1 August 2013 This publication was produced at the request of the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared independently by Management Systems International (MSI) under the Monitoring and Evaluation Program (MEP) by Ghazanfar Hoti, Ahmad Jameel, Sara Zaidi, Fatima Abbas, Muhammad Danish, and Syed Hijazi. Higher Education Commission: University and Technical Support, and Higher Education Support Program HIGHER EDUCATION COMMISSION: UNIVERSITY AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION SUPPORT, AND HIGHER EDUCATION SUPPORT PROGRAM August 7, 2013 Contracted under No. GS-23F-8012H and Order No. AID-391-M-11-00001 Monitoring and Evaluation Program (MEP) DISCLAIMER This study/report is made possible by the support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The contents are the sole responsibility of Management Systems International and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government. i CONTENTS Project Summary.................................................................................................................................................................................... vi Executive Summary.................................................................................................................................................................................1 Project Background ..............................................................................................................................................................................10 Evaluation Purpose and Questions...................................................................................................................................................15 Evaluation Methods and Limitations.................................................................................................................................................17 Findings and Conclusions....................................................................................................................................................................22 Recommendations ................................................................................................................................................................................42 Annexes...................................................................................................................................................................................................43 Annex 1: First and Second Cash Transfer by Component...........................................................................................43 Annex 2: HEC Recurring Grants Received.......................................................................................................................48 Received by a Beneficiary University ........................................................................................................................48 Received by Non-beneficiary University..................................................................................................................51 Annex 3: Gender Distribution Tables of Scholarship Recipients (IDP Students) ...................................................58 Hazara University ..........................................................................................................................................................58 Agricultural University Peshawar ..............................................................................................................................60 Hamdard University ......................................................................................................................................................61 Quaid-e-Azam University ............................................................................................................................................62 University of Peshawar.................................................................................................................................................63 Annex 4: USAID Pakistan Mission Results Framework (at the Time of Evaluation)..............................................67 Annex 5: Evaluation Statement of Work...........................................................................................................................69 Annex 6: Data Collection Instruments..............................................................................................................................89 HEC Cash Transfer Program Survey Questionnaires for Institution Officials/Faculty ................................89 HEC Cash Transfer Program Survey Questionnaire for Student Beneficiaries ............................................97 Annex 7: MEP Evaluation Team Bios............................................................................................................................... 104 Bibliography.................................................................................................................................................................. 105 Databases...................................................................................................................................................................... 106 ii Tables and Figures Table 1: HEC Cash Transfers Project Summary ........................................................................................................... vi Table 2: First Cash Transfer-Funding Breakdown .......................................................................................................13 Table 3: Second Cash Transfer Funding Breakdown ..................................................................................................14 Table 4: Support to Universities Selected for Site Visits (Rs. in Millions) .............................................................18 Table 5: Survey Respondents by Sex, Province, University, and Degree...............................................................20 Table 6: Allocation of USAID Support by University..................................................................................................24 Table 7: Recurring Grant Funding to Beneficiary and Non-beneficiary Universities..........................................25 Table 8: Development Funds Released to HEC (Rs. in Millions).............................................................................26 Table 9: Distribution of IDP Scholars by Sex, University, and Degree ..................................................................28 Table 10: Number of IDP Students by Sex, Faculty, and Degree - Hazara University.......................................29 Table 11: Number of IDP Students by Sex, Faculty, and Degree - AUP ...............................................................30 Table 12: Number of IDP of Students by Sex, Faculty, and Degree - UOP..........................................................31 Table 13: Number of IDP of Students by Sex, Faculty, and Degree - QAU.........................................................31 Table 14: Number of IDP of Students by Sex and Faculty - Hamdard University...............................................32 Table 15: Second Cash Transfer Activities....................................................................................................................33 Table 16: Number and Daily Usage of Students Using the Labs..............................................................................34 Table 17: First and Second Cash Transfer Component Detail.................................................................................43 Table 18: Recurring Grant Received by a Beneficiary University (FY 2002-03 to 2010-11)............................48 Table 19: Recurring Grant Received by a Non-beneficiary University (FY 2002-03 to 2010-11)...................51 Table 20: Gender Distribution of Scholarship Recipients (IDP Students) – Hazara University ......................58 Table 21: Gender Distribution of Scholarship Recipients (IDP Students) – Agricultural University Peshawar........................................................................................................................................................60 Table 22: Gender Distribution of Scholarship Recipients (IDP Students) – Hamdard University ..................61 Table 23: Gender Distribution of Scholarship Recipients (IDP Students) – Quaid-e-Azam University ........62 Table 24: Gender Distribution of Scholarship Recipients (IDP Students) – University of Peshawar.............63 Figure 1: Map of Locations of Universities.......................................................................................................................7 Figure 2: Trends in HEC’s Development and Recurring Grants to Universities.................................................11 Figure 3: Effect of USAID Budgetary Shortfall (Rs. million).......................................................................................23 Figure 4: Comparison of Female IDP Students to Total Number of Female Students in Each Faculty - Hazara University ........................................................................................................................................29 Figure 5: Comparison of Female IDP Students to Total Number of Female Students in Each Faculty - AUP.................................................................................................................................................................30 iii Figure 6: Six Degrees of Freedom Table........................................................................................................................35 Figure 7: Perception of the U.S. and American People ..............................................................................................41 iv ACRONYMS AJK Azad Jammu and Kashmir DEC Development Experience Clearinghouse DO Development Objective EAD Economic Affairs Division EEC Earthquake Engineering Center FATA Federally Administered Tribal Areas FY Fiscal Year GDP Gross Domestic Product GER Gross Enrollment Ratio GOP Government of Pakistan HEC Higher Education Commission IDP Internally Displaced Person/Population IR Intermediate Result KP Khyber Pakhtunkhwa MEP Monitoring and Evaluation Program MNBSP Merit and Needs-Based Scholarship Program MSI Management Systems International MTDF Medium-Term Development Framework PC-I Planning Commission Pro Forma Number 1 PIL Program Implementation Letter USAID U.S. Agency for International Development University Acronyms AUP Agriculture University, Peshawar BUITEMS Balochistan University of IT, Engineering and Management Sciences BZU Bahauddin Zakariya University GU Gomal University HU Hamdard University HZU Hazara University IU-B Islamia University, Bahawalpur KIU Karakoram International University KP UET Khyber Pakhtunkhwa University of Engineering and Technology KUST Kohat University of Science and Technology v LCWU Lahore College for Women University MUET Mehran University of Engineering and Technology NED UET NED University of Engineering and Technology QAU Quaid-e-Azam University SBBWU Shaheed Benazir Bhutto Women University SBKWU Sardar Bahadur Khan Women University SC IU-B Seerat Chair at Islamia University- Bahawalpur UAAR University of Arid Agriculture Rawalpindi UET University of Engineering and Technology (many locations) UOB University of Balochistan UOP University of Peshawar UOK University of Karachi vi PROJECT SUMMARY The two cash transfer programs were designed to provide financial assistance to the Higher Education Commission (HEC) of Pakistan. The overall objective of the First Cash Transfer was to expand the availability of university and technical education to students from conflict-affected areas. The transfer was intended to contribute to the “Investing in People” objective under the U.S. Foreign Assistance Framework, especially in the areas of higher education and social assistance. The Second Cash Transfer was intended to “Increase research capacity, improve teaching techniques and laboratory facilities, and enhance the quality and applicability of academic degrees in academic disciplines related to agricultural sciences and hydrology.” It also supported “other disciplines which support these sectors” including “environmental sciences, engineering and economics”. 1 TABLE 1: HEC CASH TRANSFERS PROJECT SUMMARY USAID Objectives Addressed  Development Objective (DO) 4: Improved Access to High Quality Education  Intermediate Result (IR) 1: Improved Educational Opportunities  IR 1.1: Improved Educational Facilities  IR 1.3: Increased Access to Scholarships  Cross Cutting Objective 3: Improved Public Perception of the U.S. Implementing Partners Higher Education Commission of Pakistan Program Implementation Letter (PIL) No. 391-012 Project Dates First Cash Transfer: FY 2009-10 Second Cash Transfer: FY 2010-11 Project Budget First Cash Transfer: US$45 million Second Cash Transfer: US$45 million (of which $37.79 million are pertinent to this evaluation since US$4.71 and US$2.5 million were utilized for the Fulbright Scholarship Program and HEC’s Merit and Needs-Based Scholarship Program, respectively). Project Location Nationwide in Pakistan 1 Attachment 5 to the Cash Transfer Grant Agreement USAID, Grant No. 391-012, as amended Project Implementation Letter (PIL) No. 6 7 FIGURE 1: MAP OF LOCATIONS OF UNIVERSITIES 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PROJECT BACKGROUND Pakistan’s education index ratings are among the lowest in the region. Its adult literacy rate and tertiary gross enrollment ratio rank near the bottom in World Bank statistics and are below those for most other countries in the region. Pakistan’s poor performance in education is largely due to consistent underfunding. In 2010, the Government of Pakistan’s (GOP) spending on education amounted to 2.4 percent of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP), while education spending was 4.7 percent in Nepal, 3.3 percent in India, and 5.1 percent in Malaysia.2 Of the 213 countries for which the World Bank reported data, Pakistan ranked 199th in terms of spending on education. Furthermore, Pakistan’s expenditure on higher education has declined in recent years, from 0.33 percent of GDP in 2007-08 to 0.23 percent in 2009-10.3 Current economic conditions in Pakistan, and the 2009 armed conflict associated with extremist insurgency in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) province and the tribal areas that displaced almost 3 million people, have further exacerbated the effects of underinvestment in education. Development Problem Pakistan’s generally low investment in education, and specifically higher education, has severely affected the financial health of Pakistan’s universities. In fiscal year (FY) 2007-08, the GOP cut the Higher Education Commission’s (HEC) budget for recurring grants to universities by 21 percent.4 Recurring grants cover universities’ regular operating expenses including utilities, staff salaries, and research grants. In FY 2009-10, the GOP provided only 40 percent of the funding allocated to recurring grants to 32 universities. Also, since FY 2008- 09, the GOP has consistently released less money than budgeted for development grants, which support scholarships, infrastructure (e.g., buildings, laboratory equipment) and other development projects, and pay the salaries of development project staff, all of which are crucial to strengthening the ability of Pakistan’s universities to meet future needs. In moves that further aggravated the weak financial situation of universities, in FY 2008-09 the GOP mandated 20 percent increases in government employees’ salaries (including those of university staff), but did not increase funding levels to cover these increases. In the same year, the GOP waived tuition and fees for 7,354 internally displaced students without increasing funding to the affected universities to cover the lost tuition revenue. USAID’s Response USAID responded to the problems posed by these financial cuts to universities by providing two separate cash transfers to HEC. HEC has the statutory authority for public higher education in Pakistan and is, therefore, the principal agency with which USAID works to manage tertiary education activities. USAID University and Technical Education Support The USAID University and Technical Education Support Program, henceforth referred to as the First Cash Transfer, was part of a larger U.S. Government emergency response program whose goal was to stabilize Pakistani society affected by extremist insurgencies, fiscal crisis, and weak local institutions. HEC received US$45 million from USAID through the First Cash Transfer, which targeted universities serving conflict-affected students. The 2 Ibid. 3 HEC. [http://www.hec.gov.pk/InsideHEC/Divisions/Finance/Documents/Expenditure%20on%20Higher%20 Education%20as%20Percent%20of%20GDP.pdf] 4 http://www.hec.gov.pk/INSIDEHEC/DIVISIONS/FINANCE/FP/Pages/RecurringGrantReleasedHEC.aspx 2 First Cash Transfer reimbursed 22 universities for lost revenue due to the tuition waiver for internally displaced (IDP) students, covered budgetary shortfalls for nine universities, and supported recurring grant funding for 32 universities. USAID Higher Education Support Program The objective of the Higher Education Support Program, henceforth referred to as the Second Cash Transfer, was to further the “Investing in People” objective under the U.S. Foreign Assistance Framework. USAID provided US$45 million to HEC in the Second Cash Transfer. The funding supported 44 development projects at 19 universities, and funded Fulbright and Merit and Needs-Based Scholarships. As they have been evaluated separately, this evaluation does not cover the scholarship programs, which accounted for US$7.21 million or 16 percent of the total cash transfer value. EVALUATION PURPOSE AND EVALUATION QUESTIONS The purpose of this evaluation is to determine whether the two cash transfers have achieved expected results. The evaluation should facilitate stakeholder accountability, assess project performance (e.g. effectiveness and relevance), and generate recommendations for improving future cash transfer programs and other programming to support higher education. The results of this evaluation will be of importance in determining how well the program is achieving outcomes/results that are synergistic with other tertiary education programs. Another critically important purpose is to determine the contribution of both cash transfer programs to USAID’s development strategy in Pakistan. It is imperative that the valuable resources devoted to supporting tertiary education contribute to the success of USAID’s strategic objectives to the greatest extent possible. The evaluation focused on the following specific questions: 1. What were the financial effects that the programs had on universities? 2. How equitably was financial assistance to IDP students under the First Cash Transfer distributed by gender? 3. Have the faculty and students benefitted from the equipment provided under the Second Cash Transfer? 4. What were the results of the cash transfer programs in terms of helping universities continue their key activities (First and Second Cash Transfer) and students continue their education (First Cash Transfer)? 5. To what extent have the cash transfer programs contributed to USAID’s Development Objectives (DO 4 and cross cutting objective 3) and Intermediate Results (IR: 1.1, and IR: 1.3), in Pakistan? EVALUATION METHODS AND LIMITATIONS The evaluation used a mixed-methods approach that combined qualitative and quantitative data and analysis. The approach included the following:  In 16 universities selected for site visits (see Table 7):  Semi-structured key informant interviews (KIIs) with 47 participating university officials and faculty members;  A survey of a purposive/convenience sample of 238 students who had used labs and lab equipment provided under the Second Cash Transfer;  Key informant interviews with HEC and USAID officials; and  Secondary data from USAID, HEC, and participating universities. 3 Strengths and Limitations The evaluation methodology suffered from several limitations, none of which was likely to have had much effect on the reliability or validity of the evaluation findings. First, it was not possible to locate most of the IDP students who received financial assistance, so the evaluation misses the perspective of these beneficiaries. Second, the sample of student users of labs and equipment probably under-represented those who were unavailable because of exams, holidays, or academic schedules. Third, due to scheduling conflicts, the evaluation team was unable to interview the Vice Chancellors of the University of Peshawar (UOP) and Nadirshaw Eduljee Dinshaw University of Engineering and Technology (NED UET). The Pro-Vice Chancellor of NED UET represented the Vice Chancellor in the interview. Fourth, the HEC officials who determined the criteria for allocating funds from USAID's First Cash Transfer were no longer working at HEC at the time of the evaluation. Therefore, the evaluation team was unable to determine what these criteria were. Triangulation of data collection sources and methods helped offset any limitations associated with the data from a particular source or method. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Evaluation Question 1: What were the financial effects that the programs had on universities? Findings First Cash Transfer Through the First Cash Transfer, which was made in FY 2009-10, USAID provided US$45.00 million (Rs. 3,780 million) to support a total of 41 universities serving conflict-affected students. The support covered three areas: 1) budgetary shortfalls resulting from liabilities accrued when the GOP cut recurring grant funding5 to universities in FY 2007-08 and instituted a 20 percent increase in salaries for university employees without providing a corresponding increase in funding, 2) reductions in FY 2009-10 recurring grant funding, and 3) the lost revenue universities experienced when the GOP ordered universities to waive fees and tuition for IDP students. At the request of HEC, USAID provided US$8.43 million (Rs. 708 million) to a total of nine universities to cover budgetary shortfalls. On average, the First Cash Transfer covered 75 percent of the estimated budgetary shortfall. The support was not evenly distributed across the nine universities; however, the criteria used for allocating funds are unclear. 6 For eight of the universities, the support covered over 70 percent of the shortfall, while for the University of Peshawar it covered only 54 percent. USAID also provided US$4.07 million (Rs. 342 million) to cover the waived fees of IDP students at 22 universities (14 in KP, 2 in Balochistan, 1 in Sindh, and 5 located in Islamabad) identified by HEC. The assistance supported 7,354 students belonging to IDP families from the conflict-affected areas of KP and the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) by covering their waived tuition fees and other expenses for one year. HEC also requested and received from USAID US$32.50 million (Rs. 2,730 million) to fund recurring grants for a total of 32 universities. The average increase in funding through HEC’s recurring grants7 between FY 2008-09 (the 5 Recurring grants cover regular university expenses such as utilities, staff salaries, and research grants. 6 As explained under Evaluation Methods and Limitations, the evaluation team was unable to obtain any information on these criteria. 7 Universities use recurring grants, which they receive annually from HEC, for such recurring expenditures as faculty and staff salaries and allowances (more than 50 percent), utilities and other regular university operating expenditures. More specifically, according to HEC MTDF 2011-2015, “the recurring grant made available to the HEC each year (by GOP) is allocated to cater to recurring grants of universities, inter￾university academic activities catering for projects covering all universities such as the digital library and Pakistan Education and Research 4 year prior to USAID support) and 2009-10 was the same (28-29 percent) for USAID-assisted and 73 non-recipient universities, suggesting that USAID support allowed recipient universities to “keep up” with non-recipient universities. Second Cash Transfer The amount of money the GOP has released to universities through development grants has trended downward since FY 2008-09. This funding source declined by 30 percent in FY 2008-09, increased by 24 percent the following year (when USAID provided support), and declined again by 30 percent in FY 2011-12. University officials reported that the declining level of support risked limiting the development activities necessary to keep pace with HEC objectives to increase enrollment. Through the Second Cash Transfer, USAID provided US$37.79 million (Rs. 3,212 million) for development grants8 to support a total of 44 projects at 19 universities. These activities included constructing or rehabilitating buildings and laboratories, equipping laboratories, and supporting faculty development by sending them for Ph.D. studies outside Pakistan. USAID support accounted for 23 percent of the total amount of development grants provided to the 19 recipient universities. High-level HEC and university officials reported that the Second Cash Transfer funding was critical to making development funds available to the 19 recipient universities. The universities had expansion plans, which included launching new higher degree programs that required laboratories and equipment. The GOP budget cuts disrupted these plans. In that sense, USAID assistance was very timely. It helped universities continue their development activities. Conclusions The First Cash Transfer, which covered university budgetary shortfalls and financial assistance to IDP students, made substantial contributions towards restoring the budgets of recipient universities. The US$8.43 million (Rs. 708 million) in funding provided by USAID covered 75 percent of the budgetary shortfalls at the nine universities that received this support. The US$4.07 million (Rs. 342 million) USAID provided to assist 7,354 IDP students replaced the funding universities lost when the GOP waived tuition and fees for those students. Assuming that the GOP had not found other sources for this funding, the USAID grants improved the financial situation of universities. The US$32.5 million (Rs. 2,730 million) in budgetary support for recurring grants, also provided through the First Cash Transfer, allowed recipient universities to maintain the same level of growth in in this funding source as non￾recipient universities, and represents a direct financial benefit to the recipient universities. Since the HEC request for support to 32 universities occurred in the broader context of its overall funding decisions, USAID support may have also indirectly contributed to the financial health of non-recipient universities if USAID funding allowed HEC to release full recurring grant funds to these universities. The US$37.79 million (Rs. 3,210 million) Second Cash Transfer allocated to development grants allowed recipient universities to sustain their planned development activities. The decline in development grants in the years before and after USAID support suggest that USAID funds did not replace other sources of funding and were critical to sustaining planned development projects. Network (PERN), Promotion of Research, and the HEC Secretariat. The bulk of the funding goes in direct recurring grant to universities (approximately 90 percent), while around 2 percent pays for HEC administration expenses”. 8 Development grants cover scholarships, infrastructure development, and other development projects in public sector universities. 5 Evaluation Question 2: How equitably have scholarships under the First Cash Transfer been distributed by gender? Findings The First Cash Transfer did not have any gender-specific objectives. The GOP waived tuition fees for all IDP students (i.e., students from conflict-affected areas) prior to the cash transfer program. USAID support covered the entire amount of the affected universities’ lost revenue as a function of these waived fees irrespective of students’ gender. Of the 3,551 IDP students at seven universities the evaluation team visited (all of whom had their fees waived), about 88 percent were men and 12 percent were women. Women accounted for a larger percentage of assisted students in master’s programs (19 percent) and a smaller percentage in bachelor’s programs (8 percent). In two of the sampled universities that provided data, female IDP students were underrepresented in all degree programs and faculties relative to the overall percentage of female students enrolled in the universities. Women accounted for 4 percent of IDP students and 25 percent of total enrollment at Hazara University, and 4 percent compared to 12 percent at AUP. By faculty (i.e., groups of departments), women accounted for relatively larger percentages of enrolled students in master’s programs in the faculties of Life and Environmental Sciences, Islamic and Oriental Studies, and Management and Information Sciences, the bachelor’s program in the Faculty of Fine Arts and Humanities at UOP, and the master’s program in the faculty of Biological Sciences at Quaid-e-Azam University (QAU). Conclusion The financial assistance to IDP students was provided to all IDP students and had no gender targets or objectives. Nevertheless, the assistance had gender implications in the sense that it benefited few women relative to men. The “inequity” in the distribution of assistance did not reflect a deliberate choice or a design flaw, but was entirely the result of women being underrepresented among IDP students relative to the student bodies at their universities as a whole. The untargeted assistance benefited more women in master’s programs, and although no clear pattern emerges among the universities, it seemed to benefit a greater proportion of women in the biological, health, and social sciences. This implies that a similar program, which provides broad assistance regardless of sex, could indirectly target women more equitably by providing assistance, or a greater percentage of assistance, to students in particular fields of study, pursuing particular degrees, or at selected universities with greater female enrollment. Evaluation Question No. 3: Have the faculty and students benefitted from the equipment provided under the Second Cash Transfer? Findings The evaluation team surveyed student lab users at nine out of the total 19 universities that received USAID development grant support. Among the 238 student survey respondents, 75 percent used USAID-provided lab equipment during the three months prior to the survey. On average, students used the equipment 15 times per month (median usage was 20 times per month), though this ranged from 1-36 times per month. Faculty in charge of the laboratories at the sampled universities reported that a total of 855 students (534 bachelor’s students, 297 master’s students, and 24 Ph.D. students) were enrolled in classes that used the labs and equipment. Labs are used an average of six hours per day. 6 Seventy-four percent of the students surveyed used the equipment as part of their research projects, 17 percent used the equipment to prepare for conference paper presentations, and 14 percent used it for publishing papers in professional journals.9 Seventy-three percent of the surveyed students, however, said they faced problems using the equipment. These included frequent power failures (50 percent of students), overcrowding (29 percent of students), and a shortage of essential lab materials (18 percent of students). According to key informant interviews with university officials, the equipment provided to universities helped them gain accreditation for academic programs, start new master’s and Ph.D. programs, and establish links with research/academic institutions. The equipment, thus, supported faculty and students by providing additional research capacity and practical training. Faculty at all nine sampled universities believed that access to the labs and equipment would help better prepare students and enhance their employment prospects. The equipment procured at two universities was not operational at the time of the evaluation. In one instance, the training required prior to use had not yet been conducted. In the other university, the equipment was still being installed, following the lengthy but normal process. Conclusions Faculty and students who use the labs and equipment benefit from their use. They provide practical training (thus enhancing students’ job prospects), strengthen existing academic programs, support new programs, facilitate accreditation, and help universities establish research links with the public and private sectors. The high quality, modern equipment enhanced the relevance of classroom learning as well as the level and types of research possible. Many of the universities had just received the labs and equipment prior to the evaluation, and therefore, some were not yet operational. Consequently, some universities may not have yet realized the full extent of the benefits. Although the equipment provided was relevant to university needs and of high quality, institutional and infrastructure constraints limited its usefulness. Power failures compromised the operations of many labs. Also, as many as one￾third of labs may be overcrowded, which implies a need for more laboratory space. Close to one-fifth may not be adequately stocked with supplies. Evaluation Question 4: What were the results of the cash transfer programs in terms of helping universities continue their key activities (First and Second Cash Transfers) and students continue their education (First Cash Transfer)? Findings Universities Continue Key Activities The key activities performed by universities include regular academic and research activities, developmental activities including initiating new programs, and recurring activities such as paying employee salaries. To assess the effects of the cash transfers on universities’ ability to continue these activities, the evaluation team relied on university officials’ responses to three questions relating to financial problems faced by universities; financial problems the universities experienced at the time the cash transfer funds were made available; potential problems that universities could have faced in the absence of USAID’s support; and other funding options available to universities. Following is a summary of their responses: University officials at 10 universities the evaluation team visited reported that accrued liabilities and current budgetary shortfalls significantly affected the universities’ finances and operations. The First Cash Transfer alleviated these constraints. Examples include being able to disburse faculty and staff salaries in a timely fashion 9 This survey question allowed for the selection of multiple answers by respondents, therefore creating an overlap in the responses. 7 (four universities), avoid budget deficits/internal borrowing (seven universities), and begin new M.S. and Ph.D. programs (two universities). More than half of the universities reported being totally reliant on HEC grants for external funding, and would have had to divert funds from internal liabilities and programs (e.g., development) to meet recurring expenses. Without the transfers, 40 percent of sampled universities reported they would not have been able to pay staff on time, 60 percent would have increased their debt, 20 percent would have delayed the start of new programs, and 80 percent would have postponed further expansion of existing programs. All nine sampled universities that received USAID support for development grants through the second cash transfer reported that the support allowed them to strengthen existing programs by offering more subjects, especially those requiring labs and equipment. Three universities reported that the development grant support was instrumental in gaining accreditation, two were able to complete ongoing development projects without delay, two were able to pay contractors and avoid litigation, and one reported being able to continue ongoing research activities. In response to an open-ended question, officials at four universities said they believed that the lab equipment necessary for conducting research would not have been procured without USAID support. Students Continue Education The First Cash Transfer mitigated any potential financial challenges to universities with enrolled IDP students by covering the lost revenue of their tuition and other education related expenses. Officials at seven of the eight universities the evaluation team visited that hosted IDP students believed the students would not have been able to continue their education without the tuition waiver. Officials at the eighth university reported that the university would have arranged alternative funding sources. Conclusions The cash transfers were instrumental in allowing universities to continue their key activities. Officials at all universities the team visited reported that funding constraints were negatively affecting their operations. The cash transfers were instrumental in allowing universities to maintain normal operations. The financial assistance to IDP students completely mitigated the risk that 7,354 students would disrupt their educations because of financial constraints caused by displacement. University officials believed that few of the students would have been able to continue their schooling without the financial assistance. Because all IDP students received the tuition waiver, however, it is not possible to estimate the number who would have otherwise not been able to continue their education. Evaluation Question 5: To what extent have the cash transfer programs contributed to USAID’s Development Objectives (DO 4 and Cross Cutting Objective 3) and Intermediate Results (IR:1.1 and IR:1.3), in Pakistan? Findings At the time of the evaluation, relevant elements of the new USAID Mission Strategic Framework (Annex 4) for the cash transfer programs were:  Development Objective (DO) 4: Improved Access to High Quality Education  Intermediate Result (IR) 1: Improved Educational Opportunities  IR 1.1: Improved Educational Facilities  IR 1.3: Increased Access to Scholarships  Cross Cutting Objective 3: Improved Public Perception of the U.S. USAID-supported development grants directly constructed and rehabilitated university buildings or other educational infrastructure (17 universities), built or improved laboratories (16 universities), provided laboratory equipment (15 universities), and invested in human resource development (11 universities). These investments 8 directly contributed to improving educational facilities. Ninety-eight percent of the 238 students the evaluation team surveyed rated the quality of lab equipment as “very good”, and cited its precision and accuracy as reasons. University officials from the nine sampled universities that received USAID support for development grants reported that the grants helped increase the range of degree programs by facilitating accreditation (three universities), start M.S. programs (seven universities), and start Ph.D. programs (five universities). All of these improvements increased educational opportunities and therefore access to education. Financial assistance to IDP students allowed 7,354 students at 22 universities to continue their education. While the assistance was not technically a scholarship, it served the same purpose by covering their tuition and other fees for one year. Twenty-seven percent of the surveyed students (not IDP students who received direct financial support) who used lab equipment provided under the cash transfer program recalled seeing a USAID logo on the equipment. However, only 18 percent understood that the U.S. had provided the equipment. Despite these results, 62 percent of respondents had a favorable view of the U.S. and 76 percent had a favorable view of the American people. The evaluation was not able to assess changes in perceptions among beneficiary students, however, as a baseline was not established. By contrast, the 2012 Pew Research Global Attitudes Project reported that only 12 percent of Pakistanis had a favorable view of the U.S. Conclusions Both cash transfers directly contributed to USAID’s anticipated results in education programming as articulated in DO 4: Improved Access to High Quality Education, IR 1.3: Increased Access to Scholarships, and IR 1.1: Improved Educational Facilities. USAID support of development grants at 19 universities improved educational facilities, including laboratories and equipment. The improvements enhanced the availability and quality of education and permitted some universities to gain accreditation or add new programs and degrees. The financial assistance to IDP students, even though it was provided without a means test, acted as a scholarship to students who were particularly at risk of disrupting their educations because of insurgent activities that may have displaced their families. Students who benefited from USAID-funded laboratory equipment held a much more favorable view of the U.S. and the American people than the typical Pakistani. Overall, the results suggest that younger, educated Pakistanis are more likely than others to have a favorable view of the U.S. and the American people, but there is no way to establish a linkage between USAID assistance and the more positive perception. RECOMMENDATIONS Since the specific cash transfer programs that were evaluated have been completed the recommendations/lessons learned are aimed at improving future cash transfer programs and other programming support to higher education. When USAID provides assistance through a government organization, the source of funding may not be apparent to the ultimate beneficiaries. If USAID expects its assistance to improve public perceptions of the U.S., it should find a way to ensure that beneficiaries know the source of the assistance. Recommendations for improving the visibility and effectiveness of USAID assistance include: 1. Requiring recipients of assistance to more explicitly attribute the results of assistance to USAID; 2. Requiring implementing partners and recipient institutions/organizations to maintain accounting records that can identify USAID’s assistance; 3. Hire externally or budget for a public relations activity to promote USAID’s assistance; or organize launching events for faculty and students. 4. Although not as much of an issue at the time the cash transfers were made, ultimately, an unreliable and limited electricity supply restricted the usefulness of USAID-funded laboratories and equipment. In the future, it may be useful to consider the relative costs of including a package of assistance aimed at 9 addressing any potential anticipated obstacles (e.g., including generators) against the possibly limited benefits of the equipment if these problems do indeed occur. 5. Providing cash transfers to HEC appears to be an effective way of meeting USAID's higher education goals. HEC's deep knowledge of Pakistan's universities helped it to place the funds where they were needed most. 10 PROJECT BACKGROUND SECTOR CONTEXT Pakistan’s education indicators are among the lowest in the region. World Bank statistics indicate that Pakistan’s adult literacy rate was only 55 percent in 2008 compared to 60 percent in Nepal (2011), 63 percent in India (2006), and 92 percent in Malaysia (2011). 10,11 In fact, the only country in the region with a lower adult literacy rate was Bhutan at 53 percent. Pakistan ranked 163rd out of the 176 countries included in the World Bank statistics. Although Pakistan’s Tertiary Gross Enrollment Ratio12 (GER) more than doubled during the 2003-12 period, it is still one of the lowest in the region at only 8.3 percent (2011), compared to Bangladesh at 10.6 percent (2009), India at 17.9 percent (2010), and Malaysia at 42.3 percent (2010). 13 Pakistan’s poor performance in education is largely due to consistent underfunding. In 2010, the Government of Pakistan’s (GOP) spending on education amounted to 2.4 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), while education spending was 4.7 percent in Nepal, 3.3 percent in India, and 5.1 percent in Malaysia.14 Of the 213 countries for which the World Bank reported data, Pakistan ranked 199th in terms of spending on education. Furthermore, Pakistan’s expenditure on higher education has declined in recent years, from 0.33 percent of GDP in 2007-08 to 0.23 percent in 2009-10.15 The Higher Education Commission’s (HEC’s) 16 second comprehensive five-year plan, the Medium-Term Development Framework; 2011-15 (MTDF), emphasizes the consequences of declining funding for higher education.17 According to HEC, only 7.8 percent of 17-23 year old Pakistanis has access to higher education. Pakistan’s 2009 Education Policy18 stresses the need to increase the tertiary education gross enrollment ratio from 4.7 percent in 2008 to 10.0 percent by 2015.19 Given that over 35 percent of Pakistan’s population is under the age of 1520 and that the percentage of the population between 17-23 years of age is expected to continue growing, 10 World Bank. [http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTEDUCATION/EXTDATA STATISTICS/EXTEDSTATS/0,,contentMDK:21605891~menuPK:3409559~pagePK:64168445~piPK:64168309~theSitePK:3232764,00.html] 11 Existing data do not contain values for all years for all countries. To obtain data on a sufficient number of countries for comparison, the analysis used the latest data available in each country during the 2003-12 period. 12 The tertiary Gross Enrollment Ratio is the ratio of the number of students enrolled in universities to the number of young people in Pakistan in the age group usually enrolled in universities (the five years following secondary school leaving age). It is thus the proportion of university￾aged youth actually enrolled in universities. 13 World Bank. [http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTEDUCATION/EXTDATA STATISTICS/EXTEDSTATS/0,,contentMDK:21605891~menuPK:3409559~pagePK:64168445~piPK:64168309~theSitePK:3232764,00.html] 14 Ibid. 15 HEC. [http://www.hec.gov.pk/InsideHEC/Divisions/Finance/Documents/Expenditure%20on%20Higher%20 Education%20as%20Percent%20of%20GDP.pdf] 16 The Higher Education Commission is the government agency responsible for tertiary education in Pakistan. It is equivalent to what many countries refer to as the Ministry of Higher Education. 17 HEC MTDF 2011-2015, 18 http://unesco.org.pk/education/teachereducation/files/National%20Education%20Policy.pdf 19 The tertiary Gross Enrollment Ratio is the percentage of the population within the five-year age bracket following graduation from secondary schools that are actually enrolled. 20 Based on the 2010 enrollment level outlined in HEC’s MTDF 2011-2015, p. 65 11 reaching a peak of over 20 percent in the 2020s, 21 achieving its enrollment objective means Pakistan will have to double the number of students enrolled in higher education in five years. This implies a 15 percent annual growth rate in enrollment. Meeting these targets will require a substantial increase in support for higher education, including more qualified teachers and greater levels of funding for infrastructure and programs. Development Problem The recent financial situation in Pakistan, and its effects on government spending on higher education, poses a challenge to HEC as it tries to meet these objectives. HEC, as the government agency responsible for tertiary education, manages public policy for Pakistan's universities and is accountable for the higher education development budget, including funding for scholarships. HEC receives funds from the GOP that it then distributes to universities in the form of development and recurring grants.  Development grants support scholarships, infrastructure (e.g., buildings, laboratory equipment) and other improvement projects, and pay the salaries of development project staff.  Recurring grants cover recurring expenditures such as utilities, faculty and staff salaries, and research grants. Figure 2 presents trends in the amount of money allocated for development and recurring grants between 2007-08 and 2011-12, 22 and the amounts actually released by the GOP. During this time period, the amount released for development grants trended downward, consistently falling short of allocated amounts. In contrast, the amounts allocated and released for recurring grants increased steadily, except during FY 2011-12. Moreover, released amounts matched allocated amounts in all years except 2007-08. FIGURE 2: TRENDS IN HEC’S DEVELOPMENT AND RECURRING GRANTS TO UNIVERSITIES Source: Economic Survey of Pakistan 2011-12, Ministry of Finance of the Government of Pakistan. 21 The tertiary Gross Enrollment Ratio is the ratio of the number of students enrolled in universities to the number of young people in Pakistan in the age group usually enrolled in university (the five years following secondary school leaving age). It is thus the proportion of the university going age-group of youth actually enrolled in universities. 22 At the time of the evaluation, 2012-13 data were not available. 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Million Rs. Recurring Grants Allocated Released 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Million Rs. Development Grants Allocated Released 12 The gap between allocated and released amounts for recurring grants in 2007-08 reflects the GOP’s 21 percent reduction in funding for recurring grants. 23 Figure 2, however, does not illustrate some other sources of financial strain. In 2008-09, the GOP mandated a 20 percent increase in university employees’ salaries without increasing recurring grant allocations to cover the increased costs. Values for recurring grants in Figure 2 do not show this gap between anticipated and actual expenses. The recurring grant funding gaps in 2007-08 and 2008-09 left nine affected universities24 with accrued liabilities of Rs. 939 million. 25 In 2009-10, the GOP provided only 40 percent of the amount allocated for recurring grants to 32 universities. Figure 2 does not show this gap because donors ultimately covered the difference (Rs. 2,730 million), 26 thus allowing the GOP to release the funds. In a move that exacerbated the funding crisis at universities, in FY 2009-10 the GOP waived university fees for 7,354 IDP students from conflict-affected areas. Armed conflict associated with an extremist insurgency in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province and the tribal areas caused the internal displacement of almost 3 million people. 27 Among other effects, the displacement disrupted the education of students in the affected areas. Students from these areas studying in other parts of the country lost the means to cover their tuition fees and living expenses. To allow these students to continue their studies, the GOP exempted displaced students from paying tuition fees, 28 which placed an additional burden on the universities that lost this funding source. 29 HEC estimated the financial impact of the fee waiver at Rs. 342 million. 30 Figure 2 also does not accurately reflect the GOP’s investment in higher education development in that the released amount of development grants in 2010-11 includes donor funding. Moreover, HEC concluded that it will need substantial increases in funding to achieve its future targets.31 The MTDF identified scholarship programs for qualified individuals, including faculty and students – for indigenous (in￾country) and foreign study – as a key initiative for increasing the number of qualified faculty at higher education institutions, a necessary condition for meeting its enrollment goals.32 By 2015, HEC intends to start awarding 5,000 scholarships and providing another 10,000 students in need with affordable loans annually. Despite great strengths and potential, Pakistani universities have suffered severely from the country’s ongoing financial and security crises. To meet the growing demand of student enrollment, universities need more staff, faculty, and infrastructure; however, the funds available to universities have not met their requirements. 33 As a result, universities suffer a shortage of funds to meet both their recurring and development expenditures. 23 http://www.hec.gov.pk/INSIDEHEC/DIVISIONS/FINANCE/FP/Pages/RecurringGrantReleasedHEC.aspx 24 The funding request by HEC to USAID documents accrued liabilities for nine universities. 25 Citation. Proposal for Financial Support to Universities in NWFP, Balochistan, Southern Punjab, and FATA. 26 Citation. Proposal for Financial Support to Universities in NWFP, Balochistan, Southern Punjab, and FATA. 27 International Crisis Group: Policy Briefing, Asia Briefing No. 93, Islamabad/Brussels, 3 June 2009, [http://www.crisisgroup.org/~/media/Files/asia/southasia/pakistan/b93_pakistans_idp_crisis___challenges_and_opportunities.ashx] 28 GOP, Prime Ministers Secretariat (Public) u.o. No. 1 (14)/DS(IA-III)/2009 dated May 28,2009. 29 The exemption meant that the universities did not receive the tuition payments for displaced students. 30 Citation. Proposal for Financial Support to Universities in NWFP, Balochistan, Southern Punjab, and FATA. 31 HEC MTDF 2011-2015. 32 Currently 20 percent of the faculty has a Ph.D. 33 HEC MTDF 2011-2015. 13 USAID’s Response In response to HEC’s funding shortfalls, USAID provided financial assistance to HEC through two separate cash transfers. USAID implements most of its higher education activities through the Higher Education Commission because it has statutory authority for public higher education in Pakistan. When USAID provides assistance to individual public universities, it is always within the context of a Memorandum of Understanding with HEC. USAID University and Technical Education Support (First Cash Transfer) The First Cash Transfer, formally called USAID University and Technical Education Support, was part of the US$175 million Emergency Cash Transfer Program, a U.S. Government emergency response program whose goal was to stabilize Pakistani society affected by extremist insurgencies, the fiscal crisis, and weak local institutions. The First Cash Transfer provided US$45 million to HEC in FY 2009-10. The First Cash Transfer’s overall objective was to expand the availability of university and technical education to students from conflict-affected areas. The transfer was intended to contribute to the “Investing in People” objective under the U.S. Foreign Assistance Framework, especially in the areas of higher education and social assistance. The First Cash Transfer addressed three specific HEC requests for support.  Financial assistance for IDP students: Reimbursed 22 universities Rs. 342 million (US$4.07 million) for revenue lost when the GOP waived tuition fees for 7,354 internally displaced students and covered additional education-related expenses for some IDP students; 34  Support for budgetary shortfalls: Covered Rs. 708 million (US$8.43 million) in accrued liabilities associated with budget cuts and salary increases for nine universities serving conflict-affected students (4 in KP, 3 in Balochistan, 1 in Southern Punjab, and 1 in Gilgit-Baltistan); and  Budgetary support for recurring grants: Provided Rs. 2,730 million (US$32.50 million) in current year budgetary support to 32 universities serving conflict-affected students (18 in KP, 8 in Balochistan, 5 in Southern Punjab, and 1 in Gilgit-Baltistan). Table 2 summarizes the allocation of funds released under the First Cash Transfer. Annex 1 documents the universities supported under each element of the First Cash Transfer and the funding amount. TABLE 2: FIRST CASH TRANSFER-FUNDING BREAKDOWN 34 At the time the program was designed, the GOP had already waived fees for 7,354 IDP students. The First Cash Transfer was designed to cover the waived fees for all of these students. Funding Breakdown US$ (Millions) Rs. (Millions) Percentage of total Budgetary support for recurring grants - 32 universities/institutes 32.50 2,730.00 72% Support to cover budgetary shortfalls - 9 universities 8.43 708.12 19% Financial assistance to IDP recipients - 22 universities 4.07 341.88 9% Total 45.00 3,780.00 100% Note: HEC used an exchange rate of Rs. 84 per dollar in its request for the First Cash Transfer. 14 USAID Higher Education Support Program (Second Cash Transfer) The objective of the USAID Higher Education Support Program, henceforth referred to as the Second Cash Transfer, was also to further the “Investing in People” objective under the U.S. Foreign Assistance Framework. The program was intended to: Increase research capacity, improve teaching techniques and laboratory facilities, and enhance the quality and applicability of academic degrees in academic disciplines related to agricultural sciences and hydrology. Other disciplines which support these sectors, environmental sciences, engineering and economics, are included in this effort. 35 The anticipated outputs and outcomes of the Second Cash Transfer included:  Supporting 44 development projects at 19 universities (with approved Planning Commission Pro Forma Number 1’s [PC-1]) including specialized centers and institutes in agriculture, water, energy, engineering, and applied research at the 19 universities;  Improving management and institutional capacity of specialized centers and institutes at the 19 partner universities; and  Improving teaching and research at higher education institutions in key sectors. Of the US$45 million disbursed under the Second Cash Transfer, HEC received US$42.50 million in FY 2010-11. It allocated US$37.79 to support development grants for 44 projects at 19 universities in the conflict-affected areas of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Balochistan, Punjab, and Sindh, and US$4.71for Fulbright scholarships. HEC received the balance of US$2.50 million in FY 2011-12, which it used to fund scholarships through the Merit and Needs-Based Scholarship Program (MNBSP). The evaluation does not cover the scholarship portions of the Second Cash Transfer, as these have been evaluated separately. Annexes 1 and 2 contain details of the disbursements under the Second Cash Transfer. Table 3 summarizes funding under the Second Cash Transfer. TABLE 3: SECOND CASH TRANSFER FUNDING BREAKDOWN Having now explained the development problem and USAID’s response to it, the report addresses the evaluation itself. The next chapter details the evaluation purpose and questions. 35 Attachment 5 to the Cash Transfer Grant Agreement USAID, Grant No. 391-012, as amended Project Implementation Letter (PIL) No. 6 Funding Breakdown US$ (Millions) Rs. (Millions) Percentage of total Support for development grants - 44 projects at 19 universities 37.79 3,212.50 84% Fulbright Scholarships 4.71 400.00 10% MNBSP Scholarships 2.50 212.50 6% Total 45.00 3,825.00 100% Note: HEC used an exchange rate of Rs. 85 per dollar in its request for the Second Cash Transfer. Source: HEC request to USAID. Attachment 5 – Program Description 15 EVALUATION PURPOSE AND QUESTIONS EVALUATION PURPOSE The purpose of this evaluation is to determine whether the two cash transfers achieved expected results. The evaluation should facilitate stakeholder accountability, assess project performance (e.g. effectiveness and relevance), and generate recommendations for improving future cash transfer programs and other programming to support higher education. The results of this evaluation will be of importance in determining how well the program achieved outcomes/results that are synergistic with other tertiary education programs. Another critically important purpose is to determine the contribution of both cash transfer programs to USAID’s development strategy in Pakistan. It is imperative that the valuable resources devoted to supporting tertiary education contribute to the success of USAID’s strategic objectives to the greatest extent possible. EVALUATION QUESTIONS The evaluation focused on the following specific questions, which are the most pertinent to addressing USAID needs: 1. What were the financial effects that the programs had on universities? Explanation: The question will focus on the effects of both cash transfers on the financial health of the universities and any expansion possibilities. Answering this question requires access to the financial data for a selected group of universities. 2. How equitably has financial assistance to IDP students under the First Cash Transfer been distributed by gender? Explanation: To the extent possible with available data, the evaluation develops one or more gender profiles of scholarship recipients and compares them with relevant institution-specific gender profiles. These profiles may differentiate among the main fields of study, noting that gender disparity within an institution often varies across disciplines. It may also vary between the bachelor’s and master’s levels, and the evaluation explores this. The analysis takes into account USAID’s Gender Policy for 2012. 3. Have the faculty and students benefitted from the equipment provided under the Second Cash Transfer? Explanation: This question gauges the effect of the equipment given under the Second Cash Transfer. The answer assesses the perceptions of beneficiary students and faculty about the contributions of the equipment to the learning process. The assessment focuses on a representative sample of beneficiary universities. 4. What were the results of the cash transfer programs in terms of helping universities continue their key activities (First and Second Cash Transfer) and students continue their education (First Cash Transfer)? Explanation: The evaluation answers this question with reference to the anticipated outcomes of the two programs. Results include outputs or outcomes, and intended or unintended. The evaluation conducts an independent analysis of available data to highlight the programs’ strengths and weaknesses in achieving planned results. 16 5. To what extent have the cash transfer programs contributed to USAID’s Development Objectives (DO: 4), Intermediate Results (IR: 1.1, and IR: 1.3) and Cross-cutting Objectives (CCO: 3) in Pakistan? Explanation: The U.S. Government is providing assistance to the Pakistani people to achieve specific strategic objectives as articulated in USAID’s Results Framework (e.g. improved access to high quality education, improved educational facilities, increased access to scholarships, and improved public perception of the U.S.). This question determines the extent to which the programs contribute to these objectives. 17 EVALUATION METHODS AND LIMITATIONS The evaluation used a mixed-methods approach that combined qualitative and quantitative data collected through interviews, surveys, and secondary sources. It used the following specific methods:  In 16 sampled universities selected for site visits (Table 4):  Semi-structured key informant interviews (KIIs) with university officials and faculty members;  A survey of students who had used labs and lab equipment provided under the Second Cash Transfer;  Key informant interviews with HEC and USAID officials; and  Secondary data from USAID, HEC, and sampled universities. SAMPLE SELECTION The evaluation team collected primary data from a purposive/convenience sample of 16 universities affected by the cash transfers (Table 4). Selection criteria focused on ensuring coverage of both cash transfers and geographic representativeness across provinces. They also included the following considerations:  All three women’s universities that participated in the two programs were included in the sample, however, only one (SBBWU, Peshawar) received funding for IDP scholarships. The evaluation excluded it from the gender profile of IDP scholarship beneficiaries to reduce the risk of biasing the results;  To the extent possible, to facilitate fieldwork efficiency, the sample included:  Universities that participated in both cash transfer programs; and  Universities co-located in a single city.  Due to security concerns in Balochistan, the team only visited universities in Quetta. The sample of 16 universities covered 38 percent of the 32 universities that received funds through the First Cash Transfer and 43 percent of the 21 universities included in the Second Cash Transfer. 18 TABLE 4: SUPPORT TO UNIVERSITIES SELECTED FOR SITE VISITS (RS. IN MILLIONS) University First Cash Transfer (N=32) Second Cash Transfer (N=21) All Support Budgetary Support, Recurring Grants Budgetary Shortfalls Financial Assistance to IDP Students Developmen t Grants Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Hazara University, Mansehra 81.88 66.90 14.98 NWFP/Khyber Pakhtunkhwa University of Engineering and Technology, Peshawar 394.44 257.16 115.00 22.28 1,291.21 Shaheed Benazir Bhutto Women University, Peshawar 33.14 32.83 0.31 4.24 University of Agriculture, Peshawar 233.37 222.19 11.18 59.35 University of Peshawar, Peshawar 651.05 446.81 144.00 60.24 48.38 Balochistan Balochistan University of IT, Engineering and Management Sciences, Quetta 112.87 72.87 40.00 6.60 Sardar Bahadur Khan Women University, Quetta 43.35 28.35 15.00 27.12 Punjab Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan 339.91 259.91 80.00 Seerat Chair, Islamia University, Bahawalpur 0.90 0.90 Islamia University, Bahawalpur 269.73 269.73 Lahore College for Women University, Lahore 70.23 70.23 Sindh Hamdard University, Karachi 5.06 5.06 Mehran University of Engineering and Technology, Jamshoro 140.89 140.89 NED University of Engineering and Technology, Karachi 456.60 456.60 University of Karachi, Karachi 18.90 18.90 Islamabad Capital Territory Quaid-e-Azam University, Islamabad 11.78 11.78 Sample # / Participating # 16/16 10/32 5/9 7/22 9/21 Sample % 38% 31% 56% 32% 43% 19 KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS In accordance with HEC and USAID recommendations, the Monitoring and Evaluation Program (MEP) requested interviews with the Vice Chancellor, Director of Finance/Treasurer, and relevant faculty members in charge of lab equipment at each university. Separate semi-structured questionnaires were developed for each category of university official (Annex 6). The evaluation team interviewed 47 officials at the 16 sampled universities, including 15 Vice Chancellors (or Pro-Vice Chancellors36), 16 directors of finance departments/treasurers, and 16 faculty members. In addition, the evaluation team interviewed four HEC and two USAID staff involved in management of the project at the time of the evaluation or previously. STUDENT SURVEY Nine universities selected for site visits received lab equipment through the Second Cash Transfer (Table 4). At each of these universities, the evaluation team surveyed a convenience sample of at least 30 students who had used the labs and equipment to assess their experience with the equipment. The team had to rely on university officials to arrange interviews with students who were available at the time of the evaluation team’s visit. At two universities, exams and university holidays that coincided with the survey limited the number of available students. This approach may have introduced selection bias if university officials selected students who were more likely to have positive views, but because officials did not know the questions, this bias is unlikely. A total of 238 students (88 percent of the target of 270) participated in the survey, an average of 27 students per university. With a confidence level of 95 percent and a confidence interval of 2.19, the number of responses is large enough to produce reliable estimates of the indicators of interest to the evaluation. Table 5 summarizes survey respondents by sex, province, university, and degree. The team developed the survey questionnaire in both English and Urdu (Annex 6) and pretested the instrument with10 students at the University of Arid Agriculture Rawalpindi (UAAR), which received equipment under the Second Cash Transfer, but was not included in the visited universities. The evaluation team revised and finalized the survey tool based on pretest findings. 36 The Pro Vice-Chancellor are vested with authority next only to that of the Vice-Chancellor and have direct control over all support ddepartments which report through them to the Vice-Chancellor. 20 TABLE 5: SURVEY RESPONDENTS BY SEX, PROVINCE, UNIVERSITY, AND DEGREE University Bachelor’s Master’s MPhil/Ph.D. Total M F M F M F M F Khyber Pakhtunkhwa UOP, Peshawar 0 0 5 0 13 5 18 5 SBBWU, Peshawar 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 30 AUP, Peshawar 1 0 20 1 9 1 30 2 KP UET, Peshawar 18 2 2 0 1 0 21 2 Balochistan SBKWU, Quetta 0 16 0 14 0 0 0 30 Punjab LCWU, Lahore 0 12 0 2 0 20 0 34 Sindh UOK, Karachi 0 0 0 0 4 7 4 7 NED UET, Karachi 19 0 5 0 0 0 24 0 MUET, Jamshoro 31 0 0 0 0 0 31 0 Total 69 60 32 17 27 33 128 110 Source: MEP beneficiary student survey. HEC, USAID, AND PARTICIPATING UNIVERSITY SECONDARY DATA The evaluation also drew on secondary data provided by USAID, HEC, and participating universities, including: Program Implementation Letters (PILs), PC-Is, proposals, agreements, correspondence, and scholarship and financial data. FIELD PLAN For the field work, the evaluation team split into two teams of two individuals each, and each team visited a subset of the sampled of universities. One team visited universities located in the northern part of Pakistan, and the other visited those in the southern part of the country. HEC facilitated appointments with university officials in advance of the fieldwork. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS The evaluation methodology encountered several limitations, none of which was likely to have had much effect on the reliability of evaluation findings. First, since most IDP students who had received financial assistance had completed their studies and the universities did not keep track of their locations, it was not possible for the evaluation team to include them in the study. Consequently, the evaluation misses the perspective of these beneficiaries. However, their perspectives potentially only contributed to answering the questions about the importance of the assistance in helping students continue their education and their perceptions of the U.S., and other sources of evidence exist for both questions. Second, the evaluation had to rely on convenience sampling to select student survey respondents. The reasons for not being selected (e.g. exams, holidays, academic schedules, and availability) are not likely to be correlated with the indicators of interest, however, so the convenience sample 21 is unlikely to bias survey results. Third, due to scheduling conflicts, the evaluation team was unable to interview the Vice Chancellors of UOP and NED UET. The Pro-Vice Chancellor of NED UET represented the Vice Chancellor in the interview. Since the Pro-Vice Chancellors are as aware of the program as the Vice Chancellors, this is unlikely to have substantially biased results. Fourth, the HEC officials who determined the criteria for allocating funds from USAID's First Cash Transfer were no longer working at HEC at the time of the evaluation. Therefore, the evaluation team was unable to determine what these criteria were. Triangulation of data collection sources and methods helped offset any limitations associated with the data from a particular source or method. THE EVALUATION TEAM The evaluation team included four full-time MEP staff members and two short-term consultants. MEP staff included Mr. Ghazanfar Ali Khan Hoti, an Evaluation Specialist; Ms. Sara Zaidi and Ms. Fatima Abbas, Research and Evaluation Officers; and Mr. Muhammad Danish, Survey Coordinator. Short-term consultants included Mr. Ahmad Jameel and Mr. Syed Hijazi, both of whom are education specialists and have extensive experience in the field of higher education in Pakistan. Detailed biographies of the evaluation team are included in Annex 7. 22 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ON EVALUATION QUESTION 1 Evaluation Question 1: What were the financial effects that the programs had on universities? Findings First Cash Transfer To assess the financial effects of USAID assistance on coverage of budgetary shortfalls the evaluation examined the percentage of each university’s budgetary shortfall covered by USAID support. 37 Similarly, the proportion of lost revenue due to IDP students’ fee waivers covered through USAID funding was examined. The effects of budgetary support for recurring grants were examined by comparing the average annual increase in recurring budget for recipient universities with the average annual increase for non-recipient universities. Support to Cover Budgetary Shortfalls HEC calculated the total budgetary shortfall for the nine universities that received USAID-funded support for shortfalls at Rs. 939 million. The Rs. 708 million provided by USAID in the First Cash Transfer covered 75 percent of the combined budgetary shortfall of the nine universities. The transfer covered over 70 percent of the shortfall for eight universities and 54 percent of the shortfall at one university (University of Peshawar.) Figure 3 illustrates USAID’s contribution to the budgetary shortfalls of the nine universities. 37 Uncovered Shortfall = Budgetary shortfall calculated by HEC - USAID Funding 23 FIGURE 3: EFFECT OF USAID BUDGETARY SHORTFALL (RS. MILLION) Source: HEC: Proposal for Financial Support to Universities in NWFP, Balochistan, Southern Punjab and FATA. Note: Percentages reflect the percentage of the total shortfall covered by USAID. * Acronyms for the universities are spelled out in Table 6 below. Transfers to cover budgetary shortfalls, in amount as well as percentage of the total shortfall, varied substantially across universities (Table 6). HEC decided how to allocate funds across universities; the evaluation team was not able to collect any data on the rationale for the allocation, as the staff who determined the allocation criteria no longer worked for HEC at the time of the evaluation. 54% 71% 73% 75% 83% 91% 92% 94% 104% -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Million Rs. Uncovered shortfall Shortfall covered by USAID 24 TABLE 6: ALLOCATION OF USAID SUPPORT BY UNIVERSITY University Total Shortfall (Rs. millions) USAID Support (Rs. millions) Percentage of Shortfall Covered by USAID Support as a Percentage of Total USAID Assistance Khyber Pakhtunkhwa University of Peshawar (UOP) 264.50 144.00 54% 20% Gomal University (GU) 113.40 80.00 71% 11% Kohat University of Science and Technology (KUST) 48.10 40.00 83% 6% Khyber Pakhtunkhwa University of Engineering and Technology Peshawar (KP UET) 122.37 115.00 94% 16% Balochistan Balochistan University of IT, Engineering and Management Sciences, Quetta (BUITEMS) 53.08 40.00 75% 6% University of Balochistan (UOB) 170.34 154.30 91% 22% Sardar Bahadur Khan Women University, Quetta (SBWU) 14.37 15.00 104% 2% Punjab Bahauddin Zakariya University (BZU) 109.50 80.00 73% 11% Gilgit-Baltistan Karakoram International University (KIU) 43.46 40.00 92% 6% All universities 939.12 708.30 75% 100% Source: HEC: Proposal for Financial Support to Universities in NWFP, Balochistan, Southern Punjab and FATA. Scholarship and Financial Assistance to IDP Recipients HEC requested USAID assistance to help 22 universities (14 in KP, 2 in Balochistan, 1 in Sindh, and 5 in Islamabad) cover the costs associated with waiving fees for IDP students. The US$4.07 million provided as part of the First Cash Transfer covered the tuition, fees, and some other expenses of 7,354 students at the 22 universities for one year. All IDP students from KP and FATA were eligible for the waiver. Universities received the funds directly from HEC, retained the portion allocated to tuition, and transferred the portion allocated to other expenses (e.g., living expenses, books) to the students when applicable. 38 38 Not all students received expenses beyond tuition. 25 Budgetary Support for Recurring Grants In accordance with USAID’s agreement with the GOP, HEC transferred USAID funds to 32 universities in conflict￾affected areas (18 in KP, 8 in Balochistan, 5 from Punjab, and 1 from Gilgit-Baltistan). USAID funds accounted for 60 percent of the total amount of recurring grants released to these universities in FY 2009-10. To understand the effects of the recurring grant support on recipient universities’ financial health, the analysis compared the average increase in recurring grant funding between FY 2008-09 and FY 2009-10 for the 32 universities that received recurring grants through the First Cash Transfer and the 73 universities that did not receive such budgetary support through this mechanism. Beneficiary and non-beneficiary universities received about the same average percentage increase in recurring grant funding. The range of percentage increases was roughly the same for the two sets of universities (Table 7). USAID assistance seems to have allowed recipient universities to “keep up” with non-recipient universities in terms of growth in recurring grant funding. TABLE 7: RECURRING GRANT FUNDING TO BENEFICIARY AND NON-BENEFICIARY UNIVERSITIES HEC Recurring Grant Beneficiary Universities Non-beneficiary Universities Average Increase in 2009-10 over 2008-09 28% 29% Range of Increase 5-50% 0-50% Source: HEC While the key informants at sampled universities acknowledged the effects of budgetary shortfall support and financial assistance for IDP students, they were unable to comment on the effect of USAID’s recurring grant support on the financial health of the university because they did not know USAID had provided the funding. University of Peshawar officials also demonstrated a lack of knowledge about USAID support during a meeting with USAID in December 2010. 39 Second Cash Transfer The 19 universities that received development grant assistance under the Second Cash Transfer experienced a substantial decline in development grant funds released by the GOP between 2008-09 and 2009-10, the two years prior to the Second Cash Transfer (Table 8). 40 In FY 2010-11, the year USAID provided funds to HEC for development grants (US$37.79 million, Rs. 3,210 million), the amount of funds released increased by 24 percent over the preceding year. The amount released for FY 2010-11 represented 89 percent of the amount originally budgeted for these grants. In FY 2011-12, when USAID support fell to Rs. 210 million, all of which was used to fund MNBSP scholarships, the amount of development grant funding released fell by 30 percent, below pre-cash transfer levels, and represented only 50 percent of the amount initially allocated (Table 8). 39 USAID, minutes from monitoring meeting trip, Peshawar, 19-22 December 2010, p11. 40 HEC uses development grants to provide for scholarships, infrastructure development, and other development projects to public sector universities. 26 A high-level HEC official41 explained that the timing of the Second Cash Transfer was critical to making development funds available to universities. He stated that HEC budget cuts disrupted universities’ expansion and improvement plans, including launching new higher degree programs that required laboratories and equipment. USAID assistance allowed the universities to continue with their plans. Another HEC official informed the team that in the absence of USAID support, the universities would have received much less development funding from HEC. TABLE 8: DEVELOPMENT FUNDS RELEASED TO HEC (RS. IN MILLIONS) Financial Year Amount Allocated Amount Released Releases as % of Allocation Change in Released Amounts (%) USAID Support Amount % of Release 2008-09 18,000 16,400 91% - 0.00 0% 2009-10 22,500 11,300 50% -30% 0.00 0% 2010-11 15,800 14,000 89% 24% 3.21 22.9% 2011-12 14,000 9,800 50% -30% 0.0 0% Note: USAID support does not include amounts allocated to Fulbright and MNBSP scholarships. Source: HEC The Rs. 3,120 million in USAID support in 2010-11 accounted for 22.9 percent of the Rs. 14,000 million in development funding to all universities, and accounts for almost the entire increase in funding between FY 2009-10 and FY 2010-11. Conclusions The First Cash Transfer support to cover budgetary shortfalls and financial assistance for IDP students made substantial contributions to restoring the budgets of recipient universities. The Rs. 708 million (US$8.43 million) in funding USAID provided covered 75 percent of the budgetary shortfall for the nine universities that received this support. The Rs. 342 million (US$8.43 million) that USAID provided to cover assistance given to 7,354 IDP students replaced the funding universities lost from waived tuition and fees. Assuming that the GOP would not have found other sources for this funding, the USAID grants improved the financial situation of universities by comparable amounts. The US$32.5 million (Rs. 2,730 million) in budgetary support for recurring grants USAID provided under the First Cash Transfer allowed recipient universities to maintain growth in recurring grant funding at a rate similar to that of non-recipient universities. This represents a direct financial benefit to the recipient universities. Since the HEC request for support to 32 universities occurred in the broader context of its overall funding decisions, USAID support may have also indirectly contributed to the financial health of non-recipient universities if HEC shifted recurring grant releases to these universities before making the formal request for support to USAID. The US$37.79 million (Rs. 3,210 million) included in the Second Cash Transfer for development grants allowed recipient universities to sustain their planned development activities. The decline in development grants in the years before and after USAID support suggests that USAID funds did not replace other sources of funding and were critical to sustaining planned development projects. 41 Mr. Jalil Ahmed, Advisor Monitoring and Evaluation at HEC. 27 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ON EVALUATION QUESTION 2 Evaluation Question 2: How equitably has financial assistance to IDP students under the First Cash Transfer been distributed by gender? Findings The term “equity” implies a fair and impartial choice. However, the financial assistance for IDP students funded under the First Cash Transfer covered the fees and some other educational costs of all IDP students. The students were already enrolled and had already received the waiver when USAID funded the cash transfer. Therefore, nobody “chose” how to distribute assistance among male and female students.42 To address this question, the evaluation team prepared a profile of IDP scholars by sex at the supported universities, and when possible, compared this profile to the sex profile of all students at the university. In the comparison, an “equitable” distribution is one in which the ratio of male to female IDP students (i.e., recipients of financial assistance), is similar to the ratio of male to female students overall. USAID covered the costs associated with financial assistance provided to IDP students at 22 universities. The total sample of universities the evaluation team visited included eight of the universities that received funds for IDP students (Table 4). The team excluded Shaheed Benazir Bhutto Women University (SBBWU), an all-women institution, from the gender analysis for this question to avoid any bias. Of the 3,551 assisted IDP students at the seven sampled universities included in the gender analysis, 88 percent were male and 12 percent were female. Except for UOP and QAU where female students represented 25 percent and 12 percent of IDP scholars respectively, the female proportion of IDP scholars was 4 percent or less. The proportion of female students among IDP scholars at the master’s level was 19 percent (most of whom attended UOP) as compared to 8 percent of Bachelor’s students. All assisted IDP students at Balochistan University of IT, Engineering and Management Sciences (BUITEMS) were men. Table 9 profiles IDP scholars at the seven universities by university, sex, and degree. 42 GOP, Prime Ministers Secretariat (Public) u.o. No. 1 (14)/DS(IA-III)/2009 dated May 28,2009. 28 TABLE 9: DISTRIBUTION OF IDP SCHOLARS BY SEX, UNIVERSITY, AND DEGREE Universities All Degrees Bachelor’s Master’s Ph.D. Total Female (%) Total Female (%) Total Female (%) Total Female (%) UOP, Peshawar43 1,384 25% 586 19% 701 34% 26 12% AUP, Peshawar 669 3% 591 4% 78 0% - - KP UET, Peshawar44 625 2% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A HZU, Mansehra 466 4% 276 2% 167 9% 23 0% BUITEMS, Quetta 133 0% 133 0% - - - - HU, Karachi 67 4% 67 4% - - - - QAU, Islamabad 207 12% - - 199 14% 8 0% Total 3,551 12% 1,653 8% 1,145 19% 57 5% Notes: N/A means data were not available to the evaluation team. “-” means no students in the particular category. Source: Student scholarship data from HEC and universities Although data were requested from all eight of the sampled universities pertinent to this question, 45 only Hazara University and Agriculture University Peshawar (AUP) provided the data on the number of male and female students necessary for comparing the percentage of men and women among the IDPs to all students. The data these universities provided classified students by faculty (groups of departments) and degree. The evaluation team therefore likewise classified IDP students by faculty to facilitate comparison with the university data. At Hazara University, 25 percent of all students were women compared to only 4 percent of IDP students (Table 9). The proportion of female IDP students fell below that of female students in the entire student body for every degree and faculty (Table 10). 43 Also includes 47 scholarships for secondary school and eight primary or middle school students , and 24 students for which sex data was not available. 44 Degree level student data for UET Peshawar was not available. 45 Reasons for the other universities' unresponsiveness to the request for data are unknown. 29 34% 26% 28% 13% 25% 4% 5% 6% 0% 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% Percentage of female students FHS FS FA FLAS All faculties Faculty All students IDP students FIGURE 4: COMPARISON OF FEMALE IDP STUDENTS TO TOTAL NUMBER OF FEMALE STUDENTS IN EACH FACULTY - HAZARA UNIVERSITY Source: Student/ scholarship data from Hazara University * The abbreviations in this table have been spelled out in Table 10 below. TABLE 10: NUMBER OF IDP STUDENTS BY SEX, FACULTY, AND DEGREE - HAZARA UNIVERSITY Faculty Master’s Bachelor’s Ph.D. Total Female (%) Total Female (%) Total Female (%) Faculty of Health Sciences (FHS) 5 20% 79 2% - - Faculty of Sciences (FS) 122 9% 115 3% 22 0% Faculty of Arts (FA) 20 10% 12 0% 1 0% Faculty of Law and Administrative Sciences (FLAS) 20 0% 70 0% - - All Faculties 167 8% 276 2% 23 0% Note: “-” means no students in the particular category. Source: Student scholarship data from Hazara University At AUP, women made up 12 percent of the student body (Figure 5). However, as at Hazara, the percentage of female IDP students fell far short of the percentage of women students overall in most degrees and faculties (Table 11). The single exception was the Institute of Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering (IBTGE), where 29 percent of IDP students were women. Because IBTGE is very small, however, the relatively large percentage of women did not contribute much to the overall representation of women among IDP students. 30 TABLE 11: NUMBER OF IDP STUDENTS BY SEX, FACULTY, AND DEGREE - AUP Faculty Master’s Bachelor’s Total Female (%) Total Female (%) Faculty of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Sciences (FAHS) - - 109 2% Faculty of Crop Production Sciences (FCPS) 48 0% 147 8% Institute of Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering (IBTGE) - - 14 29% Institute of Business and Management Sciences/Institute of Development Studies (IBMS/IDS) 30 0% 321 2% All Faculties 78 0% 591 4% Note: “-”means no students in the particular category. Source: Student scholarship data from AUP FIGURE 5: COMPARISON OF FEMALE IDP STUDENTS TO TOTAL NUMBER OF FEMALE STUDENTS IN EACH FACULTY - AUP Source: Student/ scholarship data from AUP * The abbreviations in this table have been spelled out in Table 11 above The evaluation team did not receive data on the percentage of men and women in the student body at UOP, QAU, or Hamdard, so a comparison of the percentage of women IDP students to women in the entire student body was not possible. The team was, however, able to construct profiles of IDP students by faculty and degree at these three universities. UOP had the largest number of IDP students who received assistance (1,384). Female students comprised 25 percent of IDP scholars, which is higher than at any other participating university (Table 9). The overall higher percentage of female IDP students (i.e. 19 percent) is because of the overall higher proportion of female IDP students at UOP in master’s degree programs. Out of a total of 1,145 master’s students, 701 went to the University of Peshawar, and 34 percent were female students. Female students made up 22, 26, and 12 percent of all IDP students in bachelor’s, master’s, and Ph.D. programs, respectively, at UOP. Female IDP students were concentrated in the bachelor’s programs in the Faculty of Arts and Humanities and in programs that could not be classified by faculty (i.e., other), and in the master’s programs in the faculties of Life and Environmental Sciences, Islamic and Oriental Studies, Management and Information Sciences, and other programs (Table 12). 7% 16% 57% 10% 12% 2% 6% 29% 2% 3% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% FAHS FCPS IBTGE IBMS/IDS All Faculties Percentage of female students Faculty* All students IDP students 31 TABLE 12: NUMBER OF IDP OF STUDENTS BY SEX, FACULTY, AND DEGREE - UOP Faculty/Department Bachelor’s Master’s Ph.D. Total Female (%) Total Female (%) Total Female (%) Faculty of Life and Environmental Sciences 208 13% 182 44% 15 7% Faculty of Arts and Humanities 16 38% 132 8% 2 0% Faculty of Islamic and Oriental Studies - - 54 39% 8 12% National Center of Physical Chemistry - - 3 0% - - Faculty of Numerical and Physical Sciences 79 8% 132 12% - - Faculty of Social Sciences 147 8% 126 20% 1 100% Faculty of Management and Information Sciences 74 9% 52 25% - - Others 50 88% 24 67% Source: Student/scholarship data from UOP At QAU, 12 percent of IDP students were female; all of whom were master’s students. The Faculty of Biological Sciences had a larger percentage of female students than did other faculties (Table 13). TABLE 13: NUMBER OF IDP OF STUDENTS BY SEX, FACULTY, AND DEGREE - QAU Faculty Master’s Ph.D. Total Female (%) Total Female (%) Faculty of Natural Sciences 83 7% 5 0% Faculty of Biological Sciences 72 21% 3 0% Faculty of Social Sciences 44 9% - - Note: “-” means no students in the particular category. Source: Student/scholarship data from QAU All scholarship recipients in Hamdard University were bachelor’s-level students. The evaluation team believes that these were the only IDP students at the university. At Hamdard, 4 percent of IDP scholars were women and they were in the faculties of Health and Medical Sciences and Eastern Studies (Table 14). 32 TABLE 14: NUMBER OF IDP OF STUDENTS BY SEX AND FACULTY - HAMDARD UNIVERSITY Faculty Bachelor’s Total Female (%) Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences 54 4% Faculty of Pharmacy 10 0% Faculty of Engineering Science and Technology 2 0% Faculty of Eastern Studies 1 100% Source: Student/scholarship data from Hamdard University Conclusions The financial assistance to IDP students was provided to all IDP students and had no gender targets or objectives. Nevertheless, the assistance had gender implications in the sense that it benefited few women relative to men. The “inequity” in the distribution of assistance did not reflect a deliberate choice or a design flaw, but was entirely the result of women being underrepresented among IDP students relative to the student bodies at sampled universities as a whole. The untargeted assistance benefited more women in master’s programs, and although no clear pattern emerges among the universities, it seemed to benefit a greater proportion and number of women in the biological, health, and the social sciences. This implies that a similar program, which provides broad assistance regardless of sex, could indirectly target women more equitably by providing assistance, or a greater percentage of aid, to students in particular fields of study, pursuing particular degrees, or in selected universities with greater female enrollment. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ON EVALUATION QUESTION 3 Evaluation Question 3: Have the faculty and students benefitted from the equipment provided under the Second Cash Transfer? Findings USAID funding under the Second Cash Transfer Program constructed and/or rehabilitated buildings and laboratories, equipped laboratories, and contributed to faculty development at 19 universities. Seventeen of the 19 universities benefited from development grants that contributed to constructing and/or equipping laboratories. Nine of these 17 universities (LCWU, UOK, NED UET, MUET, SBKWU, KP UET, AUP, UOP, SBBWU) were included in the sample the evaluation team selected for field visits. All nine of the selected universities received both laboratory construction/rehabilitation and equipment. 33 TABLE 15: SECOND CASH TRANSFER ACTIVITIES University Building Construction/ Rehabilitation Laboratory Construction/ Establishment Laboratory Equipment Faculty Development Visited Universities Agriculture University, Peshawar X X X Khyber Pakhtunkhwa University of Engineering and Technology, Peshawar X X X X Lahore College for Women University, Lahore X X X Mehran University of Engineering and Technology, Jamshoro X X X X NED University of Engineering and Technology, Karachi X X X X Sardar Bahadur Khan Women University, Quetta X X X Shaheed Benazir Bhutto Women University, Peshawar X X X University of Karachi, Karachi X X X University of Peshawar, Peshawar X X X X Other Universities Lasbela University of Agriculture, Water, and Marine Sciences, Uthal X X Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, Islamabad X Quaid-e-Awam University of Engineering Science and Technology, Nawabshah X X X X Sindh Agriculture University, Tandojam X X X X University of Agriculture, Faisalabad X X X University of Arid Agriculture, Rawalpindi X X X X University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore X X X University of Engineering and Technology, Taxila X X University of Sargodha, Sargodha X X University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Lahore X X X Source: Attachment 5 to the Cash Transfer Grant Agreement USAID, Grant No. 391-012, as amended Implementation Letter No. 6 Among the students surveyed at the nine sampled universities that benefited from laboratory construction/rehabilitation and equipment, 75 percent reported using the lab equipment during the three months prior to the survey. Seventy-four percent reported using it as part of a research project, 17 percent used it to prepare papers for conference presentations, and 14 used it to prepare papers for publication in professional journals. Students at the nine universities reported using the equipment an average of 15 times per month with a 34 range of 1-36 times per month (median usage was 20 times per month). Faculty members at the nine sampled universities reported that 855 students (534 bachelor’s students, 297 master’s students, and 24 doctoral students) were enrolled in classes that used the labs and that the labs were in use for an average of six hours per day (Table 16). TABLE 16: NUMBER AND DAILY USAGE OF STUDENTS USING THE LABS University/Lab Number of Students Using the Lab per Day Daily Usage Bachelor (Hours) ’s Master’s Ph.D. AUP Agricultural Chemistry 30 14 8 7 AUP Water Management 42 16 6 6 AUP/Food Science & Technology 45 5546 5 KPUET/Abbottabad Campus 60 - - 2.5 LCWU/Pharmacy Lab 25 12 - 6 MUET/Mechanical Engineering Department 15 1 - 3 NED UET/Metallography 12 - - 7 SBBWU/Computer Lab 100 - - 5 SBKWU/Chemistry Lab 75 83 - 6 SBKWU/Computer Science Department 100 - - 5 SBKWU/Zoology Lab 20 75 - 3 UOK/Institute of Sustainable Halophyte 10 7 - 10 UOP/Centre of Excellence in Geology - 30 4 8 UOP/Material Research Lab - 4 6 10 Totals 534 297 24 Source: Key informant interviews with faculty The evaluation team asked faculty members in charge of the labs an open-ended question about the effect of labs and equipment on students’ educational opportunities. The question yielded general responses as well as specific anecdotes. Faculty members at all nine sampled universities believed the labs and equipment would enhance students’ job prospects. In particular, those at four of the nine sampled universities (MUET, SBKWU, NED UET, SBBWU) mentioned that the equipment improved students’ learning by exposing them to practical training as opposed to the more typical theoretical classroom teaching. Faculty members at seven of the sampled universities (LCWU, NED UET, MUET, KP UET, AUP, UOP, SBBWU) reported that the equipment helped the universities create opportunities for establishing liaisons with relevant industries, which, in turn, is likely to enhance students’ job prospects. Similarly, at all nine sampled universities faculty members envisioned that students would have better job opportunities available to them because of the relevant market-related training imparted through the use of the latest equipment. Faculty members in the Computer Science Departments at the two women’s universities (SKBWU and SBBWU) gave specific examples of women getting better jobs because of the skills they acquired through their expertise on the latest computers. 46 Data provided by the university was aggregated for master’s and Ph.D.-level students. 35 CASE STUDY USAID provided funds to establish a state-of-the-art seismic research facility at the University of Engineering and Technology, Peshawar. The Earthquake Engineering Center (EEC) is expected to increase understanding of seismic risk in the area (a region that suffered substantial loss of life and property during the 2005 earthquake) and help design construction practices to improve earthquake resilience. The centerpiece of the EEC research facility is the ‘six degrees of freedom shake table’ currently being installed. The shake table is one of the largest seismic simulators in the world. When fully operational, it will be used to test earthquake resistant model buildings and bridges and will provide seismic qualification testing for hospital and telecommunication equipment to check their resilience after an earthquake. A senior official involved with the EEC said that Pakistan will be the fourth country in the world to house such a large facility. At four sampled universities faculty members reported that the labs and equipment facilitated linkages between the universities and public and private partners to conduct practical research, which also helped build faculty members’ capacities and train students for the job market. At three of the nine sampled universities (UOK, AUP, UET) faculty members reported that the equipment had helped faculty and students develop professional linkages with local and international research/academic institutions to undertake joint research projects. One particularly interesting case is the Earthquake Engineering Center (EEC). A senior faculty member involved in the center said that because of the university’s enhanced capacity as a result of newly￾acquired equipment, local industries/institutions contact the university to undertake sophisticated applied research. This presents learning opportunities for the faculty and students and generates additional income for the university. He cited the example of the EEC working with the National Highway Authority to test columns in bridges under construction... FIGURE 6: SIX DEGREES OF FREEDOM TABLE 36 Faculty also reported that the labs and equipment strengthened universities and degree programs. Specifically, faculty members at three sampled universities (SBBWU, Mehran University of Engineering and Technology [MUET], NED UET) reported that the labs and equipment made it possible to accredit academic programs. Faculty members also reported that the labs and equipment enabled four universities the evaluation team visited (Lahore College for Women University [LCWU], MUET, UOP, SBKWU47) to establish new M.S. programs, two universities (MUET and UOP48) to start new Ph.D. programs, and one sampled university (AUP) to strengthen an existing Ph.D. program by allowing access to more researchers from other campuses. In two instances among the nine universities the evaluation team visited, the USAID-supported lab equipment was not yet operational. At UOP, equipment purchased for nuclear medicine was in place, but still going through a “warm-up period” before it became operational. Furthermore, the machine’s manufacturer required that university staff be trained to use the machine, and the manufacturer’s engineers had not yet been able to visit the university to conduct the training. The equipment in the EEC49 at UET Peshawar was procured, but was in the process of installation at the time of evaluation. According to university officials, installation of this equipment was a time consuming process, but was following normal procedures. 50 In spite of the labs’ benefits, 73 percent of the surveyed students reported problems that limited the utility of the labs and equipment. These included frequent power failures (50 percent of students), overcrowding (29 percent of students), and a shortage of essential lab materials (18 percent of students). Conclusions Faculty and students who use the labs and equipment benefit from their use. The labs get a lot of use and serve 855 students at the nine sampled universities that received labs and equipment under the Second Cash Transfer. The labs and equipment benefit faculty and students by providing practical training (thus enhancing students’ job prospects), strengthening existing academic programs, supporting new programs, facilitating accreditation, and helping universities establish research links with the public and private sectors. The high quality, modern equipment enhanced the relevance of classroom learning and the level and types of research possible. Many of the universities had just received the labs and equipment prior to the evaluation, however, so some were not yet operational. Therefore, many universities may not have yet realized the full extent of the benefits. Although the equipment provided was relevant to university needs and of high quality, institutional and infrastructure constraints limited its usefulness. Power failures compromised the operations of many labs. Also, as many as one-third of labs may be overcrowded, which implies a need for more laboratory space. Close to one-fifth may not be adequately stocked with supplies. 47 The university started offering a master’s program in Computer Science. 48 The university started offering master’s and Ph.D. programs in Gemology and Petroleum Geology. 49 Although the equipment was not installed, EEC itself was operational. 50 According to HEC, the equipment was installed at the time of finalization of this report. 37 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ON EVALUATION QUESTION 4 Evaluation Question 4: What were the results of the cash transfer programs in terms of helping universities continue their key activities (First and Second Cash Transfers) and students continue their education (First Cash Transfer)? Findings Universities Continue Key Activities The key activities that universities must perform are: regular academic and research activities, developmental activities including initiating new programs, and recurring activities such as paying employee salaries. 51 To assess the effects of the cash transfers on universities’ abilities to continue these activities, the evaluation team relied on university officials’ responses to three questions: 1. What were the financial problems faced by the university when funds through the cash transfer were made available? 2. If no cash grant was available at that time, what would have been the consequences on the financial health or programs of the university? 3. Were there other sources of funding available to the university when funds were provided through the cash transfer? Officials at seven of the 10 visited universities (SBKWU, UOP, BZU, NED UET, KP UET, SBBWU, and UOK) that received support for budgetary shortfalls or recurring grants under the first cash transfer reported facing a shortage of funds at the time of the cash transfer programs and two (IU-B, BUITEMS) reported facing budget deficits. Officials at seven universities (BZU, Islamia University, Seerat Chair, LCWU, UOK, NED UET, MU) reported that HEC grants were their only external source of funding. The shortage of funds and deficits had significant effects on universities’ finances and operations. Officials at three sampled universities (SBKWU, BZU, HZU) reported that had they not received USAID funds through the cash transfers, they would have resorted to internal borrowing (diverting funds from internal liabilities) to meet expenses. One official at a visited university (KP UET) reported that the university directed funds from the development budget to meet recurring expenditures. The cash transfers alleviated these constraints and allowed universities to continue key activities by:  Facilitating timely disbursement of salaries to faculty members and university staff (Bahauddin Zakariya University (BZU), UOK, BUITEMS, SBBWU);  Avoiding increases in budgetary deficit/internal borrowing (UOK, SBKWU, BUITEMS, KP UET, SBBWU, UOP); and  Avoiding delays in starting new M.S., Ph.D., and other new programs in the pipeline (IU-B, HZU). 51 These key activities were defined on the basis of the evaluation team’s meetings with HEC and university officials. Additionally, these activities, “regular academic and research activities, developmental activities including initiating new programs, and recurring activities such as paying employee salaries,” are defined in the program description. 38 USAID support for development grants through the second cash transfer was also important. Officials at five of the nine sampled universities that received support for development grants (SBKWU, KP UET, SBBWU, LCWU, MUET) believed they would not have been able to procure the lab equipment without the USAID cash transfer. Without the equipment, universities would not have been able to:  Strengthen existing programs to offer additional subjects, particularly those requiring the use of the new equipment (AUP, KP UET, UOP, LCWU, UOK, NED UET, MUET);  Gain accreditation with HEC and the Pakistan Engineering Council (NED UET, UOK, MUET);  Complete existing projects (the EEC at KP UET and the four-year Computer Science Bachelor’s program at SBKWU);  Avoid litigation from vendor contractors arising from default or delayed payment (KP UET); and  Continue ongoing research activities (MUET). Students Continue Education By covering tuition fees and other education-related expenses, the First Cash Transfer completely mitigated any potential financial challenges to universities with enrolled IDP students. University officials at seven of the eight sampled universities that had received financial support for IDP students believed that most IDPs would have dropped out without the financial assistance provided to them for food and accommodation. A senior official at the remaining university (QAU) reported that the university would have arranged alternate sources of funding for these students. Unfortunately, as noted above in the evaluation strengths and limitations section, it was not possible to ask students about this directly as they were not in residence at the universities at the time of the evaluation. Additionally, it is not clear whether the students completed or continued their education after USAID support ended. Conclusions The cash transfers were instrumental in allowing universities to continue their key activities. Officials at all universities the team visited reported that funding constraints were negatively affecting their operations. More than half of the universities reported being totally reliant on HEC grants for external funding, and would have had to divert funds from internal liabilities and programs (e.g., development) to meet recurring expenses. The cash transfers were critical to allowing universities to maintain normal operations. Without the transfers, 40 percent of visited universities reported they would not have been able to pay staff on time, 60 percent would have increased their debt, 20 percent would have had to delay new programs, and 80 percent would have postponed expanding existing programs. The financial assistance to IDP students completely mitigated the risk that 7,354 students would have disrupted their education because of financial constraints caused by displacement. University officials believed that few of the students would have been able to continue their schooling without the financial assistance. Because all IDP students received the tuition waiver, however, it is not possible to estimate the number who would otherwise not have been able to continue their education. 39 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ON EVALUATION QUESTION 5 Evaluation Question 5: To what extent have the cash transfer programs contributed to USAID’s Development Objectives (DOs) and Intermediate Results (IRs), in Pakistan? Findings At the time of the evaluation, relevant elements of the new USAID Mission Strategic Framework (Annex 4) for the cash transfer programs were:  Development Objective (DO) 4: Improved Access to High Quality Education  Intermediate Result (IR) 1: Improved Educational Opportunities  IR 1.1: Improved Educational Facilities  IR 1.3: Increased Access to Scholarships  Cross Cutting Objective 3: Improved Public Perception of the U.S. Improved Access to High Quality Education (DO 4) The Second Cash Transfer supported 44 development projects at 19 universities. Among the nine universities the evaluation team visited that received support for development grants, officials reported that USAID-funded development projects increased the range and level of available degree programs by helping three universities obtain accreditation, seven universities start M.S. programs, and five universities start Ph.D. programs. These improvements increased educational opportunities and therefore access to high quality education. The following project description excerpts from the Program Implementation Letter illustrate the GOP’s anticipated outcomes relative to improving access to high quality education at some of the beneficiary institutions. 52  “Provide higher education facilities to the female students, particularly from the NWFP [North-West Frontier Province] in general, and from all parts of Pakistan and AJK [Azad Jammu and Kashmir].” (Frontier Women University)  “Enhance student enrollment in bachelor from 3,418 to 9,800.” (Lahore College for Women University)  “Twenty faculty members will get Ph.D. degrees from foreign universities.” (Mehran University of Engineering and Technology)  “The department will be in a position to accommodate an increased number of students.” (University of Peshawar) Improved Educational Facilities (IR 1.1) The Second Cash Transfer covered the cost of constructing or upgrading buildings and other educational infrastructure at 17 universities. It also paid for the building or improvement of laboratories at 16 universities, provision of laboratory equipment to 15 universities, and investment in human resource development (i.e., training 52 Attachment 5 to the Cash Transfer Agreement, Grant No. 391-012, an amended Implementation Letter No. 6: Program Description. 40 faculty) at 11 universities (Table 15). 53 All of these investments improved educational infrastructure and/or the quality of education. Ninety-eight percent of students surveyed at nine sampled universities that received support for development grants reported the quality of equipment to be “very good”, and cited the precision and accuracy of the instruments when performing experiments and the overall ease of use. Ninety-three percent were satisfied or very satisfied with the guidance and help they received from teachers/instructors regarding use of the equipment. Increased Access to Scholarships (IR 1.3) The financial assistance to IDP students was not technically a scholarship. Nevertheless, it acted as a scholarship by covering the waived tuition costs, and sometimes, other education-related expenses for IDP students. USAID funding assisted 7,354 IDP students at 22 universities who risked suspending their education as a result of conflict that displaced their families and disrupted household incomes. 54 Evaluation questions 1 and 4 discuss the financial assistance to IDP students in greater detail. Improved Public Perception of the U.S. (Cross-cutting Objective 3) Sixty-two percent of 238 students the evaluation team surveyed at the nine sampled universities reported a favorable view of the U.S. and 76 percent viewed American people favorably. The evaluation was not able to assess changes in perceptions among beneficiary students, however, as a baseline was not established. Only 27 percent had an unfavorable view of the U.S. and 19 percent an unfavorable view of American people (Figure 7). By contrast, the 2012 Pew Research Global Attitudes Project reported that only 12 percent of Pakistanis had a favorable view of the U.S.55 53 The evaluation team extracted the data for this table from the cash transfer agreement which contained very brief descriptions of expected outcomes of the assistance. It may not, therefore, accurately reflect planned or actual activities. 54 The financial assistance was provided to all IDP students with no means test but the rationale for the tuition waiver was that insurgent activity had displaced families and affected household finances. 55 http://www.pewglobal.org/2012/06/27/pakistani-public-opinion-ever-more-critical-of-u-s/ 41 FIGURE 7: PERCEPTION OF THE U.S. AND AMERICAN PEOPLE Source: MEP survey of beneficiary students using the equipment in the participating universities The favorable view of the U.S. and American people appears to have little to do with the cash transfer programs, however. Of the students surveyed, 27 percent recalled seeing a USAID logo on lab equipment, but only 18 percent understood that the U.S. provided the funding for the equipment. Similarly, while faculty in charge of labs at six of the nine universities the evaluation team visited (67 percent) knew USAID had provided the funding for the lab equipment, at the other three universities, faculty members believed HEC had provided the funding. Conclusions Both cash transfers directly contributed to USAID’s anticipated results in education programming as articulated in DO 4: Improved Access to High Quality Education, IR 1.3: Increased Access to Scholarships, and IR 1.1: Improved Educational Facilities. USAID support of development grants at 19 universities improved educational facilities, including laboratories and equipment. The improvements enhanced the availability and quality of education and permitted some universities to gain accreditation or add new programs and degrees. The financial assistance to IDP students, even though it was provided without a means test, acted as a scholarship to students who were particularly at risk of disrupting their educations because of insurgent activities that may have displaced their families. Students who benefited from USAID-funded laboratory equipment held a much more favorable view of the U.S. and the American people than the typical Pakistani. Overall, the results suggest that younger, educated Pakistanis are more likely than others to have favorable views of the U.S. and the American people, but there is little evidence to suggest that USAID assistance caused the more positive perception. 20% 42% 12% 15% 11% 22% 45% 8% 11% 14% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Very favorable Somewhat favorable Somewhat unfavorable Very unfavorable Don't know/refused Opinion of the U.S. Opinion of the American people 42 RECOMMENDATIONS Since the specific cash transfer programs that were evaluated have been completed, the recommendations are aimed at improving future cash transfer programs and programming support to higher education. When USAID provides assistance through a government organization, the source of funding may not be apparent to the ultimate beneficiaries. If USAID expects its assistance to improve public perceptions of the U.S., it should find a way to ensure that beneficiaries know the source of the assistance. Recommendations for improving the visibility and effectiveness of USAID assistance include: 1. Requiring recipients of assistance to more explicitly attribute the results to USAID; 2. Requiring implementing partners and recipient institutions/organizations to maintain accounting records that can identify USAID’s assistance; 3. Hire externally or budget for a public relations activity to promote USAID’s assistance; or organize launching events for faculty and students. 4. Although not as much of an issue at the time the Cash Transfers were made, ultimately, an unreliable and limited electricity supply restricted the usefulness of USAID-funded laboratories and equipment. In the future, it may be useful to consider the relative costs of including a package of assistance aimed at addressing any potential anticipated obstacles (e.g., including generators) against the possibly limited benefits of the equipment if these problems do indeed, occur. 5. Providing cash transfers to HEC appears to be an effective way of meeting USAID's higher education goals. HEC's deep knowledge of Pakistan's universities helped it to place the funds where they were needed most. 43 ANNEXES ANNEX 1: FIRST AND SECOND CASH TRANSFER BY COMPONENT TABLE 17: FIRST AND SECOND CASH TRANSFER COMPONENT DETAIL S. No Universities/Institutes First Cash Transfer Second Cash Transfer Total University Recurring Grant Budgetary Shortfall IDP Scholarship Amount Students Projects Amounts US$ Rs. US$ Rs. US$ Rs. No. No. US$ Rs. US$ Rs. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 1 University of Peshawar (UOP) 5.32 446.81 1.71 144 0.72 60.24 1,384 1 0.56 47.2 8.31 698.25 2 Sheikh Zayed Islamic Center, UOP, Peshawar 0.11 8.87 0 0 0.02 1.94 97 0 0 0 1.09 11.99 3 Center of Excellence in Geology, UOP, Peshawar 0.28 23.58 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.96 1.18 1.24 24.76 4 Center of Excellence in Physical Chemistry, UOP, Peshawar 0.25 21.37 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.25 21.37 5 Area Study Center, UOP, Peshawar 0.12 9.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.12 9.8 6 Pakistan Study Center, UOP, Peshawar 0.09 7.92 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.09 7.92 7 Frontier Women University/Shaheed Benazir Bhutto Women University, Peshawar 0.39 32.83 0 0 0.004 0.31 23 1 0.05 4.24 0.44 37.38 8 KP University of Agriculture Agriculture University, Peshawar 2.65 222.19 0 0 0.13 11.18 670 2 0.7 59.35 3.48 292.72 9 KP University of Engineering and Technology (KP UET), Peshawar 3.06 257.16 1.37 115 0.27 22.28 625 3 15.19 1,291.21 19.89 1,685.65 44 S. No Universities/Institutes First Cash Transfer Second Cash Transfer Total University Recurring Grant Budgetary Shortfall IDP Scholarship Amount Students Projects Amounts US$ Rs. US$ Rs. US$ Rs. No. No. US$ Rs. US$ Rs. 10 Scientific Instrumentation Center, KP, UET, Peshawar 0.05 4.09 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.05 4.09 11 Islamia College University, Peshawar 0.71 60 0.00 0 0.20 17.06 411 0 0 0 0.92 77.06 12 Khyber Medical University, Peshawar 0.29 24.15 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0.29 24.15 13 Institute of Management Sciences, Peshawar 0.33 27.56 0.00 0 0.32 26.75 198 0 0 0 0.65 54.31 14 Kohat University of Science and Technology, Kohat 0.65 54.81 0.48 40 0.21 17.78 143 0 0 0 1.34 112.59 15 University of Malakand, Chakdara 0.59 49.27 0.00 0 1.00 83.82 1,700 0 0 0 1.58 133.09 16 University of Science and Technology, Bannu 0.61 51.58 0.00 0 0.02 1.26 51 0 0 0 0.63 52.84 17 Gomal University, Dera Ismail Khan 2.94 246.63 0.95 80 0.10 8.17 149 0 0 0 3.99 334.8 18 Hazara University, Mansehra 0.80 66.9 0.00 0 0.18 14.98 465 0 0 0 0.97 81.88 19 Abdul Wali Khan University, Mardan 0 0 0 0 0.09 7.71 316 0 0 0 0.09 7.71 20 COMSATS Institute of IT, Abbottabad Campus 0 0 0 0 0.26 22.08 139 0 0 0 0.26 22.08 Balochistan 1 University of Balochistan, (UOB) Quetta 2.95 247.94 1.84 154.32 0.05 4.21 45 0 0 0 4.84 406.47 2 Center of Excellence in Mineralogy, UOB, Quetta 0.12 9.9 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.12 9.9 3 Area Study Center, UOB, Quetta 0.05 4.41 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.05 4.41 45 S. No Universities/Institutes First Cash Transfer Second Cash Transfer Total University Recurring Grant Budgetary Shortfall IDP Scholarship Amount Students Projects Amounts US$ Rs. US$ Rs. US$ Rs. No. No. US$ Rs. US$ Rs. 4 Pakistan Study Center, UOB, Quetta 0.07 5.67 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.07 5.67 5 Balochistan University of IT, Engineering and Management Sciences, Quetta 0.87 72.87 0.48 40 0.08 6.6 133 0 0 0 1.42 119.47 6 Sardar Bahadur Khan Women University, Quetta 0.34 28.35 0.18 15 0 0 0 3 0.32 27.12 0.84 70.47 7 Lasbella University of Agriculture, Water and Marine Science, Uthal 0.59 49.24 0.00 0 0 0 0 1 0.21 18.03 0.80 67.27 8 Balochistan University of Engineering and Technology, Khuzdar 0.68 57.16 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.68 57.16 Punjab 1 Bahauddin Zakariya University (BZU), Multan 3.09 259.91 0.95 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.05 339.91 2 BZU Agriculture College, Multan 0.21 17.74 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.21 17.74 3 BZU Engineering College, Multan 0.28 23.46 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.28 23.46 4 Islamia University (IU), Bahawalpur 3.21 269.73 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.21 269.73 5 Seerat Chair, IU, Bahawalpur 0.01 0.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.01 0.9 6 University of Arid Agriculture, Rawalpindi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 2.3 195.45 2.30 195.45 7 University of Agriculture, Faisalabad 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1.67 141.53 1.67 141.53 8 Lahore College for Women University, Lahore 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.83 70.23 0.83 70.23 46 S. No Universities/Institutes First Cash Transfer Second Cash Transfer Total University Recurring Grant Budgetary Shortfall IDP Scholarship Amount Students Projects Amounts US$ Rs. US$ Rs. US$ Rs. No. No. US$ Rs. US$ Rs. 9 University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3.02 256.8 3.02 256.8 10 University of Engineering and Technology, Taxila 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1.37 116.07 1.37 116.07 11 University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1.24 105.32 1.24 105.32 12 University of Sargodha 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.25 21.5 0.25 21.5 Sindh 1 Hamdard University, Karachi 0 0 0 0 0.06 5.06 67 0 0 0 0.06 5.06 2 University of Karachi (UOK), Karachi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.22 18.9 0.22 18.9 3 HEJ Research Institute of Chemistry, UOK, Karachi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.64 54.25 0.64 54.25 4 NED University of Engineering and Technology, Karachi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5.37 456.61 5.37 456.61 5 Mehran University of Engineering and Technology, Jamshoro 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1.66 140.89 1.66 140.89 6 Quaid-e-Awam University of Engineering, Science and Technology, Nawabshah 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.75 63.88 0.75 63.88 7 Sindh Agriculture University, Tando Jaam 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.2 17.27 0.20 17.27 Gilgit-Baltistan 1 Karakoram International University, Gilgit 0.80 67.4 0.48 40 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 1.28 107.4 47 S. No Universities/Institutes First Cash Transfer Second Cash Transfer Total University Recurring Grant Budgetary Shortfall IDP Scholarship Amount Students Projects Amounts US$ Rs. US$ Rs. US$ Rs. No. No. US$ Rs. US$ Rs. Islamabad 1 Quaid-e-Azam University, Islamabad 0 0 0 0 0.14 11.78 205 0 0 0 0.14 11.78 2 Federal Urdu University of Arts, Science and Technology, Islamabad 0 0 0 0 0.07 6.03 286 0 0 0 0.07 6.03 3 National University of Modern Languages, Islamabad 0 0 0 0 0.02 1.86 45 0 0 0 0.02 1.86 4 International Islamic University, Islamabad 0 0 0 0 0.12 10.12 201 0 0 0 0.12 10.12 5 Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, Islamabad 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 1 0.3 25.49 0.30 25.49 6 National University of Computer and Emerging Sciences, (FAST), Islamabad 0 0 0 0 0.01 0.47 1 0 0 0 0 0.47 Grand Total 32.50 2,730.20 8.43 708.32 4.07 341.69 7,354 44 37.81 3,132.52 83.77 6,913.91 48 ANNEX 2: HEC RECURRING GRANTS RECEIVED Received by a Beneficiary University TABLE 18: RECURRING GRANT RECEIVED BY A BENEFICIARY UNIVERSITY (FY 2002-03 TO 2010-11) S. No. University 2002- 2003 2003- 2004 2004- 2005 2005- 2006 2006- 2007 2007-2008 Allocation Released by Fin. Div. 2008- 2009 2009- 2010 Annual Grant 2010- 2011 Suppl. Grant Total Grant Released 1 University of Peshawar, Peshawar 220 287 310 430 598 648 515 648 745 745 266 1010 2 Shaikh Zayed Islamic Center, University of Peshawar, Peshawar 5 7 8 12 13 14 11 14 15 16 4 21 3 Geology, University of Peshawar, Peshawar 6 9 12 25 32 36 28 36 39 45 6 51 4 Physical, Chemistry, University of Peshawar, Peshawar 7 11 14 25 29 32 26 32 36 41 4 44 5 Russia, China and Central Asia, University of Peshawar, Peshawar 4 7 9 13 15 16 12 16 16 17 3 20 6 University of Peshawar, Peshawar 4 6 7 10 11 12 10 12 13 14 3 16 7 Frontier Women University, Peshawar - - - - 43 48 38 48 55 57 13 70 8 NWFP University of Agriculture, Peshawar 102 133 150 210 249 274 218 274 370 370 103 473 9 NWFP University of Eng. and Tech., Peshawar 105 156 180 235 289 317 252 317 429 429 133 562 10 Scientific Instrumentation Center, KP UET, Peshawar 2 3 3 6 6 6 5 6 7 7 1 9 49 S. No. University 2002- 2003 2003- 2004 2004- 2005 2005- 2006 2006- 2007 2007-2008 Allocation Released by Fin. Div. 2008- 2009 2009- 2010 Annual Grant 2010- 2011 Suppl. Grant Total Grant Released 11 Islamia College University, Peshawar - - - - - - - 0 100 127 58 185 12 Kohat University of Science and Tech., Kohat - 10 15 40 62 68 54 68 91 116 65 182 13 University of Malakand, Chakdara, Dir - 10 10 40 60 66 52 66 82 104 22 126 14 University of Science and Tech., Bannu - - - - 52 57 46 57 86 109 50 160 15 Gomal University, Dera Ismail Khan 122 159 173 225 277 304 242 304 411 411 128 539 16 Hazara University, Dhodial, Mansehra - 10 10 50 75 83 66 83 111 142 75 216 17 Abdul Wali Khan University, Mardan - - - - - - - 0 0 84 22 105 18 University of Balochistan, Quetta 119 155 180 245 308 331 263 331 413 413 131 545 19 Mineralogy, Balochistan, University of Quetta 5 7 8 15 19 20 16 15 17 17 7 24 20 Middle East and Arab Countries, University of Balochistan, Quetta 2 3 3 7 10 10 8 7 7 8 2 10 21 University of Balochistan, Quetta National Institute of Pakistan 2 3 5 9 11 11 9 9 9 10 6 15 22 Balochistan University of IT and Management Sciences, Quetta - 5 20 50 74 81 64 81 121 154 42 196 23 Sardar Bahadur Khan - - - 15 49 35 28 35 47 72 19 91 50 S. No. University 2002- 2003 2003- 2004 2004- 2005 2005- 2006 2006- 2007 2007-2008 Allocation Released by Fin. Div. 2008- 2009 2009- 2010 Annual Grant 2010- 2011 Suppl. Grant Total Grant Released Women University, Quetta 24 Lasbela University of Agriculture, Water and Marine Sciences, Uthal - - - - 52 66 52 66 82 82 16 98 25 Balochistan University of Eng. and Tech., Khuzdar 26 34 49 65 75 83 66 83 95 99 22 120 26 Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan 81 105 142 218 297 321 255 321 433 479 93 572 27 University College of Agriculture, B.Z University, Multan 3 5 6 14 22 25 20 25 30 33 7 40 28 University College of Eng. and Tech., B.Z University, Multan 6 9 13 18 30 33 26 33 39 43 7 50 29 Seerat Chair, Islamia University, Bahawalpur 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 0 2 30 Islamia University, Bahawalpur 93 121 156 235 303 333 265 333 450 475 139 613 51 Received by Non-beneficiary University TABLE 19: RECURRING GRANT RECEIVED BY A NON-BENEFICIARY UNIVERSITY (FY 2002-03 TO 2010-11) S. No. University 2002- 2003 2003- 2004 2004- 2005 2005- 2006 2006- 2007 2007-2008 Allocation Released by Fin. Div. 2008- 2009 2009- 2010 Annual Grant 2010- 2011 Suppl. Grant Total Grant Released 1 Sindh Agriculture University, Tandojam 166 216 235 315 428 470 374 470 541 541 120 661 2 University of Agriculture, Faisalabad 238 310 348 465 572 620 493 620 713 721 265 986 3 University of Arid Agriculture, Rawalpindi 14 20 65 110 130 143 113 143 214 238 49 287 4 University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Lahore - 15 25 50 79 87 69 87 130 166 69 234 5 NED University of Eng and Tech., Karachi 95 138 210 290 377 415 330 415 622 622 160 782 6 Mehran University of Eng. and Tech., Jamshoro 85 137 257 275 384 422 336 422 569 569 147 716 7 Quaid-e-Awam University of Eng., Science and Tech., Nawabshah 38 62 78 118 137 150 120 150 226 226 59 285 8 University of Eng. and Tech., Lahore 170 254 313 490 622 684 544 684 787 787 172 959 9 University of Eng. and Tech., Taxila 44 64 77 125 155 171 136 171 256 285 55 340 10 National Textile University, Faisalabad - - - - - - - 0 50 64 21 84 11 University of Karachi, Karachi 227 307 400 575 765 790 628 790 981 981 283 1,264 52 S. No. University 2002- 2003 2003- 2004 2004- 2005 2005- 2006 2006- 2007 2007-2008 Allocation Released by Fin. Div. 2008- 2009 2009- 2010 Annual Grant 2010- 2011 Suppl. Grant Total Grant Released 12 University of Sindh, Jamshoro 213 277 305 450 647 690 549 690 1,035 1,035 244 1,279 13 Shah Abdul Latif University, Khairpur 53 71 92 130 181 199 158 199 248 248 92 341 14 Federal Urdu University of Arts, Science and Technology, Karachi - 110 115 142 214 235 187 235 352 448 84 531 15 University of the Punjab, Lahore 288 375 482 638 903 893 710 893 1,205 1,205 469 1,674 16 Fatima Jinnah Women University, Rawalpindi 23 32 46 75 93 103 82 103 128 159 27 186 17 Government College University, Lahore - 15 17 65 100 110 87 110 148 188 85 273 18 Lahore College for Women University, Lahore - 10 15 50 84 92 73 92 125 158 84 242 19 Government College University, Faisalabad - - 30 60 101 112 89 112 167 213 98 310 20 University of Sargodha, Sargodha - 10 25 65 104 114 91 114 171 250 80 329 21 University of Education, Lahore - 10 20 50 79 87 69 87 118 150 85 234 22 Quaid-e-Azam University, Islamabad 113 158 178 276 382 416 331 416 525 525 147 672 23 International Islamic University, Islamabad 121 158 190 238 296 326 259 326 440 558 156 714 24 National University of Modern Languages, Islamabad 28 36 46 90 138 152 121 152 228 290 40 331 53 S. No. University 2002- 2003 2003- 2004 2004- 2005 2005- 2006 2006- 2007 2007-2008 Allocation Released by Fin. Div. 2008- 2009 2009- 2010 Annual Grant 2010- 2011 Suppl. Grant Total Grant Released 25 AJK University, Muzaffarabad 98 137 158 220 273 291 231 291 363 283 97 380 26 Karakurum International University, Gilgit 25 38 42 60 76 83 66 83 112 119 25 145 27 Allama Iqbal Open University, Islamabad 90 110 110 150 234 250 199 250 288 200 - 200 28 Virtual University of Pakistan, Lahore - - - - - 87 69 87 100 100 - 100 29 Air University, Islamabad - - - - - 50 40 50 58 73 25 98 30 National Defense University, Islamabad - - - - - - - 40 46 46 10 56 31 University of Gujrat, Gujrat - - - - - - - 50 75 95 121 216 32 Mirpur University of Science and Tech. (MUST), Mirpur (AJK) - - - - - - - 0 0 102 51 153 33 Shaheed Benazir Bhutto University, Sheringal, Dir Upper - - - - - - - 0 0 42 14 56 34 Applied Economics Research Center, University of Karachi, Karachi 15 22 29 43 51 57 45 57 59 63 8 71 35 HEJ Research Institute of Chemistry, University of Karachi, Karachi 44 68 89 134 172 189 150 189 211 241 18 259 36 Third World Center for Science and Tech., University of Karachi, 25 38 50 75 99 109 87 109 122 139 5 144 54 S. No. University 2002- 2003 2003- 2004 2004- 2005 2005- 2006 2006- 2007 2007-2008 Allocation Released by Fin. Div. 2008- 2009 2009- 2010 Annual Grant 2010- 2011 Suppl. Grant Total Grant Released Karachi 37 Dr. Panjwani Center for Molecular Medicine and Drug Research, University of Karachi, Karachi - - - 25 33 37 29 37 41 47 1 48 38 Dr. A. Q. Khan Institute of Bio-Technology and Genetic Eng., University of Karachi, Karachi - - - - 31 34 27 34 36 41 4 45 39 Institute of Biochemistry and Biotechnology, University of Punjab, Lahore 1 2 2 5 6 6 5 5 5 6 1 6 40 Institute of Clincial Psychology, University of Karachi, Karachi 5 7 10 13 16 17 14 17 19 20 4 24 41 Center for Clincial Psychology, University of Punjab. Lahore 3 4 5 10 13 14 11 14 16 16 1 17 42 Z.A. Bhutto Agriculture Collage, Dokri (Sindh Agriculture University, Tandojam) 11 17 19 28 38 41 33 41 43 48 15 63 43 School of Biological Sciences, University of Punjab, Lahore - 10 20 40 53 58 46 58 61 63 5 69 44 Water Management Research Center, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad 5 7 8 10 11 12 9 12 12 13 2 16 55 S. No. University 2002- 2003 2003- 2004 2004- 2005 2005- 2006 2006- 2007 2007-2008 Allocation Released by Fin. Div. 2008- 2009 2009- 2010 Annual Grant 2010- 2011 Suppl. Grant Total Grant Released 45 Shaikh Zayed Islamic Center, University of Punjab, Lahore 5 7 8 12 13 14 11 14 15 16 5 21 46 Shaikh Zayed Islamic Center, University of Karachi, Karachi 5 7 8 12 14 14 11 14 15 17 3 20 47 Quaid-e-Azam Chair, Quaid-e-Azam University, Islamabad 2 3 3 5 5 5 4 1 1 1 0 2 48 Shah Abdul Latif Bhitai Chair, University of Karachi, Karachi 2 3 3 4 4 4 3 4 4 5 1 6 49 Seerat Chair, University of Karachi, Karachi 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 2 50 Salam Chair in Physics, Govt. College University, Lahore 1 2 2 4 4 5 4 5 5 5 5 11 51 Dawah Academy, International Islamic University, Islamabad 30 46 53 55 62 65 51 65 71 73 9 83 52 School of Mathematical Sciences, Govt. College University, Lahore - - - - 30 32 25 32 35 37 4 41 53 Al-Khawarzmi Institute of Computer Sciences, UET, Lahore - - - - 20 21 17 21 23 26 14 40 54 Iqbal International Institute of Research and Dialogue, IIU, Islamabad - - - - - - - 20 20 21 2 23 56 S. No. University 2002- 2003 2003- 2004 2004- 2005 2005- 2006 2006- 2007 2007-2008 Allocation Released by Fin. Div. 2008- 2009 2009- 2010 Annual Grant 2010- 2011 Suppl. Grant Total Grant Released 55 School of Physical Sciences, University of Punjab, Lahore - - - - 20 21 - 0 0 - - - 56 Pakistan Marine Academy, Karachi - - - - - - - 40 44 - - - 57 Solid State Physics, University of Punjab, Lahore 7 10 14 25 31 34 27 34 37 40 2 42 58 Water Resources Eng., UET, Lahore 8 12 16 25 28 31 25 25 28 29 6 35 59 Molecular Biology, University of Punjab, Lahore 21 33 43 62 77 85 67 85 106 120 7 127 60 Marine Biology, University of Karachi, Karachi 7 10 14 24 30 33 26 25 28 29 5 34 61 Analytical Chemistry, University of Sindh, Jamshoro 6 10 13 25 29 32 26 32 39 44 4 49 62 Psychology, Quaid-e￾Azam University, Islamabad 7 11 12 18 24 25 20 18 20 21 5 26 63 History and Cultural Research, Quaid-e-Azam University, Islamabad. 11 15 17 22 25 26 21 26 28 29 4 33 64 Arts and Design, Mehran University of Eng. And Tech. Jamshoro - 5 8 14 18 19 15 19 22 24 15 39 65 Gender Studies, Quaid-e￾Azam University, - - - 3 3 3 3 2 4 11 1 12 57 S. No. University 2002- 2003 2003- 2004 2004- 2005 2005- 2006 2006- 2007 2007-2008 Allocation Released by Fin. Div. 2008- 2009 2009- 2010 Annual Grant 2010- 2011 Suppl. Grant Total Grant Released Islamabad 66 South Asian Studies, University of Punjab, Lahore 5 8 9 12 13 14 11 12 13 13 3 16 67 Europe, University of Karachi, Karachi 3 4 5 10 12 12 10 12 13 13 2 15 68 Far East and South East Asia, University of Sindh, Jamshoro 4 6 8 12 14 14 11 14 15 16 3 18 69 Africa, North and South America, Quaid-e-Azam University, Islamabad 4 6 6 9 11 11 9 11 12 12 2 14 70 University of the Punjab, Lahore 3 4 5 7 7 8 6 8 8 9 1 10 71 University of Karachi, Karachi 3 4 6 9 10 10 8 9 9 9 2 11 72 University of Sindh, Jamshoro 3 4 5 8 9 9 7 9 10 10 2 12 73 National Institute of Pakistan Studies, Quaid-e￾Azam University, Islamabad 6 9 12 16 19 20 16 20 20 20 4 24 58 ANNEX 3: GENDER DISTRIBUTION TABLES OF SCHOLARSHIP RECIPIENTS (IDP STUDENTS) Hazara University TABLE 20: GENDER DISTRIBUTION OF SCHOLARSHIP RECIPIENTS (IDP STUDENTS) – HAZARA UNIVERSITY Faculty/Department Master’s Bachelor’s Ph.D. Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Faculty of Health Sciences Biochemistry 3 2 1 16 16 0 Microbiology 2 2 0 63 61 2 Total 5 4 1 79 77 2 Faculty of Sciences Zoology 18 13 5 5 5 0 Pharmacy 19 19 0 21 21 0 Computer Science 14 13 1 5 5 0 Botany 17 16 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 Genetics 18 16 2 16 15 1 Telecom 41 40 1 Physics 12 12 0 3 3 0 Chemistry 14 12 2 3 3 0 Environmental Sciences 3 3 0 16 16 Agriculture 25 25 0 Math 7 7 0 Total 122 111 11 115 112 3 22 22 0 Faculty of Arts Economics 1 1 Journalism 6 6 0 3 3 0 CHTM 3 3 0 4 4 0 Education 2 1 1 1 1 0 Economics 1 1 0 English 3 3 0 Tourism and Hospitality 1 1 0 3 3 0 Conservation Studies 1 1 0 Art and Design 1 1 0 Islamic and Religious Studies 1 1 0 Psychology 1 0 1 59 Faculty/Department Master’s Bachelor’s Ph.D. Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Political Science 1 1 0 Total 20 18 2 12 12 0 1 1 0 Faculty of Law and Administrative Sciences Management Sciences 1 1 0 Business Administration 17 17 0 60 60 0 BSC Honors 1 1 0 Law 9 9 0 Public Administration 2 2 0 Total 20 20 0 70 70 0 60 Agricultural University Peshawar TABLE 21: GENDER DISTRIBUTION OF SCHOLARSHIP RECIPIENTS (IDP STUDENTS) – AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY PESHAWAR Faculty/Department Master’s Bachelor’s Total Male Female Total Male Female Faculty of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Sciences Animal Sciences 0 0 0 109 107 2 Faculty of Crop Production Sciences Agriculture 48 48 0 147 136 11 Institute of Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Biotechnology 0 0 0 14 10 4 Institute of Business and Management Sciences/Institute of Development Studies Business Administration 16 16 0 138 133 5 Economics 3 3 0 Computer Science 3 3 0 98 98 0 Information Technology 2 2 0 85 84 1 Management Science 6 6 0 0 0 0 Total 30 30 0 321 315 6 61 Hamdard University TABLE 22: GENDER DISTRIBUTION OF SCHOLARSHIP RECIPIENTS (IDP STUDENTS) – HAMDARD UNIVERSITY Faculty/Department Bachelor’s Total Male Female Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences Medicine and Surgery 50 48 2 Dental Surgery 4 4 Total 54 52 2 Faculty of Pharmacy Pharmacy 10 10 0 Faculty of Engineering Science and Technology Telecommunication and Networking 1 1 Electrical Engineering- S 1 1 Total 2 2 0 Faculty of Eastern Studies Eastern Medicine and Surgery- R 1 1 62 Quaid-e-Azam University TABLE 23: GENDER DISTRIBUTION OF SCHOLARSHIP RECIPIENTS (IDP STUDENTS) – QUAID-E-AZAM UNIVERSITY Faculty/Department Master’s Ph.D. Total Male Female Total Male Female Faculty of Natural Sciences Chemistry 18 16 2 Physics 13 13 0 1 1 0 Computer Sciences 6 5 1 Earth Sciences 8 8 0 Statistics 5 4 1 Information Technology 3 3 0 Electronics 6 6 0 1 1 0 Math 10 9 1 3 3 0 History 11 11 0 Center of Excellence in Gender Studies 3 2 1 Total 83 77 6 5 5 0 Faculty of Biological Sciences Animal Sciences 12 7 5 Biochemistry 9 7 2 Administrative Sciences 6 6 0 Microbiology 13 9 4 Plant Sciences 17 13 4 3 3 0 Biotechnology 15 15 0 Total 72 57 15 3 3 0 Faculty of Social Sciences Defense and Strategic Studies 8 7 1 International Relations 19 18 1 Economics 4 3 1 Anthropology 13 12 1 Total 44 40 4 63 University of Peshawar TABLE 24: GENDER DISTRIBUTION OF SCHOLARSHIP RECIPIENTS (IDP STUDENTS) – UNIVERSITY OF PESHAWAR Faculty/Department Master’s Bachelor’s Ph.D. FSc School Unaccounted Total M F Total M F Total M F Total M F Total M F Total M F Faculty of Life and Environmental Sciences Botany 40 16 24 Biotechnology 3 2 1 37 26 11 1 1 0 1 1 0 Chemical Science 22 16 6 4 4 0 Environment Science 17 11 6 42 34 8 Geology 12 11 1 32 32 0 Institute of Chemical Sciences 19 12 7 7 7 0 1 1 0 Microbiology 3 3 0 Pharmacy 5 5 0 94 86 8 2 1 1 Zoology 38 14 24 Geography 26 15 11 1 1 0 Total 182 102 80 208 181 27 15 14 1 2 2 0 Faculty of Arts and Humanities Anthropology 8 8 0 1 1 0 Archaeology 8 8 0 2 2 0 English 12 7 5 1 1 0 Fine Arts 1 1 0 6 5 1 History 9 7 2 6 1 5 1 1 0 Philosophy 4 3 1 64 Faculty/Department Master’s Bachelor’s Ph.D. FSc School Unaccounted Total M F Total M F Total M F Total M F Total M F Total M F Sociology and Anthropology 90 88 2 2 2 0 3 3 0 Total 132 122 10 16 10 6 2 2 0 4 4 0 Faculty of Islamic and Oriental Studies Arabic 8 7 1 3 2 1 1 1 0 Islamiyat 16 9 7 3 3 0 1 1 0 Pashto 9 4 5 Pashto Academy 2 2 0 Persian 4 4 0 Urdu 17 9 8 Total 54 33 21 8 7 1 2 2 0 National Center of Physical Chemistry Chemistry 3 3 0 Faculty of Numerical and Physical Sciences Computer Science 57 53 4 78 72 6 1 1 0 Electronics 2 2 0 Mathematics 25 23 2 Statistics 21 12 9 Physics 27 26 1 1 1 0 Total 132 116 16 79 73 6 1 1 0 Faculty of Social Sciences Economics 23 15 8 41 38 3 Education Planning and Management 1 1 0 65 Faculty/Department Master’s Bachelor’s Ph.D. FSc School Unaccounted Total M F Total M F Total M F Total M F Total M F Total M F Gender Studies 4 4 0 2 2 0 Pakistan Studies 20 14 6 2 1 1 International Relations 13 12 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 Political Science 17 16 1 5 5 0 Psychology 10 3 7 1 0 1 2 0 2 Social Work 27 26 1 1 1 0 Sociology 7 7 0 Law 4 3 1 102 93 9 Total 126 101 25 147 135 12 1 0 1 10 7 3 Faculty of Management and Information Sciences Institute of Management Studies 31 29 2 71 64 7 Journalism 8 7 1 3 3 0 2 2 0 Library Information and Technology 1 0 1 Library Science 12 3 9 2 1 1 Total 52 39 13 74 67 7 4 3 1 Others Institute of Education and Research 9 3 6 8 4 4 Jinnah College for Women 21 2 19 47 0 47 Quaid-e-Azam College of Commerce 4 3 1 University Model School (UMS) 6 0 6 66 Faculty/Department Master’s Bachelor’s Ph.D. FSc School Unaccounted Total M F Total M F Total M F Total M F Total M F Total M F University Public School (UPS) 2 2 0 Pakistan Study Center 1 1 0 Area Study Center 2 2 0 Women College of Home Economics 9 0 9 21 0 21 Total 24 8 16 50 6 44 47 47 8 2 6 1 1 0 67 Annex 4: USAID Pakistan Mission Results Framework (at the Time of Evaluation) 68 DO 4: Improved Access to High Quality Education IR 1: Improved Educational Opportunities IR 1.1: Improved Educational Facilities IR 1.2: Increased Access to High￾Quality Learning Materials IR 1.3: Increased Access to Scholarships IR 2: Improved Quality of Education IR 2.1: Improved Policies, Laws, Guidelines for Teachers IR 2.2: Improved Reading Instruction for Children in Primary Grades IR 2.3: Improved Teaching and Research at Higher Education Institutions in Key Sectors IR 3: Improved Accountability in Education IR 3.1: Effective Civil Society for Oversight, Engagement, and Advocacy IR 3.2: Improved Management Capacity at Provincial and District Levels within the Education Department Development Context • 50 percent of schools in rural areas lack clean water, 37 percent lack latrines, and 85 percent have no electricity • One-third of primary school age children never attend school • Only 4.75 percent of the 17-23 age cohort in Pakistan has access to higher education • Pakistan ranks 118 out of 129 countries in progress towards the Education for All goals Critical Assumptions/Risks to Program • Political will to undertake reforms • No major setbacks with devolution of education services • Provincial ministries will develop improved learning assessment systems • Security challenges will not greatly affect accessibility for implementation and supervision • Weak public sector capacity at all levels for planning, financial management, and governance EDUCATION 69 ANNEX 5: EVALUATION STATEMENT OF WORK Introduction56 The purpose of proposed study is to provide the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) mission to Pakistan with an independent performance evaluation of the Cash Transfer program [US$45 million: Higher Education Technical Education Support Program (First Cash Transfer) and US$45 million: University Development Program (Second Cash Transfer)]. The evaluation will systematically investigate and document the effectiveness and other results of both programs. Cash transfer program is funded by USAID/Pakistan and implemented by the Higher Education Commission (HEC), the Pakistani Government agency with authority for higher education. The evaluation will collect and analyze evidence to determine the following:  The extent to which the project has realized its planned outcomes and outputs;  The financial effects the cash transfer programs have had on the selected universities;  The degree to which the cash transfer program has contributed to the achievement of USAID/Pakistan’s development objectives;  The gender equitability of the disbursed scholarships under the First Cash Transfer; and  The degree to which the faculty and students have benefitted from the equipment provided. The evaluation will focus on the overarching outcomes that the Cash Transfer programs was to achieve, such as: (a) expanded university and technical educational opportunities for underserved and disadvantaged students in KPK (which serves students from FATA) as well as in other vulnerable areas such as southern Punjab; and (b) improved teaching and applied research at higher education institutions across the country. The programs also aim to enhance the relationship between Pakistani and American universities. For evaluation purposes, it will be crucial to keep in view USAID’s key priority sectors including agriculture, energy, engineering, hydrology (water), environmental sciences and economics. The evaluation report will include recommendations aimed at: a) Improving the performance of cash transfer programs; b) Maximizing the programs’ contributions to the U.S. government’s strategic objectives; and c) Helping USAID enhance the impact of its higher education interventions. Evidence for answering the five evaluation questions will be drawn from the following sources:  Relevant project documents provided by USAID/Pakistan and HEC;  Semi-structured interviews with relevant HEC and USAID officials, faculty, staff and officials of recipient universities and other stakeholders (e.g. Economic Affairs Division (EAD), Ministry of Economic Affairs and Statistics); and,  Survey of student beneficiaries of lab equipment at selected universities. 56 Daman Bozdar was the Program Manager for both cash transfer programs. 70 The evaluation activity started on September 13, 2012, with an orientation workshop for HEC. This included information sharing and reaching consensus among the evaluation team on various aspects of the evaluation. The evaluation will field two teams for the data collection to reduce the amount of time required. The draft evaluation report is planned for submission to USAID by 23 January, 2013. The evaluation report will be shared with the HEC, Economic Affairs Division (EAD) and Development Experience Clearinghouse (DEC) for public information. The evaluation will help USAID/Pakistan: a) Comply with third party evaluation requirement in the agreement; and b) Understand if this assistance modality can be used again, with changes, if any. Background The Higher Education Commission (HEC) is the government agency responsible for tertiary education in Pakistan. It is equivalent to what most countries refer to as the Ministry of Higher Education. The Government of Pakistan (GOP) established the HEC in 2002 with the mandate to improve and promote higher education, research and development in Pakistan. The HEC manages public policy and funding for Pakistan's universities. In particular, the HEC is the government agency accountable for the higher education development budget, including funding for scholarships. The HEC has the statutory authority for public higher education in Pakistan and is, therefore, the principal agency with which USAID works to manage tertiary education activities. Consequently, USAID Pakistan implements most of its higher education activities through the HEC. In cases where USAID provides assistance to individual public universities, it is always within the context of and under a Memorandum of Understanding with the HEC. USAID provides support to the HEC to implement other programs in addition to the Cash Transfer programs. These include a Merit and Needs-Based Scholarship Program (MNBSP) and a program to develop three university Centers of Excellence in Agriculture, Energy and Water Resources. The HEC Technical Education Support Program (First Cash Transfer) The HEC Technical Education Support Program (henceforth referred to in this document as the First Cash Transfer) provided $45 million in budgetary support to the HEC, which distributed the funds to 32 selected universities in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Balochistan, Punjab, Sindh, and Gilgit-Baltistan provinces over a four-year period. Annex 1 contains the list of universities supported by the First Cash Transfer. The CTP also provided one￾year scholarships (some of which covered non-tuition expenses) to internally displaced (IDP) students from the conflict-ridden areas of Malakand Division in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Despite great strengths and potential, Pakistani universities have suffered severely due to the country’s on-going financial and security crises. The GOP slashed budgets necessary to meet increasing enrollment demand for practical technical education. Simultaneously, students from internally displaced (IDP) families lost income necessary to meet university tuition fee and living expenses. The Cash Transfer program aimed at reducing the deficits on both the supply and demand side. The first cash transfer was part of the larger U.S. Government emergency response called the Emergency Cash Transfer program whose goal was to stabilize Pakistani society affected by extremist insurgencies, fiscal crisis and weak local institutions. The Emergency Cash Transfer program provided US$174 million through several cash transfers, of which US$45 million was transferred to HEC as the first cash transfer. 71 The overall program objective related to HEC first cash transfer was:  To expand availability of university and technical education in the affected areas.57 The objective of the agreement and assistance provided was to further the “Investing in People” objective under the U.S. Foreign Assistance Framework especially, in areas of higher education and social assistance. The funding breakdown is given in Table 1. USAID released the funds to the government of Pakistan in April, 2010. TABLE 1: FUNDING BREAKDOWN (1ST CASH TRANSFER) The anticipated outcomes of the program include the following:  A total of 7,354 internally displaced students received one-year scholarships for continuation of their education; and,  Thirty-two universities received budgetary support (5 in Islamabad Capital Territory, 17 in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, 5 in Balochistan, 3 in Southern Punjab, 1 in Sindh, and 1 in Gilgit-Baltistan). The Higher Education Support Program (Second Cash Transfer) The Higher Education Support Program (henceforth referred to as the Second Cash Transfer) provided US$45 million in budgetary support to the HEC – US$42.5 million disbursed in fiscal year (FY) 2010/11 and US$2.5 million in FY 2011-2012. This amount was distributed to 21 selected universities in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Balochistan, Punjab and Sindh. Annex 1 contains a list of the universities. The goal of the program was to move Pakistani society toward recovery as it stabilized following the humanitarian and economic effects of recent crises by strengthening higher education institutions that will provide the skills needed for a durable recovery. The objective of the assistance was to further the “Investing in People” objective under the U.S. foreign assistance framework. The program upgraded specialized centers and institutes at recipient universities to improve pedagogy, increases the use of better teaching and learning materials and improved the institutional capacity of universities to engage in research in priority sectors such as energy, agriculture, engineering, technology, and hydrology (water). The program also included the capacity building of women’s universities in Pakistan. 57 Cash Transfer Grant Agreement between the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan with respect to the Emergency Supplemental Funding, 2009. Funding Breakdown Million ($) Support of recurring grant (recurring costs for universities but not scholarships) 32.5 Support to cover budgetary shortfalls- 9 universities 8.43 Scholarship and financial assistance to IDP recipients- 22 universities 4.07 Total 45.00 72 TABLE 2: FUNDING BREAKDOWN (2ND CASH TRANSFER) The expected results of the activity were:  The program will provide around US$37.5 million contribution on the 44 development projects at 19 public universities across Pakistan. This includes sponsoring purchase of I.T and science lab equipment, transportation and contingency costs against in the university development projects.59 USAID/Pakistan provided funding to the GOP for these programs through a Cash Transfer Mechanism whereby, U.S. dollars were provided to the GOP to be used to buy Pakistani rupees from the State Bank of Pakistan at the highest lawful exchange rate available. The dollars were transferred to a State Bank of Pakistan account at Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which was opened on GOP instruction. Evaluation Objectives The broad evaluation purpose is to determine whether the objectives and results of the Cash Transfer programs (the First and Second Cash Transfers) have been achieved and to determine, as far as possible, the effects of those results. Evaluation results should facilitate accountability to stakeholders, assess project performance (e.g. effectiveness and relevance) and generate recommendations for improving future cash transfer programs and programming to support higher education. The results of this evaluation will serve an important function by determining how well the program is achieving outcomes/results that are synergistic with other tertiary education programs. Another critically important purpose is to determine the contribution of both Cash Transfer programs to USAID’s development strategy in Pakistan. It is critical that the valuable resources devoted to supporting tertiary education contribute to the greatest extent possible toward the success of USAID’s strategic objectives. For this reason, the following objectives would be considered by the evaluation team:  Development Objective (DO) 4: Improved Access to High Quality Education.  Intermediate Result (IR) 1: Improved Educational Opportunities  IR 1.1: Improved Educational Facilities  IR 1.3: Increased Access to Scholarships  Cross Cutting Objective 3: Improved Public Perception of the U.S. 58 The evaluation of Fulbright and MNBSP scholarship programs is outside the scope of this evaluation. 59 This is based on the information available in Attachment 5 to the Cash Transfer Agreement USAID, Grant No.391-012, as amended Implementation letter No.6. Funding Breakdown Million ($) University Development Program- 21 universities and 44 projects 37.5 Scholarships- Fulbright and MNBSP58 7.5 Total 45.00 73 Evaluation Questions The evaluation will address the following specific questions60: 1. What were the financial effects that the programs had on universities? Explanation: The question will focus on the effects of both cash transfers on the financial health of the universities and any expansion possibilities. Answering this question will require access to the financial data for a selected group of universities. 2. How equitably have scholarships under the First Cash Transfer been distributed by gender? Explanation: Depending on data availability, the evaluation will develop one or more gender profiles of scholarship recipients and compare them with relevant institution-specific gender profiles. These profiles may differentiate among the main fields of study, noting that gender disparity within an institution often varies across disciplines. It may also vary between the bachelor’s and master’s levels, and the evaluation will also explore this. The analysis will take into account USAID’s Gender Policy for 2012. 3. Have the faculty and students benefitted from the equipment provided under the second cash transfer? Explanation: This question will gauge the effect of the equipment given under the second cash transfer. The answer will assess the perceptions of beneficiary students and faculty about the contributions of the equipment to the learning process. The assessment will focus on a representative sample of beneficiary universities. 4. What were the results of the Cash Transfer Programs in terms of helping universities continue their key activities (First and Second Cash Transfers) and students continue their education (First Cash Transfer)? Explanation: The evaluation will answer this question with reference to the anticipated outcomes of the two programs and, if applicable, annual targets and performance indicators. Results include outputs or outcomes, and intended or unintended. The evaluation will conduct an independent analysis of available data to highlight the programs’ strengths and weaknesses in achieving planned results. 5. To what extent have the Cash Transfer programs contributed to USAID’s Development Objectives (DOs) and Intermediate Results (IRs), mentioned above, in Pakistan? Explanation: The U.S. Government is providing assistance to the Pakistani people to achieve specific strategic objectives as articulated in USAID’s Results Framework (e.g. improved access to high quality education, improved educational facilities, increased access to scholarships and improved public perception of the US). This question will determine the extent to which the programs contribute to these objectives. Evaluation Methods and Information Sources The performance evaluation is limited to answering evaluation questions, read in light of the explanations provided above. A mixed method design will be used to collect and analyze the data and evidence necessary to address the evaluation questions. We need to determine whether data are available for answering the specific evaluation questions; if they are not, the evaluation will say that a certain question or part of it could not be answered because of data constraints. 60 Data sources for each evaluation question are shown in the Getting to Answers (G2A) Table in the annex. 74 Anticipated data collection methods include document review, key informant interviews, observation and survey. As the evaluation will rely heavily on data that has been collected by program management, an assessment of the data quality will be necessary to verify validity. To facilitate analysis, to the extent feasible, the data will be collected and reported in a way that enables disaggregation across multiple dimensions including, but not limited to gender, academic discipline, degree type and institution. Selection of Universities The foremost factor in the selection of universities has been to select a sample that is geographically representative across provinces and region. 61 Listed below are additional factors which have been considered during sample selection:  Larger provinces/regions have been given relatively greater representation.  At least one university from each province has participated in the first cash transfer, and at least one in the second cash transfer.  All three women’s universities that participated in the two programs have been included. These three will be excluded from the gender profile of scholarship beneficiaries so that the sample is not biased.  In order to economize on the field work and LOE, and to the extent possible:  Universities that have participated in both Cash Transfer programs have been included; and,  Cities where at least two or three universities are located have been preferred to those where only one university is located.  Security concerns have been taken into account; for example, in Balochistan only the universities in Quetta have been selected. Table 3 illustrates the percent estimates of the universities included in the sample. The tentative list of selected universities in which all four provinces are represented has been provided as Annex 3. This selection could change due to logistical or other constraints. TABLE 3: PERCENT ESTIMATE OF SELECTED UNIVERSITIES First Cash Transfer Second Cash Transfer Total A No. of participating universities 32 21 53 B No. of selected universities 12 8 20 C B as % of A 37.5 57.1 37.7 Data Sources The evaluation team will collect secondary data from HEC for all universities participating in either of the Cash Transfer programs. The team will visit a sample of these universities to collect primary data from university officials and students. Specific data collection plans are detailed below. 61 Region refers to Islamabad Capital Territory (ICT) 75 Document Review: The evaluation team will collect and review all relevant project documents from all sources identified during the evaluation. Relevant reports include the HEC’s Medium Term Development Framework (2011-2015), annual program reports, program agreement documents, financial audit reports, program management manuals, Performance Management Plans and evaluation and assessment reports. It will be essential that the team has access to the universities’ financial records to get an idea of the financial situation before the infusion of USAID funds. HEC’s cooperation will be essential for gaining access to this data. Key Informant Interviews: The evaluation team will conduct semi-structured interviews with relevant HEC and USAID officials and other stakeholders (e.g. Economic Affairs Division (EAD), Ministry of Economic Affairs and Statistics). Most importantly, however, the Team will conduct interviews with University Officials such as the Vice Chancellor, Dean, and the Registrar. At least three university officials will be interviewed in 16 universities; therefore, the expected number of respondents will be approximately 48. The interviews will focus on the extent to which the two Cash Transfer Programs have contributed to the objectives, missions, and financial viability of their respective organizations. The interviews will also explore management of the Cash Transfer programs with emphasis on the financial effects of the transferred amount on the universities’ financial statements. For this reason it will be essential to interview officials from the finance department. For the second cash transfer, key informant interviews with faculty members will also be conducted which will assess the relevance of and satisfaction with the laboratory equipment provided under the program. Two to three faculty members will be selected from each of the 9 universities. Hence, the selected sample will comprise of 18-27 faculty members, in total. Survey: The evaluation team expects to conduct a survey to collect primary data from student beneficiaries of the second cash transfer program. A survey of student beneficiaries of the lab equipment will assess their views of the appropriateness of and satisfaction with the equipment as well as their perceptions of the U.S. and American people. The team will administer the survey to a representative sample of 30 current students from each of the 9 universities selected for site visits. Hence, there will be a total of 270 survey respondents. We will request every university where equipment has been provided to give us the list of names of students who are using the equipment. From this list, we will select 40 names randomly, aiming to include 30 students in the survey, and request the university to ensure their presence for the survey on an agreed date. If the universities are unable to provide us the required lists a week before the start of the survey, we will request them to ensure the presence of any 30 students who can conveniently come for the survey. There is no selection bias in either approach. The survey instruments and interview guides will be: (a) drafted by the MEP staff before the TPM and in consultation with the Team Leader; (b) reviewed and revised during the TPM, at which time USAID is also invited to join the team; and (c) submitted for USAID approval during the TPM process, if required. Secondary data from HEC and university records: The evaluation team expects to be able to obtain quantitative data on scholarship recipients, financial records and laboratory equipment from HEC and beneficiary universities. 76 Methodological Strengths and Limitations The evaluation methodology relies on triangulation of sources and methods to ensure validity and reliability of the results. The scope of this evaluation is limited to answering the evaluation questions and to the extent that they can be operationally defined. However, the completeness and accuracy of electronic and other data available from HEC and the universities will influence the type and quality of analyses that the evaluation team can perform. The answer to Evaluation Question 4 regarding scholarships given to IDPs in the first cash transfer will be based on the information available with the universities and will not involve the students. This question does not require attribution as it is recognized that counterfactual is not available. The answer to Evaluation Question 2 will depend on availability of data from selected universities and other secondary sources. Team Composition The evaluation will be conducted largely with MSI/MEP staff. The field team will be external comprising of two full￾time MEP staff, a half time survey coordinator and two consultants. These individuals will be responsible for designing survey instruments and interview guides, administering survey, conducting interviews, analyzing survey and qualitative data and writing the final report. The evaluation team will include the following areas of expertise:  Evaluation, in accordance with USAID accepted principles and methods; and  Higher education and economic development. The evaluation team leader will be responsible for designing and implementing the evaluation and for writing the report. The external consultants must possess the following skills:  Advanced degree in Education, Sociology, Psychology or Economics and fifteen years’ experience researching educational issues in Pakistan;  Technical knowledge of and experience in the workings of university budgetary processes;  Technical knowledge of and experience in evaluating student scholarship programs will be an added advantage;  A strong knowledge of processes and institutions involved in administering financial assistance in educational institutions; and  Experience working as part of an evaluation team. As part of the internal peer review process, MEP Technical Director will advise on all aspects of the evaluation process from design and implementation to review of report prior to submission to USAID. Work Plan and Deliverables The evaluation covers the entire program period. It will proceed in five main phases – planning, document review, fieldwork/data collection, data analysis and reporting. This section describes the general tasks in each of these phases. 77 Evaluation Planning During the planning phase, MEP will develop a detailed SOW based on a draft SOW provided by USAID. The detailed SOW will serve as the evaluation work plan. Once USAID approves the detailed SOW, the evaluation team will request additional background documents and data from USAID and the implementing partners. Deliverables: The detailed SOW, which serves as an initial work plan for the evaluation is the key deliverable of the first phase. Document review: Prior to the team planning meeting (TPM) and fieldwork, the evaluation team will conduct a comprehensive review of the relevant literature. The review will contribute to evaluation planning and instrument design as well as reporting. Team Planning Meeting (TPM) A TPM, facilitated by MEP and attended by all evaluation team members, is planned before the start of the fieldwork. The main objective of the TPM is to understand the evaluation requirements, agree on roles and responsibilities of various team members, finalize survey instrument and interview guides and refine the evaluation approach. USAID and, if feasible, implementing partner representatives will attend portions of the TPM to brief the team on the programs, contribute to developing the instruments and facilitate fieldwork planning. Fieldwork Fieldwork consists of site visits, semi-structured interviews, surveys and secondary data collection described in the methodology section of this SOW. Analysis Data collected during field work will be analyzed using appropriate methods keeping in view the evaluation questions. Reporting At the conclusion of the fieldwork, the evaluation team will prepare and deliver a debriefing presentation to USAID and, with USAID approval, implementing partners or other stakeholders. The evaluation team will incorporate comments from the presentation(s) into a draft report. After a thorough technical review, editing and branding, MSI will deliver the draft report to USAID – and to implementing partners, if appropriate - for review and comment. Once MSI receives comments on the draft report, the evaluation team will revise the report accordingly, send the report to the MSI home office for a final technical review and then deliver the final report to USAID. Deliverables The deliverables for this evaluation are: 1) Final SOW, including final evaluation questions, clear methodology and approach for each component of the evaluation linked with the evaluation questions, selection list of universities to participate in the evaluation, and sampling methods and confidence levels; approved by USAID following the TPM; 2) Survey instrument and interview guides approved by USAID/PMU; 3) A debriefing presentation to USAID; 4) A draft evaluation report; and 78 5) A final evaluation report. Note that field work will not commence until deliverables 1 through 2 are completed. The evaluation report will follow standard guidelines as laid out in Appendix 1 of USAID’S Evaluation Policy (attached as Annex 4) and ADS. The evaluation report will follow the structure given below:  Title page  Table of Contents  List of any acronyms, tables, or charts (if any)  Acknowledgements or preface (optional)  Executive summary (not to exceed 3-5 pages)  Introductory chapter (not to exceed 3 pages). This section will include:  A description of the activities evaluated, including goals and objectives.  Brief statement of why the project was evaluated, including a list of the main evaluation questions.  Brief statement on the methods used in the evaluation such as desk/document review, interviews, site visits, surveys, etc.  Findings and Conclusions – This section will include findings and conclusions for each evaluation question.  Recommendations – This section will include actionable statements of what remains to be done, consistent with the evaluation’s purpose, and based on the evaluation’s findings and conclusions. It will provide judgments on what changes need to be made for future USAID financial and cooperative development programming. This section will also recommend ways to improve the performance of future USAID programming and project implementation; ways to solve problems this project has faced; identify adjustments/corrections that need to be made; and recommend actions and/or decisions to be taken by management.  Annexes  Statement of Work  List of document consulted  List of individuals and agencies contacted  Methodology description  Copies of all survey instruments, questionnaires, and data  Statement of Differences (if applicable)  Evaluation Team Bios 79 Evaluation Management Logistics In terms of logistics, this assignment requires:  Travel to four provinces and ICT by the five team members mentioned above; and  Access to key informants and student beneficiaries from the sample universities, for which assistance from HEC will be required. 80 Scheduling The tentative schedule outlined above is shown in the form of a Gantt chart in this section. November December January February Activity w2 w3 w4 w1 w2 w3 w4 w1 w2 w3 w4 w1 w2 Review of Documents: Nov. 7-13 Team Planning Meeting, incl. USAID and IPs: Nov. 14-16 Data Collection and initial chapters: Nov. 19- Dec. 10 Data Coding and Entry: Nov. 19–Dec 10 Data Analysis, initiate report writing, F-C-R, debriefing presentation: Dec. 11-20 Report Writing Dec. 21-27 Internal review, revision: Dec 28- Jan 16 Editing/Branding: Jan. 17-23 Draft Report 81 Submission, review by USAID: Jan. 23-29 Incorporate USAID's feedback, editing/ branding: Jan 30-Feb 13 Final Report Submission: Feb. 14 82 Budgeting The following table reports estimates of the Level of Effort (LOE) of the team: TABLE 1: LEVEL OF EFFORT OF TEAM MEMBERS Tasks Level of Effort (days) Team Leader (STTA) Education Expert (STTA) Research & Evaluation Officer (LTTA) Research & Evaluation Officer (LTTA) Survey Coordinator (LTTA) Review of Documents 5 5 5 5 Team Planning Meeting 4 4 4 4 2 Field work: KIIs and student survey 13 13 13 13 14 Data analysis, initiate report writing, presentation prep. 7 7 2 2 2 Presentation to USAID, report writing 8 8 2 2 Revision of Report 3 3 Finalize report 2 2 Total 42 42 26 26 18 83 SOW ANNEXES SOW Annex 1: List of Universities Name of University 1st Cash Transfer 2nd Cash Transfer Khyber Pakhtunkhwa University of Peshawar, Peshawar X X Sheikh Zayed Islamic Center, University of Peshawar, Peshawar X Center of Excellence in Geology, University of Peshawar, Peshawar X Frontier Women University, Peshawar X X NWFP/Khyber Pakhtunkhwa University of Agriculture, Peshawar X X NWFP/Khyber Pakhtunkhwa University of Engineering and Technology, Peshawar X X Islamia College University, Peshawar X Khyber Medical University, Peshawar X Institute of Management Sciences, Peshawar X Scientific Instrumentation Center, UET, Peshawar X Gomal University, Dera Ismail Khan X Kohat University of Science and Tech, Kohat X University of Malakand, Chakdara X Hazara University, Mansehra X Kohat University of Science and Technology, Kohat X University of Science and Technology, Bannu X Abdul Wali Khan University, Mardan X COMSATS Institute of IT, Abbotabad X Balochistan University of Balochistan, Quetta X Balochistan University of IT and Management Sciences, Quetta X Sardar Bahadur Khan Women University, Quetta X X Lasbela University of Agriculture, Water and Marine Sciences, Uthal X X Balochistan University of Engineering and Technology, Khuzdar X Punjab Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan X Islamia University, Bahawalpur X Seerat Chair, Islamia University, Bahawalpur X University of Arid Agriculture, Rawalpindi X 84 Name of University 1st Cash Transfer 2nd Cash Transfer University of Engineering and Technology, Taxila X University of Agriculture, Faisalabad X Lahore College for Women University, Lahore X University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore X University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Lahore X University of Sargodha, Sargodha X Sindh Hamdard University, Karachi X University of Karachi, Karachi X H.E.J Research Institute of Chemistry, University of Karachi, Karachi X NED University of Engineering and Technology, Karachi X Mehran University of Engineering and Technology, Jamshoro X Quaid-e-Awam University of Engineering Science and Technology, Nawabshah X Sindh Agriculture University, Tandojam X Gilgit Baltistan Karakurram International University, Gilgit X Islamabad Capital Territory Pakistan Institute of Development Economics (PIDE), Islamabad X Quaid-e-Azam University, Islamabad X Federal Urdu University of Arts, S&T, Islamabad X National University of Modern Languages, Islamabad X International Islamic University, Islamabad X National University of Computer and Emerging Sciences (FAST), Islamabad X Total 32 21 85 SOW Annex 2: Initial Getting To Answers (G2A) Table62 Evaluation Question Data Collection Type of Answer/ Evidence Methods Source Sampling/Selection Data Analysis Methods Q1. What were the financial effects that the programs had on universities? Descriptive, statistical (comparison of with and without cash transfer situations) Semi-structured interviews, document review Interviews with university officials (finance dept.). University financial documents. Selected universities (12 for each CT, with 5 overlapping universities) Use content analysis of interviews to determine the financial effects of Cash Transfer Programs. Analysis of pre- cash transfer financial situation. Q2. How equitably have scholarships under the First Cash Transfer been distributed by gender? Statistical Document review HEC and partner universities’ records 12 Selected universities Tabulation of awarded scholarships by gender. Q3. Have the faculty and students benefitted from the equipment provided under the second cash transfer? Descriptive￾Statistical Semi-structured interviews; Survey Interviews with faculty, staff; Survey of student beneficiaries 9 Selected universities Tabulation of survey results. Q4. What were the results of the Cash Transfer Programs in terms of helping universities continue their key activities (First and Second Cash Transfers) and students continue their education (First Cash Transfer)? Descriptive - Statistical (Comparing planned vs. actual outputs/outcomes) Document review, Semi Structured Interviews. Project records of both Cash Transfers; Annual/Monthly progress/monitorin g reports. Selected USAID and HEC personnel. University Staff and Officials Comparison of outputs with outlined objectives, disaggregated by gender and field of specialization. 62 The G2A will be elaborated during the Team Planning Meeting (TPM) 86 Evaluation Question Data Collection Type of Answer/ Evidence Methods Source Sampling/Selection Data Analysis Methods Q5. To what extent have the Cash Transfer programs contributed to USAID’s Development Objectives (DOs) and Intermediate Results (IRs), mentioned above, in Pakistan? Descriptive, statistical. Semi-structured interviews; survey Interviews with USAID personnel, HEC officials, faculty and staff of universities and other stakeholders); Survey of student beneficiaries Selected USAID and HEC personnel, university officials; selected sample of students and faculty benefiting from lab equipment. Use content analysis of interviews to determine how HEC Cash Transfers contribute to goals and objectives. Use quantitative analysis of survey results to measure beneficiary satisfaction and perception regarding the U.S. 87 SOW Annex 3: Universities Selected for Data Collection Visits Name of University 1st Cash Transfer 2nd Cash Transfer Khyber Pakhtunkhwa University of Peshawar, Peshawar X X Frontier Women University, Peshawar X X NWFP/Khyber Pakhtunkhwa University of Agriculture, Peshawar X X NWFP/Khyber Pakhtunkhwa University of Engineering and Technology, Peshawar X X Hazara University, Mansehra X Balochistan Sardar Bahadur Khan Women University, Quetta X X Balochistan University of IT and Management Sciences, Quetta X Punjab Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan X Islamia University, Bahawalpur X Seerat Chair, Islamia University, Bahawalpur X Lahore College for Women University, Lahore X Sindh Hamdard University, Karachi X University of Karachi, Karachi X NED University of Engineering and Technology, Karachi X Mehran University of Engineering and Technology, Jamshoro X Islamabad Capital Territory Quaid-e-Azam University, Islamabad X Total 12 9 88 SOW Annex 4: Reporting Guidelines - Criteria to Ensure Quality of Evaluation Report  The evaluation report should represent a thoughtful, well-researched and well organized effort to objectively evaluate what worked in the project, what did not and why.  Evaluation reports shall address all evaluation questions included in the scope of work.  The evaluation report should include the scope of work as an annex. All modifications to the scope of work, whether in technical requirements, evaluation questions, evaluation team composition, methodology, or timeline need to be agreed upon in writing by PMU’s technical officer.  Evaluation methodology shall be explained in detail and all tools used in conducting the evaluation such as questionnaires, checklists and discussion guides will be included in an Annex in the final report.  Evaluation findings will assess outcomes and impact on males and females.  Limitations to the evaluation shall be disclosed in the report, with particular attention to the limitations associated with the evaluation methodology (selection bias, recall bias, unobservable differences between comparator groups, etc.).  Evaluation findings should be presented as analyzed facts, evidence, and data and not based on anecdotes, hearsay or the compilation of people’s opinions. Findings should be specific, concise and supported by strong quantitative or qualitative evidence.  Sources of information need to be properly identified and listed in an annex.  Recommendations need to be supported by a specific set of findings.  Recommendations should be action-oriented, practical, and specific, with defined responsibility for the action SOW Annex 5: List of Documents Reviewed Cash Transfer Grant Agreement Between the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan With Respect To The Emergency Supplemental Funding, 2009 Proposal for Financial Support to Universities in NWFP, Balochistan, Southern Punjab & FATA, Higher Education Commission, 2010 Attachment 5, Cash Transfer Grant Agreement, Grant No. 391-012, as amended Implementation Letter no. 6, 2011 89 ANNEX 6: DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS HEC Cash Transfer Program Survey Questionnaires for Institution Officials/Faculty Cash Transfer Program Questionnaire for Director Finance/Treasurer Name of Institutions: ______________________________________________________________ Name Person interviewed: _______________________ Designation: ________________________ Name Interviewer:______________________________ Date: ________________ Time: ________ Director Finance, Treasurer or their representative will be asked the following questions. The purpose is to understand the financial condition of the university before and after the Cash Transfer Program. Q1. What is size of this year budget? Budget in PKR _____________________ Q2. What are the sources of funding for your university? a. Government □ b. Tuition fee □ c. Donor agencies □ d. Private Donations □ e. Others [Specify]: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Q3. What percentage of fund is contributed from each of the following sources? a. Government -----------% b. Tuition fee -----------% c. Donor -----------% d. Private Donations -----------% e. Others -----------% Q4. Cash Transfer Program has helped the university in [Check all that apply] a. Temporary relief in budget □ b. Improved educational facilities □ c. Improved image of university □ d. Improved confidence of faculty in the university □ e. increased dependence on others resources □ 90 f. Improved image of USA □ Q5. What were the financial problems faced by the university when the cash grant was made available? Elaborate__________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ Q6. If no cash grant was available at that time, what had been the consequences on the financial health or programs of the university? Elaborate________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ Q7. Were there other sources of funding available when the cash grant was provided? Elaborate__________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ Q8. In the first Cash Transfer (FCT), University was provided funds for the scholarship of IDP students. Do you think the students would have dropped out due to the shortage of funds? ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ Q9. The Second Cash Transfer (SCT) provided funds for the development projects proposed by your university. If the SCT was not provided, what would have happened to the development projects? ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ 91 Cash Transfer Program Questionnaire for Vice Chancellor Name of Institutions: ______________________________________________________________ Name Person interviewed: _______________________ Designation: _______________________ Name Interviewer:______________________________ Date: ________________ Time: ________ Q1. Is your university currently facing financial problems? ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Q2. If yes, what is the nature and extent of the financial problem? ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Q3. Was your university facing financial challenges at the disbursement time of cash grant? 1=YES □ 2=NO □ Q4. If yes, would you like to elaborate? ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Q5. If no cash grant was available at that time, what would have been the consequences on the financial health or the programs of the university? 92 ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Q6. Apart from budgetary relief, what benefit(s) resulted due to the Cash Transfer Program assistance? ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Q7. Do you have advice/suggestions for improving future cash transfer programs to support Higher Education? Below are guideline questions for the interviewer for asking the above given questions. What are the current financial constraints faced by University? Items a. Are you facing funds shortage b. Restricted growth due to funds constraints c. Existing programs are under threat due to funds constraints d. More faculty hiring is stopped e. Existing faculty is reduced due to funds’ shortage f. Existing programs are being shunned due to funds limitation g. Support staff is reduced h. Lab supplies are restricted 93 Effect of Cash Transfer Program and HEC Indicators Items a. CTP helped develop new programs b. CTP helped strengthen existing programs c. CTP helped increase journal publications d. CTP helped improve number of conference papers by faculty and students e. CTP helped retain students f. CTP helped retain Faculty g. CTP helped develop labs h. CTP helped developed new buildings for academics HEC Indicators a. Has the CTP helped in Faculty development b. Has the CTP helped in Quality assurance c. Has the CTP helped in research, innovation and entrepreneurship d. Has the CTP helped in improve equitable access e. Has the CTP helped in Excellence in leadership and governance f. Has the CTP helped in Financial management and sustainability 94 Cash Transfer Program Questionnaire for Professor/Program Coordinator/lab In-charge Name of Institutions: ______________________________________________________________ Name Person interviewed: _______________________ Designation: _______________________ Name Interviewer:______________________________ Date: ________________ Time: ________ This survey is for the lab in-charge including professors and program coordinators. Q1. Who do you think have provided the funds for the lab equipment? Q2. How was the fund used for the lab? a. Installation of New Lab. □ b. Expansion in existing Lab. □ Q3. What subjects does this lab cover? a. Physics □ b. Chemistry □ c. Biology □ d. Information Technology □ e. Others [Specify]: ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q4. How has the installation or expansion of this lab facility benefited the faculty? Items Yes No Don’t Know a. Research in this area has increased b. Equipment is a good substitute of old experimental equipment c. Conference paper presentation increased d. Journal paper submission increased e. Equipment consume less costly inputs than previous versions f. This equipment can be used by many students at one time 95 g. Industrial liaison increased h. Other [Specify]: Q5. How has the installation or expansion of this lab facility benefited students? Items Yes No Don’t Know a. Research of students in this area has increased b. Conference paper presentation increased c. Journal paper submission increased d. Students are better prepared for job market e. Other [specify]: Q6. Does the acquired lab equipment used for research/experiments related to a. Agriculture (Engineering) □ b. Water (Engineering) □ c. Energy (Engineering) □ Q7. How has the lab equipment improved access to High Quality Education? a. Easy to use □ b. Previously such equipment was missing □ c. Equipment enabled start MS program □ d. Equipment enabled start PhD program □ e. Equipment enabled start post doc program □ f. More publication become possibility □ g. Other [Specify]: _________________________________________________________ Q6. How has the lab equipment improved Educational Opportunities for the students? a. New disciplines started due to availability of equipment □ b. University got connected with international research facilities □ c. Students got connected to global level scholars and research □ 96 d. Other [Specify]: _________________________________________________________ Q7. How has it improved Educational Facilities? a. Wider range of research □ b. Working environment improved □ c. Work stations has increased □ Q8. How many students use the lab every day? a. No. of Male Students. ------------ b. No. of Female Students. ------------ Q9. How many hours is the lab used every day? a. Number of Hours: ------------ Q10. How many students were present in the lab at the time of the visit? a. No. of Male Students. ------------ b. No. of Female Students. ------------ Q11. How many BS, MS. and Ph.D. students use the lab every day? a. No. of BS. Students. ------------ b. No. of MS. Students. ------------ c. No. of Ph.D. Students. ------------ Q12. How many conference papers have been presented based on the lab use/experiments during the last one year? a. Number of conference papers produced: ------------ Q13. How many journal papers have been produced based on the lab use/experiments during the last one year? a. Number of journal papers produced: ------------ 97 HEC Cash Transfer Program Survey Questionnaire for Student Beneficiaries Evaluation of HEC: Emergency Cash Transfer Program and University Development Program (Questionnaire for Students) سوالنامہ برائے طلباء Version 3 (English) November 2012 This survey is part of an evaluation of the HEC Emergency Cash Transfer Program and University Development Program. You have been chosen to participate in this survey because you are a user of lab equipment provided through this program. Your responses to this survey will help us in identifying the effect of such equipment on the learning of students. Your response is very important. Answering the questions will take about 15-20 minutes. Please be assured that your answers will be kept strictly confidential. We will not share the survey data with anyone and will not identify individual responses in reports. Thank you in advance for your assistance with this important survey. 98 No. Description/Instruction Options/Codes Field No. and Field Name Response 1. Which degree are you enrolled in? آپ کس ڈگری پروگرام میں انرولڈ ہیں؟ بیچلرز ڈگرى degree Bachelors = 1 ماسٹر ڈگرى degree Masters = 2 ایم فل Phil.M = 3 پی ایچ ڈی D.Ph = 4 DEGREE 2. What is the field of your current degree? آپ کی موجودہ تعلیم کس فیلڈ میں ہیں؟ زراعت Agriculture = 1 کیمسٹری Chemistry = 2 3 = Information technology انفارمیشن ٹیکنولوجی 4 = Engineering انجینرنگ میڈیکل Medical = 5 FIELD 77 = Other [specify]: _____________ دیگر تحریر کریں : 3. In which semester/year are you studying now? آپ اس وقت کون سے سیمسٹر /سال میں پڑھ رہیں ہیں؟ SEMESTER 4. Which university are you currently attending? آپ اس وقت کون سی یونیورسٹی میں پڑھ رہیں ہیں؟ 1 = University of Peshawar, Peshawar 2 = Frontier Women University, Peshawar 3 = NWFP/Khyber Pakhtunkhwa University of Agriculture, Peshawar 4 = NWFP/Khyber Pakhtunkhwa University of Engineering and Technology, Peshawar 5 = Sardar Bahadur Khan Women University, Quetta 6 = Lahore College for Women University, Lahore UNIVNAME 99 No. Description/Instruction Options/Codes Field No. and Field Name Response 7 = University of Karachi, Karachi 8 = NED University of Engineering and Technology, Karachi 9 = Mehran University of Engineering and Technology, Jamshoro 5. Are you male or female? آپ کی جنس کیا ہیں؟ مرد Male = 1 2 = Female عورت SEX 6. Which is your domicile province/region? آپ کے پاس کس عالقے / صوبے کا ڈومیسا یل ہیں؟ 1 = Azad Jammu and Kashmir 2 = Balochistan 3 = FATA 4 = Gilgit-Baltistan 5 = Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 6 = Punjab 7 = Sindh DOMICILE 7. In what year were you born? آپ کس سال میں پیدا ہویں؟ [Enter year of birth] Year of birth YROFBIRTH 8. How many times have you used this lab last month? پچھلے ماہ آپ نے لیب میں کتنی دفعہ کام کیا؟ کبھی استعمال نہیں used Never = 0 LABUSE کیا 9. How long ago was the last time you used this lab? آخری دفعہ آپ نے کب لیب استعمال کی؟ 1 = During the last 30 days پیچھلے 00 دنوں کے دوران۔ 2 = More than 30 days and less than 90 days 00 دنوں سے زاید اور 00 دنوں سے کم 3 = Longer than 90 days 00 دنوں سے زیادہ LASTUSE 10. Have you been enrolled in a course during the last three months that required the use of this lab? ہاں Yes = 1 2 = No نہیں COURSELAB 100 No. Description/Instruction Options/Codes Field No. and Field Name Response کیا آپ پچھلے تین مہینوں کسی ایسے کورس میں ریجسٹر رہیں ہیں جس میں یہ لیب استعمال ہوتی ہوں؟ 11. What problems have you faced in using the lab? [you may select more than one reason] آپ کو لیب استعمال کرنے میں کیا مشکالت پیش آتی ہے؟ ]آپ ایک سے زیادہ وجوہات کا انتخاب کر سکتے ہیں[ 1 = Lab is not open when needed or convenient لیب ضرورت کے وقت بند ہوتی ہیں۔ 2 = Equipment is locked or not available when needed ایکومنٹ تالے میں ہوتا ہے یا موجود نہیں ہوتا۔ 3 = Equipment is broken or does not work ایکومنٹ ٹوٹا ہوتا ہے یا کام نہیں کرتا۔ 4 = Some ingredients (e.g., water, chemicals, etc.) are not available. کچھ ضروری اجزء ]پانی، کیمیکل وغیرہ[ موجود نہیں ہوتے۔ 5 = The lab is often over-crowded لیب میں اکثر ہجوم رہتا ہے۔ 6 = Frequent load-shedding اکثر و بیشتر لوڈشیڈنگ رہتی ہے۔ PROBSLAB 77 = Other [specify]: _____________ دیگر تحریر کریں : 12. Have you used this lab as part of your work on a research project? کیا آپ نے اپنے ریشرچ پروجیکٹ میں اس لیب کو استعمال کیا ہیں۔ ہاں Yes = 1 2 = No نہیں RESHPROJ 13. Have you presented a research paper in a conference based on your work in this lab? نہیں No = 1 2 = Yes, National Conference ہاں، نیشنل کونفرس میں RESPAPCON 101 No. Description/Instruction Options/Codes Field No. and Field Name Response کیا آپ نے کسی کونفرنس میں اپنا ریسرچ پیپر پیش کیا ہیں جس کی بنیاد اس لیب میں کیا ہوا کام ہو؟ 3 = Yes, International Conference ہاں، انٹرنیشنل کونفرس میں 14. Have you published a research paper in journal based on your work in this lab? کیا آپ نے کسی جرنل میں اپنا ریسرچ پیپر شائع کیا ہیں جس کی بنیاد اس لیب میں کیا ہوا کام ہو ؟ نہیں No = 1 2 = Yes, National Journal ہاں، نیشنل جرنل میں 3 = Yes, International Journal ہاں، انٹرنیشنل جرنل میں RESPAPJOR 15. How do you rate the quality of equipment in the lab? آپ کے خیال میں لیب کے ایکومنٹس کی کوالٹی کیسی ہیں؟ بہت خراب Poor Very = 1 خراب poor = 2 اچھا Good = 3 بہت اچھا good Very = 4 EQUIPQLTY 16. How satisfied are you with the quality of guidance provided by the teacher/instructor in this lab? آپ لیب کے حوالے سے اپنے ٹیچر / انسٹرکٹر کی رہنمائی سے کس حد تک مطمئن ہیں؟ بہت غیر مطمئن unsatisfied very = 1 غیر مطمئن unsatisfied = 2 مطمئن satisfied = 3 بہت مطمئن satisfied very = 4 GUIDQLTY 17. How satisfied are you with the guidance and help received from teachers/instructors regarding usage of lab equipments? آپ لیب میں موجود آالت کے استعمال کے بارے میں اپنے استاد / انسٹرکٹر کی دی جانے ہدایات اور مدد سے کس حد تک مطمئن ہیں؟ بہت غیر مطمئن unsatisfied Very = 1 غیر مطمئن Unsatisfied = 2 مطمئن Satisfied = 3 4 = Very satisfied مطمئن بہت SHELPQLTY 18. Do you know who provided funds for this equipment? یونیورسٹی University = 1 2 = HEC (Higher Education Commission) ہایر ایجوکیشن کمیشن FUNDSORCE 102 No. Description/Instruction Options/Codes Field No. and Field Name Response آپ کے خیال میں٘ ان لیب ایکومنٹس کے لیے کس نے رقم فراہم کی؟ 3 = Donor [Name: ________________] آمداد فراہم کرنے واال ادارہ ]نام لکھیں---------[ 4 = Other [specify]: دیگر تحریر کریں ---------------------------: 19. Have you seen any logo on the equipment you use? کیا آپ نے ان ایکومنٹس پے کسی قسم کا کوئی لوگو دیکھا ہے؟ ہاں Yes = 1 نہیں No = 2 EQUIPLOGO 20. If yes, do you recall which logo it was? اگر ہاں، تو کیا آپ بتا سکتے ہیں کے یہ لوگو کس کا تھا؟ RECALOGO 21. Please tell me if you have a very favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable or very unfavorable opinion of the United States. [ Circle one number] برائے مہربانى بتائيے کہ آپ کا امريکہ کے بارے ميں تاثر بہت موافق، کچھـ حد تک موافق، کچھـ حد تک غيرموافق يا بہت غيرموافق ہے؟ ]کسى ايک پر دائرہ لگائيں[ Very favorable بہت موافق Somewhat favorable کچھـ حد تک موافق Somewhat unfavorable کچھـ حد تک غيرموافق Very unfavorable بہت غيرموافق Don’t know/ Refused معلوم نہيں / انکار 1 2 3 4 5 22. Please tell me if you have a very favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable or very unfavorable opinion of American people. [ Circle one number] برائے مہربانى بتائيے کہ آپ کا امريکى عوام کے بارے Very favorable بہت موافق Somewhat favorable کچھـ حد تک موافق Somewhat unfavorable کچھـ حد تک غيرموافق Very unfavorable بہت غيرموافق Don’t know/ Refused معلوم نہيں / انکار 1 2 3 4 5 103 No. Description/Instruction Options/Codes Field No. and Field Name Response ميں تاثر بہت موافق، کچھـ حد تک موافق، کچھـ حد تک غيرموافق يا بہت غيرموافق ہے؟ ]کسى ايک پر دائرہ لگائيں[ Thank you for your participation. 104 ANNEX 7: MEP EVALUATION TEAM BIOS Mr. Ghazanfar Ali Khan Hoti is a full-time staff member of the MEP Evaluation Unit. He has expertise in bank examining and project evaluations, and has worked on the MEP evaluation of MNBSP. Previously he worked as a consultant with the Independent Evaluation Group of the World Bank in Washington DC. He holds a Master’s in Public Administration (Economic Policy Management) and Master of Science (Operations Research) from Columbia University, USA. Mr. Ahmad Jameel has considerable experience in the issues of tertiary education in Pakistan and worked as a consultant in the evaluation of MNBSP. He has also been associated with the training and management of university staff under USAID programs. Ms. Sara Azmat Zaidi is a full-time Research and Evaluation Officer at MEP. She has four years of experience in education policy, trainings, and media. She holds a Master’s in Education Policy, Planning and Administration (International Educational Development) from Boston University, USA. Ms. Fatima Abbas is a full-time Research and Evaluation Officer at MEP. She has worked at national and international organizations, and commercial banks in Pakistan, Singapore, and Thailand. Her areas of research and policy analysis include poverty alleviation, aid governance, and econometrics across the sectors of health, infrastructure, water and sanitation, education, gender, security studies, and industrial policy. As part of her experience with MEP, Ms. Abbas has co-managed the final evaluation of the Family Advancement for Life and Health (FALAH) project, the Gender Analysis of USAID’s Energy Sector, the Gender Analysis of Pakistan Expanded Regional Stabilization Initiative (PERSI), and the Evaluation Design and Baseline Study of Municipal Services Program (MSP). She also co-authored the final report on Evaluation Design and Baseline Study of MSP. Mr. Muhammad Danish is a full-time survey coordinator of the MEP Survey Unit. His expertise includes survey design, questionnaire development, sampling, survey implementation, data processing and initial data analysis. He has conducted various thematic and sector surveys including surveys on prospects of UK-based school-level qualifications in Pakistan for the British Council, British Council Partnership mapping study (Education and Technical Skills Programs). Mr. Syed Hijazi is an experienced Pakistani consultant. His work experience spans more than 30 years, and he has worked in various capacities at national and international development organizations. He holds a Ph.D. in Development Economics from Clark University, USA. 105 Bibliography “Attachment 5 to the Cash Transfer Grant Agreement USAID Grant No. 391-012, as amended Implementation Letter No. 6 dated June 29, 2011,” July 8, 2011. “Cash Transfer Grant Agreement Between The United States of America And The Islamic Republic of Pakistan With Respect To The Emergency Supplemental Funding,” USAID Agreement no. 391-012, September 30, 2009. "Chapter 10. Education, Pakistan Economic Survey 2009-10." Ministry of Finance, Government of Pakistan. Accessed on January 1, 2013. Retrieved from: http://www.finance.gov.pk/survey_0910.html. HEC, “Proposal for Financial Support to Universities in NWFP, Balochistan, Southern Punjab & FATA,” December 29, 2010. “International Crisis Group: Pakistan's IDP Crisis: Challenges and Opportunities”, Asia Briefing No. 93, 3 June 2009, Retrieved from: http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/regions/asia/south-asia/pakistan/B093-pakistans-idp-crisis￾challenges-and-opportunities.aspx. Letter (U.O. No. 1 (14)/DS(IA-III)/2009) to Secretary, Finance Division; Secretary, Interior Division; Secretary, Education Division; Secretary, Health Division; Secretary, Managing Director BISP; Chief Secretary, Government of NWFP; Secretary, Revenue Division (FBR); Chairman, NAVTEC; Chairman, NADRA; COS to Corps. Commander, HQs 1 Corps., Peshawar from Syed Ghazanfar Abbas Jilani, Joint Secretary dated May 28, 2009. Medium-Term Development Framework II 2011-15, Higher Education Commission of Pakistan. "Section III, Labor Force Survey 2010-11.” Pakistan Bureau of Statistics, Government of Pakistan. Accessed on 5 Jan. 2013. Retrieved from: http://www.pbs.gov.pk/content/labour-force-survey-2010-11. USAID, “Minutes from Monitoring Meeting Trip, Peshawar, 19-22 December 2010,” pg. 11. World Bank. http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTEDUCATION/EXTDATASTATISTICS/EXTEDSTATS /0,,contentMDK:21605891~menuPK:3409559~pagePK:64168445~piPK:64168309~theSitePK:3232764,00.html. HEC. http://www.hec.gov.pk/InsideHEC/Divisions/Finance/Documents/Expenditure%20on%20Higher%20Education%20as %20Percent%20of%20GDP.pdf. 106 Databases  Detailed list of scholarship recipients (IDP students) from HEC and the following universities:  University of Peshawar, Peshawar  Shaheed Benazir Bhutto Women University, Peshawar  Agriculture University, Peshawar  Khyber Pakhtunkhwa University of Engineering and Technology, Peshawar  Hazara University, Mansehra  Balochistan University of IT, Engineering and Management Sciences, Quetta  Hamdard University, Karachi  Quaid-e-Azam University, Islamabad  Financial information obtained from the 16 sample universities 107 U.S. Agency for International Development/Pakistan American Embassy RAMNA 5, Diplomatic Enclave Islamabad