP has revived the Career Center at UP and 
established an Alumni Association. Both are designed to help improve the employment prospects of UP 
students through developing networks with alumni, and information about possible opportunities for 
internships and employment. In addition, the Alumni Association, with funding from the University, is 
helping organize ‘Orientation Days’ for new students and ‘Graduation Days’ as a public relations 
exercise for the university. Venture UP, an NGO, has been established with tangential support from 
TLP-SP to support the students with soft-skills for employment and draws its funds from donor 
agencies. It will be sustainable to the extent it can continue to raise funds. The Career Center and the 
Alumni Association will be sustainable only if the University provides management leadership and 
financial support for them and the students are encouraged to use them.
Improvement of academic performance 
The new/revived centers at the University – such as the Office for Sponsored Research (ORSP), the 
Center for Teaching Excellence (CTE), and the multidisciplinary Center for Renewable Energy and 
Sustainability (CES) – are fully functional and have staff and equipment. Importantly, these centers are 
supported by regulations and budget lines that are integrated in UP’s budget, which reinforces their 
sustainability over the long run. The research and teaching centers are also supported by regulations 
that mandate and formalize their use by the staff. For instance, all staff must provide evidence of in￾service training from the CTE or equivalent to be promoted. UP is moving towards a regulation that will 
ensure that all research conducted by the academic staff at UP goes through the ORSP. Each of these 
regulations is likely to lead to sustainability of these centers. 
The academic staff at UP have been exposed to new methods of teaching, including active teaching and 
group work. With the continued support of in-service training offered by CTE, the use of these new 
methods is likely to be sustainable. The staff have also been exposed to online courses and are ready to 
take the next step by rolling out materials online. This must be supported by UP, which must support 
the academic staff with selection of a single platform that is used by all at UP and by incentivizing the use 
of online teaching. 
USAID TLP Partnership Program Performance Evaluation – Final Report
42
The partnerships with the faculties have resulted in a lot of individual learning and capacity building. 
Regardless of what happens at the University, the knowledge and skills developed by the academic staff 
through semester-exchange programs and workshops will be sustained over the long-term. However, 
the likelihood and degree of sustainability of activities and initiatives implemented varies by faculty. 
Sustainability is perhaps most likely at the Faculty of Economy where, despite the partnership ending
two years ago, the professors involved have maintained relationships with their partner institution and 
are using their newly-acquired skills and course materials. At the urging of the Dean, they have also 
shared these skills with other academic staff, creating a cadre of staff using active learning in research 
methods. In addition, the Faculty is planning to submit its new courses for accreditation, which will then 
become a more regular part of the faculty’s curriculum. 
Likewise, the degree and likelihood of sustainability is high at Faculty of Agriculture & Veterinary, where 
the partnerships have resulted in new equipment, refurbishment of equipment and establishment of 
clinics. The Faculty of Agriculture and Veterinary has also developed, and submitted to the Board, plans 
for establishment of an institute that will expand the service offered by the clinics. These plans are likely 
to be sustained with support of UP. 
The likelihood of sustainability is lower in the other two faculties. At the Faculty of Engineering, while 
the new teaching methods and course materials are likely to be well-received, they are unlikely to be 
sustained over the long-term. The Center for Renewable Energy and Sustainability, planned to be a part 
of the partnership with Engineering but implemented as a standalone center at the Rectorate, needs to 
rethink its curriculum and fee structure, and since it offers only a certificate rather than a degree, it is 
unlikely to be sustained in its current form. Likewise, sustainability is difficult at the Faculty of Education, 
where even though the exchange staff are beginning to use the skills learned in their own teaching, there 
is no formal mechanism for sharing or support except through training by CTE. Further, while the staff 
participating in research clusters have published two papers in scientific journals and others are in 
progress, there is no mechanism to ensure sustainability of these clusters.
USAID TLP Partnership Program Performance Evaluation – Final Report
43
6 Conclusions and Recommendations
The Partnerships component of the TLP-SP project supported partnerships between University of 
Prishtina (UP) and universities in the U.S. to upgrade select faculties to provide training, knowledge and 
skills that meet the demands of modern day and competitive markets. The four selected faculties of UP 
– Agriculture and Veterinary, Economy, Education, and Computer and Electrical Engineering – were 
each paired with a U.S. university selected for their expertise in the specific field.. 
Analysis of the evidence gathered from project records as well as interviews with key informants 
overwhelmingly indicates that almost all activities planned for the Partnerships component have been 
completed.
30 Notwithstanding delays caused by changes in the senior management both at UP31 and 
within the project itself, the stability provided by the current UP management ensured that almost all 
planned activities were successfully completed during the project period. Overall, everyone interviewed 
by the evaluation team was unanimous in appreciating the work done by the TLP-SP team. Many of the 
activities can be deemed to be successful, but their sustainability is likely to be limited. A summary 
discussion is below. 
Leadership and change management training as well as one-on-one coaching for senior and mid-level 
management staff at UP have been well received by the participants and have created leaders with a 
vision for transforming the university into a well-functioning university with improved academic 
performance. The training has helped all staff understand the theoretical concepts of leadership and the 
importance of taking initiative. The training has helped strengthen leadership skills among senior 
management more than among mid-level staff with more of the senior management, especially the 
Rector, reporting that the training has helped them think in a more strategic way about implementing 
their ideas and leading the change. However, the change has not yet affected the top-down leadership 
culture that exists at UP. Despite the training and a better understanding of the concepts of leadership, 
the mid-level staff still tend to struggle with taking initiative within their own scope of work. 
In addition, leadership training has had limited success in facilitating communication between the senior 
and mid-level management at UP. An example of this is the lack of support from senior management for 
projects planned by mid-level staff for improvement of UP. During training, all mid-level staff were 
encouraged to develop ideas for a project designed to help improve UP. Except for two or three such 
projects that have been implemented (such as the commencement and the orientation ceremonies), 
others have not received support of the senior management. While the senior management reported
being open to new ideas from the mid-level management, the fact that they were not even aware of the 
various project ideas or the need for approvals is an indication of a gap in communication between the 
senior and mid-level management. 
At the Rectorate level, the support provided to the senior management (Rector and Vice Rectors) has 
30 The project was awarded as a cooperative agreement, that allows for modification to the broad activities in response to 
changes on the ground. As a result even though all activities planned in the work plan for the year may have been completed, 
some of the original activities planned at the beginning of the project may have changed along the way. 
31 There were four changes of UP Rector and his team between the start of the TLP-SP project and nomination of the current 
Rector in 2016
USAID TLP Partnership Program Performance Evaluation – Final Report
44
helped to develop and implement a new strategy, supported by regulations and rule books. This new 
strategy replaced the UP Action Plan of 2013, which became redundant when the current Rector took 
over the management of UP in 2016. The Rector has been able to provide stability to the University and 
work collaboratively with the University Board and Senate to ensure normal functioning of the 
University over the past three years. The senior management at UP report being empowered to lead 
implementation of new policies and support new initiatives introduced by TLP-SP, but at the same time 
caution that change must be slow and within the cultural context of Kosovo to be sustained. 
With help from the TLP-SP project, the University has improved its image through improved external 
communications and public relations. It has a new website designed to provide more information to the 
students and the public. The database of updated listing of publications by UP academic staff developed 
by the newly created Office for Research at UP has led to a significant improvement in the ranking of UP 
on the webometrics ranking system. The University has also improved its public relations through 
increased attention paid to alumni relations, as well as student centered activities.
UP has introduced various initiatives that are expected to contribute to revenue generation, with 
support of TLP-SP Partnerships program. Several regulations, such as those aimed at streamlining 
salaries for teaching staff, have already been implemented and the resulting savings have been used to 
pay for several reforms at the university. Other regulations that will result in reform of the financial 
management at the university, including decentralization to give more autonomy to the faculties in 
management of their budgets and procurement, are awaiting approval by the UP Board. It is also 
expected that the multidisciplinary Center for Renewable Energy and Sustainability, the Office for 
Research (ORSP) and the revitalized Center for Teaching Excellence (revitalized with TLP-SP assistance) 
will contribute to revenue generation by charging fees for provision of services. While support for these 
initiatives is almost unanimous, conversations with various stakeholders, including members of the 
Board, indicated that the decision on decentralization needs more thinking. The centers are also facing 
some hiccups: the Center for Renewable Energy and Sustainability is not being able to attract new 
students, and the ORSP is still not at a point where it can support academic staff in writing research 
proposals or develop proposal budgets. The training provided by the Center for Teaching is well￾received but is still in the process of planning provision of services to external clients and generating 
revenue.
Administrative services and services for students have improved as evidenced by the increased focus on 
Alumni, establishment of an Alumni Association, student orientation and graduation ceremonies, 
establishment of Venture UP (an NGO, on UP premises), to name a few. A new database has been 
designed to collect information from existing systems to assist students with on-time graduation. The 
Career Center is now equipped with an e-career platform to help students search for employment 
opportunities and an optical reader to help for faster grading of exam papers. While it is difficult to see 
the processes and mechanisms that have been put in place for use and sustainability of the Career 
Center, the increased focus on alumni, and student orientation and graduation ceremonies have been 
liked enough by all stakeholders to be sustained over the long run.
In addition, UP has a new database that will enable it to draw data from the existing data management 
systems and present it in a user-friendly manner. This is expected to have the benefit of more efficient 
USAID TLP Partnership Program Performance Evaluation – Final Report
45
management and development of policies supported by data. It will also support students with readily 
available information to enable them to manage their own study programs.
While four faculties – Engineering, Agriculture, Economy and Education – were included in the 
Partnerships program at the beginning of the project, only three continued to the second phase of the 
partnerships. The partnership at the Faculty of Economy was not extended as it could not develop a 
meaningful workplan with its partners. There is some evidence that the faculty-specific partnerships are 
beginning to bear fruit in terms of use of new methods of teaching and managing classes, modified syllabi 
and development of new courses – all likely to be sustained over the long run. The faculties that were a 
part of the program are starting to see academic staff using new ways of teaching and managing classes. 
The academic staff that were a part of the exchange program brought back new syllabi and curricula for 
new courses as well as textbooks in addition to the skills learned through observation of teaching by 
their American colleagues. Several of the academic staff that had gone to the U.S. on exchange visits 
reported taking almost two years (two academic cycles) to modify their existing syllabi to incorporate 
new techniques such as continuous assessment and active learning methods into their teaching. The 
exchange staff also reported developing new courses to be included in the next round of faculty 
accreditation process (faculties of Engineering and Economy). 
While none of the faculties mandated the sharing of learning and experience in a formal way, academic 
staff reported sharing their learning with colleagues informally. The most surprising finding was from the 
Faculty of Economy. The partnership at the Faculty of Economy was not extended beyond the first 
phase due to a lack of agreement between the partners on a meaningful scope of work, this was the only 
faculty where the Dean mandated the exchange academic staff to share its experiences with colleagues 
through brown bags. As a result, the Faculty now has a cadre of academic staff that are using active 
learning in their classrooms and have developed new courses based on materials obtained from the 
exchange visit for accreditation. 
Through faculty-specific partnerships, the project has been successful in supporting efforts to introduce 
a better research culture in the participating faculties. At the Faculty of Education, research clusters 
were created to support the academic staff to collaborate on writing papers. Similar clusters were also 
created at the Center for Renewable Energy and Sustainability. Interviews with management and staff 
shows that the clusters were working well with the support of the U.S. partner, but at this point the 
clusters are not embedded in the work culture of the institution and there are no concrete plans for 
their sustainability beyond the life of the project. Both the faculties of Education and Engineering 
received access to academic journals through the Partnerships program. This access has ended with the 
end of the partnerships/project and there are no plans at this point to fill the gap. 
The Faculty of Engineering has received some support from the partnerships but not to the extent 
hoped for by the Dean of the faculty. While the establishment of the multidisciplinary Center for 
Renewable Energy and Sustainability has been hailed as a success for UP and a first in the region, it has 
come at a high cost for the Faculty of Engineering. The Center has been established at the Central level, 
not within the faculty of Engineering. Most of the funds available for partnership activities for the faculty 
of Engineering were diverted to the center with the result that the activities slowed down at the faculty 
USAID TLP Partnership Program Performance Evaluation – Final Report
46
and the hoped for joint research projects did not materialize.3233
The Faculty of Agriculture has had a successful partnership, with faculty from the U.S. partner holding 
workshops on teaching methods and offering support on the repair and refurbishing of existing 
equipment. The workshops were attended by academic staff and graduate students and were well￾received. Existing equipment that was unusable has been repaired and put in use with support in terms 
of new parts and technical knowhow from the partner University. The academic staff in the exchange 
program saw a lot of learning from the field visits in the U.S. The faculty has, as per its plan with the 
TLP-SP project, established an animal clinic that is offering services to the University and the public 
(perhaps also earn some revenue in the future through fees for services provided). The clinic will 
eventually be housed within an institute at the Faculty of Agriculture, plans for which are already in 
place. Both the clinic and the institute have dedicated funding and full support of UP management and 
are likely to be sustained.
Similarly, the partnership at the Faculty of Education has been successful. All of the exchange staff 
brought back new syllabi and curricula for new courses as well as textbooks. The academic staff are 
beginning to use the skills learned and incorporating new materials into their exiting syllabi. They are 
also developing new courses for accreditation. The faculty is now using a book on research methods 
that was translated into Albanian providing additional resources for the students. As a result of the 
partnership there have been efforts at getting the academic staff to conduct research, but these efforts 
have met with limited success. 
The revival of the Center for Teaching Excellence (CTE), supported by the regulations mandating all 
academic staff attend at least two professional development courses as a requirement for promotion, is 
helping support improvement of quality of teaching at the University. With assistance of the TLP-SP 
project, CTE is now functional, with a fully-furnished training room and office for the coordinator and is 
providing training to UP teaching staff. Over a third of the staff has already been trained. In addition to 
the existing trainers at UP, a cohort of 12 new trainers has been trained and certified and will begin 
providing training in the next academic year. The Center has a budget line in the UP budget which, given 
the requirement of training for promotion, is likely to be sustained over the long run. However, there is 
tension between the senior and junior trainers at CTE which must be resolved to ensure sustainability. 
Last but not the least is the introduction of CourseSites to UP. This is a free platform for the faculty to 
put their courses online and incorporates a lot of the technological advances. However, this conflicts 
with SEMS, a grading and online course system already in use by UP. Academic staff across all faculties 
are hesitant to use the new system until such time the university has decided which platform it will 
support. Interviews with academic staff suggested that the academic staff are willing to put in the time 
and effort to learn the new system and to create online content, but would like for the university to 
formally adopt one or the other system, even if it is not mandatory for all staff to use it, so that their 
efforts to create an online course are not wasted. 
32 The funds diverted from the faculty of Engineering to The Center for Energy Sustainability was as per the terms of the 
subcontract.
33 A review of TLP-SP databases indicated that all research grants/ projects conducted at the Center for Energy and 
Sustainability have been reported under the Faculty of Engineering.
USAID TLP Partnership Program Performance Evaluation – Final Report
47
Data collected through interviews and focus groups with various stakeholders and beneficiaries of the 
Partnerships component indicate that the TLP-SP project is beginning to have an impact on the UP and 
bring about a change to its landscape. There are some administrative changes in place for more efficient 
management of the University and ensure its stability; initiatives have been launched to collect better 
and more reliable data to support the university management with more efficient management and data￾based policy making, improve communication and the image of the university; as well as help improve 
the quality of teaching through better training for the staff, and input of new resources for teaching 
materials and research. The addition of three new centers – Center for Sponsored Research, Center for 
Energy and Sustainability and the UP Alumni Association – and the revival of the Center for Teaching 
Excellence have added to the resources available to the University to support university-wide 
improvements in the quality of teaching and learning. However, in the faculties there has been more 
individual learning than faculty-wide learning. Change across the University is slow and there is some 
evidence of impact that the university is moving towards better quality of education to meet the 
demands of the labor market. 
Many of these changes have been institutionalized or are in the process of institutionalization through 
proposed changes to the university rules and regulations, but questions about the sustainability of some 
of these initiatives remain.
Recommendations
Based on the discussion above, a few recommendations are offered for UP and for future donor support 
to UP. 
First, there are several concurrent university-wide activities that have been initiated under the TLP 
Partnerships program. Many of these activities were led by consultants and staff paid for by the TLP-SP 
project but are now led by UP staff. It is not clear if these staff have been sufficiently trained to carry out 
these activities, or if the University has the financial resources to ensure long-term sustainability of these 
arrangements. This is especially true for the newly formed multi-disciplinary Center for Energy and 
Sustainability/ We recommend that the university make a realistic assessment of the resources needed, 
in terms of additional training, staff or budgets, to ensure sustainability of these activities. 
Second, sustainability was built into the initiatives implemented under the University partnerships 
component through rule books and regulations. However, these regulations had not been approved at 
the time of this evaluation. In addition, TLP-SP has helped UP develop a sustainability plan for each of 
the initiatives after the end of the project. Now that the project has ended, to ensure sustainability of 
the initiatives, UP management must take ownership of these plans by including them in their 
management plan. This will ensure these plans are revisited periodically and updated to ensure their 
validity . . There is also a need for the leadership to pursue the approval of these regulations by the UP 
Board to ensure sustainability of these initiatives.
Third, the leadership management training offered to mid-level staff may have been at a level higher than 
what was needed. It is important to develop follow-on training to continue the process of developing 
skills and communications. There is also a need for training that targets the communication between 
USAID TLP Partnership Program Performance Evaluation – Final Report
48
staff at various levels of seniority within UP management.
Fourth, while the Deans of the faculty and a few senior members of the faculty management team were 
aware of the accomplishments of the academic staff who have benefitted from the semester-in-residence 
exchange program, there are no established means for beneficiaries to share their experiences. It is 
important that academic staff have opportunities and access to systems that facilitate the sharing of
experiences with colleagues as a form of informal training. 
Fifth, the Faculties do not have any means of tracking whether the returned staff have met the 
requirements of the program and developed the required syllabi, participated in lectures, or even 
whether they are using their new learning. This type of tracking is needed to monitor how the TLP-SP 
program has benefited the Faculties. 
Sixth, we recommend including research as a part of the University’s mission. Research clusters have 
been established in participating faculties as part of the faculty-specific partnerships. These clusters must 
be connected with the Office for Research and Sponsored Projects, which would help both, the 
members of the cluster to further their research as well as the Center by getting more people using its 
facilities. Including research as a part of the University’s mission will ensure sustainability of the center as 
well as improvement in the quality of research programs at the university.
Seventh, there is some continuing tension at the Center for Teaching Excellence between the senior 
trainers and the junior trainers on the training to be provided to academic staff and the methods of 
teaching and assessment. It is important to resolve this tension so that the academic staff can benefit 
from the expertise in new methods offered by the junior trainers and help make UP a world class 
university. We recommend UP provide exposure for the senior trainers to the active learning methods 
currently in use in the U.S., so that they are more encouraging of the use of those methods by the junior 
trainers. Another possibility is to pair junior trainers with senior trainers and, even though it will upset 
the prevalent practice at UP, have the junior trainers lead the training. 
Eighth, many activities under the Partnerships program support the Grand Challenges in the labor market 
as identified by the University and the Advisory Committee at the beginning of the program, but this has 
not been clearly communicated to all stakeholders. As a result, not everybody buys into the intent of 
this initiative to provide training, knowledge and skills to Kosovars that meet the demands of 
competitive markets. Failure or delay in doing so may compromise the efforts of the University to 
prepare its students for the workforce.
Ninth, the students graduating from UP lack practical experience and as a result are not as competitive 
in the current labor market. This practical experience can be gained through course work that includes 
problem solving, or through internships and practicums. We recommend the University examine its 
program delivery culture to include ways and means of helping students gain practical experience. There 
may also be a space to bring in expert assistance to help redesign these courses to include a practical 
component. 
USAID TLP Partnership Program Performance Evaluation – Final Report
49
Tenth, the labor market requires students to be well versed in more than one discipline. This is 
especially true in the science fields. The newly established multi-disciplinary center for Energy and 
Sustainability is a first step in this direction. However more effort is needed in this regard and it would 
be good for UP examine/revise its programs and policies to enable students to take credit-bearing 
courses in other disciplines as a part of their graduation requirements.
Eleven, there is a strong demand for decentralization from the faculties within UP. While TLP-SP made 
some small attempts at helping UP in this direction, there is a need for a larger initiative supporting 
governance reform at UP. 
Twelve, UP has several different ongoing donor-funded programs. It is important to ensure that these 
programs build on each other or are supportive of ongoing initiatives, so as to ensure there is no 
duplication of efforts. In addition, there is a need to bring examples of administration, program 
management and training programs at the various centers from a mix of U.S. and European universities 
so that UP can choose the most appropriate given the context of Kosovo.
And finally, there is a need to slow down the pace of training and recommendations for change provided
to allow the senior management time to absorb and internalize all the recommended activities and 
implement them well.
USAID TLP Partnership Program Performance Evaluation – Final Report
50
7 Annexes
Annex1: Scope of Work for the Evaluation
USAID TLP Partnership Program Performance Evaluation – Final Report
51
USAID TLP Partnership Program Performance Evaluation – Final Report
52
USAID TLP Partnership Program Performance Evaluation – Final Report
53
USAID TLP Partnership Program Performance Evaluation – Final Report
54
USAID TLP Partnership Program Performance Evaluation – Final Report
55
USAID TLP Partnership Program Performance Evaluation – Final Report
56
USAID TLP Partnership Program Performance Evaluation – Final Report
57
USAID TLP Partnership Program Performance Evaluation – Final Report
58
USAID TLP Partnership Program Performance Evaluation – Final Report
59
Annex 2: Evaluation Methodology
The Performance Evaluation of the TLP-SP University Partnerships (Partnerships) program was designed 
to follow and assess the progress and achievements of the Partnerships component. Data for the 
evaluation were collected at various points along the study on project indicators and milestones. 
Baseline data was collected at the start of the Partnerships component in 2015. The midline study was 
conducted in 2017, at the end of the first two years of activities (Phase 1, 2015-2017) and prior to the 
extension of activities into Phase 2 (2017-2019). This was a follow-on study, designed to assess progress 
on planned activities since the beginning of the component two years past the start of the component. 
An endline study was conducted near the end of the life of the TLP-SP project and assessed the 
cumulative progress on planned activities from the beginning of the component to date (May 2019). The 
endline study followed the same approach as that for the baseline and midline studies. The approach is 
described below. 
The premise of TLP-SP University Partnerships component is that in order to reduce unemployment 
rates in Kosovo, particularly among the youth, there is an urgent need to improve the quality of 
education to ensure a system that is able to provide adequate learning opportunities as well as skills 
required by the labor markets. To do so, there is a need to improve the management systems in 
institutions of higher education (universities), provide teachers with training to improve the quality of 
teaching and pedagogy, as well as enhance the resources available to the students. USAID is supporting 
the Ministry of Education in their efforts to reform the higher education system in Kosovo. 
The theoretical construct underlying the University Partnerships component of the TLP-SP project is 
that, as a result of their participation in the TLP-SP program, UP and select faculties in UP and at 
universities in Kosovo will have improved University management, pedagogy, quality of teaching 
methodology and curricula, and strengthened research development. They will also have updated 
technology systems. The performance evaluation of the TLP-SP Partnerships program follows the logic 
of the project.
Approach
The Performance evaluation of the TLP-SP Partnerships component was conducted in three stages –
Baseline study conducted at the beginning of the partnerships component, followed by midterm 
evaluation of the component at a point two years later, and a final assessment conducted in the last year 
of the TLP-SP project to see how the TLP-SP Partnerships program has affected the UP. In addition, 
interim data was collected annually to assess progress on milestones through surveys of faculty and 
students, focus groups and key person interviews as needed. Each interim report was a standalone 
report, so there may have been some repetition from year to year. The final report consolidates and 
synthesizes all data to report progress on this component. 
Using a modified Human and Institutional Capacity Development (HICD) approach, the evaluation was 
conducted at the level of the organization (UP and select faculties) and at the individual level (academic 
staff and student levels) to provide a holistic view of the partnerships and the resultant changes in the 
University. Data were collected on the implementation of the UP’s Action Plan, the progress of the 
partnerships and the outcomes of the targeted assistance and any changes in learning outcomes. Key 
USAID TLP Partnership Program Performance Evaluation – Final Report
60
metrics were tracked over the life of the project to see long-term changes in all of the indicators. Data 
were collected using primary and secondary sources and analyzed using descriptive analysis. Each of 
these is described in greater detail below.
The approach used for the endline study is consistent with the overall approach for the performance 
evaluation of the TLP-SP partnerships component and provides data on progress on activities planned
under the Partnerships component in its final year. This study was conducted by a team of consultants 
that included two international expert and two local consultants, one of whom is a faculty member from 
the UP. He was included for his expertise in evaluation of higher education programs, understanding and 
insight into the university context and access to the university. 
1. Selection of Indicators
A number of qualitative and quantitative indicators were selected for monitoring the progress as well as 
assessing the impact of the proposed initiatives under the Partnerships program. These indicators were 
selected based on the criteria that they provide information that is useful in measuring progress 
effectiveness in the most efficient way. In addition, the indicators selected should themselves be 
“monitorable,” meaning they can be independently validated or verified.
Evaluation questions and 
Sub questions Indicators Source of data
Note: To the extent possible, all individual level data – on beneficiaries of the program – were disaggregated by gender, 
minority status, disability status, and LGBT status. )
1. Has the UP’s Action Plan been effectively implemented? Have tangible measures been 
adopted that show the University’s commitment to change management? How has the TLP 
University Partnerships component changed the University of Prishtina’s administrative 
performance?
Has the University of 
Prishtina’s Action Plan 
been effectively 
implemented?
● Implementation of each of the recommendations 
listed in the 2013 UP Action Plan included in the 
report by Morgan Borszcz Consulting (MBC).
(This indicator has since changed to include the 
current Strategic plan which owes its origins to 
the plan of 2013, but is somewhat different.)
Baseline data from: MBC 
report; Key person interviews 
with UP administrators, MEST 
and TLP-SP staff; Review of 
assessment of implementation 
of UP Action plan by TLP-SP 
project.
Have tangible measures 
been adopted that show 
the University’s 
commitment to change 
management?
● Revenue generated, 
● The degree of compliance with course 
registration guidelines,
● The percentage of courses accredited by the 
Kosovo Accreditation Agency
● Annual student course satisfaction surveys 
conducted
● The implementation of formula-driven 
admissibility
● Tracking system in place to track students while 
in UP
● System for tracking students post completion of 
baccalaureate for type of jobs obtained, time to 
find a position, etc.
● Faculty survey
● Student survey
● Key person interviews
● Focus groups
● Desk review of TLP-SP 
quarterly, annual reports 
and other technical reports 
and records
● BIRN student satisfaction 
survey
USAID TLP Partnership Program Performance Evaluation – Final Report
61
Evaluation questions and 
Sub questions Indicators Source of data
How has the TLP￾Partnerships component 
changed University of 
Prishtina’s administrative 
performance?
● Financial viability
● Percentage increase in operating capital coming 
from student tuition
● Improved facilities
● Improved infrastructure, equipment
● Improved outreach
● Internal communication
● Faculty survey
● Key person Interviews
● Student focus groups
● Student Satisfaction survey
● Desk review of TLP-SP 
quarterly, annual reports 
and other technical reports 
and records
2. How has the TLP University Partnership component changed academic performance in 
targeted faculties over the course of the project? Have the “Grand Challenges” identified for each 
partnership been effectively implemented?
How has academic 
performance in targeted 
faculties changed over the 
course of the project
Reviewed at three levels – institutional, academic 
staff and student levels. See below :
Institutional level outcomes ●Number of students enrolled (by gender, minority 
status, disability status, LGBT status)
● Drop-out and retention rates
● Graduation rates
● Number of Degrees awarded
● Credits to degree
● Time to degree
● Reductions in faculty-student ratios
● Degree of satisfaction of students determined by 
course evaluations
● A reduction in failing grades
● Increases in faculty registering for professional 
development courses
● Number of students enrolled in for-credit 
internship programs
● Number of partnerships with external 
organizations offering externship placements
● New technology and other resources made 
available
● Faculty survey
● Student survey
● Key person interviews
● Focus groups
● Desk review of TLP-SP 
quarterly, annual reports, 
and other technical reports 
and record
Academic staff level 
outcomes
● Number of courses taught
● Number of new course developed
● Number of dissertations supervised
● Number of students advised
● Professional growth
● Participation on University/department 
committees
● Participation in curriculum development, 
● Regular office hours
● Coming to class on time 
● Research
● Increases in publications by faculty in peer￾reviewed journals
● Internal communication
● Faculty survey
● Student survey
● Key person interviews
● Desk review of TLP-SP 
quarterly, annual reports 
and other technical reports 
and records
Student level outcomes ● Number of students attending courses,
● Number of students completing course
● Number of students enrolling in for-credit 
● Faculty survey
● Key person Interviews
● Student focus groups
USAID TLP Partnership Program Performance Evaluation – Final Report
62
Evaluation questions and 
Sub questions Indicators Source of data
internship programs, 
● Time for students to graduate
● Credits to degree
● Number of students entering graduate programs
● Employment rates for graduates
● Type of jobs obtained
● Time to employment
● Average and median salaries
● Student survey
● Desk review of TLP-SP 
quarterly, annual reports 
and other technical reports 
and records
Grand Challenges identified ● Grand Challenges are well publicized
● Partnership activities link back to the grand 
challenges
● Interviews with faculty and 
management
● Desk review of TLP-SP 
quarterly, annual reports 
and other technical reports 
and records
3. Have the selected faculties been able to utilize, maintain and build up new technology, 
systems, knowledge and skills? What actions have been taken and/or mechanisms put in place to 
help ensure the sustainability of the partnership efforts?
Utilize, maintain and build up 
new technology, systems, 
knowledge and skills?
● New technology received/purchased maintained 
locally and in use
● Use of new Knowledge and skills
● Systems in place for dissemination of Knowledge 
and skills 
● Collaborations formed and maintained
● Interviews with faculty and 
management
● Desk review of TLP-SP 
quarterly, annual reports 
and other technical reports 
and records
Actions have been taken 
and/or mechanisms put in 
place to help ensure the 
sustainability of the 
partnership efforts?
● Systems in place for maintenance and updating of 
new technology
● Oversight body in place to ensure sustainability 
of new interventions
● Budget lines for maintenance of new technology
● Budget line for continued professional 
development
● Support for academic staff to try out new skills
● Interviews with faculty and 
management
● Desk review of TLP-SP 
quarterly, annual reports 
and other technical reports 
and records
2. Data Collection and Analysis
Data on the above indicators was collected from a variety of primary and secondary sources. Primary 
data was collected over two, three-week periods in Kosovo through a set of key informant interviews, 
and surveys with stakeholders and beneficiaries of the program to understand the implementation of the 
program as well as any interim impacts. This included a survey of UP faculties participating in the 
program for the collection of administrative data and a survey of beneficiaries from the select faculties 
to assess their satisfaction with the quality of exchange programs, resources available and their use of 
the training. Secondary data was collected from a review of documents that informed the 
implementation of the project as well as TLP-SP project records and reports. These are described 
below.
Administrative records and reports: Working in collaboration with World Learning (WL), secondary 
data was collected from databases already in place for TLP-SP project monitoring and evaluation (M&E) 
and from a review of project records. Project-generated documents and reports were reviewed to 
USAID TLP Partnership Program Performance Evaluation – Final Report
63
assess progress of the project towards pre-determined activities and tasks as well as to understand any 
changes that may have led the project to change direction. The documents reviewed include: (i) 
Quarterly and Annual Progress Reports submitted to USAID; (ii) annual project work plans; (iii) TLP 
Results Framework and Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP); (iv) reports of any studies conducted by 
TLP-SP to inform the project of the current status of implementation of the Rector’s action plan at the 
UP; (v) project contract and subcontracts; and (vi) success stories and highlights. A full list is included in 
Annex 4.
Key informant interviews: Semi-structured interviews were held with key stakeholders and beneficiaries 
of the project to understand their perspective on progress of the University Partnerships component of 
the TLP project, any challenges to implementation, interim outcomes and impacts, as well as 
recommendations for the following year of the program. Interviews and informational meetings were 
conducted with the following groups: (i) the TLP-SP Chief of Party, Deputy Chief of Party and other 
members of the TLP-SP team (including the U.S. based University partners) implementing the project;
(ii) senior officials from the relevant departments of Ministry of Education, Science and Technology at 
the central level; (iii) Rector and vice-Rectors at UP, administrators from UP Rector’s office and 
academic and non-academic staff from each of the four faculties participating in the University 
Partnerships program; and (iv) members of the Advisory Committee. 
Surveys of academic faculties at UP: Instruments were designed to collect administrative data from each 
of the four academic faculties participating in the partnership program on indices such as student 
enrollment, number of academic and non-academic staff, number of courses taught, research 
publications, etc. The purpose of these surveys was two-fold: (i) to obtain the most current data 
available; and (ii) assess the ease with which the faculties could collect and provide the information. The 
surveys were submitted to the Dean and completed by either the TLP University Partnerships Program 
liaison or someone assigned to this task from the Dean’s office. 
Surveys, focus groups and interviews with beneficiaries of the Partnerships program: Data from 
beneficiaries of the program were collected through email or web-based surveys, focus groups and 
interviews conducted with academic staff from the four faculties participating in the Partnerships 
program and officials from UP Rector’s Office, who have benefitted from the various activities 
conducted under the TLP project, to understand their perspective on the quality of the activity, use of 
the training received and any areas of concern. The activities under the TLP project included leadership 
training program for midlevel and senior administrators and management, exchange programs for the 
academic staff and the administrators, workshops and trainings organized by U.S. partners at the 
participating faculties or through the Centers for Teaching Excellence, Office for Research and 
Sponsored Projects, etc. The interviews and focus groups were conducted in Albanian or English, based 
on the composition of the group and their comfort level with speaking in English. 
Data collection instruments: Instruments, such as check lists and semi-structured interview and focus 
group guides, were developed, as appropriate, for the various sources of data and each group of 
respondents listed above. The interview guides were developed in English and translated into Albanian 
as necessary.
USAID TLP Partnership Program Performance Evaluation – Final Report
64
Data analysis: All data collected was entered into electronic databases (Excel, SPSS) and analyzed using 
descriptive univariate analysis, which involved the computation of frequencies and cross tabulations. 
Data has been disaggregated, as appropriate, by gender and academic faculty. Data from focus groups 
and interviews was analyzed for themes and patterns. 
3. Caveats and Limitations
There are a few caveats and limitations that must be kept in mind as we review the results from this 
study. First, the performance evaluation was conducted over a period of four years (2015 to 2019), and 
even though data were collected annually to reduce the bias due to recall of activities over time, it is 
possible that effects of some of the initiatives undertaken were not reported fully or were missed. 
Second, access to the faculty administrative data, such as student enrolment, number of staff, number of 
publications, etc., was a challenge. The evaluation team had to go through the Deans to get access to the 
person in-charge which, while not a problem per se, became an issue due to the busy schedule of the 
Deans and an unwillingness on their part to delegate the completion of the survey. Obtaining 
administrative data from faculties participating in the University Partnerships program has also been a 
challenge, with two of the faculties being unable/unwilling to provide complete data for the most recent 
year. Similarly, the survey of students was a challenge, especially since two faculties (Economics and 
Education) were unwilling to allow their students to take the survey at endline.
And finally, the TLP-SP project was implemented under a co-operative agreement between USAID and 
World Learning. Cooperative agreements are designed to be agreements that enable the implementing 
partners to change course to accommodate changes in the field with an agreement from USAID. 
Changes made to specific tasks under the broad activities described in the overall scope of work are not 
always documented through contract modifications, and to that extent may have been missed and not 
featured in the progress updates. 
. 
USAID TLP Partnership Program Performance Evaluation – Final Report
65
Annex 3: Informational Meetings and Interviews with Key Stakeholders
(Informational meetings and Interviews conducted with key stakeholders in May 2019
USAID staff
1. Mrs. Melita Cacaj, Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist, COR TLP-SP evaluation project, PPO, E￾mail: mcacaj@usaid.gov
2. Mrs. Merita Teliqi, Project Specialist USAID,, AOR TLP-SP, E-mail mteliqi@usaid.gov
3. Mr. William Trigg, USAID Economic Growth, E-mail: wtrigg@usaid.gov
4. Ms. Antigona Mustafa, USAID Education, Email: amustafa@usaid.gov
WL staff – TLP-SP Project
1. Mr. Carl Hammerdorfer, Chief of Party, TLP-SP, E-mail: carl.hammerdorfer@worldlearning.org
2. Mr. Fatmir Salihu, Program Officer, TLP-SP, E-mail: fatmir.salihu@worldlearning.org
3. Dr. Ed Cooper, Consultant, TLP-SP, E-mail: dredcooper@gmail.com
Ministry of Education Science and Technology
1. Mrs. Drita Kadriu, Head of Higher Education Department, E-mail: drita.kadriu@rks-gov.net
2. Mrs. Qamile Sinanaj, Higher Education Department, E-mail: qamile.sinanaj@rks-gov.net
3. Ms. Shpresa Mehmeti, Officer of the Division for International Cooperation in Higher Education and 
Science 
4. Mr. Baton Dushi, Chief of Cabinet/Political Advisor to Minister of Education
Rectorate - University of Prishtina
1. Mr. Marjan Dema, Rector of the University of Prishtina, E-mail: marjan.dema@uni-pr.edu
2. Mr. Hysen Bytyqi, Vice-Rector for Teaching and Quality Assurance, E-mail: hysen.bytyqi@uni￾pr.edu
3. Mrs. Merita Kocinaj Berisha, Vice-Rector International Cooperation, E-mail:merita.berisha@uni￾pr.edu
4. Mrs. Myrvete Badivuku, Vice-Rector on Finance, E-mail: myrvete.badivuku@uni-pr.edu
5. Mr. Faton Berisha, Vice-Rector for Scientific Research, E-mail: faton.berisha@uni-pr.edu
Center for Renewable Energy and Sustainability
1. Mr. Naser Sahiti, Head of Center for Renewable Energy and Sustainability, E-mail: naser.sahiti@uni￾pr.edu
Center for Teaching Excellence, University of Prishtina
1. Mrs. Shykrane Germizaj, Head of Center for Teaching Excellence, E-mail: fatlume.berisha@uni￾pr.edu
Office for Sponsored Research and Projects, University of Prishtina
1. Mr. Gentrit Berisha, Head/Coordinator of Office for Sponsored Research and Projects, E-mail: 
gentrit.berisha@uni-pr.edu
UP Alumni Office & Data Management System
1. Mr. Besnik Loxha, Director of the office for Academic Development, Email: besnik.loxha@uni￾pr.edu
2. Mr. Faton – Acting IT Director
Venture UP
1. Mr. Fis Malesori, CEO, Venture UP, E-mail: fismalesori@gmail.com
USAID TLP Partnership Program Performance Evaluation – Final Report
66
Faculty of Agriculture
1. Mr. Skender Kaciu, Dean of Faculty of Agriculture, E-mail: skender.kaciu@uni-pr.edu
2. Head of Teaching, Faculty of Agriculture
3. Head of Technology, Faculty of Agriculture, 
Faculty of Electrical and Computer Engineering
1. Mr. Enver Hamiti, Dean of Faculty of Electrical and Computer Engineering, E-mail: 
enver.hamiti@uni-pr.edu
2. Mr. Gazmend Pula, Prof. Assoc. Dr., FECE, Faculty of Engineering, E-mail: gazmend.pula@gmail.com
Faculty of Education
1. Mr. Ethem Çeku, Dean of Faculty of Education, E-mail: ethem.ceku@uni-pr.edu
Citizen Corps Program
1. Mrs. Laura Kryeziu, Executive Director, Leadership and Growth Council, implementer TLP Citizen 
Corps Program, Email: laura.kryeziu@lgc-ks.org 
Members of UP Board 
1. Mrs. Laura Kryeziu, Executive Director, Leadership and Growth Council, Member Advisory 
Committee, Email: laura.kryeziu@lgc-ks.org 
2. Mr. Zeqir Veselaj, Associate Professor, Fundamentals of Natural Sciences with Methodology, 
Biodiversity and Botany, Faculty of Education, E-mail: zeqir.veselaj@uni-pr.edu
Advisory Committee (interviews conducted in Nov 2018)
1. Mr. Xhavit Rexhaj, Member Advisory Committee, E-mail: xhavitr@hotmail.com
2. Mr. Fetah Podvorica, Member Advisory Committee, E-mail: fetah.podvorica@uni-pr.edu
3. Mrs. Sharon Hart, Member Advisory Committee and President of Rochester Institute of Technology 
– Kosovo (RIT Kosovo) , E-mail: shart@auk.org
4. Mrs. Merita Teliqi, Project Specialist USAID, Member Advisory Committee, E-mail mteliqi@usaid.gov
5. Mrs. Laura Kryeziu, Executive DiRector, Leadership and Growth Council, Member Advisory 
Committee, Email: laura.kryeziu@lgc-ks.org
Focus groups conducted (list of participants not included to ensure confidentiality)
1. Focus groups with UP teaching staff – TLP-SP Academic Exchanges 
2. Focus group with Leadership and Change Management Training participants 
3. Focus group with new Trainers – UP Center for Teaching Excellence 
4. Focus group with participants of trainings at UP Center for Teaching Excellence 
USAID TLP Partnership Program Performance Evaluation – Final Report
67
Annex 4: Sources of Data and List of Documents Reviewed
TLP-SP Project Reports and Documents (2014-2015, 2015-2016, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19):
i. TLP-SP Technical Proposal
ii. TLP-SP Work Plan – Years 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5
iii. TLP-SP M&E Plan
iv. Sub-awards for Partner Universities
v. TLP-SP Annual and Quarterly reports 
vi. UP University Wide Activities Plan – revised July 6 
vii. Transformational Leadership Program (TLP-SP, 2014). Assessment – Implementation of UP 
Action Plan Milestones Final Report. Document for Internal use only. 2015
viii. Transformational Leadership Program – Scholarships and Partnerships Advisory Committee 
Strategy (Sep 2016)
ix. Lists of participants in faculty exchanges; certifications by Center for Teaching Excellence; 
participants of change management programs, etc. 
x. Reports and white papers developed as a part of the project implementation 
xi. Success stories from the TLP-SP project
Kosovo Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (2016). Kosovo Education Strategic Plan 2017-
2021 accessed at http://www.kryeministriks.net/repository/docs/Kosovo_Education_Strategic_Plan. Pdf
on August 25, 2019
Odell, Malcolm., et al (2004). Human and Institutional Capacity Development Assessment:
Kosovo/ Final Report. Submitted to USAID 2004.
TANJUG, B92, News article, December 3, 2018 found in Wikipedia at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ 
Kosovo, Accessed on Sep 1, 2019
The World Bank Group (2016): Kosovo – Country Snapshot. Accessed on February 27, 2017 at http:// 
pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/739371475757000674/Kosovo-Snapshot-Oct2016FINAL.pdf 
The World Bank Group (2016): Kosovo – Country Program Snapshot. Accessed on February 27, 2017 
at http://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/419461462386476530/World-Bank-Kosovo-Program-Snapshot￾April-2016.pdf
The World Bank Group (2017): Kosovo – Country Snapshot. Accessed on January 5, 2018 at http:// 
pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/912841507748392027/Kosovo-Snapshot-Fall2017.pdf
The World Bank Group (2017). The World Bank in Kosovo – Overview. Accessed on January 5. 2018 
at http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/kosovo/overview accessed on January 5. 2018
The World Bank Group (2017): FY17–-21 Country Partnership Framework for Republic of Kosovo. 
Report No. 112337-XK. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/297951496160148830/Kosovo￾Country-partnership-framework-for-the-period-FY17-FY21 accessed on August 25, 2019.
USAID TLP Partnership Program Performance Evaluation – Final Report
68
The World Bank group (2018). Country Context. https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/kosovo/
overview 
University of Prishtina, (2016) Strategy and Action Plan. Prishtina December 2016 
USAID (2015). Transformational Leadership Program. Needs Assessment Report – University of 
Prishtina Rectorate and Four Faculties Prepared for USAID Cooperative Agreement No. AID-167-A-14-
00002 February 25, 2015
USAID TLP Performance Evaluation of the University Partnerships Program: Baseline Study. January 
2016. Conducted by IBI International.
USAID TLP Partnership Program Performance Evaluation – Final Report
69
Annex 5: Description of University Partnerships 34
Faculty-specific partnerships under TLP-SP were launched as planned on April 23, 2015, between four 
UP faculties and the U.S. partner universities as listed in Table 1. In addition, university-wide cross￾cutting activities were implemented at the level of the Rectorate with the assistance of University of 
Arizona (one of the TLP-SP partners). 
Table 1: Faculty partnerships
Participating Faculty and 
Departments from University 
of Prishtina 
U.S. Partner University and its participating 
schools and colleges
Agriculture and Veterinary
Includes Department of Veterinary 
Medicine, Department of Food 
Technology and Department of Plant 
Protection 
University of Minnesota 
● The College of Veterinary Medicine, Center for 
Animal Health and Food Safety (CAHFS), 
● College of Food, Agriculture and Natural 
Resource Sciences, Department of Food Science 
and Nutrition (FScN), 
● Humphrey School of Public Affairs, and 
● Extension Program at the University of 
Minnesota (UMN) 
Phases 1 and 2 
completed
Economy
All departments
US Exchange visits extended to 
teaching staff from Faculty of 
Philosophy associated with the UP 
Center for Gender Studies and 
Research
Dartmouth College
● Dartmouth’s Tuck School of Business 
● Dartmouth Provost’s Office, 
● The Gender Research Institute at Dartmouth 
(GRID), and a
● Core group of faculty from other Dartmouth 
departments
Phase 1 completed
(no cost six-month 
extension to enable 
completion of Phase 1 
activities)
Partnership not 
extended to Phase 2 
Education
All departments
Indiana University 
● Center for International Education, Development 
and Research (CIEDR) within the Department of 
Educational Leadership & Policy Studies; and 
● Department of Curriculum & Instruction, at 
Indiana University
Phases 1 and 2 
completed
Computer and Electrical 
Engineering
(Services extended to include 
Department of Physics and other 
natural science departments at UP)
Arizona State University 
● The Melikian Center at ASU (organize all logistics)
● ASU School of Electrical, Computer, and Energy 
Engineering and 
● The Global Institute of Sustainability at ASU.
Phases 1 and 2 
completed
University wide Cross-cutting 
activities 
Lead – Arizona State University
Same as above
Value of subgrant: see 
above
Phases 1 and 2 
completed
Prior to the launch of the Partnerships component, TLP-SP, in collaboration with the management at UP 
and USAID, identified four UP faculties for inclusion in the program. The faculties – (i) Agriculture and 
34 Drawn from USAID/Kosovo (2016). Transformational Leadership Impact and Performance Evaluation Project: Performance 
Evaluation of The University Partnerships Program. Baseline Study January 2016. Conducted by IBI International. 
USAID TLP Partnership Program Performance Evaluation – Final Report
70
Veterinary, (ii) Economy, (iii) Education, and (iv) Computer and Electrical Engineering – were selected 
on the basis of UP Needs Assessment Study35 and demonstration of willingness/commitment to 
participate in the Partnerships program by the Faculty.36 The goal of these Partnerships was to enhance 
capacity of the management and teaching staff within UP and the selected faculties to meet the 
challenges of 21st century student-centered teaching and applied research. As such each of the four 
selected faculties was partnered with a U.S. university that had the resources and the capacity to 
provide support to the faculty. (see Table 1) 
The Partnerships focused only on UP and its selected faculties. The decision to work only with UP, 
rather than with multiple universities in Kosovo (as planned at the time of inception of the project), was 
made with USAID concurrence. This was based on the thinking that (i) UP is the single largest university 
in the country that serves over 50 percent of the students in higher education, and (ii) the teaching staff 
at UP also teach at other Universities in the country, and thus would carry any new knowledge with 
them to these universities. 
All departments within the faculties of Education, Economy and Electrical and Computer Engineering 
were included in the Partnerships. The Faculty of Agriculture expanded its participation from one 
department (Veterinary Medicine) and added two more (Department of Food Technology with 
Biotechnology and Department of Plant Protection), enabling a larger pool of participants to benefit 
from the exchange and mentoring activities of the University Partnerships component. Similarly, the 
partnership with the faculty of Economy was expanded to include teaching staff from the Department of 
Philosophy (Center for Gender Studies and Research) in the exchange visit (to U.S.) program. The 
Partnerships focused on three principal areas: (i) curricular development; (ii) teaching methodology; and 
(iii) research enhancement. Based on the needs and priorities of individual faculties, each partnership 
selected activities from a larger menu that included:
● Development of curricula and courses;
● Mentoring relationships in joint applied and basic research between the U.S. and UP partners;
● E-learning course management and delivery;
● Faculty exchanges involving younger UP faculty and assistants;
● Co-teaching courses between U.S. and UP faculty that can employ blended learning, utilizing the 
e-learning course management platform;
● Internships and service learning from the faculties developed in cooperation with Career 
Counselling Center; and
● Provision of essential and necessary resources, e.g., computers, software, and textbooks.
The activities, as prioritized by the UP faculty in the partnership, were implemented over two phases 
covering a period of four years; Phase 1 extending from 2015-2017 and Phase 2 from 2017-2019. All 
four faculties were included in Phase 1, however only three (Education, Agriculture and Veterinary, and 
Engineering) continued on to Phase II. The partnership between faculty of Economy and its partner U.S. 
university was not continued beyond Phase 1 due to an inability of the partners to agree on a meaningful 
35 Ref: Transformational Leadership Program – Scholarships and Partnerships, Needs Assessment Report University of Prishtina 
Rectorate and Four Faculties Prepared for USAID Cooperative Agreement No. AID-167-A-14-00002 February 25, 2015
36 The Needs Assessment Study examined the relative strengths and weaknesses of the different departments, including their key 
challenges, quality of equipment and laboratories, and cooperation with other Faculties and government institutions. It also inquired 
into financial management and the implementation of the System for the Electronic Management of Students, as well as the quality 
of teaching, student services, and internships.
USAID TLP Partnership Program Performance Evaluation – Final Report
71
workplan. Detailed list of activities by faculty planned at the time of inception of the project are 
presented in Table 2. The planned activities for Phase II of the partnerships were largely an extension of 
Phase I with two major changes: (i) the partnership for Faculty of Engineering with Arizona State 
University did not include exchanges for the teaching staff, as the Faculty of Engineering was unable to 
send the faculty to the U.S., and (ii) the scope for University of Arizona was expanded to include 
support for the establishment of University-wide Centers at UP. Progress under the TLP-SP 
partnerships component is assessed against the proposed activities at inception of project as well as the 
annual work plan and is placed in Annex 6. Comparison against the proposed activities and the annual 
workplan helps track the changes to the workplan made by TLP-SP to accommodate the fluid situation 
at UP and remain relevant. 
USAID TLP Partnership Program Performance Evaluation – Final Report 72
Table 2: Expected Deliverables from Partnerships – Summary Table
Expected Results from the Partnership Program 
(Matrix developed on the basis of an analysis of the sub-grant documents for each partnership – for the period 2015-2017; 2017-2019) 
Activities for Phase 
1 (first 2 years) of 
partnership that 
also extend to 
Phase 2 
Results/
deliverables of 
activities
Faculty of Engineering/ 
Arizona State 
University
Faculty of Education/ 
Indiana University
Faculty of Economy/ 
Dartmouth College 
Faculty of Agriculture/ 
University of 
Minnesota
Details of Partnership activities, by category of activity
Initial Visit Project 
launch Launch of 
partnerships
and workplan 
development
Collaborative development of 
a work plan
Initial screening of applicants 
for the fall Semester-in￾Residence in U.S. program
Conduct needs assessment of 
research capacity to identify 
gaps in skills
Develop selection criteria to 
identify candidates for 
scholarly research learning 
community (SRLC), and 
Semester-in-Residence in U.S. 
program
Workshop on “building and 
Educational and research 
culture”
Terms of reference 
incorporating research into 
daily activity for submission to 
UP Faculty Senate
Prepare a Research Framework 
and Terms of reference for 
working groups
Roadmap for a cooperative 
research framework to ensure 
continuity and sustainability 
Workplan development
Identify gaps and priorities
Work plan with a prioritized 
set of activities developed
A directory of teaching faculty 
and staff from Faculty of 
Agriculture (FA)-UP to 
identify shared areas of 
educational and research 
interests between UP and 
UMN;
Develop criteria for 
competitive selection of 
faculty for exchange visits 
Document the basis of a 
mentoring network to be 
established between FA-UP 
and UMN; 
Develop a short course 
syllabus. /outline for use in 
creating follow-on faculty 
exchange institute in fall 2015
Faculty exchanges –
short-term visits by 
U.S. partner to UP
comprised of 
workshops 
targeting teaching 
Workshops and 
seminars held at the 
Faculty in UP by staff 
from the partner 
university
Workshops or seminars 
addressing problems of 
research methodology
Short-term scholarly visits to 
ASU to launch collaborative 
Minimum of 2 workshops per 
year/7 day duration (March 
and Nov)
Workshops on topics such as:
7 events – 4 consulting 
projects (3 weeks and 1 
week); 2 workshops by 
TUCK faculty (March and 
Nov); and 1 workshop by 
GRID (Dartmouth College)
Minimum of 2 workshops 
per year/7 day duration
● Active teaching methods; 
● Problem-based and / or 
case-based teaching and 
learning; 
USAID TLP Partnership Program Performance Evaluation – Final Report 73
Expected Results from the Partnership Program 
(Matrix developed on the basis of an analysis of the sub-grant documents for each partnership – for the period 2015-2017; 2017-2019) 
Activities for Phase 
1 (first 2 years) of 
partnership that 
also extend to 
Phase 2 
Results/
deliverables of 
activities
Faculty of Engineering/ 
Arizona State 
University
Faculty of Education/ 
Indiana University
Faculty of Economy/ 
Dartmouth College 
Faculty of Agriculture/ 
University of 
Minnesota
faculty and staff, and 
short courses for 
students
research projects ● “ Building an Educational 
Research Culture
● “Pedagogical training in 
Cooperative Learning 
strategies”, 
● Examining and assessing 
teacher quality”, and
● other topics
Seminars for MEST focus on 
policy and accreditation 
Outcomes: development of 
Faculty of Economics 
research maps, literature 
reviews and work plans for 
research/training activity
• 4 projects – 1 per semester 
UP faculty assigned to work 
with TUCK teams
• 2 seminars by TUCK faculty 
–one learning seminar/ 
workshop annually onsite in 
Prishtina, to share best 
practices in experiential 
learning with the Faculty of 
Economics and other 
interested UP faculty and 
teaching staff
• One seminar by participating 
faculty from Gender 
Research Institute at 
Dartmouth that will focus 
on the empowerment of 
young women as 
entrepreneurs and leaders, 
particularly minority women 
● Communications 
● Managing large class sizes;
● Experiential learning model 
development; 
● Scholarship of teaching and 
learning; 
● Interactive
Hybridized online teaching 
modules;
● Leadership skills 
development; monitoring and 
evaluation methodologies; 
● Policy courses (institutional 
and government)
● Research methods;
● Information systems; 
● Risk assessment and analysis 
and others
Faculty exchanges 
that involve younger 
UP faculty –
professors and 
teaching assistants –
UP to U.S. 
universities
(Semester-in-Residence 
in U.S. program) 
Exchange visits to the 
partner university in 
the US for UP 
teaching staff –
varying duration 
from a two-months 
to a full semester
● 6 scholars will go to ASU, 4 
in fall of 2015, 2 in 2016
● Minimum of two courses 
developed or revised (see 
above);
● (see above)
● Audit courses
● Attend graduate seminars 
and special weekly 
seminars organized for 
visiting fellows
● Semester long collaborative 
research practicum (min. 1 
fellow per year as per PI, 
total of two not in sub 
award ) 
● Semester long-teacher 
training collaboration 
(planned Fall semester)
● Faculty selected for long and 
short-term visits support the 
research framework (below)
● Audit courses
● Attend faculty 
meetings 
Host two visiting faculty 
members per year who will 
participate in the Gender 
Research Institute at
Dartmouth (GRID) Seminar, 
in conjunction with activities 
at the Tuck School.
●2 fellows per year, total 4 -
5 month duration 
●Minimum of two courses
●Developed or revised (see 
above);
●Trained in methods for 
peer-mentoring; seminar 
presentations to their FA￾UP colleagues sharing 
knowledge and experience; 
document and deliver a 
capstone or leadership 
project; 
●Attend/participate in 
curricular design meetings
USAID TLP Partnership Program Performance Evaluation – Final Report 74
Expected Results from the Partnership Program 
(Matrix developed on the basis of an analysis of the sub-grant documents for each partnership – for the period 2015-2017; 2017-2019) 
Activities for Phase 
1 (first 2 years) of 
partnership that 
also extend to 
Phase 2 
Results/
deliverables of 
activities
Faculty of Engineering/ 
Arizona State 
University
Faculty of Education/ 
Indiana University
Faculty of Economy/ 
Dartmouth College 
Faculty of Agriculture/ 
University of 
Minnesota
● Develop action plan 
for curriculum development 
and teacher improvement
●Audit courses to deepen 
knowledge, observe 
teaching methods and gain 
ideas for course 
development
●Field visits to understand 
role of other organizations 
in support of the 
agriculture sector 
Faculty exchanges –
short-term visits by 
administrators at 
faculties in UP to 
U.S. partner
Administrators 
exposed to 
management and 
teaching systems at 
the Partner 
University
Six visitors will work with:
ASU online resources
ASU center for teaching and 
Learning
Visits will occur in August 
2015, Jan 2016, and Jan 2017
Not listed in sub award – but 
team of 3 administrators 
visited IN (November) to 
experience culture of IN and 
get an understanding of their 
systems 
● Summer study tour:
● (2015) for research 
collaboration 
● (2015) for course 
development 
Not listed in sub award – but 
team of administrators will 
visit to experience culture of 
Dartmouth and get an 
understanding of their 
systems
Not listed in sub award – but 
team of administrators will 
visit UMN to experience 
culture of Dartmouth and 
get an understanding of their 
systems
Development of 
curricula and 
courses in selected 
departments in 
Faculties;
●Course plans, 
curriculum, or a plan 
for operations of an 
office or service 
●Jointly developed by 
UP faculty and U.S. 
partner
●Pilot tested in UP
●Delivered via a digital 
learning platform
● Each fellow returns from 
semester in residence with
● Minimum of two courses 
developed or revised for 
their home dept. (with 
corresponding syllabi, 
teaching materials and 
evaluation materials in 
hand);
● Long term visit results in a 
curriculum and plan of action 
for implementation at UP 
leading to improvements to 
teacher training program 
design
● At least 2 new experiential 
courses and 
revision/updating of 4 
existing courses
● Each fellow returns from 
semester in residence with
● Minimum of two courses
● Developed or revised for 
their home dept. (with 
corresponding syllabi, 
teaching materials
● And evaluation materials in 
hand); 
E-learning course 
management and 
delivery;
(Hybrid courses to be 
developed in years 3 and 4)
● Interactive
Hybridized online teaching 
modules;
USAID TLP Partnership Program Performance Evaluation – Final Report 75
Expected Results from the Partnership Program 
(Matrix developed on the basis of an analysis of the sub-grant documents for each partnership – for the period 2015-2017; 2017-2019) 
Activities for Phase 
1 (first 2 years) of 
partnership that 
also extend to 
Phase 2 
Results/
deliverables of 
activities
Faculty of Engineering/ 
Arizona State 
University
Faculty of Education/ 
Indiana University
Faculty of Economy/ 
Dartmouth College 
Faculty of Agriculture/ 
University of 
Minnesota
Co-teaching 
courses between 
U.S. and UP faculty 
that can employ 
blended learning, 
utilizing the e￾learning course 
management 
platform;
Two of the ASU short 
seminars to be delivered to 
UP will train UP colleagues 
for introduction of 
hybridized and online 
instruction;
All six Semester-in￾Residence in U.S. fellows 
will be trained to deliver 
courses online or in 
hybridized format 
Train 4 faculty on the 
experiential methods, co￾teach workshops
U.S. and UP faculty co-teach 
short courses in UP (see 
below)
Workshops and short 
courses will be co￾developed prior to the 
institutes using real-time 
web-based 
communications
Mentoring 
relationships in
joint applied and 
basic research 
between the U.S. 
and UP partners;
Includes Research 
Enhancement
Development of data 
sets and articles 
and/or reports that 
can be published in 
a refereed 
academic journal
● Capacity 
building of UP 
faculty for 
mentoring graduate 
students, teaching, 
research and 
advising according to 
modern 
contemporary 
practice
●Workshops or seminars 
addressing problems of 
research methodology
●Short-term scholarly visits to 
ASU to launch collaborative 
research
●Access to ASU scientific 
digital library through ASU 
accounts to all faculty in 
partnership
Develop a learning community 
to conduct research using 
action research and case study 
methods – activities include
● Development of a research 
trajectory,
● Literature reviews, and 
● Defining “next steps” for 
research activity and position 
papers. 
● Develop faculty-wide 
framework for continuity 
and sustainability of research 
● Collaborative research 
symposium hosted by UP 
(2016)
4 UP members trained to 
design and deliver effective 
experiential, project based 
courses through involvement
Fellows will receive 
mentoring from UMN faculty 
partners and be trained in 
methods for peer-mentoring 
in their home institution;
Fellows will document at 
three and six month 
intervals after their return 
how they are leveraging their 
professional network
Internships and 
service learning 
from the faculties 
that are developed 
in cooperation with 
career counselling 
center; and
Building 
relationships with 
external 
institutions for 
service-learning 
institutions
Not stated in sub-grant Not stated in sub-grant Not stated in sub-grant Not stated in sub-grant
USAID TLP Partnership Program Performance Evaluation – Final Report 76
Expected Results from the Partnership Program 
(Matrix developed on the basis of an analysis of the sub-grant documents for each partnership – for the period 2015-2017; 2017-2019) 
Activities for Phase 
1 (first 2 years) of 
partnership that 
also extend to 
Phase 2 
Results/
deliverables of 
activities
Faculty of Engineering/ 
Arizona State 
University
Faculty of Education/ 
Indiana University
Faculty of Economy/ 
Dartmouth College 
Faculty of Agriculture/ 
University of 
Minnesota
Provide some 
essential and 
necessary 
resources, e.g., 
computer, 
software, 
textbooks
ASU will provide Fac. 
Engineering with access to 
open source course 
management platform 
software 
Access to ASU scientific 
digital library through ASU 
accounts to all faculty in 
partnership
Research repository established 
– with material secured and 
shipped by IU – for research, 
training and teaching as support 
for an improved research and 
training environment
Access for UP faculty to 
resources developed by 
Tuck’s Experiential & Global 
Learning Collaborative 
around best practices in 
experiential learning. 
Access to Tuck’s online 
learning management system 
(CANVAS) 
Access to materials from 
Gender Institute and to 
member of Dartmouth faculty 
as needed
None mentioned in Sub￾grant
Per interviews:
Access to University 
Consortium through the 
Center for Animal Health
Access to partnerships with 
industry leading to better 
training for students
USAID TLP Partnership Program Performance Evaluation – Final Report
77
Annex 6: Tracking TLP Partnerships 
TLP SP – Planned Activities and Status of Implementation 37
This section documents the planned activities as per the original description of the project and planned 
activities and the approved work plans, and tracks their status of implementation. The activities are 
listed by the broad objectives of the TLP-SP project and for each objective are presented in the 
following order: Planned broad activities and outcomes over the life of the project; followed by detailed 
activities as listed in the workplan by project year. Year 1 refers to project year (PY) 2014-15; Year 2 is 
project year 2015-16 (component year 1); Year 3 refers to project year 2016-17 (component year 2); 
Year 4 is project year 2017-18 (component year 3); and Year 5 refers to project year 2018-19 
(component year 4).
Any changes to planned activities within the original description of the project have been noted with the 
caption: Change. As this is a co-operative agreement, not all changes have resulted in or needed a 
contract modification. 
Planned - life of project Status of implementation
Contractual 
Cooperative Agreement No. AID-167-A-14-
00002
Implementation 2014-2019;
Funding : $30,199,763
Effective Dates: 02/26/14 – 06/30/19
Change: No cost extension provided for three 
months extending the end date from February 25, 
2019 to June 30, 2019
Cooperative Agreement Total: $30,199,763
Change:
● Currency (Euro) devaluation has had an impact 
on the project in terms of total funds available
● Amendment to workplan approved on Sep 19, 
2016 – includes changes to Objectives 2 and 3 
of the TLP_SP program
Objective3 - implementation starting in Year 2 of 
project
initial award for two years 2015-2017; 
option years 2017-19
As planned – implementation began from PY2 of the 
TLP-SP project, some preliminary preparatory work 
completed in PY1 
Option years approved in PY3, (2016-17); subgrants 
extended for university partners through November 
2018 and then again to February 2019
Please note that as this is a report on the performance evaluation of the TLP-SP Partnerships component (Objective 3 of TLP 
SP), the tables below focus only on the progress of activities of the University Partnerships over the life of the project. The 
progress and the outcomes for the other two TLP-SP objectives (Objective 1: Establish Advisory Committee; and Objective 2 –
Award Scholarships for Master’s and Certificate Program in the U.S.) are not addressed here.
37 It is important to note that the project year is from February to February – the Annual reports and the Workplan for TLP SP 
follow the project year for reporting; This is different from the Financial year which is from October to September – the monitoring 
and evaluation reports for TLP-SP follow this schedule. The tracker reflects and follows the Project Year for reporting 
achievements.
USAID TLP Partnership Program Performance Evaluation – Final Report
78
Objective 3: TLP-SP University Partnerships component
Also see Annex 5 for a detailed list of expected activities and outcomes for the faculty specific partnerships 
Planned outcomes 
- life of project
Broad activities planned 
over life of project
Key outcomes of planned 
activities
Objective 3: Improved University Management and Pedagogy (in Selected Faculties of UP and/or Other 
Universities) through Partnerships and Exchanges with U.S. Universities
Changes of Note:
(i) at the time of inception of the TLP-SP project, the Partnerships program was designed to provide support to the Office of the 
Rector for implementation of three areas from Rector’s Action Plan of 2013. However due to a change in management, the 
Action Plan of 2013 became redundant, and a new strategy for UP was developed by the incoming management. However, the 
priority areas selected by the UP management for assistance from the TLP-SP Partnerships program aligned very closely with the 
priority areas selected by the previous management, hence while activities were added in to support the change, the broad 
activities and planned outcomes for the partnerships component outlined in the original workplan remained valid. 
(ii) the overall plan for TLP-SP to provide support to UP and other Universities in Kosovo was changed to focus on UP only so as to 
concentrate the resources on the single largest institution of higher education in Kosovo
Support for Implementation of 
three areas from Rector’s 
Action Plan of 2013 changed to 
priorities from Rectors 
Strategy
(marked as old and new; new 
priorities were used as 
guidelines for implementation)
Old: enhancing revenue generation and 
financial viability;
New: strengthening financial viability for 
UP
• Rector’s Financial Advisory Committee -
Strategy, operational guidelines and by￾laws developed 
• Center for Research and Sponsored 
Projects established at UP, an 
administrative office that will support an 
increase in both the quality and volume of 
research projects and external funding at 
the university.
• Some policies implemented/modified to 
generate additional revenue
Old: improving quality of research and 
teaching;; 
New: improving quality of research and 
teaching;
See below – university wide activities 
Old: developing the Rectorate’s 
management, internal communications and 
public relations capabilities
New: 
• Assistance to UP Management team 
on change management 
• Improving internal and external 
communications at UP
• Change management program delivered 
to mid-level management (54 university 
administrative staff certified); one-on-one 
coaching provided for senior management
• 13 administrators, including the Rector 
and several vice-rectors and the Deans 
and Finance officers from various faculties 
have been provided with one-on-one 
coaching in Prishtina and have 
participated in tours of US universities 
identified as good examples
• Communication plan and PR strategy 
developed, and is being implemented; 
• New web site developed and populated
• Web stories and short videos published
• Alumni office revitalized and alumni and 
new student events planned and 
organized
USAID TLP Partnership Program Performance Evaluation – Final Report
79
Targeted assistance to 
strengthen the academic 
capacity (teaching and 
assessment methodologies) and 
research development
Assistance provide through 
● University wide activities
● Faculty specific activities 
University-wide Activities: some 
examples
● Enhancing Student Services
● Expanding Life-Long Learning 
Programs
● Facilitating University Sponsored 
Research
● Improving Teaching Quality and 
Assessment
● Hybridized and Online Course 
Delivery
● Career Development Center 
revitalized; Model developed for a credit 
bearing internship program; Improved 
database developed to better connect 
students and graduates with internships, 
jobs, and networking resources; and 
● Center for Teaching Excellence 
revitalized, a center coordinator 
appointed by UP, trained under TLP-SP;
several seminars and workshops 
presented; cadre of new trainers 
developed to support the existing 
trainers at UP
● Center for Research and Sponsored 
Projects established (see above)
● Interdisciplinary Center for Renewable 
Energy and Sustainability established at 
the Rectorate level
Change: Work on the Life-Long Learning 
program was not pursued; resources were 
instead diverted to the Center for Teaching 
Excellence, the Multi-Disciplinary Center and 
the Alumni Association (for collaboration 
with the private sector)
Faculty specific activities
• Four university partnerships 
established
• 30+ academic staff, staff or 
students participate in exchanges 
between Kosovo and the U.S.
4 University Partnerships established 
between University of Prishtina, institutions 
of higher education in the United States. 
The partnerships were as follows:
• UP Faculty of Agriculture – University 
of Minnesota (UMN)
• UP Faculty of Education – Indiana 
University (IU); 
• UP Faculty of Economics – Dartmouth 
College (Dartmouth); and 
• UP Faculty of Electrical and Computer 
Engineering – Arizona State University 
(ASU)
Three of the partnerships extended to 
Phase 2 (2017-19) leading to stronger 
relationships; partnership at Faculty of 
Economy not extended; Faculty of 
Engineering provided minimal support in 
Phase 2, funds redirected to Center for 
Energy and Sustainability instead.
156 exchange visits completed: 
13 administrators and 31 teaching staff from 
UP supported for exchange visits to US
112 exchange visits from US to UP 
Faculties provided with equipment as 
needed including laptops, monitors, etc. 
Also distributed copies of a translated text￾book on research methods
Change: TLP University Partnerships 
program focused exclusively on UP 
faculties, other universities were not 
included for direct participation
USAID TLP Partnership Program Performance Evaluation – Final Report
80
Table 2: University Partnerships Exchange Visits38
Activities 
completed 
(Feb 2015 –
June 2019)
Arizona State 
University/
UP 
Engineering
Indiana 
University/
UP Education
Dartmouth 
College/
UP Economy
Univ. of 
Minnesota/
UP Agriculture
DC area and 
Colorado/ 
Management
Number of Exchange visits - UP to U.S. and U/S/ to UP Partner visits (Semester-in-Residence in U.S. program and Study 
tours) 
Life of 
project 45 16 6 13 29
Number of UP to U.S. Partner visits (Semester-in-Residence in U.S. program and Study tours) by project year
2014-15 2 2
2015-16 1 5 0 2
2016-17
5
(3 academic staff) 4 5
8
(2 management)
2017-18 1 7 1 1 22
2018-19 0 3
2019-20 0
4
(2 DC; 2Colorado)
Total 939 16 6 13 29
Number of U.S. to UP Partner visits by project year
2015-16 4 2 3 4
2016-17 10 9 9 8
2017-18 10 10 8
2018-19 7 16
2019-20 5 3
Total 36 40 20 16 0
Source: TLP-SP reports and records; interviews with stakeholders
Partnerships component
Project Year 1 (2014-15) – Pre-partnerships
Planned activities prior to establishment of 
partnerships
Status of Implementation
Any Changes to Planned 
Activities
Support for 
Implementation of 
UP Action Plan
Activity 1: UP Action Plan Milestone Assessment Milestone Assessment conducted and 
approved
University -wide 
activities
To be implemented in Year 2 Cross-cutting activities identified for housing 
in the Rector’s office
Faculty specific 
activities
Activity 2: Identify and Assess the four UP 
Faculties for Partnership: will also work with other 
universities in Kosovo (e.g. University of Prizren 
and University of Peja) to assure the assessments 
and Action Plan goals are beneficial to their 
academic work and structure. 
Four UP faculties have been paired with four 
U.S. Universities
University of Minnesota (UMN) – UP Faculty 
of Agriculture; Indiana University (IU) – UP 
Faculty of Education; Dartmouth College 
(Dartmouth) – UP Faculty of Economics; and 
Arizona State University (ASU) – UP Faculty 
of Electrical and Computer Engineering. 
Change: TLP University Partnerships 
program will only work with UP faculties, 
other universities will not be included for 
38 Numbers reported here are based on data provided by TLP-SP project
39 Program was modified to increase U.S. to UP partner visits as the Faculty of Engineering was unable to send staff to the U.S.
USAID TLP Partnership Program Performance Evaluation – Final Report
81
direct participation (even though some 
participants were invited to the leadership 
seminars from other universities)
Activity 3: Develop Partnership Activities Plan Activities plan developed, and approved. 
Project plans and budget submitted to TLP￾SP by the university partners, along with UP 
and other academic institutions Draft 
Partnership Activities and Budget Plans 
summited to USAID and approved 
Sub-awards issued to partner universities
Activity 4: USAID Approval of Activities and 
Budgets for Partnerships: 
Project Year 2 (2015-16) (Partnerships Year 1)
Planned activities
Status of Implementation
Any Changes to Planned Activities
Support for 
Implementation 
of UP Action 
Plan
• Enhancing revenue generation and financial 
viability; 
- support formation of rector’s financial 
development advisory committee
-finalization of operating guidelines and three 
year strategy
• Improving the quality of academic staff and 
teaching; 
- (i) providing teaching instruction for 
faculty (center revitalized; workshops 
held; coordinator trained)
- (ii) - supporting credit-bearing 
internships with up Career 
Development Center and partner 
faculties (develop model)
• ,Developing the rectorate’s management, 
internal communications and public relations 
capabilities
- (i) provide technical assistance to 
rectorate and across the university to 
build leadership and drive a 
comprehensive change-management 
program. 
- (ii) improve internal communications and 
public relations functions
• Model and Operating guidelines for 
university financial development committee 
developed 
University -wide 
activities
• Relaunch of the UP Center for Teaching 
Excellence; Seminars/workshops organized at the 
Center For Teaching Excellence – 54 academic staff
members certified; awaiting appointment of 
coordinator
• Single model of credit bearing internships scheme 
developed
• Functional model of UP Career Development 
Center developed
Change management training program offered to 
mid-level staff of the Rectorate
• UP Public Relations and Communications 
Plan – strategy developed and recommendations 
offered
Faculty specific 
activities
Activity 1. University Partnership Launch Event ● Launch event organized in April 2015; 
● All partner universities onsite for the launch 
activities and to hold roundtables to discuss and 
finalize detailed activity plans with faculty partners.
● (see Annex 5 for summary of two year workplans by 
partnership)
● First workshops organized at this time; selection 
criteria established for U.S. to UP exchange visits, 
recruitment initiated
● Only 8 UP to U.S. visits completed; 20 U.S. to UP 
visits
● TLP-SP is working closely with its partners to 
ensure delivery of all activities
Activity 2. First American University Partners 
Visits to UP
Activity 3. First Workshops with UP Teaching 
Staff
Activity 4. First UP Visiting Scholars Travel to 
the U.S. -plan for 10scholars to travel to the 
U.S. in 2015
4 from Faculty of Electrical Engineering and 
Engineering; 2 from Education, 2 from 
Economics; and 2 from Agriculture to 
respective partners
Activity 5. TLP-SP Oversight over Sub-award 
Activities
USAID TLP Partnership Program Performance Evaluation – Final Report
82
Project Year 3 (2016-17) (Partnerships year 2)
Planned activities 
Three of the partnerships extended to Phase 2 (2017-19); 
Economy not continued
Status of Implementation 
Any Changes to Planned Activities
Support for 
Implementation of 
UP Action Plan
Improvement of management at UP and other 
universities
● Three year strategic plan for UP developed and 
approved by the UP Steering Board
.Change:
● Rector’s Action Plan of 2013 will no longer be 
implemented
● New three years strategy developed for UP with 
one-on-one coaching and mentoring for the 
Rector and his management team form TLP-SP
Areas of focus for project support will be same as 
before, so activities remain valid
(i) Support from TLP-SP for Improvement of 
management at UP and other universities
● One-on-one coaching and mentoring to the 
Rector and his management team continuing to 
implement the strategic plan
● Training in leadership and Management for 
University Administrative staff: training offered 
total of 40 staff members from UP, University of 
Gjakova and University of Mitrovica attended the 
seminars. Four separate offerings took place in 
May, July, September and November 2016.
(ii) Enhancing revenue generation and financial 
viability; 
- Support Formation of Rector’s Financial 
Development Advisory Committee (finalize 
operating guidelines, establish committee)
Model and Operating guidelines for university 
financial development committee developed and 
shared with the Rectorate 
(iii) Improve Internal Communications and 
Public Relations Functions
1. Presentation of UP Public Relations and 
Communications Plan to the new UP 
Management
2. Hiring of two interns
3. Purchase of equipment (Camera and PC)
4. U.S. study visit for PR Officer
5. Support outreach and public relations efforts 
(open days, orientation days, etc.)
● PR strategy presented; new branding plan 
developed
● University building its own website to incorporate 
new PR strategy and branding
● Communication strategy developed;
● Interns hired; short videos and web stories (48) 
developed for publishing on social media websites
University -wide 
activities
Improving the quality of academic staff and 
teaching; 
Center for Teaching Excellence
- (i) - Providing Teaching Instruction for 
Faculty
- (Finalize ASU sub-grant for the work with 
CTE; complete rebranding; Carry-over from 
Year 2: U.S. study visit for CTE 
Coordinator; Additional Training for the 
CTE Coordinator)
ASU subcontract finalized;
CTE web site launched; branding and marking plan 
developed in three languages Albanian, Serbian and 
English
CTE coordinator appointed and trained at ASU; 
seminars and workshops held at CTE
USAID TLP Partnership Program Performance Evaluation – Final Report
83
Project Year 3 (2016-17) (Partnerships year 2)
Planned activities 
Three of the partnerships extended to Phase 2 (2017-19); 
Economy not continued
Status of Implementation 
Any Changes to Planned Activities
UP Office for Research and Sponsored Projects) Opened with the appointment of a coordinator;
Space from UP furnished by TLP-SP;
Implementation plans developed for next two years 
development of Business plan being planned
Career Development Center
- (ii) - Supporting Credit-Bearing 
Internships with UP Career 
Development Center and Partner 
Faculties (finalize and implement model)
- (Presentation of single model for 
internships
- Work with UP Career Centre to 
develop alumni networks, internships 
fairs, career banks
- Develop database and IT platform for 
placement of students;
Placement of first students based on new 
internship program (pilot project with four 
partner faculties
● Career Development Center 
revitalized/supported under the Rector for 
Quality Management
● IT bids collected from local IT companies to 
help develop an alumni database;
● Draft database developed
Faculty specific activities
Indiana University/ 
Education
Activity 1. Managerial Visit to Indiana University None
Activity 2. Semester-in- Residence Program at 
IU
And US to UP exchange visits
5 UP professors went to U.S. 
Program has been modified from a whole semester in 
duration to two months in duration to suit the needs 
of the academic staff members
8 exchange visits from IU to UP – offered seminars 
and workshops on research methods and worked 
with the research clusters (described below)
Activity 3. Sustaining the FE Scholarly Learning 
Communities (SLCs) - collaborative research 
forums with SLCs at UP
Activity 4. Research Forums at FE-UP
Teamwork and collaborative work from academic 
staff members 
7 research clusters formed, each with a mentor from 
IU; preparing research projects to present at 
Research symposium
Organized first ever Scientific Summer Symposium: 
Enhancing Education Research at the Faculty of 
Education
University of 
Minnesota (UMN) 
/Agriculture and 
Veterinary (FAV)
Activity 1. Short-term visit by UMN faculty to 
UP Faculty of Agriculture and Veterinary
Six academic staff/staff members from UMN visited 
UP and presented a four day seminar; guest lectures; 
and helped with setting up and refurbishing existing 
radiology and anesthesia equipment; conducted 
demonstrations in using the machine
Activity 2. Short term UP faculty exchange visits 
University of Minnesota (UMN)
3 academic staff members visited UMN for a one 
month visit
2 academic staff/manager (the Dean and the vice 
Dean) visited UMN to observe various site visits 
including one to a diagnostic lab
Activity 3. Faculty Development Fellowships at 
University of Minnesota
None
USAID TLP Partnership Program Performance Evaluation – Final Report
84
Project Year 3 (2016-17) (Partnerships year 2)
Planned activities 
Three of the partnerships extended to Phase 2 (2017-19); 
Economy not continued
Status of Implementation 
Any Changes to Planned Activities
Dartmouth 
College/
Economy
Activity 1. Tuck First-Year Project in Kosovo
Activity 3. Second Tuck On Site Consulting 
Team
First year project completed – experiential learning 
module incorporated into an existing class – three 
teams presented research findings
Building Grass-Roots Organizations at the UP 
seminar completed; 
Five clubs opened at the Faculty of Economy and 
launched
Demonstration on Use of Active Learning 
Techniques 
Activity 2. Five UP visiting scholars to 
Dartmouth College (three scholars at Tuck 
School and two at Gender Research Institute at 
Dartmouth)
Completed 
3 professors from the Faculty of Economy hosted at 
Tuck School;
2 from the Faculty of Philosophy hosted by the 
Gender Institute, focus primarily on the GRID Spring 
Symposium series.
Arizona State 
University/ 
Electrical and 
Computer 
Engineering 
(ECEN)
Activity 1. Inter-disciplinary Certificate Program 
“Energy and Sustainability”
Certificate program developed; however it has been 
housed at the Center for Renewable Energy and 
Sustainability instead of at ECEN
Activity 2. Short-term UP Scholarly Visits to 
ASU
Professors from UP unable to go to ASU, program 
reconfigured 
ASU presented a two-week Renewable Energy and 
Sustainability seminar, in Kosovo. Eleven professors 
attended the seminar, and outcomes included 
individual action plans for professors and draft 
curricula.
10 staff from ASU to UP 
Project Year 4(2017-18) (Partnerships year 3)
Planned activities 
Status of implementation (as of 
Nov 2017)
Any Changes to Planned Activities
Support for 
Implementation of 
UP Action Plan
Objective1: Change management and improve 
PR and communication
(i)Support for Improvement of Management at 
UP and other Universities
Activity 1: Leadership and Change 
Management Seminars – 3 more seminars for 
midlevel administrative staff planned:
● One-on-one coaching and mentoring to the 
Rector and his management team continuing to 
implement the strategic plan
● Training in leadership and Management for 
University Administrative staff: training offered 
total of 14 staff members from UP, (total 54 to 
date) 
Activity 2: Senior Executive Leadership 
Summit – two day leadership seminar for 
Deans of UP faculties 
Completed
Activity 3a and 3b: Leadership and Change 
Management Alumni Exchange Visits (2 weeks 
in duration) 
Leadership fellowships awarded to 4 of the certified 
administrative staff for a study tour in the U.S.
Activity 4: UP Senior Management Exchange 
Visit to the United States
Completed
USAID TLP Partnership Program Performance Evaluation – Final Report
85
Project Year 4(2017-18) (Partnerships year 3)
Planned activities 
Status of implementation (as of 
Nov 2017)
Any Changes to Planned Activities
(ii) Improve Internal Communications and 
Public Relations Functions
Support outreach and public relations efforts 
(continue support for interns.)
Support for interns work with UP on implementation 
of the Outreach and Communications strategy 
developed by the Program provided through 
November 2017
Activity 5: Unified Website for University of 
Prishtina and sub-sites for all faculties Completed
Activity 6: Producing Educational and 
Promotional Videos for UP
Ongoing 
Objective 2: Enhance Revenue Generation and 
Financial Viability
Activity 1: Continue support to the Rector’s 
Financial Development Advisory Committee
Financial Advisory Committee established; 
Comparative study prepared and presented to UP 
Committee by-laws drafted and forwarded to the 
vice-rector for finance
Activity 2: Workshops and Training for 
members of the Financial Advisory 
Committee on strategy development
Completed – strategy and recommendations 
developed pending approval/support from UP 
management 
Center for Teaching Excellence
(i) - Providing Teaching Instruction for Faculty
- Study visit for the Vice-Rector for 
Training and three of the trainers
- Four trainings for teaching staff and 
trainers of CTE
Completed
University -wide 
activities
(ii) – Assessment/data development to 
inform decision makers White paper developed to address issue of paucity of 
data;
Work on Data systems initiated
UP Office for Research and Sponsored 
Projects (Center for Sponsored Research)
Activity 3: Support Creation of an Office for 
Sponsored Programs
- ASU to establish 2 year plans to 
establish office
- Establish system for tracking of 
donor-funded programs
- Needs assessment for long term 
sustainability
Center established, furnished by TLP-SP; 
Coordinator appointed and sent for study 
tour/training;
Implementation plans developed and activities such 
as improving UP presence on online networks 
initiated
Career Development Center
- (i) - Supporting Credit-Bearing 
Internships with UP Career 
Development Center and Partner 
Faculties (finalize and implement 
model in three faculties)
- Training on model
- Implement new courses that include 
internships
● Career Development Center supported 
and revitalized under the Rector for 
Quality Management
● Career Center data base developed to 
house information on all students from UP 
● Database has a portal specifically for UP 
Alumni
● Internship program initiated with 
participating faculties
USAID TLP Partnership Program Performance Evaluation – Final Report
86
Project Year 4(2017-18) (Partnerships year 3)
Planned activities 
Status of implementation (as of 
Nov 2017)
Any Changes to Planned Activities
- Develop database and IT platform 
for placement of students;
- Data base also used to develop 
alumni networks – public launch for 
portal 
Other activities are planned 
Faculty specific activities
Indiana 
Univ/Education
Activity 1. Continue Support for research 
clusters to extend understanding in research 
methods and result in publications
- Assign mentor 
- Support via email and video conference
- Hold brown bags
Research clusters in place, supported through email 
and videoconference support 
Activity 2. IU academic staff visits UP to hold 
workshops 
Completed as planned
Activity 3. Planned exchange visits for Faculty 
of Education teaching staff and management 
(Dean and Vice Dean)
Completed as planned 
Activity 4. Support for annual “Scientific 
Summer Symposium” 
Completed 
Univ. of Minnesota/ 
Agriculture and 
Veterinary
Activity 1. Short-term visit by UMN academic 
staff to UP for support strategic planning and 
institute development
Completed
Strategic planning workshop facilitated as a part of 
the process for drafting the Strategic Plan 2018 -
2022 
Activity 2. Short term assistance to build 
research capacity and capability at faculty of 
Agriculture and Veterinary
- Two such visits planned
Completed
Activity 3. Co-mentorship of graduate 
students leading to publications
Ongoing
Activity 4. Faculty Development Fellowships at 
University of Minnesota – 2 fellows expected 
for 1 month each
One completed, one planned; 
Activity 5. Strengthening pedagogy and 
curricula 
Activity 6. Short-term visits to assess progress
Planned
Dartmouth 
College/Economics
No Activities planned as the Partnership has 
been suspended
Two activities continuing from Years 1 and 2 
Continuing support for GRID fellowship
Assistance to Summer school on Gender and 
Sexuality
Completed
Arizona State 
University/ ECEN
Assistance for Center for Teaching Excellence
Activity 1: Advancing best practices in teaching 
through teaching methodology seminars
-develop teaching guide for Coursesites –
course management software
-seminar on best practices in course syllabus 
preparation
-Seminar sessions on hybrid/blended learning 
and on experimental online course delivery
Completed
USAID TLP Partnership Program Performance Evaluation – Final Report
87
Project Year 4(2017-18) (Partnerships year 3)
Planned activities 
Status of implementation (as of 
Nov 2017)
Any Changes to Planned Activities
-Introductory Seminar on Interactive Teaching, 
Collaborative Learning, and New Course 
Development
-Seminar session on best practices in 
preparation and administration of standardized 
course evaluation instruments
Activity 2. Support for CTE to develop 
sustainability
Ongoing 
Faculty of Engineering Partnerships
Activity 3. UP CREATES – expanding the role 
of the Center for Renewable Energy and 
Sustainability
Building curriculum and research capacity 
(also see under University-wide activities)
Planned
Change Interdisciplinary Center established as an 
academic research and teaching center at the 
Rectorate level (not in the Faculty of Engineering)
Activity 4. A State of the Art UP Sponsored 
Research Management Office established 
Completed – see above under faculty-wide activities
Activity 5. Continued Enrichment and 
Exchange with UP Engineering Faculties, 
including FECE
-hold seminars
-offer department heads library access 
Completed 
Project Year 5(2018-19) (component year 4)
Planned activities 
Status of implementation (as of 
May 2019)
Any Changes to Planned 
Activities
Support for 
Implementation of 
UP Action Plan
(i) Support for Improvement of management at UP 
and other universities – provide technical 
assistance to rectorate to manage change 
Activity 1: Leadership and Change Management 
Alumni exchange visits for participants of the 
senior leadership seminar – 10-14 day visits 
planned for September 2018
● One-on-one coaching and mentoring to the 
Rector and his management team continued 
through end of project
●
(ii) Improve Internal Communications and Public 
Relations Functions
Activity 2: PR officer and Vice Rector for 
International Cooperation – visit to the US
Activity 3: Support outreach and public relations 
efforts at UP through production of videos and 
promotional materials 
Completed - PR officer and Vice Rector for 
International Cooperation visited US
Videos and promotional materials developed 
highlighting accomplishments of the university 
and addressing topics such as importance of 
academic integrity; safe employment 
environment, sexual and other forms of 
harassment, etc.
PR activities organized to engage alumni in 
making university a better place for students
USAID TLP Partnership Program Performance Evaluation – Final Report
88
Project Year 5(2018-19) (component year 4)
Planned activities 
Status of implementation (as of 
May 2019)
Any Changes to Planned 
Activities
Objective 2: Enhance Revenue Generation and 
Financial Viability
Activity 1: Continue support to the Rector’s 
Financial Development Advisory Committee
Activity 2: UP Financial Policies and Procedures 
Manual
Activity 3: Workshop and Training for UP financial 
staff in all (13) faculties, the UP management team, 
UP Vice Deans for Finance as well as Rector’s 
Financial Advisory Committee members
Completed – manual developed with help from 
Sr. Financial advisor from World Learning and 
Baker and Tillie (a local financial advisory 
company)
Completed
Training provided for the financial staff
Activity 4: Support creation of Office for 
Sponsored Programs – to address lack of revenue 
generating research at UP and enhance its capacity 
Completed – UP Office for Research and 
Sponsored Projects (Center for Sponsored 
Research) staffed and functional; 
coordinator has been trained and is beginning to 
roll out a system for application and 
management of grant and contract funds to 
provide enhanced tracking and management of 
donor-funded program;
ORSP has helped improve the online presence of 
UP teaching staff, leading to an improved ranking 
for UP 
ASU provided ongoing mentoring and training 
for coordinator
University -wide 
activities
Objective 3: Improve quality of Academic Staff and 
Teaching
Center for Teaching Excellence
(i) - Providing Teaching Instruction for Faculty
- Study visit for the Vice-Rector Training 
and three other trainers
- Four trainings for teaching staff and 
trainers of CTE
(also see section on Arizona State University 
support for CTE)
Completed
Center for Teaching Excellence revitalized;
Coordinator appointed and trained
Courses developed on Coursesites, active 
learning in the classroom
Cadre of 12 new trainers trained and certified to 
support the existing trainers; instructional 
trainer also hired for Coursesites
(ii) – Assessment/Assurances of Learning 
Systems/Data Development to inform decision 
makers 
Data systems developed with support of a local 
company to build a system to capture missing 
data or to pull data from multiple existing 
sources
Career Development Center
- (i) – Support ‘Service learning’ and 
Credit-Bearing Internships with UP 
Career Development Center and 
Partner Faculties 
- Change model to combine work of 
Career center and Alumni Association 
for a cohesive approach 
Completed 
USAID TLP Partnership Program Performance Evaluation – Final Report
89
Project Year 5(2018-19) (component year 4)
Planned activities 
Status of implementation (as of 
May 2019)
Any Changes to Planned 
Activities
- Establish Alumni Association and 
community service engagement for 
earned credit 
- Community service synchronized with 
PR activities;
- Support the Career Center Database to 
track employment after graduation, and 
provided information on internships and 
job opportunities 
Faculty specific activities
Indiana 
Univ/Education
Activity 1. Continue Support for research clusters 
to extend understanding in research methods and 
result in publications
- Support via email and video conference
-
Completed 
Activity 2. IU faculty visits UP to hold workshops 
on topics related to research methodology and 
improving teaching methodology with the faculty of 
education
Completed as planned
Activity 3. Planned exchange visits for Faculty of 
Education management 
- IU Deans visit UP
- FE management staff visit US to extend 
partnership and to understand how to 
expand primary research in Kosovo
Completed as planned 
Activity 4. Support for annual “Scientific Summer 
Symposium” – continued through an annual 
research conference at UP
Completed 
Faculty in Residence program at IU 6 teaching staff completed an eight week exchange 
visit (straddling over PY4 and PY5)
Univ. of Minnesota/ 
Agriculture and 
Veterinary
Activity 1. Strategic planning and institute 
development
Strategic plan 2018-22 Completed
Institute development in progress, contingent on 
move of Faculty to new space
Activity 2. Short term assistance to build research 
capacity and capability at faculty of Agriculture and 
Veterinary
- UMN faculty visit UP
Co-mentorship of graduate students leading to 
publications
Completed 
Activity 3. Building research capacity completed; support provided through supplies, 
training for research fellows, mentoring of 
students and submitting manuscripts for 
publication
Activity 4: Faculty Development Fellowships at 
University of Minnesota – 2 fellows expected for 1 
month each
On-going from previous year; Completed 
Activity 5. Strengthening pedagogy and curricula Completed as planned
Activity 6. Short-term visits to assess progress Completed as planned
Dartmouth 
College/Economic
No Activities planned as the Partnership has been 
suspended
Completed
USAID TLP Partnership Program Performance Evaluation – Final Report
90
Project Year 5(2018-19) (component year 4)
Planned activities 
Status of implementation (as of 
May 2019)
Any Changes to Planned 
Activities
Arizona State 
University/ ECEN
Support for Center for Teaching Excellence
Activity 1: Advancing best practices in teaching 
through teaching methodology seminars:
- Follow-on seminar for all UP teaching 
staff on Coursesites software
Seminar on using technology and on 
experimental online course delivery
Planned 
Faculty of Engineering Partnerships
Activity 2 UP CREATES – expanding the role of 
the Center for Renewable Energy and Sustainability
Building curriculum and research capacity 
First two cohorts enrolled in the certificate 
program in “Renewable energy and 
Sustainability” – courses offered at the center 
are already accredited at other faculties and 
departments
5 Seed grants awarded to applied research 
proposals
All Faculties in the Partnerships program: Additional equipment and textbooks provided to the faculties as needed at the end of 
the project 
USAID TLP Partnership Program Performance Evaluation – Final Report
91
Page left Blank
USAID TLP Partnership Program Performance Evaluation – Final Report
92
For more information contact www.ibi-usa.com
USAID/Kosovo Transformational Leadership Impact and Performance Evaluation
IBI
4040 North Fairfax Drive
Suite 650
Arlington, Virginia 22203
Tel: 1-703-525-2277
www.ibi-usa.com