Tertiary Education Linkages Project (TELP)
674-0315
Mid-Term Evaluation Report
September 2000
Submitted to USAID/South Africa 
and the TELP Advisory Panel
Academy for Educational Development
IQC-674-I-00-00-00006-003
Evaluation Team
Gretta Middleton, Senior Evaluation Leader
Michael Rice, Evaluator
Consultants
Philip Christensen, Activity Manager
Michael Cross, Policy Specialist
Amanda Fitschen, Finance Specialist
Howard Williams, Evaluation Methodology Specialist
Table of Contents
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
2. INTRODUCTION 4
2.1 EVALUATION PURPOSE AND AUDIENCE 4
2.2 METHODOLOGY 5
2.2.1 STRATEGY 5
2.2.2 REFERENCE GROUP 6
2.2.3 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 7
2.2.4 SAMPLING 8
2.2.5 DATA COLLECTION 9
3. BACKGROUND 11
3.1 HIGHER EDUCATION AND HDIS: CONTEXT AND CONSTRAINTS 11
3.2 RECENT DEVELOPMENTS AND NEW CHALLENGES 11
4. USAID’S ASSISTANCE APPROACH 13
4.1 OVERVIEW OF TELP 13
4.2 TELP IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 14
5. FINDINGS 16
5.1 POLICY ANALYSIS AND PLANNING COMPONENT 17
5.2 CAPACITY-BUILDING COMPONENT 18
5.2.1 INSTITUTION-SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES 19
5.2.1.1 Staff development 19
5.2.1.2 Curriculum development 20
5.2.1.3 Student development 21
5.2.1.4 Administration and management development 24
5.2.1.5 Research skills development 24
5.2.2 JOINT ACTIVITIES 25
5.2.2.1 Staff development 27
5.2.2.2 Curriculum development 29
5.2.2.3 Student development 30
5.2.2.4 Administration and management development 31
5.3 INSTITUTIONAL LINKAGES COMPONENT 31
5.4 GENERAL FINDINGS 36
5.4.1 PROJECT SUCCESS FACTORS 36
5.4.2 STAFF DEVELOPMENT 37
5.4.3 TELP COORDINATORS 38
5.4.4 PROJECT MANAGEMENT STRUCTURES 39
5.4.5 MILESTONES 40
5.4.6 COMMUNICATIONS 41
6. CONCLUSIONS 43
6.1 RELEVANCE OF CURRENT TELP STRATEGIES 43
6.2 THE CHANGING INSTITUTIONAL ENVIRONMENT 44
6.3 INTEGRATION OF TELP ACTIVITIES 44
6.4 PROGRESS IN RELATION TO BENCHMARKS 45
6.5 COST-EFFECTIVENESS 46
6.6 PROJECT RESULTS 47
6.7 SUSTAINABILITY 50
7. UNRESOLVED ISSUES 52
7.1 RESULT INDICATOR 52
7.2 TELP ADVISORY PANEL 52
8. ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS 53
8.1 MINDSET 53
8.2 LEADERSHIP 53
8.3 PROJECT PLANNING 55
8.4 MILESTONES AND KEY RESULTS 56
8.5 WORKSHOPS AND QUALITY ASSURANCE 57
8.6 COMMUNICATIONS 57
8.7 TELP COORDINATORS & PROJECT MANAGERS 58
8.8 STAFF DEVELOPMENT 59
8.9 COMPENSATORY PROGRAMMES 59
8.10 LINKAGES 60
8.11 SKILLS AUDIT 61
8.12 PUBLIC RELATIONS 61
9. LESSONS LEARNED 62
9.1 ADDRESSING DIVERSITY EFFECTIVELY 62
9.2 CLEAR ROLE DEFINITIONS AND VISION 62
9.3 THE CAPACITY-BUILDING CONUNDRUM 63
10. ANNEXES 64
10.1 ABBREVIATIONS 64
10.2 TELP PARTNERS 65
10.2.1 THE COLLEGE FUND/UNCF 65
10.2.2 DEVTECH SYSTEMS 65
10.2.3 AFRICAN INSTITUTE FOR POLICY ANALYSIS AND ECONOMIC INTEGRATION 66
10.2.4 INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION FOR EDUCATION AND SELF-HELP 67
10.2.5 DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS NETWORK, INC. 68
10.2.6 THE DESMOND TUTU EDUCATIONAL TRUST 68
10.2.7 ADDITIONAL CONTRACTORS AND GRANTEES 69
10.3 EXPENDITURE ASSESSMENT 71
10.4 PERSONNEL 82
10.4.1 EVALUATION TEAM 82
10.4.2 CONSULTANTS 82
10.5 BIBLIOGRAPHY 84
10.6 INTERVIEW LIST 87
10.7 METHODOLOGY 92
10.8 APPROVED ACTIVITY PLAN 102
10.9 EXTENDED ACTIVITY PLAN 109
10.10 INTERVIEW PROTOCOLS 111
10.10.1 VICE-CHANCELLOR INTERVIEWS 111
10.10.2 TELP COORDINATOR INTERVIEWS 112
10.11 FOCUS GROUP PROTOCOLS 113
10.12 FINANCIAL SURVEY INSTRUMENT 117
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
1
1. Executive Summary
Overview
Approved in 1995, the Tertiary Education Linkages Project will spend an
estimated $50 million through the year 2004 to increase access for black 
South Africans to tertiary education opportunities and resources, and to
improve academic, administrative, and research capacity in historically
disadvantaged tertiary education institutions. TELP has already committed 
more than $22 million through its Bilateral Agreement with the South
African government.
The TELP Bilateral Agreement specifies that a mid-term evaluation be
conducted to determine progress in the achievement of project goals. The 
evaluation results will be used by historically disadvantaged institutions
(HDIs), the Department of Education and USAID/SA to identify and
correct weaknesses in the programme. It will also serve as a planning
document to guide future project implementation. The evaluation has
been divided into three phases: planning, pilot testing and evaluation. As 
required, the evaluation strategies, methodologies and instruments were
tested the pilot phase.
The Evaluation Team comprised Dr Gretta Middleton (Senior Evaluator)
and Dr Michael Rice (Evaluator). The evaluation was conducted at fifteen 
historically disadvantaged institutions. Qualitative and quantitative data
have been collected. Interviews were held with USAID/South Africa, the
Department of Education and the College Fund/UNCF. 
Key findings and conclusions
· The historically disadvantaged institutions are not homogenous not
withstanding their structural and historical affinities. The universities
and technikons differ in conception and function. Each has a different
dynamic, history, character and ethos.
· Changes in the higher education environment that could not be
anticipated by TELP, and over which it could have no influence, are
having an effect on morale in most of the historically disadvantaged
institutions, with subsequent negative consequences for the project.
Falling student numbers in higher education generally have militated
against TELP fulfilling its Strategic Objective of increasing access to
these institutions. There has been considerable resistance to gender
equity workshops. 
Section
1
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
2
· Three factors contribute most to the project’s success: a committed 
and pro-active Vice-Chancellor, a competent TELP Coordinator and the 
project’s integration into the institution’s strategic plan. The absence of 
any of these factors or a combination thereof limits potential project
impact.
· Overall, we found the highest level of satisfaction by historically
disadvantaged institutions with the institution-specific activities 
mechanism and the lowest level with the linkages component. We
found a mixed degree of satisfaction and impact for the joint 
activities mechanism.
· It would appear that TELP has been integrated to a greater degree
into the strategic plans of the technikons than the universities. One 
of the areas in which joint activities have been most successful has
been in capacity building around strategic planning skills. With the
exception of two institutions, the HDIs were on course to meet the
June 2000 deadline to comply with South African Qualifications
Authority requirements.
· Staff development under PILs and joint activities has occurred with
regard to curriculum development, and raising awareness and
understanding of the National Qualifications Framework and the
requirements of the South African Qualifications Authority. The
expansion and/or establishment of research units has had an effect on 
skills development and staff morale. The linkages programme has
provided significant opportunities for staff to receive advanced
technical and post-graduate training. However, it has often proven
difficult to retain staff trained overseas.
· Student development is being assisted by the development of
bridging programmes and standard testing packages and the growth of 
five-year student development plans, though much remains to be done 
in these areas.
· Criticisms levelled at workshops run under joint activities reveal that 
many of them have been organised on the assumption that “one size
fits all”. Further, that scheduling of workshops often does not take the 
institutions’ calendars into consideration. Some criticism was voiced
about the expertise of facilitators.
· All of the HDIs have now established linkages with universities or
consortia of higher education institutions in the United States. A third
have established successful linkages. However, the majority of South
African institutions reported significant frustration and disappointment
with linkage negotiations and proposed technical assistance.
· One of the most important findings to come out of the site visits is the 
pivotal role of the TELP Coordinators to the success of the
programme. 
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
3
· Good communications between all stakeholders and actors are
essential for TELP’s success. The desire was expressed several times
for better sharing of information within and between institutions.
· Utilising project benchmarks as a measurement of performance
reveals that TELP definitely is making progress towards achieving its
intended results. Most historically disadvantaged institutions are
developing and using revised curricula. Approximately 50 per cent
are evaluating first-year students on entry. A minority of
institutions is providing compensatory/bridging programmes. 
Thirteen of the 15 historically disadvantaged institutions have
developed three-year rolling plans.
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
4
2.Introduction
2.1 Evaluation Purpose and Audience
The Tertiary Education Linkages Project (TELP) Bilateral Agreement
specifies that a mid-term evaluation be conducted to determine progress
in the achievement of project goals and to test the validity of underlying 
hypotheses and critical assumptions. 
The statement of work specifies the following outcomes from the
evaluation:1
1. Determine whether the current strategies supported by TELP are
relevant to constraints TELP was designed to address.
2. Determine the extent of the changing environment of the HDIs,
both as individual institutions and as a group, and whether or not
TELP is addressing those changes.
3. Determine if TELP activities are integrated or linked to achieving
stated results and, if not, provide recommendations to do so.
4. Determine whether TELP is achieving progress towards its stated
results using programme benchmarks. If not, provide recommenda￾tions for adjustments.
5. Determine whether the achievements of TELP are being produced in 
cost-effective ways.
6. Determine whether actual TELP results are focused towards
intended results.
7. Identify intended and unintended results of TELP funding.
8. Determine whether the accomplishments of TELP are sustainable. If 
not sustainable, provide recommendations for sustainability.
9. Identify the most effective way(s) to achieve TELP objectives.
10.Identify ways to address problem areas.
The results of the evaluation will be used by the historically disadvantaged 
institutions (HDIs), the Department of Education (DOE), and the United
States Agency for International Development Mission to South Africa
(USAID/SA) to identify and correct weaknesses in the programme and
highlight successes. It will also serve as a planning document. Therefore, 
the evaluation must identify future actions and make recommendations on 
adjustments needed to achieve TELP goals.
The terms of reference for this evaluation specify a consultative, participa￾tory approach. They require that the activity be supported by qualitative
 
1
 IQC Request Number 1/27/2000C, pp. 5-6.
Section
2
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
5
research to illuminate project processes and outcomes, as well as
quantitative research to heighten understanding of underlying factors and 
project results. Together, these approaches must address impact on the
ground, document lessons learned and make clear, concise recommenda￾tions. The evaluation must be guided by the 10 general and 22 specific
process and outcome questions posed in the statement of work. 
The Academy for Educational Development (AED) team fully embraced
this participatory approach. It recognized the importance of the function
of the TELP Executive Committee as the Reference Group for the
evaluation, as well as the value of utilizing the historically disadvantaged 
institutions, as a client group, to serve as a sounding board for the
evaluators in developing methodology and reviewing draft evaluation
reports. 
2.2 Methodology
2.2.1 Strategy
The TELP Bilateral Agreement required that the mid-term evaluation focus 
on progress in the achievement of project goals. The statement of work
for the activity emphasised that stakeholders will use its results not just to 
identify and correct weaknesses, but also as a planning document.
Therefore, the evaluation had to contextualise problems and progress to
date, note defects in the original design or changes to its underlying
assumptions, identify future requirements and make recommendations on 
needed adjustments that will help to achieve project goals. 
In other words, this is a formative, not a summative, evaluation. Its
purpose is not to uncover failure (although it must clearly note defects in 
assumptions, strategies or implementation), nor to assign blame
(although it must specify who is accountable for necessary changes).
Instead, it must map the past in order to chart the future: identifying
where the project stands now, explaining how it arrived at that point, and 
suggesting the best ways forward.
Furthermore, the evaluation has focused on the project – its successes
and failures, its strengths and weaknesses – rather than on its individual 
participants.2
 This approach informed the methodology for the pilot study. 
It was accepted as being appropriate for the evaluation by the Reference 
Group at its first meeting on 9th May and again on receiving the pilot study 
report at its 28th June meeting. Time and budget constraints did not
permit separate evaluations of individual institutions, current or past
contractors, USAID or the Department of Education, although of course
the methodology took into account their views and performance. Instead, 
 
2
 These comprise USAID as the donor, the Department of Education in its dual role of oversight on behalf of 
the Government of South Africa and implementation of the policy component, the historically disadvantaged 
institutions themselves as clients and partners, and the contractors and grantees responsible for delivering 
services.
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
6
evaluators assessed TELP itself, with a view towards identifying ways in
which the project can better accomplish its objectives and through which 
its stakeholders can contribute to such improvements. 
At the request of USAID, the evaluators gave highest priority to the most 
recent stakeholders and activities, including the current TELP contractor,
the College Fund/UNCF, and the original cohort of 15 historically
disadvantaged institutions. The team did not carry out any separate
assessment of the impact of the previous contractor, DevTech Systems,
nor of the two grantees still operating under TELP, the African Institute for 
Policy Analysis and Economic Integration (AIPA) and the International
Foundation for Education and Self-Help (IFESH), relying instead on
existing reports and evaluations about the work of these three parties.
The two newest TELP stakeholder institutions were excluded from data
collection because they have only recently joined the project.
As specified in the statement of work, this general strategy was applied to 
evaluating three specific areas:
· a sample of institution-specific activities (including interviews with 
Vice-Chancellors, TELP Coordinators, Activity Managers, and a sample 
of participants);
· joint activities (collecting data from the Department of Education, Vice￾Chancellors, TELP Coordinators, Activity Managers, participants, and 
contractors and grantees);
· linkages (including interviews with Vice-Chancellors, TELP 
Coordinators, Activity Managers, and a sample of participants).
The evaluation team faced two major design challenges in implementing
this strategy: sampling and data collection. Annex 10.7 incorporates the
full plan presented by the field team at the beginning of April. This section 
summarises the methodology and its implementation.
2.2.2 Reference Group
The terms of reference established an Evaluation Reference Group as
follows:
“Given the participatory and consultative nature of TELP, the TELP
Executive Committee will serve as a reference group for the
evaluation and will serve as a sounding board for the evaluators as 
they develop their methodology and review drafts of the evaluation 
report. In addition, the TELP Executive Committee will be consulted 
regarding any major issues that arise during the course of the
evaluation.”3
The Reference Group comprised all members of the TELP Executive
Committee and UNCF. Thus the Group included representatives of four
 
3
 IQC Request Number 1/27/2000C, pp. 6.
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
7
historically disadvantaged institutions (the Vice-Chancellors of ML Sultan
Technikon, Peninsula Technikon, University of Venda and University of the 
Western Cape), the Department of Education, and USAID/South Africa.
The Chairperson of the Executive Committee, Prof. B.C. Goba of ML
Sultan, chaired the Reference Group.
Consistent with the commitments made in its proposal, AED sought to
maximise the Reference Group’s role in the entire evaluation process. The 
Group met three times in formal session: on 9
th May to review the pilot
phase report (at which meeting the approach and methodology to be used 
in the evaluation were approved), on 28th June to review the preliminary 
draft of this evaluation report, and on 14th July to review a revised draft. 
Throughout the entire process the team regularly sought Reference Group 
feedback: by fax on the initial methodological proposal, then by face-to￾face and telephonic consultation on specific issues such as sampling
methodology and revisions to the implementation plan after the
withdrawal of one evaluator. 
The Academy for Educational Development and all members of the
evaluation team would like to express their appreciation to the Reference 
Group for its time and constructive direction throughout the evaluation
activity.
2.2.3 Implementation Plan
The team implemented the evaluation in three stages: a planning phase, 
the pilot phase, and the full evaluation phase. Annex 10.8 presents the 
activity plan as approved by the Reference Group at the start of the
activity; Annex 10.9 shows the plan for an extended level of effort as
requested by the Reference Group.4
The activity’s first phase focused on specifying evaluation processes,
developing methodologies, interviewing national stakeholders for the first 
time, and clarifying the roles of evaluation team members relative to data 
collection, case studies and report preparation. Specific tasks included
documentation review, preliminary briefings and consultations, drafting
the work plan, developing the methodology, finalising the pilot sample,
arranging Phase Two visits, and interviewing USAID/SA, the Department
of Education and the College Fund. The team presented the deliverable for 
this phase, the evaluation work plan, to USAID on schedule on 7th April.
The second, or pilot, phase tested the evaluation strategies,
methodologies and instruments at two TELP institutions (ML Sultan
Technikon and the University of Transkei). The team selected these
institutions in consultation with USAID and the Department of Education.
On 9th May, as scheduled, the evaluators presented the deliverable for this 
phase, the pilot study report, to a meeting of the Reference Group.
 
4
 The extended activity plan is being modified again because it proved impossible in practice to arrange the 
stakeholders’ workshop on 31st July. As this report is being submitted, that workshop has been tentatively 
rescheduled for 16th August, to be followed by a meeting of the TELP Advisory Panel on 17th August.
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
8
The culminating evaluation phase encompassed the completion of data
collection at the remaining institutions, analysis, report writing, and final
consultations with all stakeholders. During this phase evaluators
interviewed in person every Vice-Chancellor (or his/her designee) and
every TELP Coordinator from all 15 historically disadvantaged institutions. 
In addition, a two-member team carried out intensive site visits at eight
institutions. In addition to the two pilot study visits, this brought the total 
number of sampled TELP stakeholder institutions to 10. Phase three
requires three deliverable: a draft report reviewed by the Reference Group 
(on 28th June and 14th July), a workshop for all partners (held on 16th
August), and the final report (circulated to USAID and stakeholders on
26th July prior to discussion at the 16th August workshop). Participants at 
the stakeholders’ workshop requested consideration of their input in a
revised final report, hence this document. 
2.2.4 Sampling
AED’s original proposal called for the Senior Evaluation Leader to visit all 
15 TELP institutions5
 to interview the Vice-Chancellors and TELP
Coordinators, while two teams of two specialists each made in-depth, two￾day visits to every campus. This had the advantage of full data collection 
at every institution, but in the event proved too costly an approach.
Therefore, AED suggested moving from this census methodology (visiting 
every TELP stakeholder institution) to a sampling methodology (visiting as 
large a representative group of institutions as possible). As noted above, 
during the planning phase the evaluation team worked with the
Department of Education and USAID/SA to draw a stratified sample on the 
basis of perceived institutional success within the project: low, medium,
and high. This sample included the following ten institutions for two-day 
intensive visits in addition to interviews with the Vice-Chancellors and
TELP Coordinators: Eastern Cape Technikon, ML Sultan Technikon,
Peninsula Technikon, Technikon Northern Gauteng, University of Durban￾Westville, University of Ft. Hare, University of Transkei, University of
Venda, University of the Western Cape, and University of Zululand.
The remaining five institutions were scheduled for Vice-Chancellor and
TELP Coordinator interviews only. These were Border Technikon,
Mangosuthu Technikon, Medical University of South Africa, University of
the North, and University of the Northwest.
Finally, the working group selected two of the ten sampled institutions for 
the pilot phase: ML Sultan Technikon and University of Transkei.
 
5
 Seventeen HDIs now participate in TELP. However, for most of the project’s history this number stood at 
15. Its terms of reference directed the evaluation team to focus exclusively on these 15 institutions: Border 
Technikon, Eastern Cape Technikon, Mangosuthu Technikon, Medical University of South Africa, ML Sultan 
Technikon, Peninsula Technikon, Technikon Northern Gauteng, University of Durban-Westville, University of 
Ft. Hare, University of the North, University of the Northwest, University of Transkei, University of Venda, 
University of the Western Cape, and University of Zululand.
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
9
2.2.5 Data Collection
The evaluation design called for collecting both qualitative and
quantitative data. It required qualitative information regarding the
perceived worth of activities as well as quantitative data such as financial 
statements. All data collection depended upon a consultative participatory 
process. It occurred in two discrete stages.
The first data collection took place during the planning phase. One
component involved a literature survey and review of background
documentation, as provided by USAID. The team paid special attention to 
the UNCF Progress Report, the DevTech Semi-Annual Report (Appendix
No. 4), minutes of relevant meetings, financial reports, and the DevTech
Academic Audit.
The second component comprised preliminary interviews with key
stakeholders. These early discussions with donor agency, contractor, and
host government representatives provided critical data and insights for
team members prior to the commencement of site visits to institutions 
and the formal assessment of the overall progress of TELP in achieving
project goals.
· During discussions with USAID/SA, Mission representatives welcomed 
team members, provided general orientation, presented an overview of 
the mid-term evaluation process, and entertained questions. The series 
of meetings were crucial to establishing an open channel of 
communications, achieving a common understanding of the scope of 
work and clarifying the roles of individual team members.
· The Department of Education’s Branch of Higher Education helped the 
evaluation team obtain a general assessment of TELP, learn firsthand 
about the Department’s vision for the TELP initiative, and ascertain 
what future role the Department sees for the project in light of the 
fluidity of the higher education policy environment. To-date, the 
Department’s TELP activities continue to focus on policy development 
and implementation as intended. 
· The team’s meeting with the College Fund provided an opportunity for 
introductions to be made between team members and key UNCF 
project managers and accounting personnel, for the team to explain 
the purpose of the mid-term evaluation. That is, this evaluation is not 
institution-specific but is an evaluation of the TELP project per se. The 
opportunity was also used to discuss future input that would be vital to 
the evaluation work because of the Contractor’s centrality to project 
implementation. A number of subsequent interviews were also 
conducted to clarify issues and gather additional information.
The second data collection stage, the site visits to sampled institutions,
occurred during the pilot phase and the first part of the evaluation phase. 
As planned, the Senior Evaluation Leader and Evaluator spent two days at 
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
10
each of the two pilot institutions, and then prepared a pilot phase report 
for presentation to the Reference Group. 
The original strategy envisaged the Senior Evaluation Leader moving on to 
visit all 13 remaining institutions while the Evaluator (originally designated 
Team Leader), assisted by a colleague (the team member), carried out
the two-day visits at the remaining eight institutions in the sample.
However, the unexpected loss of the second team member after the first 
of the site visits required alterations to this plan. Consequently the Senior 
Evaluation Leader and the Evaluator worked together to carry out all but 
the first two two-day visits, and the Policy Specialist interviewed the Vice￾Chancellors and TELP Coordinators at those campuses not visited in
person by the Senior Evaluation Leader.
The team used two primary methods for qualitative data collection during 
the second stage. First, one team member (the Senior Evaluation Leader 
or the Policy Specialist) interviewed each Vice-Chancellor and each TELP
Coordinator separately. Specific protocols (See Annex 10.10) guided these 
interviews, although they were carried out in a relatively open-ended 
manner according to the interests and concerns of each interviewee. 
Second, the team convened focus groups as follows for each two-day 
visit:
1. Institution-specific joint activities: a focus group consisting of
participants from each of the focus areas.
2. Institutional activities & PILs: a focus group consisting of
participants from proposal-writing and implementation workshops,
plus representatives from each Project Implementation Letter (PIL) 
focus area, excluding the TELP Coordinator. 
3. Linkages: a focus group from each parameter of the focus.
The choice of participants in each focus group was crucial to success. The 
evaluators made every attempt to include in the relevant focus groups the 
Dean of Students, the Dean of Science, the Deputy Vice-Chancellor for
Academic Affairs/Human Resources and the Project Directors, as well as
representatives from the student leadership. Each focus group followed its 
own specially designed protocol (see Annex 10.11).
During this second stage the Finance Specialist worked separately on
obtaining the financial data required to support the on-site data-collection 
process and answer specific questions such as cost-effectiveness. She
provided input to the Vice-Chancellor and TELP Coordinator interviews,
developed a survey instrument that was distributed to the ten sampled
institutions (five of which returned the completed form), and obtained
relevant data from USAID/SA and the College Fund. 
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
11
3.Background
3.1 Higher Education and HDIs: Context and Constraints
South Africa is experiencing major transformation. As the nation
endeavours to build strong democratic institutions, it must simultaneously 
address the long-term effects of an inherited system that was built on
structural inequality. The legacy of inequity and underdevelopment
continue to permeate all spheres of life. Since higher education is
universally considered the vehicle through which societies fulfil their needs 
for professional, technical and leadership skills, the major upheavals in
South African tertiary education overall have serious implications for
national well-being. The evaluation of TELP and the project’s future
implementation must take full cognisance of the state of flux in the sector. 
Whichever way it is regarded, the size and shape of the higher education 
sector is likely to undergo considerable change in the next few years in
response to the requirements of industry and Government’s economic
policies. 
The majority of historically disadvantaged institutions (with the notable
exception of Fort Hare) were established under apartheid for black
students. Unarguably these institutions were not autonomous. They were 
inadequately staffed and isolated not only from each other but also from 
the sector as a whole. Maintaining effective financial management
systems has been a particular problem; some TELP stakeholder
institutions have accumulated significant debt. The kind of education
students received in these institutions was and is perceived as being
inferior to that offered on the more prestigious and better-equipped 
campuses. The active debate taking place on “size and shape” and the call 
for the creation of a single system of higher education has contributed to 
heightened levels of anxiety among historically disadvantaged institutions. 
3.2 Recent Developments and New Challenges
The White Paper on Higher Education issued in 1997 laid the basis for a
unified system of higher education under one “Branch of Higher
Education” within the restructured Department of Education. One of the
intentions was to reduce the divisions between the two sectors since the
creation of technikons in the 1960s. From that time forward higher
education has functioned in an environment framed by issues emanating
from the inevitability of anticipated change. The uncertainty has centred
on how the tertiary education sector would evolve. The situation for
Section
3
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
12
historically disadvantaged institutions is particularly vexing. They operate 
in an atmosphere dominated by fears of possibly losing their identity, of
being absorbed, reconfigured or closed.
On 7 April 2000, the Council of Higher Education’s Task Team Size and
Shape Discussion Document was issued. It is expected to have a
significant effect on the size and shape of the sector. The debate
underway will be greatly influenced by the suggestion to establish a
system based on a “model of differentiation and institutional types.” The 
Task Team states that “higher education’s primary role is to develop the
thinking and intellectual capabilities of (our) society and through such
development to address and resolve the range of economic, social,
cultural, political and other challenges faced by society as a whole.” The
document targets what it refers to as “pervasive dysfunctionality” that
characterises parts of the higher education system. It enumerates an
extensive list of problems that must be resolved in order for the nation to 
reach its full potential. The problems that it highlights include the
dramatic decline in the rate of enrolments of new students and the decline 
in retention rates, poor graduation and yearly pass rates, fragile
management and administrative capacity, and the persistence of crises in 
some institutions. The overarching position of Council for Higher Education 
is that a coherent, coordinated and integrated national education system
must be achieved over time. It views the attainment of this goal as
essential to achieving cost-effectiveness, efficiency and also equity.6
Additional challenges confronting the policy-makers result from the 
revolution in student enrolment patterns in higher education that has 
occurred in the past twelve years. According to David Cooper of the 
University of Cape Town and Nico Cloete and Ian Bunting in a Centre for 
Higher Education Transformation (CHET) document, there has been a 
radical transformation in the racial composition of students in the tertiary 
education sector. It is reported, for example, that between 1988 and 1998 
the percentage of African students attending the six Afrikaans Universities 
increased from one per cent to 33 per cent, while the percentage of white 
students declined from 97 per cent to 61 per cent. Moreover, in 1988 at 
the seven historically Afrikaans technikons, African students only 
comprised two per cent and white students 94 per cent; by 1998 African 
students were 53 per cent and white students 37 per cent. If current 
trends continue, it is conceivable that in the not-too-distant future, African 
students at a number of traditionally Afrikaans universities will pass the 
50 per cent mark. Such developments call into question old values, 
concepts and rationales that underpin institutional categorizations.7
 
6 Council on Higher Education Size and Shape Task Team Discussion Document 7 April 2000.
7
 David Cooper UCT “The Skewed Revolution: The Selective Africanisation of the Student Profile of 
Historically White Universities and Technikons in South Africa in the 1990s” (April 2000) and Nico Cloete & 
Ian Bunting “Higher Education Transformation: Assessing performance in South Africa,” CHET. 2000.
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
13
4.USAID’s Assistance Approach
4.1 Overview of TELP
In the past the higher education and training system perpetuated an
inequitable distribution of access and equity for students and staff along
axes of race, class and location. There continue to exist disparities
between historically black and white institutions in terms of facilities and
capabilities. To address the core issues of equity and access, which
directly affect quality, institutions of higher education and training need
to: 1) develop innovative ways of increasing access by disadvantaged
students; 2) provide programmes to maximize the success of such
students; and 3) ensure a smooth induction into higher education and
training.8
Approved in 1995, the Tertiary Education Linkages Project will spend an
estimated $50 million through the year 2004 to increase access for black 
South Africans to tertiary education opportunities and resources, and to
improve academic, administrative, and research capacity in historically
disadvantaged tertiary education institutions. Its specific objectives
include supporting the Department of Education, building capacity at
historically disadvantaged institutions, and carrying out special
programmes at 15 participating institutions (plus an additional two
institutions that joined the project subsequently).
TELP’s activities can be divided into three components: policy analysis and 
planning, capacity building, and linkages. Policy analysis and planning
involves the detailed examination of critical issues in tertiary education
with the aim of presenting options and programmes for ensuring a more
equitable and efficient tertiary education system. Some of the policy and 
planning issues involved include:
· student and professional access to and quality within various 
institutions;
· the roles of various types of tertiary institutions;
· rationalisation of the system;
· financial resource formulae and distributions;
· restructuring and curriculum design;
· strategic planning;
· definition of institutional missions;
· degree requirements and accreditation; and
 
8
 IQC Request Number 1/27/2000C, p. 3.
Section
4
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
14
· articulation within the tertiary education sector.
The project defines capacity building as the process by which historically
disadvantaged institutions are strengthened, expanded, and/or made
more effective. It supports this process by:
· improving administrative, academic, and research infrastructure;
· developing and implementing strategic plans;
· supporting priority strategic disciplines (mathematics, science and 
engineering; oral and written English; public administration and 
management; commerce and economics);
· promoting professional development; and
· strengthening curriculum development and pedagogy.
TELP sees linkages as mutually cooperative activities enabling two or
more institutions to address broad-based problems, share resources, and 
engage in joint activities related to policy analysis, planning, and capacity 
building. It supports the establishment or enhancement of linkages among 
South African tertiary institutions, and between South African institutions
and colleges and universities in the United States.
In pursuit of these objectives, TELP has already committed more than $22 
million through its bilateral agreement with the South African government. 
These funds have supported the National Commission on Higher 
Education, small capacity-building grants to 15 individual institutions,
additional grants to consortia of institutions, and work at TELP stakeholder 
institutions in five focus areas identified by their Vice-Chancellors and
Principals: student academic and social development; staff development; 
research skills development; programme/curriculum development; and
management and administrative development. Those institutions where
TELP funds are already supporting specific activities report that the project 
provides benefits that would otherwise not have been possible.
4.2 TELP Implementation Strategy
Since inception, TELP has supported the Department of Education and,
within that support, 15 historically disadvantaged institutions. The
purpose of TELP was, and still is, to 1) increase access by disadvantaged 
South Africans to tertiary education opportunities and resources, and 2) to 
improve academic, administrative, and research capacity of its
stakeholder institutions. These institutions were targeted because they
were the primary means through which the majority population gains
access to higher education qualifications.
Its design flexibility has allowed TELP to undergo strategic adjustments
since inception. The first adjustment occurred in September 1995, when 
USAID/South Africa signed a TELP Bilateral Grant Agreement with the
Department of Education that changed the administrative nature of TELP 
from being a unilateral assistance programme to co-operative 
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
15
programme. The overall purpose of that agreement was to assist the
Department to improve and transform the system for higher education
and improve the academic, administrative and research capacity of the
aforementioned institutions.
In 1995, TELP focused on strengthening the following three critical areas:
· Policy analysis and planning: aimed at examining critical issues in 
higher education and developing options and programmes designed to 
assure a more equitable and effective system of higher education.
· Capacity building: through this mechanism individual institutions are 
expanded and/or made more effective in the ways in which they 
operate and provide learning opportunities.
· Institutional linkages: intended to enable collaborative activities 
between two or more institutions to jointly address problems, share 
resources, and engage in activities related to policy analysis and 
capacity-building.
In 1996 the TELP Advisory Panel, consisting of the Vice-Chancellors of the 
historically disadvantaged institutions, the Department of Education and
USAID/SA, identified five focus areas for TELP resources: 1) staff
development, 2) curriculum development, 3) student development, 4)
management and administrative development, and 5) research skills
development. These focus areas (with the exception of research skills
development for which an investigation into management of information
systems was substituted) were the subjects of an extensive academic
audit carried out in 1998.
Presently, TELP activities at historically disadvantaged institutions are
directed at building capacity and institutional linkages in the focus areas. 
However, as in 1995, the Department of Education’s TELP activities
continue to focus on policy development and implementation. The nature 
of the changing environment and impending decisions about the ‘size and 
shape’ of the higher education sector necessitate that TELP continue to
approach project implementation in a flexible manner.
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
16
5. Findings
The mid-term evaluation findings are based on qualitative and
quantitative data collected by the evaluation team during the course of
interviews with USAID/SA, the College Fund and the Department of
Education, as well as site visits to the 15 targeted tertiary education
institutions. These findings are the result of the distillation, synthesis and 
analysis of large amounts of disparate information about and from a
diverse group of stakeholders. 
This section presents the evaluation’s findings according to the three
critical areas identified for TELP in 1995: policy analysis and planning,
capacity-building and institutional linkages. The first of these focuses on
the Department of Education; the last two serve the historically
disadvantaged institutions. A final sub-section offers general findings that 
do not fit exclusively into one of the three critical areas.
TELP defines capacity building as the process by which historically
disadvantaged institutions are strengthened and/or made more effective
in the ways in which they operate and provide learning opportunities.
Institutional linkages, on the other hand, are intended to enable
collaborative activities between two or more institutions to jointly address 
problems, share resources, and engage in activities related to project
goals. 
In relation to capacity building and linkages, it should be reiterated that
the mid-term evaluation of TELP is intended to assess performance and
factors affecting project performance. The Reference Group stipulated that 
it is not an evaluation of individual historically disadvantaged institutions
or the Contractor. Therefore, these findings are not institution-specific, 
but rather summarise a collective view of how the project is progressing in 
participating institutions. They must, of necessity, generalise about
patterns, trends and common practices, as well as indicating wherever
possible the exceptions or points of divergence. With such an approach,
generalisations made will obviously apply to some in the group more
closely than to others. Efforts are made throughout this report to include 
examples that amplify or provide insight into project implementation. 
This section should be considered in conjunction with Section 6 (
Conclusions), which draws on these findings to answer the general 
questions posed by the evaluation statement of work, and Section 8
(Issues and Recommendations), which identifies specific issues arising out 
of the findings, then recommends what to do in response and who should 
do it. The Reference Group meeting of 28th June confirmed that the
Section
5
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
17
Findings section should present the data without interpreting it. The
Conclusions section is where interpretation should, and does, take place.
5.1 Policy Analysis and Planning Component 
The overall purpose of the TELP Bilateral Grant agreement signed in 1995 
was to assist the Department of Education transform the system for
higher education and improve the academic, administrative, and research 
capacity of the historically disadvantaged institutions. The critical area
identified with specific regard to the Department was policy analysis and
planning aimed at examining critical issues in higher education as well as 
developing options and programmes designed to ensure a more equitable 
and effective system for higher education.
Department of Education initiatives under TELP
According to a representative of the Department of Education, the funding 
provided under the TELP contract has “done what we wanted done…. [It]
provided us with flexibility and facilitated what we wanted to do (policy
development).” That is, a number of studies flowing from the White Paper 
on Higher Education have been undertaken by specially contracted
consultants. 
· The initial support for policy analysis focused on the support to the 
National Commission on Higher Education (NCHE). The Commission 
presented its report in 1996, and from its work flowed many policy 
milestones, including the policy for the higher education sector, as 
articulated in the White Paper 3, on Higher Education Transformation.
·
· Reports are imminent to assist on the location of, and the different 
options for, the agricultural and nursing colleges, as well as on the 
legal implications for their incorporation into the higher education 
system. 
· A new regulatory framework for private higher education has been 
developed and will be promulgated shortly. 
· Research has been carried out into the incorporation of the public 
distance teacher education colleges into higher education. Teacher 
education was previously a provincial function and, therefore, not part 
of higher education.
· Research has also been carried out into a new funding formula for 
higher education. 
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
18
· Workshops (which are milestone requirements) have been held on, and 
a full-time consultant contracted to develop, institutional planning 
process, funding and management information systems, and on 
mergers and cooperation within higher education. 
· A number of smaller projects not originally planned, such as the 
creation of a consolidated faculty of music in KwaZulu-Natal, have also 
been effected. These initiatives have been possible because funds have 
been used flexibly, enabling the Department to respond to new 
circumstances as they have arisen. 
5.2 Capacity-Building Component
With regard to capacity building within the historically disadvantaged
institutions, it must be recognised from the outset that these institutions
do not form a homogenous whole. Not only are the universities and
technikons different in conception and function, but each also has its own 
distinct character and ethos. Each responds to a different environment
that generates different kinds of problems demanding different kinds of
strategies and solutions. In the words of one TELP institution, “One size
does not fit all.” Nonetheless, it must be acknowledged these institutions
share structural and historical affinities.
Some institutions are more disadvantaged than others. They all have
different histories. The term “historically disadvantaged,” it was pointed
out, has had the negative result of all of the so-called historically
disadvantaged institutions being lumped together regardless of their
differences. Such labelling has resulted in a mindset from without that
sees them all, at one extreme, as “hopeless cases”9
 and an equally
debilitating view from within that encourages them to act in concert and
deny their uniqueness, thereby undercutting their real needs. “HDIs talk
with one voice but they are not the same.”
Originally, TELP focused primarily on individual universities and technikons 
through the PIL (Project Implementation Letter) contractual mechanism.
Institutions requested funding for specific activities from USAID, which
responded with a letter outlining the terms and conditions under which it 
would provide such support. Section 5.2.1 describes the results of this
approach. More recently TELP introduced a second delivery strategy,
support for joint activities aimed at multiple institutions, discussed in
Section 5.2.2. 
These two approaches seem to overlap in practice. For example, the
institution-specific component now includes activities that are of a joint
nature, such as national workshops for proposal-writing and gender 
issues. The joint activities component, on the other hand, can include
activities that succeed or give rise to institution-specific technical
assistance. This section reports evaluation findings according to whether
interventions are aimed at individual (Section 5.2.1) or multiple (Section 
 
9
 Quotations are taken directly from stakeholder interviews.
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
19
5.2.2) institutions, rather than differentiating activities according to
whether they are funded under the institution-specific or joint-activities 
mechanism.
5.2.1 Institution-Specific Activities 
In 1996 the TELP Vice-Chancellors, through the Advisory Panel, identified 
five focus areas for TELP resources as being central to the rehabilitation of 
their institutions: staff development, curriculum development, student
development, management and administrative development, and research 
skills development. These focus areas now comprise the core of TELP’s
strategy to build capacity and promote institutional linkages.
This section examines the impact of institution-specific activities on each
of the five focus areas. Overall, we found the highest level of satisfaction 
by historically disadvantaged institutions with the institution-specific 
activities mechanism.
Project Implementation Letters (PILs)
TELP utilises the PIL modality to assist historically disadvantaged
institutions achieve project and institutional objectives. In 1998
USAID/SA discontinued the practice of directly selecting, awarding and
managing PILs. The process was standardised under new regulations and 
procedures set forth in the document entitled “USAID Proposal Submission 
Guidelines for PILS.” As stipulated, a Review Panel composed of two
representatives each from USAID, the Contractor and TELP Coordinators
review PIL proposals and make recommendations. USAID directly makes
PIL awards, the institutions are responsible for implementation and the
Contractor provides critical support services.
The College Fund is expected to: a) oversee the development, review and 
implementation of PIL activities, and b) provide technical assistance in
support of the development and implementation of all PIL activities.
Additionally, the Contractor is tasked with conducting proposal-writing 
workshops for TELP institutions and building capacity to develop 
successful proposals. 
5.2.1.1 Staff development
Staff development overlaps with the other focus areas. For example,
one institution sees student development not as the sole prerogative of 
the student development unit or of Student Affairs, believing instead
that “all members of staff are involved in student development” and,
where possible, providing them with training under this focus area.
Academic staff development occurs in activities concerned with
curriculum development, especially materials development in the areas 
of mathematics, science and English, but also in raising awareness and 
understanding of the National Qualifications Framework and the
requirements of the South African Qualifications Authority. 
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
20
“We must grow our own timber”
The expansion and/or establishment of research units has had a
positive effect on skills development and the morale of staff, a number 
of whom are already beginning to produce their first research articles
for publication and/or delivery at conferences. “We have seen stars 
emerge because of TELP.” 
With regard to specific academic training, the activities organised
under the linkage component have been the chief vehicle in this area 
and will be dealt with separately in Section 5.3. However, a number of 
PILs have been specifically targeted at staff development. Some of
these include efforts to improve the skills of staff better to equip them 
to meet teaching and administrative challenges, developing a post￾graduate leadership training programme and improving the
professional skills of library staff.
Staff release can present problems, as it often results in existing
resources being stretched. Frequently staff find that instead of being
able to give all their attention to a new project they are required to
share their time and effort with existing duties.
5.2.1.2 Curriculum development
The history of curriculum development at universities and technikons
has been quite different. The universities were all established as
autonomous institutions. When the technikons gained autonomy, on
the other hand, they retained the national character of their
programmes. The Committee of Technikon Principals, through a
mechanism called “convenor technikons,” used expert committees to
guide curricular changes; these changes were then used by all
technikons. Accordingly, a greater degree of uniformity exists among
the technikons. In addition, the technikons were used to a higher level 
of cooperation amongst themselves than were the universities. The
universities, on the other hand, all had full control over what they
taught and examined. That is, they were under no obligation to
coordinate what they offered or what fields of research they engaged
in with sister institutions. One of the many results of this lack of
communication, encouraged by apartheid, has been subject duplication 
and thinly spread human and material resources, with concomitant
implications for programme delivery, curriculum and staff
development. 
This said, many of our findings cut across this divide. For example, a
number of institutions have used PILs to develop curricula in
mathematics, science and English. One of the most interesting
outcomes has been the establishment of a curriculum to teach English 
as a multi-cultural language. Other exciting initiatives have been the
development of indigenous textbook and teaching materials in
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
21
mathematics and science undertaken by a consortium of five of the
participating institutions. 
Few institutions have a language policy. This was felt to be a serious
lack. Academic staff must start “asking questions around language,”
but there is a lack of capacity in the language areas. It was pointed out 
that a curriculum development unit can facilitate and initiate ideas and 
organise workshops, but that it has to work with champions in the
various departments. At one technikon the Academic Staff Centre is
concentrating on assessment and methodology.
Four technikons complained that the Department of Education’s
national strategies and policies have often not kept pace with the wish 
to change in the technikons. The perception is that many of the
Department’s committees work so slowly that they hold back the pace 
of change in the institutions. 
In the main, the technikons have benefited from TELP interventions
(both institution-specific and joint workshops) to promote an
understanding of the role of the South African Qualifications Authority, 
the National Qualifications Framework requirements and the technical
needs to meet those requirements. In general terms, there is at
present fairly good institution-wide understanding among the
technikons of the National Qualification Framework. Their
modularisation of courses is well underway. All of these institutions
expressed the opinion that they are well positioned to comply with the 
procedural and technical requirements in time for the June 2000
deadline.
The situation in the universities is not as easily described as that in the 
technikons. Some of the universities are well on track to comply with
the June 2000 requirements, while others confessed that they had
been given an extension because of the difficulties they are
experiencing in transforming themselves. Often retrenchments,
student disruptions and a lack of strategic planning capacity have
resulted in TELP support being, at best, postponed and, at worst,
ignored, as an institution engages with the problems of survival. At
least two universities visited during the course of the evaluation were 
facing the imminent loss of between 25 and 30 per cent of their
academic staff as a result of cutbacks. As with student access,
curriculum development has been overtaken by external forces that
TELP could neither foresee and over which it has no control. There is
no doubt that the unique tensions within each institution have had a
significant impact on the performance of TELP. 
5.2.1.3 Student development
Access
Firstly, in terms of absolute numbers, it is clear that TELP has not
helped to increase access for disadvantaged students to the historically 
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
22
disadvantaged universities, though this is not necessarily the case at
the technikons.10 However, it must be pointed out that student
enrolments at universities nation-wide have been falling in recent
years and that there has been a shift to the technikons both
demographically and in terms of absolute numbers. Falling numbers
and shifting populations and demographics are not a consequence of
TELP but of larger forces within the economy and education generally. 
Changing perceptions of the relative worth of university education and 
technical training have also had a role to play. Nonetheless, the
technikons are enrolling more black students in mathematics and
science than the universities.11 Nor is this trend limited to the formerly 
white institutions. The technikons included in this evaluation all
reported increased numbers of students in these subjects. One of the
universities, which has taken the lead in trying to give access to more 
students by emphasizing exit points rather than entrance
qualifications, is particularly interested in exploring through TELP new 
insights into admissions policy. 
Thus, with regard to the key Strategic Objective to increase access to 
quality education and training, the following developments, independ￾ent of TELP, must be taken into account. Since 1994 the number of
candidates obtaining full matric exemption has declined. The decline in 
the school output has meant that many institutions have not been able 
to meet their admission targets for new undergraduates since 1996.
Retention rates in higher education have also dropped off, particularly 
in 1998 and 1999. The goal of improved participation for the system
was not realised during the years 1997-1999. However, the percentage 
distribution of the head count enrolment by population indicates that
the percentage of black students in all institutions in higher education 
rose from 53% in 1993 to 71% by 1999. The percentage of students in 
the system attending historically black institutions in 1993 was 49%.
This figure fell to 33% by 1999. Large numbers of black students
appear to have moved into the previously white institutions. In general 
the university sector did not satisfy the White Paper goals concerning
the improvement of throughput rates between 1995 and 1998. Nor did 
the throughput rates of black students improve during this time period. 
We were unable to obtain comparable throughput data on the
technikons. In terms of head count, the percentage of black students
at technikons was 65% by 1998. An interesting detail is that gender
equity has improved considerably, with 52% of the student body being 
female by 1999.12
The fact remains that there are vast numbers of potential students
emerging from the secondary school system every year who are
woefully under-prepared for higher education and for whom special
 
10 See Section 7 (Unresolved Issues) for a more detailed discussion on the problems achieving a results 
indicator defined in terms of numbers of black students graduating from historically disadvantaged 
institutions.
11 See, for example, the recent paper by David Cooper of the University of Cape Town: “The Skewed 
Revolution: The Selective ‘Africanisation’ of the Student Profile of Historically White Universities and 
Technikons in South Africa in the 1990s” (April 2000).
12 David Cooper, ibid.
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
23
provision has to be made to make the transition from one system to
another.13 The need to develop appropriate standardised tests,
bridging programmes and other strategies to help them cope with the 
academic and social demands of higher education is not going to
disappear. In addition, the requirements of the South African economy 
in the midst of the information technology revolution and globalisation 
must be considered. South Africa’s higher education system must
produce graduates who can function in the world economy.14
“What we need to develop is a more socially responsible citizen 
– flexible and creative in the workplace, a super worker, a super 
citizen – to move us into a more competitive global economy. 
Not one who merely satisfies bureaucratic needs.”
Taken as a whole, the five sampled technikons appear to have been
able to take advantage of the opportunities that TELP is providing for 
student access in bridging programmes and developing standardised
testing packages for mathematics, science and English. For example,
TELP has supported an “Access Programme in Engineering and
Technology,” providing bridging support in core subject areas and
emphasising female students; a multi-media, inter-departmental 
laboratory; standardised tests for Maths and English developed with
support from the Contractor; a draft five-year student development
plan; and a work-study programme.
Of course this does not mean that technikons have all made equal use 
of the opportunities provided through TELP, or that the universities
have failed in this respect. As with the technikons cited above,
examples of similar project-supported activities may also be found at
universities, though they are fewer in number. 
A few institutions have established five-year student development
plans, standardised testing, work-study and bridging programmes.
Several universities are making meaningful strides in expanding access 
to quality education and training. One institution in particular stands
out as an example of TELP. The provision of technical assistance and
programme models enabled it to translate its vision into a fully
operational, multi-dimensional student development programme that
includes not only student testing in core subjects and bridging, but also 
student mentoring and work-study. Although the latter has been in
place at this institution for many years, its fine-tuning is attributed to 
TELP. As staff there put it, there is real synergy between project and
institutional activities.
 
13 The percentage of candidates writing matric who obtained matric exemption declined from 31 per cent in 
1980 to 13 per cent by 1998 (Future Fact Conference 2000). In 1998, of the 280,000 candidates who wrote 
mathematics only seven per cent passed on the higher grade. In the case of science, 157,000 wrote matric 
and 17 per cent passed on the higher grade.
14 It is estimated that there will be a quarter of a million jobs in South Africa in the information technology 
sector within five years. But,South Africa has only 45 per cent of the maths teachers required (50 per cent of 
whom have no formal qualification in their subject) and 40 per cent of the science teachers required (60 per 
cent of whom have no formal qualification in science).
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
24
Disrupted campuses
In spite of major student disruptions at three universities with some
form of bridging programme, it was reported that the pass and
admittance rates and subsequent student performance in the first year 
are notable. Even in an institution where standardised testing and
bridging had been initiated but could not be sustained because of a
loss of staff and student disruptions, lecturers were philosophical about 
lessons learned. They recognised the potential and expressed the hope 
that they will get another chance to strengthen their student
development services once the institution has resolved some of its
administrative problems. It was also reported at other institutions that 
have had to cut back on their academic staff that the provision of
bridging programmes has suffered as a result. “Fewer people are being 
asked to do more. There is a limit to what people will give.”
5.2.1.4 Administration and management development
In general the historically disadvantaged institutions had weak and
under-resourced management and administration systems with little if 
any experience of drawing up budgets and managing their finances.
Information technology was in the main antiquated and inefficient. As
a result of initiatives under TELP, this situation has been greatly
improved in most cases, though much still remains to be done. 
The final service under the DevTech contract was a financial
management training programme delivered through Deloitte & Touche 
at 14 TELP institutions. In most cases it was agreed that this had been 
of great value, especially in the area of budgeting and budget
management. Other institution-specific services in this area provided
under TELP include training in performance management (to improve
individual skills of non-academic staff and to strengthen management 
operations and support services), time management, leadership 
training and development, general management training, diversity and 
conflict management, interpersonal skills development, and senior
executive management training (including strategic thinking, team
building, partnering, and knowledge management).
5.2.1.5 Research skills development
Institutions of higher education have traditionally had two main
functions: teaching and research. The emphasis in the past at
historically disadvantaged institutions has been on teaching,
particularly at the undergraduate level. Research, especially in the
sciences and technology, which requires high levels of expertise and
expensive resources, has, for the most part, been neglected. One of
the initiatives undertaken by TELP was to assist in building research
capacity at the universities and technikons it serves. Six of these
institutions have expanded and/or established research units of one
kind or another. Enthusiasm is high and the results have already been 
quite startling. 
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
25
In one technikon, for instance, the research capacity-building 
programme has been geared to developing staff by combining research 
training in theory and practice. Originally, it was intended to train 10
members of staff. Enthusiasm was so high eventually 27 members of
staff joined the programme. As a result the institution has discovered a 
great deal of formerly unrecognised talent. In addition, student
research assistants have been trained and employed. The programme 
is using the local community as its laboratory and has created 12
projects with staff working in teams or pairs on topics as diverse as
mathematical problems encountered by grade 12 school children to
community health care. The programme is now at the end of its first
year and data are being written up. By the end of July they will go into 
the second phase to work as a team doing consultancy work in the real 
world. “The TELP money will be used as seed money.”
5.2.2 Joint Activities
As with the preceding discussion of institution-specific activities, this
section examines joint activities in the focus areas, excluding research
skills development (which is not addressed through this modality). We
found a mixed degree of satisfaction and impact for the joint activities
mechanism.
In this section we will examine regional and national activities that
address higher education needs, and arising out of such joint activity
workshops, certain institution-specific activities, as well as milestones
associated with proposal writing and strategic planning. Of the three
critical areas, joint activities have been perceived by USAID as being the 
least successful, but this is not necessarily the case. An important
consideration when considering delivery in this area is the number of
participants (variables), each of which can have an impact on
performance independent of the others. Nor is it just their performance
that must be taken into account. Their reported perceptions need to be
carefully balanced with other evidence. 
The joint activities component was added to TELP in order for the project 
to have another strategy for achieving its stated objectives. Whereas PILs 
are based on proposals developed by an institution to address its own
targeted needs, joint activities are designed to build capacity at
historically disadvantaged institutions as well as to address sectoral and
institutional needs. The workshop format has been adopted as the basic
vehicle for service delivery. Workshops, thus far, have been based on
milestones that are proposed by the Contractor and approved by USAID. 
(See Section 5.4.5).
UNCF is responsible for planning, organising and conducting joint activity 
workshops. These are organized on a regional or national basis for the
historically disadvantaged institutions, and are supplemented by
institution-specific technical assistance in areas that arise out of the
sessions. Joint activities workshops may be further divided into two
categories: a) those that are devoted to transformation issues and higher 
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
26
education sectoral requirements, and b) general training, skills 
development and capacity-building sessions.
The complexity of this approach to joint activities does not seem to have 
been fully appreciated. TELP’s design, based on the principle of
homogeneity, impinges upon the component. The Contractor’s role as
implementer of the project is affected by the organisation’s interpretation 
of milestones that were, in the main, established some time ago. The
historically disadvantaged institutions, which are the intended
beneficiaries, affect component performance by their degree of
cooperation and participation. It also appears that some TELP institutions 
bring different levels of commitment to joint activity workshops. USAID
has its own expectations that are influenced by policy parameters and
historical experiences, derived from funding and managing similar types of 
performance-based education contracts. And all stakeholders bring
different perceptions, expectations, needs and levels of capacity.
Complaints abound, but if they are examined closely many are directed
towards operational aspects of the component. When explored on the
basis of outputs and the developmental needs of historically
disadvantaged institutions the value of the component becomes evident.
The more fundamental matter to be addressed is how to make the 
mechanism more responsive to institutional needs and sectoral
requirements, how to raise overall quality, and how to incorporate
incentives into the process for the Contractor to provide required technical 
assistance to TELP institutions even if it does not directly contribute to
meeting milestones.
Workshops
In relation to the mixed degree of institutional satisfaction with the joint
activities mechanism that we found, it must be said in mitigation that the 
onus is not only on the Contractor to ensure the success or otherwise of
joint activities. The point has been made that those attending the
workshops also need to be committed to the process. The complaint was
voiced that there is often a lack of continuity in HDI staff attendance at
workshops. Substitutes who have no knowledge of the focus area are
sometimes sent to sessions. Report-back meetings often are not held,
with the result that information does not get disseminated. These factors, 
which are outside of the Contractor’s control, have a direct bearing on
impact. 
Some of the problems in workshops of a general nature may have
resulted directly from the “one size fits all” assumption (treating all
historically disadvantaged institutions as one homogenous group) that has 
already been described in the context of the differing curriculum
development requirements at universities and technikons. Although
USAID suggests that greater creativity on the part of the Contractor would 
have helped, a question may be raised whether the project’s design
erected obstacles that were difficult to overcome consistently.
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
27
In some cases participants felt that the College Fund had not made much 
of an effort to find out exactly what sort of workshops a given institution 
might need in, for example, curriculum development. One university
stated that it wants to move beyond issues concerned with the National
Qualifications Framework to more substantive educational issues, but “we 
weren’t asked what we wanted out of the workshops.” UNCF, on the other 
hand, explains that absent further input from the institutions themselves, 
it relied on academic audits carried out by the previous TELP contractor. It 
was also asserted that the Vice-Chancellors did not question the
appropriateness of workshops topics at the Advisory Panel meetings.
Coinciding with the evaluation exercise, the Contractor began a series of
visits to the TELP institutions that may help address this issue. USAID and 
the College Fund have also been discussing the need for better integration 
within joint activities, so that they provide value beyond a workshop on
the same topic delivered to multiple institutions. In UNCF’s view, the
situation is substantially better in this second year of the project than it
was in the first. Still missing in this component is a follow-up mechanism 
to assess the impact of joint activities on specific campuses.
The issue of non-responsive workshops is but an aspect of a much larger 
problem. TELP institutions have expressed concern over the fact that
UNCF has not made a conscious attempt to get to know their institutions
as individual entities, nor do they feel that the Contractor has developed 
working relationships with management. Moreover, USAID explained to
the evaluators that it has tried to impress upon the Contractor its view
that increased project effectiveness is dependent upon the acquisition and 
analysis of specific data about individual institutional needs, as well as
project benefits. The College Fund responds that it has been continuously 
in contact with all TELP institutions, “assessing their needs for institution￾based focussed interventions and generic commonalities where
institutions could share experiences.”
Scheduling
One cross-cutting problem is scheduling. Joint workshops often clash with 
other institutional activities and commitments. This was even the case
with the mid-term evaluation. A three-day workshop was taking place on 
the day one site visit was being conducted, with the result that a number 
of people were not able to attend the focus group discussion. This
particular instance, of course, represents a shared problem between the
Contractor and the evaluators. However, many comments testify to the
fact that this is a common difficulty. “Around the end of the financial year 
there is an escalation of events.” “Simple compliance with the milestones 
is not enough. There must be space for flexibility.” 
5.2.2.1 Staff development
As with the institution-specific approach, staff development through
joint activities overlaps the other areas of curriculum, student and
management development. It does not have its own separate budget. 
Nevertheless, several types of joint activities have addressed this focus 
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
28
area. These include proposal writing, gender/labour equity, grant
management and leadership workshops. They were followed up with a 
number of activities on specific campuses. 
An illustration of the point made earlier about the difficulty of assigning 
success or failure may be found in the workshops on proposal writing
(actually funded as a joint activity under the institution-specific
component). TELP institutions’ complaints about the lack of
differentiation around individual and institutional needs and the poor
quality of facilitators were widespread. However, most institutions
acquired sufficient skills to develop fundable TELP proposals, and
several indicated that they were in the process of developing proposals 
to submit to other funding agencies.
The College Fund has also offered joint workshops in the
modularisation of courses to comply with South African Qualifications
Authority requirements. Such training forms part of capacity building
for curriculum development (see Section 5.2.2.2).
Equity is “not about replacing numbers of one racial group with 
numbers of another racial group.” 
The new Employment Equity Act, designed to promote equal
opportunities in the workplace for the previously disadvantaged, is
making additional demands on institutions. While it can be argued that 
legislation is necessary to force some changes, altering deeply held 
cultural convictions and prejudices is another matter. In this regard the 
more-urban institutions report having fewer problems than those
situated in rural areas. Gender equity, in particular, continues to
require attention across the board. It was felt that there is “a fair
amount of resistance” regardless of perceptions to the contrary. It was 
reported that in a number of cases senior management did not attend 
gender workshops on the campuses of individual institutions. Some
even expressed hostility towards the concept of gender equity.
Workshops were also provided to develop guidelines to institutions on 
how to set up gender mentoring programmes.
One problem commonly cited by the institutions with regards to gender 
equity workshops is that they were too theoretical and not tailored
closely enough to specific contexts. They were said to lack analysis and 
information about impact implications.
“It is important to remember that we are concerned with developing
long-term awareness. This is something that cannot happen in the
short term.” “It is much easier to address equity issues in the student 
body than in the staff.” It is realised that “equity is about institutional 
transformation… it boils down to resources and deeply ingrained
attitudes.” There is a need for a great deal of education and training. 
Further it was realised that there is a “need to get everyone to buy in 
to what the equity act is all about.” 
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
29
5.2.2.2 Curriculum development
It was confirmed that TELP has played a major role in curriculum
development. Most historically disadvantaged institutions are on course 
with regard to meeting the June 2000 deadline to comply with National 
Qualifications Framework requirements. Joint TELP activities have
made a significant contribution in this regard. A complicating factor has 
been the perception that mixed messages have emanated from the
South African Qualifications Authority. 
Although a number of institutions claimed that they are well on track
or even “way ahead of most other institutions,” in modularising their 
courses, it was admitted that within institutions there are different
levels of capacity. Part of the problem, it was asserted, is that staff are 
often not aware of the need to grapple with and reflect on their own
practice. It was pointed out that curriculum is not just a TELP initiative. 
It must also be part of the institution’s strategic plan. It was confirmed 
that without TELP funding curriculum development could not have
happened. 
In addition to the joint activities workshops, the Contractor provided 
technical assistance in response to individual requests for further help. 
Historically disadvantaged institutions probably would not have been
able to meet the requirements collectively without such help. Some of 
the institutions said that they would have experienced serious
difficulties in acquiring pertinent information on a timely basis and
marshalling the necessary resources to respond effectively to the new 
higher education demands. There was unanimity of opinion that TELP’s 
contribution was critical to the process. Notwithstanding problems
discussed below, any measurement of the accomplishments in this
area of joint activities would result in an example of outright success in 
a way that is not the case for most other activities.
“I wish they could have come up with two sets of objectives for 
technikons and universities, like in a class with slow learners.”
One of the problems arising with joint curriculum development
activities involves the historical differences between universities and
technikons described above in Section 5.2.1.2. For example, one
institution is the only technikon participating in its region. The others
are all universities, with different priorities and problems. This
technikon felt that it did not need the first curriculum development
workshop, which was about building capacity to deal with the
NQF/SAQA. It was better able to cope with the National Qualifications
Framework than the universities. “TELP concentrated on baby feeding 
for the universities.” They were more interested in learning how the
other technikons were dealing with it. The point was made that
technikons have a much more uniform way of dealing with these kinds 
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
30
of issues as they are used to working together. They also have the
mechanism of the convenor technikons to provide leadership. 
5.2.2.3 Student development
There has been a significant transformation in the racial composition of 
students at different universities and technikons. One of the major
consequences of the shift in demographics has been that the formerly 
advantaged white institutions are perceived, especially by the
historically disadvantaged universities, as taking the best black
students while leaving them with the remainder. Hence, it is felt that
the specific project targets that have been set to have students in
bridging programmes by year three are unrealistic, particularly since
most institutions did not have the requisite programmes in place when 
this phase of TELP started. 
The point was made that historically disadvantaged institutions are
struggling to get students and are reluctant to place students in such
bridging courses because it would have a negative effect on their
mainstream numbers. That is, bridging courses are not attractive to
students because of the additional time added to degree programmes. 
There is, however, increasing recognition among TELP institutions that 
many students stand in need of compensatory programmes, so the
problems associated with skills deficiencies and poor preparation
generally await resolution and will require renewed emphasis if these
types of student needs are to be met.
Taken as a whole, four of the five technikons in the sample group and 
one-third of the universities appear to have been able to take
advantage of the opportunities that TELP has provided for increased
student access by providing bridging programmes and developing
standardised testing packages in mathematics, science and English.
This does not mean that they have all made equal use of TELP
resources; the rates of progress have been different.
The College Fund utilises the Desmond Tutu Educational Trust (DTET) 
to conduct activities in the student development focus area under joint 
activities. The Tutu Trust has been responsible for conducting student 
leadership programmes, holding work-study workshops and helping in 
the development of standardised testing packages. Although the Trust 
reports “generally positive” feedback from participant evaluation
forms, some staff at TELP institutions voiced complaints regarding the 
quality of DTET-organised workshops. Generally, it was said that
problems have been reduced but never fully eliminated. And the larger 
question raised often revolves around a lack of understanding of the 
role of the Tutu Trust under TELP.
The Trust’s testing workshops, supplemented by limited technical
assistance, are credited with the creation or enhancement of
institutional programmes. Approximately 50 per cent of TELP institu￾tions are evaluating first-year students on entry. 
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
31
Work-study has met with little success. Only a few TELP institutions
have used the Tutu model to develop or upgrade work-study on
campus. Funding to assist with establishing and operating student
work-study programmes, expected by participating institutions and
sought by DTET itself, has not materialised. Some wonder how work￾study programmes relate to project objectives and why such an
activity is being promoted without financial support. 
Student leadership programmes were generally well received. Several 
institutions stated that student workshop participants seem much more 
willing to talk to management about critical issues for the first time.
This is considered by them to be a significant development. However, 
there can be no sustained benefit from these leadership programmes
because the numbers of students involved are so small, plus students
are only around for a few years. As one Coordinator put it, “Students
leave, but staff stay behind.”
5.2.2.4 Administration and management development
Joint activities have made important contributions toward the
attainment of stated project results and higher education objectives in 
several areas, one of which is capacity building around strategic
planning. The obvious indicator here is the three-year rolling plan now 
required of every university and technikon. Thirteen TELP stakeholder 
institutions have now produced such plans. One of the intentions of
these activities was the incorporation of gender/labour equity plans
and mentoring programmes into the strategic and three-year rolling
planning processes. Leadership and institutional change in higher
education workshops were also held to assist this process. Institutional 
strategic planning frameworks and faculty business plans were also
developed. These initiatives were followed up with technical assistance 
to specific institutions. 
It should be pointed out that not all joint activities have received equal 
emphasis in each year of the project’s implementation. Administration 
and management is a case in point. It is anticipated that there will be a 
greater emphasis in this area than hitherto. To date, the College Fund 
has provided support services that foster management, leadership and 
financial skills primarily through workshops. Staff planning, knowledge 
and skills have been developed, and at some TELP institutions strategic 
planning systems have been institutionalised.
5.3 Institutional Linkages Component
The primary goal of UNCF in this component is to facilitate the design and 
implementation of linkage grants that are directly responsive to the
specified needs of the historically disadvantaged institutions. Linkages are 
intended to take advantage of expertise at U.S. institutions of higher
education and provide the means for two or more linked institutions to
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
32
address broad-based problems, share resources, and engage in joint
activities related to the five focus areas. 
There have been two cycles of linkage grants at which a Review Panel
selected proposals. All of the TELP institutions have now established 
linkages with universities or consortia of higher education institutions in
the United States. Based on the experiences gained in the first cycle, the 
Contractor provided applicants in the second cycle with an orientation
session, specific negotiating skills across cultures and guidance in the
preparation of budgets. It was reported that some of the historically
disadvantaged institutions did not take special care in selecting the people 
they sent to negotiate their agreements. 
Development Consultants Network
The College Fund’s subcontractor for managing linkage grants is
Development Consultants Network (DCN). DCN is involved in all aspects of 
implementation from the pre-application solicitation phase to the awarding 
of linkage grants and reporting on component activities. In preparation for 
the final round of linkages, each South African institution was provided
assistance in the drafting of a “focus statement” that specified institutional 
priority areas. Additionally, UNCF and DCN arranged site visits to the
United States for South African representatives in order to help the TELP 
institutions gain first-hand knowledge of potential linkage partners. 
Successes
In general linkages are seen as a particularly powerful tool for staff
development. Five TELP institutions report no problems in setting up their 
linkages, getting them to work and producing the expected results. This is 
not to say that during negotiations there was a meeting of the minds on 
all matters, but rather that when differences did arise they were tackled in 
an open and professional manner, then resolved to the mutual satisfaction 
of all parties. These historically disadvantaged institutions are excited by
the possibilities that appear to be opening up to them. South African
educators are enthusiastic about the sharing of resources and the rapport 
that has begun to develop with their American colleagues.
Within the group cited above, the two TELP institutions involved in
linkages the longest describe their relationship as excellent. They feel that 
they are treated as counterparts of equal standing. Further, these
historically disadvantaged institutions assert that their US partners have
demonstrated a commitment to the linkages programme. The American
institutions go beyond the specific language of their agreements and take 
initiative in making suggestions to enhance programming and to apply
expertise to broad-based institutional problems. 
At each of these South African institutions, mission statements and
strategic objectives have guided linkage goals and activities. The technical 
assistance and programmes being offered by the US institutions cut
across several of the five focus areas. They call for the provision of staff
development, including academic, administrative and support staff,
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
33
management and leadership training, as well as curriculum development. 
One linkage has a major research component.
“Joining hands across the sea… progress through technology.”
Another TELP institution that falls within the most recent round of linkage 
awards reports that, although its linkage is relatively new, implementation 
is on a fast track. It is pleased with the quality of the initial activities
provided by its American partner. Jointly the linked organisations are
making progress in finalising their action plan for proposed technical
assistance in targeted areas. In addition to the staff development
component, which is common to all successful linkages in this group,
other institutional priorities are quality assurance and research capacity
skills development. For the remaining two South African institutions that
are just getting started, negotiations likewise went smoothly and
expectations are high for programmatic benefits.
Overall the five historically disadvantaged institutions that express high
linkage programme satisfaction have each achieved some degree of
integration. Synergies are beginning to evolve between TELP and their
institutions. They also each have a strong, capable, enthusiastic linkage
manager/coordinator strategically placed within the organisation. In these 
South African institutions designated programmes are in process, staff are 
being developed, targeted problems are being addressed and capacity￾building efforts have potential for being realised. It should also be
mentioned that some among this group are well on the way to ensuring
linkage sustainability beyond TELP. Several US-South African linkage
partners are already exploring areas for possible future long-term 
collaboration.
Frustrations and disappointments
However, the majority of stakeholder institutions reported significant
frustration and disappointment over the nature of their linkage
relationships and the quality of services provided under it. For example,
one South African partner explained, “We are in the second phase.”
Initially the institution had difficulty finding a partner in the United States. 
There was no response to their advertisement in the first round. Finally, a 
US partner applied, but it appeared to the South Africans that it had been 
pushed reluctantly into the arrangement. 
One result was that the US institution appeared to want to keep most of
the budget. In their initial draft, according to this South African partner,
the Americans proposed reserving 98 percent of the funds for their own
use. (It should be noted that the TELP Review Panel did approve initial
project budgets, and that the TELP institutions were given the opportunity 
to make changes during their site visits.) The South African partner was
quoted as having said, “The grant was after all aid for them.”
Furthermore, the Americans assumed that they were in charge, while the 
South Africans thought that they were equals. This lack of clarity
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
34
regarding their respective roles led to extensive, and for the South
Africans exhausting, negotiations. 
Some TELP institutions assert that “no provision was made for the
meeting of two very different cultures.” The partners had two different
notions of what a contract means and how it is arrived at. Negotiations
were consequently very difficult. From the perspective of these
institutions, the prevailing attitude seemed to be that the American way is 
understood by the South African partners and that that is how things
would be done. On the other hand, the Contractor cites numerous
attempts to strengthen the position of the historically disadvantaged
institutions, including an orientation workshop on negotiating memoranda 
of understanding and an offer (accepted by only one visitor) to
communicate with South African representatives while they were visiting
the United States.
 “US assumptions need to be interrogated. American attitudes are 
subtle. They want to help but they assume they have all the 
answers and don’t really hear the South African negotiators/
partners”
Further, it would appear that the process assumed South Africans have
skills that are taken for granted in the US, even though they do not. In
addition, it was asserted that because of their relative lack of negotiating 
experience many South Africans at the historically disadvantaged
institutions do not understand the nature of contracts, that “once the
memo is signed, it is signed” and negotiations are at an end. Of course,
there are many political, historical and psychological reasons for such
perceptions, but the fact is “they exist and should be taken into account in 
setting up linkages in future.”
Not only are linkages where “the two cultures meet,” but there also
appears to be considerable confusion regarding what is meant to be
achieved, how it is meant to be achieved and the logistics of putting
linkages in place. Most of these problems can be attributed to poor
communications. The very structure of the linkages component seems to
undermine effective communications. The complaint was voiced on the
South African side that information provided in documents was often
couched in obscure legalese that left the South Africans, at least, in some 
doubt about what they could expect or demand. The Contractor, on the
other hand, notes “an erroneous expectation that the US partner is
responsible for initiating communication.” At the April, 2000, post-award 
conference institutional coordinators were strongly advised to initiate
contact, since they are in a better position to know when an issue should 
be addressed.
One South African project manager reported having to provide a member 
of the academic staff at his institution who was going to the United States 
with the airfare from his own pocket. A few other institutions that have
limited funds and no access to credit have experienced difficulties in
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
35
starting up because they do not have adequate financial resources to
support activities prior to receiving funds from the U.S. institution.
Financial arrangements were further complicated by US financial systems
that make it difficult to send money to South Africa.
Quality assurance
No provision is made for on-site monitoring in the United States. Official
reports come quarterly from the US institutions, with no procedures for
regular feedback about linkages from the TELP institutions themselves to 
the Contractor or USAID. The Contractor notes that the linkage
component’s travel budget is inadequate for monitoring purposes. No
mechanisms exist for assuring the quality of the US inputs or for taking
corrective action in the event of unsatisfactory performance from an
American (or, for that matter, a South African) institution. The result is a 
wide variance in perceptions about the component’s success, ranging from 
positive on the American side to negative on the part of many (although 
not all) South African institutions.
These structural problems with reporting and quality assurance assume
particular importance because some of the American partners, according
to South African perceptions, do not appear to be taking the linkages
seriously. It was claimed that staff on the American side were not always 
fully committed to the linkage and were putting there own concerns and
interests ahead of the work that they should be doing to foster the
partnership. Complaints were also voiced that some American institutions 
had made exaggerated claims about what they could provide and are now 
unable or unwilling to deliver on those promises. On one site visit we
witnessed an example of such problems, attending a workshop run by a
consultant from a U.S. linkage university who, in our judgement, delivered 
a presentation of unacceptably low quality.
Unequal partnerships
The legal basis for the linkages has also raised concerns. The Contractor
signs a sub-agreement with each American partner. The South African and 
American partners sign a Memorandum of Agreement, as required by
USAID regulations, which the TELP institutions feel does not have the
same contractual force although, in fact, it is incorporated into the binding 
contract. Only one institution expressed an understanding of the
difference between the memorandum and the contract. They felt that they 
were locked into a relationship in which they had very little power to
change or challenge things not to their satisfaction, in spite of the fact
that DCN told TELP institutions that they “had the authority to negotiate a 
memorandum of agreement which could change everything from budget
to timeframes to activities.” DCN notes that misconceptions about linkage 
grants still abound, with some personnel at both South African and US
institutions unclear on many points. Problems often arise because busy
faculty and administrators do not always read key documents, share
important information with colleagues and raise questions when
necessary.
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
36
A more basic concern arises around the relationship between two linked 
institutions. Far from being an equal partnership, which is what the South 
Africans expected it to be, it seems a highly unequal one in which the
South Africans are on the receiving end. Instead of empowering them, the 
relationship ironically disempowers them. 
5.4 General Findings
5.4.1 Project Success Factors
Determining project success at any institution at any given time is not an 
easy task. There are a combination of factors and degrees of success and 
failure within a single institution. The dynamics underlying them and
militating circumstances need to be taken into account. 
Major factors
The factors that appear to contribute the most to TELP success on campus 
include the following: 
· a committed and pro-active Vice-Chancellor, 
· a competent TELP Coordinator, and 
· the integration of TELP into the institution’s strategic plan. 
Conversely, the absence of such determinants limits potential project
benefits. There is no avoiding the fact that in many institutions there is a 
leadership crisis which impacts negatively on TELP’s performance at these 
places. The absence of a committed and pro-active Vice-Chancellor with a 
clear and uncompromising vision inevitably means that TELP is not
integrated into the institution’s strategic plan. In plain terms, this means
that the institution is not able to take full advantage of the opportunities
that TELP provides for capacity building in the five focus areas, identified 
by the Vice-Chancellors themselves as being crucial for their institutions’ 
up-grading. A lack of leadership often results in absent or uncoordinated
action, with little follow-through on campuses, and sporadic attendance at 
TELP Advisory Committee meetings.
The quality of the TELP Coordinators is also of vital importance. If
Coordinators are incompetent or unmotivated it is obvious that TELP must 
suffer. For it is they who must provide essential information to their
institutions as well as maintaining communications with a host of external 
and internal individuals and agencies such as project managers, the
Contractor and other institutions of higher learning. Further, if they are
not supported by their Vice-Chancellor or lack status within an institution 
their role and, therefore, their performance must be compromised.
Lesser factors
Lesser factors that may influence performance include, but are not
confined to: the presence or absence of good project management and
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
37
coordination; the level of and continuity of staff involvement and
commitment; the quality of institutional leadership; organisational
infrastructure and existing capacity. Some institutions have a greater
measure of experience than others in implementing similar projects. It
was remarked at several institutions that synergies had developed
between TELP, institutional programmes and other development projects
to the extent that distinguishing one from the other was difficult. In at
least half of the institutions, internal politics have had a debilitating effect 
on TELP’s ability to function effectively. The assumption under which TELP 
was conceptualised, that all disadvantaged institutions have similar 
problems and should be treated the same, is another factor that limits
efficacy of the project. 
Currently, no formal on-site evaluations of the project are taking place.
However, there is considerable informal evaluation with lessons learned
being reflected in the increased capacity of staff. The point was made that 
there is, in some cases, “no baseline data” and, therefore, internal impact 
assessment is impressionistic at best. 
5.4.2 Staff Development 
The training of staff is one of the notable successes for TELP. Institutional 
linkages have provided significant opportunities for selected historically
disadvantaged institution staff members to interact with colleagues at
tertiary education institutions within South Africa and the United States,
and to receive advanced technical and post-graduate degree training. In
addition to these linkages, all of the historically disadvantaged institutions 
benefited from having staff awarded scholarships for post-graduate 
degrees. In total from 1996 to 1999, 74 members of staff have been
involved in such programmes in the United States. Long-term staff
development mechanisms facilitate the continued success of the project
and contribute to staff development and capacity building. 
Retention 
Those institutions with a low staff turnover benefit the most from the
continuity of having a stable staff. Such continuity was especially evident 
in those institutions where leadership was strong and involved and where 
top management has been able to inspire staff with a shared vision. 
On the other hand, many institutions reported that it is difficult to retain
staff, especially those trained overseas. One institution went so far as to
describe itself as “a staff poaching pool.” A number of historically disad￾vantaged institutions wondered how to tie staff to their institutions by
means of service contracts and other inducements once they had received 
training. It was acknowledged that when staff are being headhunted there 
is little the institution can do if money is made available to buy them out 
of their contractual obligations. It was also conceded that while the
institution itself may be the loser, the country would not lose the benefit 
of the investment made in their training. 
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
38
Some institutions experience problems with staff release. When staff have 
been sent away for training, existing resources are stretched. Many
institutions cannot afford to carry a double salary. In addition to the
financial implications, which for some organisations are problematic, those 
remaining behind often find that instead of being able to give all highest 
priority to ongoing responsibilities and new project activities, they are
required to divide their time and attention more and more.
5.4.3 TELP Coordinators
One of the most significant findings to come out of the site visits for this
evaluation is the important and pivotal role of the TELP Coordinator.
Almost without exception, at institutions where the TELP Coordinator is
committed and energetic the programme has achieved meaningful results. 
This is true even of troubled institutions where the Coordinator not only
has the backing of the management team but also has some status and
authority in the organisation. The greatest success occurs when
Coordinators are good communicators, have an understanding of higher
education and are backed by a strong Vice-Chancellor. 
Roles and duties 
There is a lack of clarity regarding the roles and duties of the Coordinator. 
Coordinators report to the Vice-Chancellors, but there is confusion
regarding their relationship with the Contractor. The Contractor expressed 
considerable frustration in this regard. The Coordinators are their “life
blood.” Yet the Contractor has an undefined relationship with them. They 
are appointed by the institutions and their salaries are paid by USAID. The 
Coordinators also feel frustrated by this undefined relationship.
A related issue is that at a number of historically disadvantaged
institutions Coordinators have taken study leave. This circumstance, plus
high turnover, has had a detrimental effect on the project. The evaluation 
also uncovered the fact that several Coordinators serve part-time. They
manage TELP while continuing to perform other major institutional
responsibilities. In other words, the institutions concerned are not fulfilling 
their obligations to the Donor and are in violation of the Agreement.
Logistics
Another challenge concerns logistics. TELP Coordinators indicated that
they often have difficulty arranging project activities because requested
dates frequently conflict with the institution’s academic timetable, coming 
at times when heavy demands are made on staff (such as during
examinations). The requirement for extended semi-annual reports in June 
and December adds an additional burden, as these are the times when
students and marking place unusually heavy demands on staff time. 
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
39
5.4.4 Project Management Structures
In our view appropriate basic management structures exist at USAID/SA, 
the College Fund and the historically disadvantaged institutions to
accommodate project implementation. 
USAID/SA
USAID has set up a TELP management team within the Mission’s higher
education division that has overall responsibility for managing TELP,
including oversight of contractors and grantees. This team is composed of 
a Higher Education Team Leader and a Project Development Specialist.
Senior Management has taken an active role in monitoring TELP. The
Team Leader and the Deputy Team Leader for Education support the
Higher Education Team. They participate with them in providing technical 
guidance to UNCF. Meetings between USAID and the Contractor are held
on a regular basis to evaluate project progress, to address implementation 
issues, and to discuss strategies for problem resolution. Additional USAID 
Management Team responsibilities include, but are not limited to,
reporting to the TELP Advisory Panel, the procurement of services outside 
of the contract and the proper stewardship of public funds.
The College Fund
The College Fund, the current prime contractor for the implementation of 
TELP, has established a structure in which designated positions are
aligned with key project components. The Chief of Party is responsible for 
overall project leadership, liasing with USAID and the Department of
Education, supervision of staff and fiscal administration. The Deputy Chief 
of Party’s portfolio includes general project implementation duties and
coordination of linkages. Completing the key staff complement are Project 
Managers for TELP Joint Activities and Institutional Development, financial 
officer and general support staff.
The Advisory Panel
The Advisory Panel has an important monitoring function. It is composed 
of all the Vice-Chancellors of the historically disadvantaged institutions, 
representatives from the Department of Education and USAID/SA. UNCF
serves as the secretariat. Its effectiveness has been compromised by a
lack of commitment by some Vice-Chancellors who attend irregularly.
Historically disadvantaged institutions
All TELP institutions have organised basic project management structures. 
It should be noted, however, that some institutions have elaborated much 
more sophisticated project management structures than others. In
addition to a general campus advisory committee and the positions of
Coordinator and project managers, some have developed TELP manage￾ment forums that meet regularly and have direct access to the Senate and 
other pertinent decision-making bodies. At one historically disadvantaged 
institution organisational stakeholders elected the Vice-Chancellor to the
Chair, at two the Deputy Vice-Chancellor has been chosen to lead TELP,
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
40
and at several others faculty and other participant representatives are
elected. Such formal structures have significant impact on TELP’s visibility 
and success on campus. This does not mean to say that the entire
question of leadership and the management of TELP should be reduced to 
the Vice-Chancellors only. It is an institutional issue.
Structures, however, are not enough to ensure effectiveness. Even when 
organisational structures are in place, if communications within the
institution are poor and there is limited dissemination of information,
project implementation is impeded. At one historically disadvantaged
institution the TELP Coordinator has set up eight committees, but they do 
not communicate with each other; there is no overall coordination. With
each committee acting in isolation, project activities are fragmented and
entire segments of the management and academic staff have little or no 
knowledge of TELP opportunities. Another factor hindering TELP is that
changes in top management at some institutions have had a deleterious
effect. One institution, for example, has seen three Vice-Chancellors since 
TELP began.
In the early stages of the project, there were significant communications
problems between USAID and the historically disadvantaged institutions.
These have since been largely resolved through several interventions:
strengthening the Advisory Panel, appointing the TELP Coordinators, and 
internal changes at USAID to improve staffing and management systems. 
Similar problems bedevilled the early relationship between USAID and its 
current TELP contractor. The College Fund asserts that both parties have
made significant strides towards improving their communications.
However, some USAID staff members continue to express negative
judgements about the Contractor’s capabilities. This perspective tends to
impede USAID’s ability to manage and assess the project.
5.4.5 Milestones
TELP services are delivered by the College Fund under a performance￾based contract awarded by USAID/SA. Theoretically, this type of contract 
requires less supervision from USAID and affords the implementing agent 
greater flexibility. The actual implementation of TELP through a milestones 
approach has, however, been problematic. 
Milestones, proposed by the UNCF home office and incorporated in their
original contract, are intended to demonstrate key accomplishments that
indicate progress towards the achievement of results specified by USAID. 
During the life of the project, milestones may be renegotiated but results 
are cast in concrete. USAID/SA expresses concern that the Contractor
interprets milestones literally and not in the broader spirit intended.
Milestones are said to be routinely delivered as narrowly defined, discrete 
activities, not as requisite building blocks in a progressively constructed
approach to capacity building. USAID states that while focusing on
meeting specific milestones the Contractor misses opportunities to achieve 
other equally important outcomes, such as finding synergies in joint
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
41
activities rather than merely delivering events such as individual
workshops. The Contractor’s past progress reports are described by
USAID as essentially lists of activities completed, devoid of analysis or
discussion of individual institutional needs and project benefits.
UNCF/South Africa, on the other hand, expresses considerable frustration 
with the milestone mechanism, arguing that it is particularly problematic 
in a transformation environment. The Contractor acknowledges difficulties 
in the early stages of project implementation, but believes that over time 
it has made meaningful adjustments in service delivery. The College Fund 
is of the view that, although they are accused of being too focused on
milestones that are specified deliverables approved by USAID, they have 
worked hard in the past two years to get selected milestones changed.
UNCF/SA staff express consternation over what they perceive as a lack of 
recognition for their contributions to TELP, and feel that they are being
unfairly blamed for the shortcomings of a project design that is based on 
the underlying assumption that “one size fits all.” According to the
Contractor, all stakeholders should assume some responsibility for TELP’s
successes and failures.
The TELP institutions are the most negative about the practical
implications of milestones, which they sometimes call “tombstones” or
“millstones.” The institutions voice the general complaint that milestones 
are not responsive to their needs, and that deadlines are frequently very 
tight. Milestones have to be met in a given time frame, and because there 
appears to be inadequate planning on the part of organisers, institutions
are given little notice, ending up with the feeling that “…we are no longer 
in control and we are taken over by the process.” One interviewee said: 
“it feels like you have to have a workshop because you need to have a
workshop” – not because a workshop on a particular topic is appropriate, 
but because it was necessary in terms of meeting milestones. It was felt
that quality is compromised as a result. Questions were also raised about 
whether or not sufficient cognisance is taken of academic calendars when 
activities are planned.
Of all the issues examined during this evaluation, those surrounding
milestones are some of the more contentious and complex, yet none are 
potentially more vital to project progress. The above discussion points up 
only a few of the differences in perceptions about milestones. Other
related issues concern an obvious discrepancy gap in performance
expectations held by the various stakeholders, and the lack of
international development and project management/implementation
experience on the part of the Contractor.
5.4.6 Communications
There is a definite need, as well as an expressed desire by project
managers and Coordinators, for better sharing of information among
institutions. All participating institutions appear keen to interact with each 
other. They view TELP as a natural vehicle through which strong, shared
felt needs could be met. First, they want to have organised opportunities 
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
42
created that would enable them to meet, develop and cultivate collegial
relationships. These kinds of interactions may be taken for granted by
educators in other societies, but under apartheid each institution was
required to operate in isolation. Therefore, the facilitation of structured
forums dedicated to the exploration of philosophical and intellectual
pursuits, especially in the midst of transformation, would contribute
immensely to the development of professionalism and the broadening of
horizons, while building capacity across the sector.
Second, institutions are interested in having TELP create communication
channels that would encourage and facilitate regular exchanges of
information about concrete programme developments. Innovative
initiatives, worthy of sharing, exist on every single campus, no two of
which have strengths in the exact same areas. Examples that lend
themselves to adaptation by others include a community-based research
model, technology-based instructional methodologies and teaching tools,
a fund-raising programme, a student affairs conflict-resolution 
programme, and guidelines on how to publish. Without question, all
historically disadvantaged institutions would be enriched by shared
information about such models.
A broader issue concerns communications between the historically
disadvantaged institutions, the Contractor and USAID. Some TELP
institutions have complained about a perceived lack of feedback from the 
Contractor on the semi-annual reports. However, UNCF provides written
feedback to the institutions and forwards the reports to the Advisory
Panel. 
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
43
6. Conclusions
It may be said with certainty that TELP has already made considerable
contributions to the historically disadvantaged institutions. As discussed in 
the Capacity-Building Component and General Findings sections (5.2 and 
5.4, respectively), there have been notable and exciting achievements
which, it is acknowledged, could not have happened without TELP.
Contributions have been made by the project in all five focus areas,
contributions that have substantially expanded individual capabilities and 
enhanced institutional development. This section, Conclusions, further
elaborates upon other TELP accomplishments and provides an overall
status report on project strategies and benchmarks. It also takes
cognisance of some project shortcomings, and examines the effect of
transformation and the rapidly changing higher education environment on 
participating institutions.
6.1 Relevance of Current TELP Strategies
The South African higher education system, including the historically
disadvantaged institutions within it, is without question still in a state of
transition. The constraints that TELP was designed to address have yet to 
be resolved. Therefore TELP strategies to develop capacity and foster
institutional linkages are still relevant.
These development constraints had their origins broadly in apartheid and 
more specifically in the education system designed to support it. In the
past the system perpetuated an inequitable distribution of access and
equity for students and staff. There continue to exist disparities between
historically black and white institutions in terms of faculties and
capabilities. TELP now supports the Department of Education and, within
that support, 17 historically disadvantaged institutions. Its purpose is to
strengthen policy development capacity at the Department of Education,
to increase access of disadvantaged South Africans to tertiary education,
and to build capacity and institutional linkages at the historically
disadvantaged institutions. Those institutions receiving TELP support
report that the project provides benefits that would otherwise not have
been possible. The five focus areas are no less relevant now than when
the Vice-Chancellors first identified them. Further, it is our impression that 
where TELP is having an effect it is contributing to the psychological well￾being of participants as much as it is to their professional development.
Motivation and morale have improved in those institutions where TELP is
Section
6
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
44
having a positive impact. As one member of the academic staff put it:
“TELP offers opportunities for (achieving) some of our wildest dreams.”
6.2 The Changing Institutional Environment
The environment of the historically disadvantaged institutions, jointly and 
severally, continues to evolve rapidly. If anything, the pace of that
evolution is increasing. As this report is being written, the higher
education sector awaits the imminent publication of the ‘Size and Shape’ 
policy document, which undoubtedly will inaugurate a new round of
change. The new gender/labour equity laws are also having an effect. We 
found that current TELP mechanisms and activities are able to respond to 
these changes, although the institutional capacity still varies substantially. 
TELP strives for flexibility in its programmatic responses to the changes
wrought by the transformation process still underway. Institutional
adaptations vary considerably. At one end of the spectrum there are some 
historically disadvantaged institutions that are excited by the challenges
produced by the ‘Size and Shape’ document. They appear to feel secure, 
are likely to remain so and are in the forefront of harnessing TELP 
capacity-building opportunities: “each institution should be future
focused.” At the other end of the spectrum, there are significant numbers 
that believe their very existence is threatened. Two such institutions are
in a state of upheaval because they face massive retrenchments. As a
consequence, it has been very difficult to get their personnel interested in 
or committed to TELP. Staff are concerned with survival more than
anything else. One institution has had three Vice-Chancellors in almost as 
many years. Morale is low and rumours abound that they will close by the 
end of the year. As one member of staff expressed it, “What’s the point?” 
On the other hand, a senior administrator at a different institution
expressed the opinion that regional political representatives would not
allow anything adverse to happen to their institution. The perception that 
political loyalty will protect them persists.
Many institutions are facing financial and management crises. The
financial crisis is exacerbated by the decline in enrolments. Student
disruptions are a continuing challenge. There is a need for TELP to
continue targeting resources to address these issues. 
6.3 Integration of TELP Activities
At some institutions TELP is firmly integrated into institutional plans and
strategies. At others the linkage is much weaker. What stands out clearly 
is that integration correlates strongly with project success. Where TELP is 
perceived as part of the institution and functions as such, TELP inputs
have been most successful. 
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
45
 “TELP works when you blur the boundaries between what is TELP 
and what is not.”
Some of the historically disadvantaged institutions have achieved such a
high degree of integration of TELP activities that they reported it is not
always possible to tell what is a TELP initiative and what is not. The arena 
in which integration has taken place most successfully is at the
technikons. However, it must be noted that such integration is not
uniform and, in fact, a few instances may be found where there is a low 
level of integration yet specific project activities are succeeding. The same 
can be said to a lesser degree of universities as a group. 
Those institutions where TELP activities have been guided by their mission 
statements and integrated into their strategic plans have had the greatest 
amount of success in achieving project results and in strengthening
human resource and organisational capacity. In approximately one-third 
of institutions, where TELP is performing successfully, its campus profile is 
high, its management is broad-based, and there is a strong correlation
between the successful implementation of TELP activities and its
integration into three-year rolling plans.
A case in point is an institution that reports that its whole campus,
including students, was involved in deciding what the focus of their first
PIL should be. Since their initial involvement in TELP regular meetings
have been held to keep everyone informed of developments. Activity
leaders report to their Deans who in turn report to the Deputy Vice￾Chancellor, and the Vice-Chancellor is actively involved in the whole
process. Consequently, TELP has been completely institutionalised and its 
activities are believed to be sustainable after funding is withdrawn. TELP
activities have been targeted at specific areas in the strategic plan,
thereby ensuring that lessons learned can more readily be integrated into 
future decision-making. This example, however, although important to
demonstrate possibilities, is the exception rather than the rule. 
6.4 Progress in Relation to Benchmarks
Utilizing project benchmarks as a measurement of performance reveals
that TELP definitely is making progress towards achieving its stated
results. As noted above in Section 6.3, the degree of this progress
depends largely on the institution itself. We estimate that TELP can
currently be judged a success at approximately 40 per cent of the
institutions it serves. That is, these institutions have, in some combina￾tion, integrated TELP into their strategic plans while tending to have
committed, pro-active Vice-Chancellors and effective Coordinators.
Technikons comprise a disproportionate proportion of this group, although 
it does also include universities. This does not mean that TELP has failed 
in all of the remaining institutions, only that its success there varies, with 
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
46
several institutions demonstrating pockets of value even in the face of
broader problems.
Progress toward stated results has been made through joint activities. The 
following data provide an overview of progress toward achieving
benchmarks. Most historically disadvantaged institutions are developing
and using revised curricula in order to conform to the requirements of the 
National Qualifications Framework. Approximately 50 per cent are
evaluating first-year students on entry. A minority of institutions is
providing compensatory/bridging programmes, with varying degrees of
success. Thirteen of the 15 historically disadvantaged institutions have
developed three-year rolling plans, while two have been given an
extension because of the difficulties they are having transforming
themselves. A small minority of institutions has implemented viable work￾study programmes. All have signed memorandums of agreement with
educational institutions in the United States.
6.5 Cost-Effectiveness
Annex 10.3 provides a detailed report and analysis of findings about TELP 
expenditures, drawn primarily from data available through USAID and
from the 50 per cent of the sampled TELP institutions that returned
completed surveys. It reports how the total TELP budget of $51.2 million 
will be expended across various categories. Key findings in this regard
include the following.
· $44 million is covered by bilateral agreements between USAID and the 
Department of Education and a further $7 million takes the form of 
unilateral USAID funding (for expenditures prior to the Bilateral 
Agreement and ongoing USAID management costs).
· The largest proportion of the funding is to flow to the institutional 
contractors (57.6 per cent) and to PILS (30.2 per cent) – together 
accounting for 87.8 per cent of total funding.
· At the close of the project the largest proportion of project funding (44 
per cent) will have been channelled through the current contractor, 
UNCF. 
· Most expenditure (83 per cent) in the first two years of the College 
Fund contract has been on the joint activities component. Of the 
$6,330,210 provided, $5,256,338 was spent on this component. From 
these funds 40.2 per cent supported curriculum development, 28.9 per 
cent student academic development, and 30.9 per cent management 
and administrative development. 
· TELP funding includes amounts to $6,925,000 across the life of the 
project to support the linkages programme. 
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
47
· From the 14 linkages set out it is evident that USAID funding of almost 
$6 million attracts further funding to the extent of $3.6 million from 
the U.S. counterpart institutions. Ignoring the cost of administration, 
this amounts to a 60 per cent matching proportion. When considering 
the cost effectiveness of the project the fact that the USAID funds 
facilitate further funding must not be over looked. A 60 per cent 
matching factor is significant.
·
The performance-based nature of the UNCF contract precludes any real
determination of the cost-effectiveness of project achievements even
when activities are considered successful in terms of outcomes that satisfy 
benchmark indicators. The specific costs for a particular activity or series
of activities may be known, but because of the unavailability of baseline
data on overhead and associated management costs little light can be
shed on cost-effectiveness. 
However, determinations can be raised about general worth. In general,
all stakeholders agree that TELP can deliver significant value to historically 
disadvantaged institutions. When asked in the survey whether, if given
the opportunity to apply for further funding from USAID for TELP￾supported projects, the institution would do so, the responses were
unanimously positive. 
An often-expressed desire for sharing information and expertise between 
institutions has the potential, if organised properly, of tremendous cost
savings, hence increased value for funds committed. There are highly
innovative initiatives that have been developed as a result of TELP, but
which in the main are unsung. Two such examples that would lend
themselves easily and advantageously to replication include a research
model developed by one of the historically disadvantaged institutions
involving 27 members of staff, plus students, in a collaborative
community needs-based research project, and a materials development
project undertaken by a consortium of five institutions to produce
indigenous mathematics and science textbooks and teaching materials.
Both have contributed significantly to the development of research skills, 
fostered professionalism, enhanced collegiality, increased learning and
teaching opportunities, produced new authors, and added immensely to
personal and organisational capacity.
6.6 Project Results 
Since inception the purpose of TELP has been to 1) increase access by
disadvantaged South Africans to tertiary education opportunities and
resources, and 2) to improve academic, administrative, and research
capacity of the historically disadvantaged institutions. In 1995 TELP
focused on strengthening the following three critical areas:
· policy analysis and planning
· capacity building
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
48
· institutional linkages.
Since 1996 an additional result has been included: increasing access and 
addressing issues of equity by designing and implementing programmes
in the five focus areas. All final results were intended to enhance 1) the
development process of the higher education and training sectors, and 2) 
the linkages between those sectors.
Intended results
Policy: the intended result was to develop and enact policies for
transformation. 
Systems: The intended result was the preparation and design of three￾year rolling plans for historically disadvantaged institutions. 
Capacity: The intended results were to strengthen human and
organizational capacity and to develop capacity as it relates to the
development of policy and the design of systems. 
With regard to the key Strategic Objective to increase access to quality
education and training, the indicator for this overarching result is:
“Increased percentage of graduates that are black from HDIs as a
percentage of all university and technikon graduates.” 
Actual results
Policy: The result achieved was the development and enactment of the
National Policy on Higher Education. Reports are imminent to assist with
the location of, and the different options for, the agricultural and nursing 
colleges, as well as on the legal implications for their incorporation into 
the higher education system. A new regulatory framework for private
higher education has been developed and will be promulgated shortly.
Research has been carried out into the incorporation of the public distance 
teacher education colleges into higher education. Teacher education was
previously a provincial function and, therefore, not part of higher
education. Research has also been carried out into a new funding formula 
for higher education. Workshops have been held on, and a full-time 
consultant contracted to support, institutional planning processes, funding 
and management information systems, as well as on mergers and
cooperation within higher education. 
Systems: In all but two institutions three-year rolling plans have been
drawn up and submitted to the Department of Education. All the
historically disadvantaged institutions have upgraded their financial
systems, while some have put new management information systems in
place.
Capacity Building: Capacity building is essentially an on-going activity. 
Nonetheless, while results are not uniform, there is no doubt that
significant capacity building is taking place. Academic staff development
occurs in activities concerned with curriculum development, especially
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
49
materials development in the areas of mathematics, science and English, 
but also in raising awareness and understanding of the National
Qualifications Framework and the requirements of the South African
Qualifications Authority. The establishment of research units and/or
projects has had a remarkable effect on the morale of staff, a number of 
whom are already beginning to produce their first research articles for
publication and/or delivery at conferences. With regard to specific
academic training, the activities organised under the linkage component 
have been the chief vehicle in this area. However, a number of PILs have 
been specifically targeted at staff development. Some of these include
efforts to improve the skills of staff to better equip them to meet teaching 
and administrative challenges, developing a post-graduate leadership
training programme, and improving the professional skills of library staff. 
TELP has supported an “Access Programme in Engineering and
Technology,” providing bridging support in core subject areas and
emphasising female students; a multi-media, inter-departmental 
laboratory; standardised tests for Maths and English; a draft five-year 
student development plan; and a work-study programme.
Key Strategic Objective: Shifts in demographics and absolute numbers
within the higher education sector are a consequence of forces beyond
TELP and over which it could have no influence. As stated earlier, there
has been a simultaneous decline in absolute numbers at the historically
disadvantaged institutions and a shift of population to the formerly white 
institutions. The conclusion is, therefore, that the key Strategic Objective 
of increased access and percentages of black graduates is no longer
achievable.
Unintended results
A few results stand out in particular that were not intended. The first of
these concerns the effect of the commitment to build research capacity.
The enhancement of morale and self-image among staff at historically
disadvantaged institutions, as well as an increased sense of
professionalism as a consequence of the opportunities provided in building 
research capacity and post-graduate study, were unforeseen. Secondly,
the disempowering nature of some linkage relationships, in which some
South African institutions have been frustrated at discovering that far
from being equal partners with the US institutions they have in fact been 
cast in the role of clients, was unintended. In addition, the performance of 
US institutions is not monitored and this has contributed unintentionally to 
some degree to allowing them to dominate the relationship to the
detriment of some of the South Africa institutions. Lastly, the milestones
which were intended to facilitate delivery have, in fact, had the
unintended result of frustrating a number of the role players who have felt 
hamstrung by them, because this mechanism appears resistant to
modification and, therefore, unresponsive to individual needs and
realities.
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
50
6.7 Sustainability
The issue of sustainability cannot be separated from the level of
integration that TELP has achieved in any given institution (see Section
6.3). Those historically disadvantaged institutions where there is a high
degree of integration, where TELP becomes part of the strategic plan and 
has the active support of the Vice-Chancellor, have a much greater chance 
of sustaining TELP activities when funding is exhausted at the completion 
of the project. The ultimate objective of TELP is that it should achieve
such a degree of integration into the life of the universities and technikons 
that it should be taken virtually for granted as part of the normal way of 
conducting business. Those institutions that are approaching this ideal
have a better chance than those that are not. 
Our findings suggest that, at this stage, the prognosis for sustainability for 
TELP at institutions collectively is uncertain. However, if the issue is
explored according to the levels of success achieved within the project, a 
more precise forecast can be made. It can be said that for approximately 
one-third of the historically disadvantaged institutions TELP activities are
sustainable. This optimistic view is based on the notable achievements of 
these institutions. Within this group, project activities are generally
integrated into strategic plans and institutional activities. There are many 
areas of synergy between TELP and such institutions. Key staff are being 
developed and greatly improved systems, practices and procedures have
been institutionalised. The successful TELP institutions have raised
professional standards and achieved new ways of thinking about
themselves and their potential. Some are now being recognised by others 
as experts in given fields of endeavours. Horizons are expanding and
institutional dreams and goals are being adjusted accordingly. As a group, 
the TELP achievers have strengthened management systems, improved
the quality of educational opportunities being offered to the next
generation of leaders, and are well on the way to redefining their
institutions.
“As projects mature they start to have cross-linkages with other 
projects.”
TELP, of course, cannot and should not be able to take full credit for the 
accomplishments because of integration. But the project is credited with
contributing significantly to the development of these historically 
disadvantaged institutions by bringing direction and exposure to new
knowledge, as well as by providing resources and mechanisms that
facilitate broad-based problem resolution and the achievement of desired 
goals and objectives. TELP has helped historically disadvantaged
institutions realise dreams that might not otherwise have been possible.
These institutions have experienced a paradigm shift as a consequence of 
the project. They report that a new, positive institutional culture has
emerged. In such institutions staff tend to reflect on their practice. For
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
51
example, they see curriculum development as an on-going process and
express excitement about the vast possibilities that research activities
contribute to academic life. Further research at several institutions is on a 
trajectory that appears to have literally changed lives, built capacity and
strengthened institutional and vocational loyalties. Other achievements
common to most of the successful institutions are new and/or
substantially improved communications, decision-making and
management information systems, and targeted management and
leadership training for staff throughout the organisation.
For the majority of TELP institutions, however, this is not the case. In
nearly all institutions selected individual activities may continue to exist
beyond the project. Nevertheless, the overall sustainability of TELP for
most institutions will be dependent upon the nature of future project
support in the five focus areas and the institutions’ own willingness and 
commitment to change, grow and make the necessary concerted efforts to 
enhance organisational strengths while addressing their own problems and 
weaknesses. The process of building requisite capacity to achieve sustain￾ability among the majority will be determined, or at least impacted, by
TELP’s strategic decision-making about future programming and service
delivery to the stakeholder institutions. Our findings lead us to conclude
that any possibility of project sustainability for most historically
disadvantaged institutions will depend on whether or not TELP decides to 
begin differentiating and delivering its assistance based on levels of HDI
capacity, specific institutional needs and realities.
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
52
7. Unresolved Issues
7.1 Result Indicator
During USAID/South Africa’s last strategic review in 1998 the key
Strategic Objective result to be achieved was refocused to increasing
access to quality education and training. The indicator for the overarching 
result is: “increased percentage of graduates that are black from HDIs as 
a percentage of all university and technikon graduates.”
What was not predicted at the time was the dramatic shift in student
demographics that would occur throughout tertiary education institutions
nationwide. Historically disadvantaged institutions continue to enrol a
majority of black students, but this figure as a percentage of all students
is shrinking because increasing numbers of black students are enrolling in 
historically white universities and technikons. 
The result indicator has not been, and cannot be, achieved under current 
conditions. This circumstance, however, is through no fault of TELP per se.
Transformation and the changing higher education environment have
rendered the indicator unattainable as stated.
7.2 TELP Advisory Panel
The TELP Advisory Panel functions as a monitoring body whose efficiency 
and effectiveness are determined by the commitment and participation of 
its members. If their commitment and participation are lacking it is
difficult for the Advisory Panel to fulfil its function. Rules and expectations 
regarding membership need to be resolved.
Section
7
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
53
8. Issues and Recommendations
8.1 Mindset 
Issue
TELP was designed and continues to operate on the premise that
historically disadvantaged institutions form a homogenous group. This
mindset within and outside of these institutions not withstanding their
structural and historical affinities has a profoundly negative impact on how 
they are perceived and undercuts their ability to come to terms with, own 
and effectively address their unique limitations.
Recommendation
The project design for TELP should recognise that participating institutions 
are heterogeneous. They share both similarities and differences.
USAID/SA, in consultation with the Advisory Panel, should ensure that 
TELP strategies reflect an understanding of and appreciation for individual 
organisational uniqueness, as well as the inherent differences between
universities and technikons. 
Specifically, the TELP design assumption that “one size fits all” should be
replaced with an appropriate heterogeneity principle and approved by
USAID within six months of the acceptance of this report. This issue
should be included on the project’s strategic planning agenda. All TELP
stakeholders should use the opportunity of the proposed “re-visioning” 
conference (see Section 8.3) to interrogate not only underlying project
assumptions and principles, but also as a forum for differentiating their
individual institutional strengths, weaknesses and circumstances in order
to own their limitations, exploit their strengths and prepare for
transformation challenges.
8.2 Leadership
Issues
a. The quality of institutional leadership, particularly as embodied in
the Vice-Chancellor, represents one of the most significant factors
differentiating institutions that have been successful in capitalising 
Section
8
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
54
on TELP support from those that have not been successful. Without 
immediate support in this area, some institutions will not be able to 
benefit from the project. There is a crisis of leadership in many
institutions.
b. Erratic attendance of some Vice-Chancellors at the Advisory Panel
meetings has a detrimental effect on the performance of TELP.
c. Challenges confronting senior management of tertiary education
institutions are daunting at any time. Few senior managers have
training to prepare them for these challenges. It is often assumed 
that academics who are promoted to senior management posts
have the requisite technical and leadership skills. More often than
not, they do not have such abilities; institutions suffer as a
consequence. Currently educational leadership is rendered even
more difficult because of sector transformation and the added
pressures of change wrought by fast-paced global developments.
These challenges will persist beyond the conclusion of TELP
funding.
Recommendations
a. Within six months of the Advisory Panel reviewing this report the
Contractor should deliver rigorous leadership training for senior
management at TELP institutions on an ongoing, in-service basis. 
The Contractor should develop carefully crafted, professionally
designed and expertly conducted training programmes for senior
officials in contemporary leadership skills development and change 
management.
b. The Advisory Panel should devise appropriate action to be taken
against those Vice-Chancellors who do not attend meetings
consistently and/or who send surrogates in their place.
c. The Advisory Panel should, prior to the conclusion of TELP,
encourage a consortium of institutions to explore the development 
of pre-service, post-graduate qualifications in university/technikon 
management and student development in order to equip senior
and middle management for the tasks that confront them. Such
initiatives would also go a long way towards identifying and
preparing the next generation of university/technikon leaders with 
important implications for the sustainability of the TELP ideals. 
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
55
8.3 Project Planning
Issues
a. TELP is a process. The project’s evolution is reflected in the
modifications to specific objectives and the programmatic
adjustments that have been made over the years. In order to
remain relevant and maximize benefits for all stakeholders, TELP 
must continue to respond to changes in its operating
environment. 
b. The benchmark indicator for the attainment of the project’s
Strategic Objective, “increased percentage of graduates that are
black from HDIs as a percentage of all university and technikon
graduates,” is unobtainable.
c. Some institutions have not succeeded in integrating TELP
activities into their strategic plans. 
Recommendations
a. Using this evaluation as the basis, all stakeholders should embark 
upon a coordinated mid-term TELP planning process that includes 
rigorous self-assessment focused on the production of outcomes
and data. This process should take into account the differences
among individual institutions, enable the project to address new
transformation challenges, lay a foundation for future
programmatic developments, and re-position the project for ever￾increasing effectiveness. We recommend that this approach
include the following individual elements and/or activities:
i. At the workshop to be organised for the presentation of the 
mid-term evaluation report, the Advisory Panel should
devise strategies that will enable it to act on recommenda￾tions in the report and map the way forward. In addition,
quality assurance mechanisms should be created to monitor 
progress.
ii. Within three months of the next Advisory Panel meeting the 
Advisory Panel, supported by the Contractor, should
undertake a “re-visioning” conference for all stakeholders to 
review TELP’s design, purpose, strategies and proposed
activities. 
iii. TELP institutions, supported by the Contractor, should
develop individual institutional TELP work plans within three 
months of the re-visioning conference. These work plans
should be integrated into the overall institutional strategic
plan. 
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
56
b. Within three months of the re-visioning conference, the Advisory 
Panel should propose to USAID any necessary changes to TELP’s
strategic objectives, as well as any new indicators required by
such changes. USAID should approve any required changes to the 
strategic objectives and indicators within six months of the
conference.
c. Where institutions have not yet succeeded in integrating TELP
activities into their strategic plan, the Contractor should provide
technical assistance to enable them to do so within one year.
8.4 Milestones and Key Results
Issues
a. There is general dissatisfaction among all stakeholders with the
present performance-based contract that is determined by the
seven specific project key results and is milestones-driven. 
b. As presently set forth, milestones do not demonstrate a clear
progression of actions and/or developments that lead toward the 
achievement of stated TELP objectives. Many milestones are so
narrowly focused that broad project goals may not be achieved
even if all deliverables are satisfied. Overall, milestones are not
driven by institutional needs and realities.
Recommendations
a. TELP stakeholders should undertake a comprehensive review of
the milestones mechanism as part of the re-visioning process
recommended in Section 8.3. This process should include an
examination of the relevance of the stated seven project key
results and the responsiveness of milestones to institutional
needs. 
b. USAID and the Contractor should review within one month of the 
re-visioning conference the current project implementation
mechanism with a view to devising a new “outcomes-based” 
approach to milestones and intended results that takes into
consideration higher education sectoral needs, transformation
realities, institutional needs and realities, TELP’s vision and goals, 
and USAID requirements. 
c. USAID should develop and incorporate a revised mechanism for
project implementation into its contract with UNCF. Reformulation 
consultations should include UNCF and the Advisory Panel and be 
completed within two months of the review process specified in
point (a) above.
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
57
8.5 Workshops and Quality Assurance
Issues
a. Joint activity workshops are not differentiated according to levels of 
need and expertise and are not sufficiently focused on specific
needs at TELP institutions. They are generally content-driven rather 
than outcomes-based. Facilitators often do not have the required
expertise.
b. Except for post-workshop questionnaires, which have limited utility, 
there are no assessment mechanisms in place to provide insight
into the effectiveness of given workshops.
c. TELP institutions sometimes undercut the effectiveness of
workshops by not selecting and sending appropriate staff, or by not 
ensuring that the same participants attend all related workshop
sessions.
Recommendations
a. Within six months the Contractor should submit to the Advisory
Panel a revised joint activity workshop strategy that is based on
consultation with the TELP institutions. The strategy should deliver 
workshops that are responsive to the needs identified in the TELP 
institutional plans and ensure that all facilitators have the
necessary expertise.
b. The Contractor should develop and implement within three months 
a quality assurance mechanism for workshops. Instruments should 
be designed to generate data on pre-workshop preparation,
programme content appropriateness and delivery, responsiveness
to institutional needs given differentiated levels of institutional
capacity, effectiveness of facilitators, attendance continuity and
impact.
c. Within three months the Advisory Panel should issue clear 
guidelines requiring regular attendance by properly qualified staff
at all workshops.
8.6 Communications
Issue
Communications within the majority of institutions are insufficient to
ensure widespread understanding and acceptance of what TELP is doing,
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
58
how it is doing it and what opportunities it offers. All too often when TELP 
fails it is because a paucity of information has been disseminated about
the project.
Recommendation
Within six months the Contractor should provide targeted assistance
where it is needed to TELP Coordinators and key staff members to enable 
them to communicate project attributes more effectively, to raise TELP’s
profile and visibility at the institution, and to facilitate the sharing of
information between HDIs. 
8.7 TELP Coordinators & Project Managers
Issues
a. Some Coordinators occupy part-time posts. This is in violation of 
the TELP Agreement. 
b. The core duties enumerated in the Coordinator’s job description
do not reflect the broad scope of duties and the true nature of
responsibilities necessary to manage TELP successfully on
campus.
c. Some Coordinators are not performing, thereby substantially
limiting potential project benefits at their institutions.
d. TELP Coordinators do not always have the authority and status
within institutions to enable them to carry out their functions
effectively.
Recommendations
a. Every HDI should honour the TELP Agreement and ensure
Coordinators are serving in a full-time capacity. The Advisory Panel 
should monitor this matter and take appropriate action where
necessary within three months of the next Advisory Panel meeting.
b. The Advisory Panel should decide within six months of the re￾visioning conference on a new detailed job description that
adequately defines the TELP Coordinator position. Lines of authority 
for Coordinators should be developed and communicated to all
stakeholders. 
c. Within three months of the re-visioning conference the Contractor
should develop and propose to the Advisory Panel a performance￾appraisal system for TELP Coordinators. Upon approval by the 
Advisory Panel, all TELP institutions should institute this system
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
59
within six months. The Advisory Panel should also decide upon
appropriate action to be taken against those Coordinators who are 
not performing adequately.
d. Within six months of the re-visioning conference the Advisory Panel 
should examine mechanisms to ensure that the Coordinators have
direct access to the Vice-Chancellors. They should also explore
options and determine where Coordinators should be placed within 
sub-management units. 
8.8 Staff Development
Issue
Faculty and administrators are often under-prepared for the skilled
resolution of student development issues.
Recommendation
The Advisory Panel, working with the TELP institutions and supported by
the Contractor, should prepare a plan within six months to support the
development of systematic management and technical training for student 
affairs staff based on the best international practices available.
8.9 Compensatory Programmes
Issue
Secondary school preparation will continue to present HDIs with
educational problems for the foreseeable future. No single bridging
programme should be seen as a panacea. On-going research will reveal
new insights and new solutions to what is a worldwide problem as well as 
a special South African challenge.
Recommendation
The Advisory Panel, working through the TELP institutions, should support 
continuing research into compensatory programmes. Using a similar
model to that developed for the production of mathematics and science
teaching and learning materials, consortia of historically disadvantaged
institutions with particular expertise should be established within the next 
six months to undertake research into specific subject areas that, in
collaboration with the Department of Education, should be presented at an 
annual workshop to the higher education sector as a whole. 
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
60
8.10 Linkages
Issues
a. The primary source of information about the performance of the US 
linkage institutions is the reports that they prepare and submit
themselves. The absence of data from other sources precludes
effective evaluation of linkage performance.
b. The use of the term ‘partnership’ to describe linkage arrangements 
between United States and South African institutions has proven
counterproductive, raising expectations that cannot be fulfilled.
c. No provision is made for leave substitutes to replace staff members 
who are away from the institution on training for an extended
period of time. This negatively impacts how some organisational
responsibilities and tasks are carried out, and overloads staff.
Recommendations
a. The Contractor should be given the responsibility and necessary
resources to develop and institute within three months a quality￾assurance system for the linkages component. The system should
include, at a minimum, the following elements:
i. The annual reports submitted by United States institutions
should be verified and supported through an on-site 
monitoring and evaluation system.
ii. All South African institutions should be required to submit
formal semi-annual reports on the status of linkage
activities. These reports should also be subject to an on-site 
monitoring and evaluation system.
iii. United States and South African institutions should be
notified of new programme review procedures. 
b. Through the TELP Advisory Panel, emphasis should be placed on
correcting the incorrect assumption that the linkages relationship is 
one of equal partnership and replacing it with the same service￾delivery model that TELP as a whole uses. The Advisory Panel
should certify within one year that this has been accomplished.
c. USAID/SA should consider funding leave substitutes under TELP.
The Advisory Panel should explore options for this, including costs
and the trade-offs that would be required by using project
resources for this purpose, within six months. Assuming that the
Advisory Panel develops and approves a workable system, USAID
should approve it within an additional three months. 
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
61
8.11 Skills Audit
Issue
There is no accurate information currently available on the human
resources and skills that reside within TELP stakeholder institutions. The
absence of such data inhibits optimum utilization of staff, as well as,
making the process of identifying and preparing the next generation of
university and technikon leaders more difficult.
Recommendation
A formal skills audit, supported by the Contractor in collaboration with the 
Department of Education, should be carried out within one year at each
institution, in order to identify and catalogue existing skills and expertise. 
An inventory of available talent should make it possible to develop a
professional personnel data base upon which historically disadvantaged
institutions, TELP and the national sector could readily draw. 
8.12 Public Relations
Issue
TELP does not have a national profile. There is little public awareness of 
the successes of the project and its contributions to higher education and 
society.
Recommendation 
The Advisory Panel, supported by the Contractor, should launch within six 
months of the re-visioning conference a public relations campaign to raise 
awareness of TELP nationally and to highlight the achievements of
historically disadvantaged institutions. 
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
62
9. Lessons Learned
Three key lessons derived from the findings and conclusions presented
above offer implications for similar programmes in different settings as
well as for future activities in support of South African higher education.
9.1 Addressing Diversity Effectively
The full diversity of institutional needs and realities were not known when 
TELP was designed. This has resulted in significant implementation
challenges and variable impact levels. 
South Africa’s historically disadvantaged institutions are not a homogen￾ous group. There are significant differences among them beyond those of 
function and geographic location, in terms of human, financial and
material resources, ethos, and history. An understanding of such differ￾ences should inform every level of project planning, implementation,
monitoring and evaluation. 
It cannot be taken for granted that all disadvantaged institutions have
equal capacity to negotiate with the Contractor, USAID or their US
partners, or that they will interpret contracts, memoranda of agreement,
and bureaucratic regulations in the spirit in which they were created.
Different cultural frameworks, different experiences of authority and
autonomy, a lack of bureaucratic experience, a lack of confidence – all of 
which are defining characteristics – will have a role to play in their
interactions with the Contractor, the Donor and their US partners. 
9.2 Clear Role Definitions and Vision
Role clarification of all actors is essential for successful project
implementation. Many of the problems associated with the
implementation of TELP are the result of people and institutions not
knowing precisely what is expected of them, to whom they are
responsible, and when they are expected to deliver.
Beyond this, a shared project vision is vital. Even clarity about who should 
do what cannot help without equal clarity about the fundamental mission 
and aims of a project. Too often projects such as TELP begin without such 
a unified vision among all stakeholders, or without translating that vision 
Section
9
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
63
into practicable action plans. Even when these requirements are met, in a 
project that extends over as many years as TELP the need for re-visioning 
and re-planning is almost inevitable. Project designers and managers
must build the necessary time and resources for such strategic planning
into the project lifecycle.
9.3 The Capacity-Building Conundrum
TELP powerfully demonstrates a classic ‘catch 22’ in offering services to
historically disadvantaged people or institutions. Such projects exist
because capacity is lacking. Yet the absence of such capacity too often
precludes recipients from taking advantage of the very support they need.
For example, ultimately the success or failure of TELP has been defined by 
the quality of institutional leadership. Where there is vision, energy and
commitment at the highest level, success follows. The absence of such
leadership diminishes TELP’s impact. Yet one key purpose for the project 
is to develop precisely such management capacity at historically
disadvantaged institutions. This challenge threatens to create wider, not
narrower, gaps among various institutions. It requires a clear
understanding of the issues involved plus the ability to tailor different
types of assistance, different levels of support, and different mechanisms
for delivery for different situations.
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
64
10. Annexes
10.1 Abbreviations
AED Academy for Educational Development
AIPA African Institute for Policy Analysis and Economic 
Integration
CHET Centre for Higher Education Transformation
CUP Committee of University Principals
DCN Development Consultants Network
DevTech Development Technologies
DOE (National) Department of Education
DTET Desmond Tutu Educational Trust
EFA Educators for Africa
HDI Historically Disadvantaged Institution
HDU Historically Disadvantaged University
PIL Project Implementation Letter
SA South Africa
SAQA South African Qualifications Authority
SAUVCA South African Universities Vice-Chancellors Association
TELP Tertiary Education Linkages Project
UNCF (United Negro) College Fund
UNCF/SA (United Negro) College Fund South Africa Office
UNCFSPC United Negro College Fund Special Programs Corporation
US United States
USAID/SA United States Agency for International Development 
Mission to South Africa
Section
10
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
65
10.2 TELP Partners
This annex summarises the role of the different agencies and
organisations through which TELP funding has flowed. As explained in
Section 2.2.1 above, this mid-term evaluation did not directly examine the 
role of contractors or grantees beyond the current contractor, the College 
Fund/UNCF. However, the evaluators did obtain some information about
these other TELP participants, primarily from the documentation review
and occasionally from comments during interviews or focus groups. These 
data are included below as appropriate. 
10.2.1 The College Fund/UNCF
The United Negro College Fund (UNCF) was awarded a five-year contract 
(1998 – 2003) in the amount of $22,907,300 to implement the Tertiary
Education Linkages Project (TELP). The College Fund is responsible for
planning, organising and delivering all activities under the project’s joint
activity component. These include workshops that are organised on a
regional or national basis for TELP institutions, plus institution-specific 
technical assistance in areas that arise out of workshop sessions. UNCF is 
also tasked with managing linkage grants, and supporting the
development and implementation of Project Implementation Letters.
UNCF is the United States’ oldest and most successful African-American 
higher education assistance organisation. It has been named as the
number one education non-profit organisation in America by the Chronicle 
of Philanthropy. All programs of the College Fund, domestic and
international, are designed to enhance the quality of education for the
historically disadvantaged and range from scholarships for students to
curriculum development, college preparation and faculty development.
Effective April 1, 2000, UNCF’s federally funded programs combined to
form the United Negro College Fund Special Programs Corporation
(UNCFSP).
10.2.2 DevTech Systems
DevTech Systems signed a five-year Technical Services Contract under
TELP in September 1995 to coordinate delivery of technical assistance and 
training support in activities carried out under the three components of
policy analysis and planning, capacity building and linkages. In March
1997 USAID/SA revised its scope of work to significantly expand
DevTech’s responsibilities to the project, including organising and
supporting the TELP Executive and Policy Advisory Panel meetings,
organising and implementing the National Qualifications Framework
Conference, sending 15 mid-level South Africans to US higher education
institutions for four-week intensive training programmes, conducting
audits of four of the five focus areas, and providing financial management 
training to the 15 stakeholder institutions. USAID provided $3.76 million
in TELP funding through the DevTech contract.
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
66
The mid-term evaluators had access to DevTech’s Completion Report, as
well as to reports on its academic audit and financial management training 
activities. However, no independent evaluation of DevTech’s performance 
was available.
In 1998 USAID engaged a new contractor, the College Fund/UNCF, to
assist historically disadvantaged institutions increase their capacity and to 
support the Government of South Africa in implementing its national
higher education policy. After a brief overlap period during which DevTech 
(through its local sub-contractor, Deloitte & Touche) completed its
financial management training activity, the College Fund became the
primary TELP contractor.15 Therefore, the findings of this mid-term 
evaluation reflect the contributions of both DevTech and the College Fund 
to TELP, although by design the emphasis rests with more recent
experiences and, therefore, primarily on the College Fund’s role.
10.2.3 African Institute for Policy Analysis and Economic 
Integration
After a small initial seed grant, in 1995 USAID gave the African Institute
for Policy Analysis and Economic Integration (AIPA) a larger grant of
$386,940 through TELP to create a secretariat for the HDI Forum and to
carry out related research. Incorporated in 1992 as a non-profit, 
independent organisation, AIPA defines its mission as engaging in high￾level, non-partisan, interdisciplinary economic policy analysis. Prior to
assuming its Secretariat responsibilities, AIPA had collaborated with the
Forum in reviewing policy options and strategic analyses on tertiary
education.
According to its terms of reference, the evaluation team was not asked to 
assess independently the contributions of TELP grantees such as AIPA and 
the International Foundation for Education and Self-Help (discussed below
in Section 10.2.4). Consequently, the team did not undertake any
independent review of AIPA’s work in the Secretariat or the papers it has 
produced, nor did it have access to any formal assessment of AIPA’s role 
in TELP. It did include a question about AIPA’s role in the interview
protocol for Vice-Chancellors. This question was asked of most, but not
all, Vice-Chancellors. Most respondents did not provide any substantive
input, preferring to focus instead on the current contractor, the College
Fund. Those Vice-Chancellors appointed more recently seemed uncertain
about how AIPA fits into TELP activities. 
Two of the longer-serving Vice-Chancellors, however, did describe AIPA as 
“ineffective” in its current work for the HDI Forum. They attributed its
problems on the one hand to limited resources and an organisational focus 
on priorities other than historically disadvantaged institutions, and on the 
other hand to the growing influence of the South African Universities Vice￾Chancellors Association (SAUVCA). This second factor may explain this
more negative view of AIPA’s contributions than found in an 1997 informal 
 
15 USAID projects expenditures of $22.91 million through the College Fund contract by the end of TELP.
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
67
assessment of several TELP-supported initiatives in which the HDI Forum 
Chairperson cited AIPA’s grant as “very helpful.” 
10.2.4 International Foundation for Education and Self￾Help
An evaluation of the International Foundation for Education and Self-Help 
(IFESH) TELP grant was submitted to the TELP Advisory Panel in March of 
this year. This section draws from that document.
In September 1996, with a grant of $1,288,005, IFESH implemented the 
Educators for Africa (EFA) programme at six historically disadvantaged
technikons. In August 1997, several additional University Vice-Chancellors 
indicated an interest in accessing the services of the EFA programme. As a 
result, another USAID Co-operative Agreement was signed with IFESH
that increased the number of institutions to fifteen (15) but without a
corresponding increase in funding. 
The IFESH programme is based on the assumption that strengthening the 
professional capabilities of staff in critical areas will lead to the
strengthening of the institution. The EFA programme identifies and
recruits American University professors and academics, preferably PhD’s,
who are retired, on sabbatical or otherwise temporarily free of academic
duties, to serve as IFESH Scholars to teach and improve educational
practices at historically disadvantaged institutions. IFESH Scholars are
required to spend a minimum of one academic year, preferably two, at
their assigned institutions. 
The EFA programme concept was for the IFESH Scholars to aid in faculty 
development, research, and classroom teaching in mathematics,
engineering, science, and/or management for institutions that had
difficulty in finding staff or where staff were away furthering their own
education. Stakeholder institutions provide a job description and preferred 
qualifications for each position required. IFESH then recruits educators
based on the information provided by the institutions. The EFA
programme requires that institutions provide housing, transport, office
supplies. It also requires them to assign a counterpart to collaborate with 
the IFESH Scholar in a team-teaching mode. This was planned to
encourage skill enhancement of the historically disadvantaged institution
faculty members. The intended result was that faculty would be better
trained in their respective fields. 
To date EFA has placed 30 IFESH Scholars at 15 institutions. Stakeholder 
institutions have requested an additional 50 educators through the
programme.
The IFESH evaluation found that overall the historically disadvantaged
institutions believe that the programme has significant value to
institutions, both in terms of strengthening the capabilities of staff and
students in varied areas, and also in terms of providing an international
perspective and expertise to strengthening academic programmes. It
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
68
identified certain structural weaknesses around variables affecting the
performance of the IFESH Scholars, such as selection, length of stay,
orientation to the institution, advance planning, support structures and
communication. 
One institution visited during the TELP mid-term evaluation volunteered
that it is pleased with the EFA Scholars received through this programme. 
10.2.5 Development Consultants Network, Inc.
Development Consultants Network, Inc. (DCN) is an international
corporation made up of professionals with national and international 
experience in training, development, research, business, management,
evaluation and planning. Established in Southern Africa in 1986 by African 
and African-American women, it offers a variety of specialized services for 
local, national and global corporations, governments, universities, NGOs
and individuals.
Areas of specialization include:
· Systems Transformation
· International Business Services
· Professional Placement
· Globalisation Workshops
· Conference Planning
· Short-term Training
DCN is The College Fund’s subcontractor for the linkages component. The 
objective of linkage activities is to foster partnerships between the
historically disadvantaged institutions and United States institutions of
higher learning that will support the HDIs in achieving objectives in the
five focus areas. Under its subcontract, DCN is charged with responsibility 
for managing TELP Linkage Grants. Activities involved in implementation
include development and issuance of applications for linkage grant
competition; review and ranking of applications; awarding linkage grants; 
negotiating budgets; approving Memoranda of Agreement between
linkage partners; conducting post award conferences; monitoring
programmatic and financial aspects of linkages, and reporting on
component activities.
10.2.6 The Desmond Tutu Educational Trust
The Desmond Tutu Educational Trust (DTET) was founded, in July 1990,
by a group of educators and community leaders in Western Cape Province 
to solicit funds for tertiary education programs in the region. Based in 
Cape Town, the Tutu Trust set a goal of assisting black students in
redressing the educational disadvantages they experienced as a result of 
the structural and legal discrimination of the apartheid system. Its
objective was to work with tertiary institutions in providing academic
enrichment resources, and to facilitate cooperation among Western Cape
higher education institutions with which it cooperatives.
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
69
DTET is The College Fund’s subcontractor for student academic and social 
development focus area within the joint activities component. Since 1988, 
the Tutu Trust has provided basic interventions in the following areas:
· Facilitation of the development of student development plans;
· Development and administration of student assessment testing;
· Training of staff for establishment and administering bridging 
programs;
· Development and assessment of student work study programs, and
· The provision of student and staff leadership training.
10.2.7 Additional Contractors and Grantees
USAID has used the TELP mechanism to provide funding through five
additional organisations. Because these further contracts and grants are
less relevant to the purpose of this evaluation, the evaluators made no
attempt to collect data on them. However, since they do appear in TELP
budgets they are noted here briefly.
The following three contracts and grants contributed directly to TELP’s
Strategic Objective and operational requirements.
· The Academy for Educational Development received a task order 
through its Education Indefinite Quantities Contract to carry out this 
mid-term evaluation, budgeted at $287,000.
· Howard University received a grant of $270,000 to help upgrade math, 
science and engineering tuition at a consortium of technikons. In 
addition to the funding granted directly to the US institution, $682,353 
was provided directly to the technikon consortium for the project 
through PIL funding. This brings the total of USAID funding to 
$952,353 for this activity.
· USAID contracted with Institute of International Education (IIE) to 
provide academic training in the United States for staff from TELP 
stakeholder institutions. In conjunction with the African-American 
Institute (AAI), 74 participants were placed from 1996 to 1999.
The following two contracts and grants used the TELP funding mechanism 
to provide management support and further sectoral support,
respectively. However, they were not designed to contribute directly to
TELP’s Strategic Objective.
· Macro International received $62,000 to help develop performance 
monitoring systems and indicators for TELP, as part of a standing 
contract to provide such services to USAID. 
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
70
· In 1999 the Department of Education initiated a project for building 
governance capacity at all 36 higher education institutions. The 
Department of Education and USAID identified the Centre for Higher 
Education Transformation (CHET) as the agency to provide technical 
assistance to the project. USAID provided a grant of $1.2 million to 
CHET under terms determined by the Department of Education and 
USAID. The funding for this activity was made available by the 
Education for Development and Democracy Initiative (EDDI). These 
monies are beyond TELP’s original $50 million budget. Although TELP 
provides the funding mechanism for this programme, the grant’s scope 
extends beyond the historically disadvantaged institutions and, 
therefore, it does not truly fall within the project’s primary goals.
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
71
10.3 Expenditure Assessment
1. INTRODUCTION
The Tertiary Education Linkages Project (TELP) Bilateral Agreement specifies 
that a mid-term evaluation be conducted to determine progress in the
achievement of project goals. Amongst other, the evaluation calls for answers 
to the questions of whether the achievements of TELP are being produced in 
cost-effective ways and whether the accomplishments of TELP are
sustainable.
In order to properly assess the cost-effectiveness and sustainability of
activities within the project, an analysis of expenditure and financial
administration was considered necessary. This report sets out the results of 
that investigation, detailing also the methodology and constraints of the
exercise.
TELP makes use of a number of different funding mechanisms. The financial 
review aimed to examine these mechanisms with the view to determining
whether the funding mechanism impacted on the project itself. Was one form 
of linkage more or less cost-effective than another? Did the nature of a
specific funding contract influence the amount of counterpart funding flowing 
to the institution? Answering these types of questions could throw light on the 
cost-effectiveness of the project.
2. METHODOLOGY
2.1 Data Collection
The financial review required input from the Donor (USAID) as well as the
major contractor employed to carry out the project, The United Negro College 
Fund (UNCF). Visits to both institutions and interviews with relevant officials 
helped the researcher become acquainted with the individual institution’s
expenditure and financial control processes; a factor which has potential
implication for the effectiveness of the project. The visits also provided
opportunity to assess the nature and extent of financial data available to carry 
out the study, and to gather the available data.
2.2 Questionnaire Survey
The tertiary institutions participating in the TELP historically disadvantaged
institutions were potentially also a source of information regarding the finance 
and expenditure process. A questionnaire (see Annex 10.12) was drawn up
and distributed to the HDIs in the survey sample. Responses to the
questionnaire provide a useful secondary source of data on projects specific
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
72
to institutions. Information regarding record keeping and administrative
processes was collected by means of the questionnaire. The results of the
questionnaire survey are reported separately in Section 4.
3 FUNDING MECHANISMS
3.1 Unilateral/Bilateral Funding
Table 1 below provides a summary of funding for the Tertiary Education
Linkages Project (TELP) over the life of the project. Approximately $44 million 
of the project’s $51,2 million total is covered by bilateral agreements between 
USAID and the Department of Education and a further $7 million takes the
form of unilateral USAID funding.
Unilateral expenditure made by USAID, without necessary oversight by
Department of Education, can be divided into two categories. The first,
expenditure undertaken at the inception of the project, prior to the signing of 
the Bilateral agreement included the DevTech contract and expenditure in the 
category Invitational Travel. The second is on-going and is confined to
programme management and the salaries of USAID project officials.
3.2 Major Expenditure Categories
It is evident from Table 1 that the project funds have been allocated to seven 
categories: Contractors/Technical Assistance, Grants, Programme 
Management, Project Implementation Letters (PILS), Invitational Travel,
Miscellaneous and Financial Reviews.
Across the life of the project the largest proportion of the funding is to flow to 
the institutional contractors (57.6 per cent) and to PILS (30.2 per cent) -
together accounting for 87.8 per cent of total funding. Expenditure to date on 
these two categories is of the same relative proportion.
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
73
TABLE 1: TELP Funding 
3.2.1 Contractors
At the close of the project the largest proportion of project funding, namely
$22,907,378 (44 per cent of total funding), will have been channelled through 
the main contractor, the College Fund. This funding covers a number of
components – Linkage Grants, Joint Activities, Institution Specific Activities
and support for Policy Implementation and Systems Development. In addition 
to these four components, the College Fund is tasked with administering the 
funds provided to US institutions to fund linkages between United States and 
South African institutions. This latter funding amounts to $6,925,000 across
the life of the project. Included in the College Fund contract fee is an annual 
amount of $74,561 to administer the linkage grants.
TELP Future Funding Projection
As at 04/2000 FY2000 FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 TOTAL
Insti. Contractors/TA 20,326,427 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 191,862 29,518,289
UNCF Contract 13,715,516 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 191,862 22,907,378
IIE 2,500,945 2,500,945
DevTech 3,760,329 3,760,329
Macro International 62,251 62,251
Evaluation Contractor 287,386 287,386
Uncommitted -
Grants 3,144,945 3,144,945
AIPA 386,940 386,940
IFESH 1,288,005 1,288,005
Howard Uni-HDI Conso. 270,000 270,000
CHET 1,200,000 1,200,000
Program Management 1,003,632 100,000 100,000 100,000 1,303,632
PILS 11,915,973 200,000 1,314,588 1,030,000 1,000,000 15,460,561
NCHE/DOE/CHE 787,728 787,728
HDI Project Coordinators 1,866,117 300,000 30,000 2,196,117
HDI Activity PILs 8,579,775 200,000 1,014,588 1,000,000 1,000,000 11,794,363
HDI Tech Consortium 682,353 682,353
Invitational Travel 284,502 284,502
Miscellaneous 266,174 266,174
Financial Reviews 21,897 21,897
GRAND TOTAL 36,963,550 3,300,000 4,414,588 4,130,000 1,191,862 51,200,000
Bilateral 29,808,279 3,300,000 4,414,588 4,130,000 2,391,862 44,044,729
Unilateral 7,155,271 7,155,271
 51,200,000
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
74
To assess cost-effectiveness in the main contract it was envisaged that the
exact nature of expenditure would be analysed. By comparing the proportion 
of funds spent on specific activities (for example general administration of the 
project versus that specifically on activities furthering the aims of the project 
such as workshops), we may have had answers to the cost-effectiveness 
question.
Due to the fact that USAID has concluded a milestone contract with the
College Fund to deliver the services on the TELP, and the College Fund were, 
therefore, not required to disclose their expenditure detail, the data necessary 
for this type of analysis were unobtainable. The analysis cannot establish the 
exact nature the monies spent to date and therefore cannot judge cost￾effectiveness by these means – for example it is not clear what amounts were 
spent on salaries and what amounts on the provision of workshops and
training.
Within the main components as listed above, the project has identified five
focus areas. From the data that was available it was possible to carry out an 
analysis of expenditure on the components and the focus areas. Table 2
below sets out the expenditure on the four main components for the first two 
years of the contract. [Table 5 at the end of this report sets out expenditure 
in the two financial years separately].
TABLE 2: Milestone Expenditure Summary – June 1998 to May 2000
Most expenditure in the first two years of the contract has been on the
component Joint Activities. Of the $6,330,210 funding, $5,256,338 (83 per
cent) was spent on this component.
Function Focus Area
National Regional Institution Total
LINKAGES 154,872
JOINT ACTIVITIES 1,054,865 546,998 3,654,475 5,256,338
(1) Curriculum Development 101,518 0 2,013,968 2,115,486
(2) Student Academic Development 289,421 430,928 798,603 1,518,952
(3) Management and Administrative Development 663,926 116,070 841,904 1,621,900
INSTITUTION SPECIFIC 365,695 365,695
POLICY IMPLEMENTATION 553,305 553,305
TOTAL EXPENDITURE (Years 1 and 2) 6,330,210
Level of Participation
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
75
Within the Joint Activities component expenditure was confined to three of
the five focus areas, curriculum development (40.2 per cent), student
academic development (28.9 per cent) and management and administrative 
development (30.9 per cent). The three focus areas are in many respects
interdependent, and the pattern of expenditure reflects this.
A calculation of the nature of the spending in the focus areas to determine
whether the funds spent were provided for national, regional or institution￾specific activities reflects some interesting results. Almost 70 per cent of the 
expenditure provided services at the institutional level. In all three focus
areas, the trend was to carry out institution-specific activities, with the case 
being most pronounced for curriculum development (95.2 per cent of
expenditure). This would support the unique circumstances applicable at each 
of the individual institutions.
Expenditure listed for Linkages is the spending utilised to manage the linkage 
grant process. The contract provides for an annual sum of approximately
$75,000 for this management function. Given that in the first two years 15
linkages were established, this amounts to $5,000 per linkage per year. 
3.2.2 Linkage Grants
Assessing actual linkages between SA and US institutions is important, as it is 
one area where USAID funds provide the foundation for greater flows of
funds brought about by matching or counterpart financing agreements.
The linkages financed by TELP aim to enable two or more institutions to
address broad based issues, share resources and engage in joint endeavours. 
US institutions participating in the linkages receive USAID funds on the basis 
of matching fund agreements. Assessing expenditure on this function calls for 
an analysis of not only the USAID funds but more importantly the extent of 
matched funds provided by institutions on the back of the USAID funds.
In Table 3 below the funding situation as applicable to linkage grants at a
number of the participating institutions is set out. The amounts shown in the 
table reflect totals for the duration of the linkages and not just funding for the 
first two years, as is the case in the discussion above. It was not possible to 
extract matching funding for the largest number of the grants on an annual 
basis.
From the 14 linkages set out it is evident that USAID funding of almost
$6 million attracts further funding to the extent of $3.6 million from the U.S. 
counterpart institutions. Ignoring the cost of administration, this amounts to a 
60 per cent matching proportion. When considering the cost effectiveness of 
the project the fact that the USAID funds facilitate further funding must not 
be over looked. A 60 per cent matching factor is significant.
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
76
TABLE 3: Linkage Grant Funding (June 1998 to May 2000)
As mentioned earlier it was not possible to examine the spending pattern of 
the main contractor across the functions – that is to compare expenditure on 
personnel with other forms of expenditure. The exercise was, however,
carried out on details of five of the existing linkage grants where the level of 
detail was available.
The five selected linkage grants were not chosen for any reason other than
the fact that the required detailed information was available. This would
support the notion of an unbiased sample and allow the results to be
considered indicative of all the linkage grants. The total expenditure of
$2,728,013 covering the grants in the sample represents 28.6 per cent of
total linkage grant funding as summarised in table 3 above.
The data is summarised in Table 4 according to the source of funds (USAID 
TELP funds or matching funds from the linkage institution) and then
according to the function it was spent on.
Of total spending 48.3 per cent is to be used to fund personnel and fringe
benefits. When the cost of travel - which is also ostensibly to fund personnel￾related activity - is added to this amount, the proportion rises to 59.4 per
cent. The smallest portion of the funds is to be spent on equipment (6.1 per 
cent) and supplies (3.8 per cent).
The results reflect a personnel-intensive expenditure pattern. This is not
necessarily harmful to the project but must send out warning signals to those 
tracking expenditure. 
INSTITUTION LINKAGE INSTITUTION Federal Funding Matching Grants Total Funding
Border Technikon University of Maryland Eastern Shore 460000 213137 673137
Eastern Cape Technikon Texas Southern University 459998 330538 790536
Fort Hare University University of Connecticut 460000 416255 876255
Mangosotho Technikon Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University 460000 329876 789876
ML Sultan Technikon Savannah State University 460000 288000 748000
Peninsula Technikon University of Michigan 459768 161052 620820
Technikon North West Tennessee State University 460000 115500 575500
University of Durban Westville Pennsylvania State University 459920 240695 700615
University of North West Office of International Education, Policy and Leadership 460156 238753 698909
University of the Western Cape University of Missouri 454613 115537 570150
University of Transkei The City College of CUNY 457180 170372 627552
University of Zululand Mississippi Consortium for International Development 460000 645615 1105615
Vista University University of Central Florida 197000 59100 256100
Vista University Southern University and A&M College 262816 246792 509608
GRAND TOTAL 5971451 3571222 9542673
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
77
TABLE 4: Detail of Selected Linkage Grants
Funding Source USAID Funds Matching Grant Total
Function:
Personnel 623,327 472,927 1,096,254
Fringe Benefits 107,545 113,230 220,775
Travel 295,848 7,300 303,148
Equipment 121,900 45,000 166,900
Supplies 51,000 51,757 102,757
Contractual 299,700 128,140 427,840
Other 336,575 73,764 410,339
Grand Total 1,835,895 892,118 2,728,013
Due to the fact that detailed data was not available to carry out these
comparisons across a number of different activities it is impossible to draw
project-wide conclusions. The ability of the evaluation to effectively pass
judgement on the cost-effectiveness of the project was impeded by the lack
of detailed expenditure data.
3.3 Grants
Overall funding to “Grants” accounts for only 6.1 per cent of the project’s
budget. Although this is a small proportion of the total, the success of the
functions carried out and funded by grants is important to the success of the 
entire project.
3.3.1 AIPA
An amount of $386,940 was made available to AIPA. Although this is a
relatively small proportion of the total project cost, the role AIPA was to play 
in the project was very important. AIPA was contracted to facilitate the
interaction between the Department of Education and Vice-Chancellors of the 
institutions. Specifically, one of AIPA’s roles is to ensure that Vice-Chancellors 
are well informed on legislation and the likely impact thereof, on the
institutions participating in the project. 
To judge the cost-effectiveness of the AIPA grant, the opinion of the Vice￾Chancellors on the assistance AIPA provided in keeping them abreast of all
relevant developments facing tertiary institutions, must be considered. The
dollars spent on the service may not have been large but the outcomes have 
significance for the success of the entire project. Unless Vice-Chancellors are 
well informed on a timely basis of developments likely to impact on their
institutions their role in the transformation process may be severely eroded.
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
78
3.3.2 International Foundation for Education and Self-Help (IFESH)
An agreement was signed with IFESH in 1996 to implement the Educators for 
Africa (EFA) programme in six technikons participating in the TELP. The initial 
concept of the EFA programme was to provide the technikons with the
opportunity to obtain Masters and PhD level faculty to help alleviate staff
shortages, particularly in the areas of science, engineering, math and
management. Site visits led IFESH to be more flexible in the request for
placements. 
In addition to the broader scope of the disciplines, later in 1996 IFESH was
informed that their agreement would be amended to make all of the then
fifteen TELP-related institutions eligible to participate in the programme. The 
amendment did not provide additional funds to facilitate working with the
increased number of institutions.
IFESH received $1,288,000 of USAID funding through TELP. In addition to
this funding, counterpart contribution from US sources supporting the EFA
programme, as of the date 31 March 1999, of $1,471,410 was provided.
These funds were used to provide books ($1,217,940) and to place experts at 
the participating SA institutions. Contracts covering 328 man months will have 
been completed by June 2000.
The USAID funding of $1,288,005 over the 328 contract months computed to 
a monthly fee of $3,926 (which does not account for the books provided by 
IFESH). Comparisons of similar costs on the VOCA Volunteer (Volunteers for 
Overseas Co-operative Assistance) programme reveal a cost in the region of 
$5,000 for a month, excluding overhead management time. The TELP project 
is receiving services of personnel at a price 20 per cent lower than that of
comparable US AID programmes.
3.3.3 Howard University HDI Consortium 
The amount of $270,000 was granted to Howard University to upgrade math, 
science and engineering tuition at a consortium of technikons. In addition to 
the funding granted directly to the US institution, $682,353 was provided to 
the technikon consortium for the project through PIL funding. This brings the 
total of USAID funding to $952,353 for this activity.
Grant financing was used to finance Howard University’s involvement in the 
project. In addition to the USAID funds, the counterpart contribution from
Howard University amounts to $302,571. This equates to a three to one
match of USAID funds to private institutional funds.
Due to the fact that the Howard University contract spans activities at a
number of technikons, not a single institution, it will not be meaningful to
draw direct cost comparisons of the individual institution linkage grants with 
this particular multi-institutional grant. 
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
79
4. RESULTS OF FINANCIAL QUESTIONNAIRE
4.1 Survey Sample
In order to add a further dimension to the financial analysis a questionnaire 
survey was conducted amongst the institutions in the survey sample. We
solicited responses from the ten surveyed institutions; five submitted
completed questionnaires.
4.2 Results of the Survey
A copy of the questionnaire is attached as Annex 10.12.
When asked whether or not the institution identified the five focus areas
(Staff Development, Curriculum and Programme Development, Student
Development, Management and Administrative Development and Research
Skills Development) when accounting for expenditure, only one of the five
respondents said they did. This may be as a result of the fact that in many
instances projects cover more than one focus area.
In contrast, however, the institutions did distinguish between the three main 
mechanisms to provide funds to institutions: institution-specific activities
(through PILs), joint activities and linkage grants. The nature of the funding 
would make it easier to distinguish between the expenditure. Joint Activities 
are funded through The College Fund contract and the Institution Specific
activities by PILS – both financing mechanisms clearly identifiable. Institutions 
do not have a direct role in the financing of linkage grants nor in expenditure 
on this activity.
All institutions supplement TELP funds with their own resources to achieve the 
overall objectives of the programme. The form of the supplement included
carrying the cost of providing office space from which the project operates,
providing access to the use of equipment such as computers and telephones, 
providing workshop venues, funding postal and telephonic services, and in
one instance even funding a member of staff to carry out secretarial services 
for the project. Understandably in most instances it is very difficult to apply a 
cost in terms of rand to these contributions.
Question six probed the TELP funding process. The answers to whether the 
process was efficient were mixed with a number of institutions replying yes
and no. It was evident from the responses that the process of reimbursement 
had improved tremendously over time. Incorrect completion of claim
documents slow the process down. Shortage of staff at the institution to carry 
out the reimbursement function was noted by two institutions to slow the
process down. From the responses it was also evident that as the learning
process had continued such delays have been reduced.
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
80
Of the respondents, three had only recently concluded linkages with US
institutions. The need for access to advance funding on linkages was
mentioned in a number of cases.
Certainly the funding of TELP-related travel within South Africa was not an
issue. The normal reimbursement procedures appear to be understood by all 
and functioning well. Some institutions did mention that it is difficult to carry 
the cost of travel during the reimbursement process.
Question nine dealt with record keeping and auditing. All responding
institutions submit their TELP records for audit by external companies. The
TELP Coordinator and the institutions’ finance departments are responsible for 
overall co-ordination and management of TELP funding, with all institutions
using computer-based accounting systems to record TELP expenditures.
When asked whether, if given the opportunity to apply for further funding
from USAID for TELP-supported projects, the institution would do so, the
responses were unanimously positive. Three institutions said there is nothing 
at all that would deter them from applying for further funding. One institution 
mentioned that the “one size fits all uncompromising criteria” set for
institutions was worth reassessing as it currently did not take account of
individual institution’s competencies.
Another drew attention to the two-year time period for PILS, saying it found 
the period short. With the academic year impacting on activities the two years 
actually translate into a year and a quarter.
Another issue raised by this institution concerns the measurement of success 
or otherwise of a project. Considering the expenditure on a project to
determine if a project is active and meeting objectives ignores the project
cycle and the implementation and monitoring plans. Judging a project by
monies spent is not a good measure of success.
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
81
Table 5: MILESTONE EXPENDITURE YEARS ONE AND TWO
Milestone Expenditure Year One (June 1998 to May 1999)
Milestone Expenditure Year Two (June 1999 to May 2000)
Function Focus Area
National Regional Institution Total
LINKAGES 74,561
JOINT ACTIVITIES 852,656 0 1,664,297 2,516,953
(1) Curriculum Development 101,518 0 951,171 1,052,689
(2) Student Academic Development 289,421 0 474,828 764,249
(3) Management and Administrative Development 461,717 0 238,298 700,015
INSTITUTION SPECIFIC 136,413 136,413
POLICY IMPLEMENTATION 178,671 178,671
TOTAL EXPENDITURE FOR THE YEAR 2,906,598
Level of Participation
Function Focus Area
National Regional Institution Total
LINKAGES 80,311
JOINT ACTIVITIES 202209 546,998 1,990,178 2,739,385
(1) Curriculum Development 0 0 1,062,797 1,062,797
(2) Student Academic Development 0 430,928 323,775 754,703
(3) Management and Administrative Development 202209 116,070 603,606 921,885
INSTITUTION SPECIFIC 229,282 229,282
POLICY IMPLEMENTATION 374634 374,634
TOTAL EXPENDITURE FOR THE YEAR 3,423,612
Level of Participation
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
82
10.4 Personnel
The following professionals carried out the TELP mid-term evaluation. The 
background descriptions come from AED’s proposal document.
10.4.1 Evaluation Team
Dr. Gretta Middleton, as the Senior Evaluation Leader, brings the
leadership skills, breadth of tertiary education experience and deep
understanding of institutional transformation that will make the difference 
between a TELP evaluation that is insightful and a real planning document 
as opposed to being merely adequate, even if thorough. Through her
association with historically black colleges and universities and
mainstream higher education in the United States, and with universities in 
Africa, Dr. Middleton knows the challenges of transformation and capacity 
building. She has introduced innovative programmes and revamped
course offerings in line with socio-economic trends. Her evaluation
experiences have been in the areas of human resource development and 
institutional capacity building—both central objectives of TELP.
Dr. Michael Rice, the second Evaluator, has extensive experience of
education in South Africa having taught in virtually all the sectors from
primary school to teacher training and master’s level at university. An
experienced and sought-after evaluator and researcher he has been
involved in some of the major investigations into the transformation of
education in South Africa. He was a major evaluator and researcher for
the National Audit on Teacher Education, and a researcher into the
transformation of technical colleges in Further Education. He served on a 
previous audit team of the historically disadvantaged institutions. These
projects had many of the same logistical and methodological challenges as 
the TELP evaluation. Recently, he was responsible for establishing the
community higher education service partnership programme at the
University of the Witwatersrand. He has also had considerable experience 
in evaluating mathematics and science projects at teacher up-grading and 
initial training levels, and micro-enterprise training programmes for
marginalised youth. He is an acknowledged expert on language and
cognition across the curriculum. He has also edited several White Papers
for the departments of Social Welfare and Population Development, and
Housing.
10.4.2 Consultants
Dr. Philip Christensen is the Activity Manager. He has worked both
long- and short-term with AED for 20 years on USAID activities. He is
familiar both AED and USAID procedures thoroughly and his
conscientiousness and efficiency are well known to both AED and USAID.
In addition to strong management skills, he also has evaluation expertise, 
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
83
HDI experience, and in-depth experience with the curriculum development 
focus area. Dr. Christensen will serve as the point person for USAID. He
will provide quality assurance and ensure that all stakeholder views are
represented in the methodology and final product.
Dr. Michael Cross fills the Policy Specialist position, providing at critical 
junctures during the evaluation the connections to the broad education
policy developments in education, especially at the tertiary level. He has
been a consistent contributor to government policy on higher education,
at the provincial and national levels. Issues of diversity and gender
representation have been part of his research and policy work. 
Ms. Amanda Fitschen, the Finance Specialist, is an economist and
financial analyst with experience in the higher education sector. Ms.
Fitschen currently lectures full-time at the University of Cape Town School 
of Economics. She is familiar with tertiary education financial issues, has
been a lead actor in developing provincial-level budgets, and has
addressing many other public finance issues. A respected researcher and
evaluator, she has conducted numerous consulting assignments to study
project sustainability, assess the impact of donor programmes, and
evaluate the financial management of donor programmes. In 1997 she
analysed the funding of tertiary education in South Africa on behalf of the 
Mellon Foundation and the Department of Education. This research
developed a model for implementing a sustainable loan scheme to fund
needy students at tertiary institutions to the year 2010. 
Dr. Howard Williams, the Evaluation Methodology Specialist, is a US￾based AED staff member who consulted with the team by email, fax and 
telephone. A recognized international expert in evaluation theory and 
practice, Dr. Williams has provided long- and short-term technical 
assistance in monitoring and evaluation (M&E), research, EMIS, and 
testing and measurement across several settings and countries. His work 
includes M&E design and implementation in Nepal, Egypt, Liberia, Ghana 
(USAID), Bangladesh (ADB) and Florida (U.S.); research in Nepal, 
Bangladesh, and Florida; EMIS in Nepal, Bangladesh, and Lesotho; and 
instruction and technical assistance for testing and measurement in 
Botswana and Ghana. 
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
84
10.5 Bibliography
Academic Audit of Historically Disadvantaged Tertiary Institutions in South 
Africa. Overall Report. DEVTECH. May 1998
Council On Higher Education. Size and Shape Task Team: Discussion
Document. 7 April 2000
Higher Education Transformation: Assessing performance in South Africa, 
Nico Cloete & Ian Bunting. CHET. 2000.
Inaugural Address: Tertiary Education Linkages Project (TELP) 
Opportunities and Challenges. Prof. C Z Gebeda. 23 June 1999
Futurefact 2000 Conference Proceedings 13th June 2000
Leadership and Institutional Change in Higher Education. CHET & UNCF. 
2000
Project TELP: Attachment – Deloitte & Touche Financial Management 
Training for Historically Disadvantaged Universities and Technikons in 
South Africa. January 2000
Project TELP: Semi-Annual Report – appendix No. 4. 1 May 1998 – 20 
November 1998
TELP Governance Document as approved by the TELP Advisory Panel. 
October 1999
TELP Progress Report 1998-2000. The College Fund/UNCF-South Africa. 
March 1, 2000.
Tertiary Education Linkages Project (TELP). Project Number 674-0315. 
PROJECT PAPER. November 1993
“The Skewed Revolution: The Selective ‘Africanisation’ of the Student 
Profile of Historically White Universities and Technikons in South Africa in 
the 1990s”. David Cooper. University of Cape Town. 5 April 2000
UNCF Contract. 26 May 1998
Agendas and minutes of meetings
Agenda for Meeting and Workshop of the TELP Policy Advisory Panel 22 
February 1995
Executive Summary of the Minutes of the TELP Policy Advisory Panel 29-
30 June 1995
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
85
Executive Summary of the Minutes TELP Policy Advisory Panel 16 February 
1996
Minutes of the Policy Advisory Panel Retreat 18-20 April 1996
Minutes of a Meeting Held by the TELP Policy Advisory Panel 14-15 August 
1996
Minutes of the TELP Working Group Meeting 19 & 20 October 1996
Minutes of a Meeting Held by of the TELP Policy Advisory Panel 24-25 
November 1996
Minutes of the Meeting of the Executive Committee 31 January 1997
Minutes of the TELP Policy Advisory Panel Meeting 27 February 1997
Minutes of the TELP Executive Committee Meeting 13 & 14 April 1997
Minutes of the Executive Committee Meeting 25 June 1997 
Minutes of the TELP Policy Advisory Panel Meeting 26 June 1997
Minutes of the Executive Committee Meeting 24 November 1997
Minutes of the TELP Policy Advisory Panel Meeting 25 November 1997
Minutes of the TELP Executive Committee Meeting 5 June 1998 
Minutes of the TELP Executive Committee Meeting 11 June 1998 
Special Meeting the TELP Executive Committee 21 August 1998 
Minutes of the Meeting of the Executive Committee of the TELP Policy 
Advisory Panel. 27 September 1998
Minutes of the Meeting of the Executive Committee of the TELP Policy 
Advisory Panel. 28 & 29 September 1998
Minutes of the Meeting of the Executive Committee of the TELP Policy 
Advisory Panel 11 March 1999
Minutes of the Meeting of the Executive Committee of the TELP Policy 
Advisory Panel 12 March 1999
Minutes of the Meeting of the Executive Committee of the TELP Policy 
Advisory Panel 5 June 1999
Minutes of the College Fund Quarterly Report Meeting 21 October 1999
TELP TASK TEAMS Report of Working Group Discussions 27 June 1996
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
86
Grant Agreements
Tertiary Education Linkages Project (TELP) Grant Agreement; Project No. 
674-0315, Project Implementation letter (PIL) No.1
Tertiary Education Linkages Project (TELP) Grant Agreement; Project No. 
674-0315, Project Implementation letter (PIL) No.6
Tertiary Education Linkages Project (TELP) Grant Agreement; Project No. 
674-0315, Project Implementation letter (PIL) No.8
Tertiary Education Linkages Project (TELP) Grant Agreement; Project No. 
674-0315, Project Implementation letter (PIL) No.26
Tertiary Education Linkages Project (TELP) Grant Agreement; Project No. 
674-0315, Project Implementation letter (PIL) No.29
Tertiary Education Linkages Project (TELP) Grant Agreement; Project No. 
674-0315, Project Implementation letter (PIL) No.42
Tertiary Education Linkages Project (TELP) Grant Agreement; Project No. 
674-0315, Project Implementation letter (PIL) No.77
Tertiary Education Linkages Project (TELP) Grant Agreement; Project No. 
674-0315, Project Implementation letter (PIL) No.79
Tertiary Education Linkages Project (TELP) Grant Agreement; Project No. 
674-0315, Project Implementation letter (PIL) No.84
Tertiary Education Linkages Project (TELP) Grant Agreement; Project No. 
674-0315, Project Implementation letter (PIL) No.85
Tertiary Education Linkages Project (TELP) Grant Agreement; Project No. 
674-0315, Project Implementation letter (PIL) No.94 
University and Technikon Calendars
· University of Zululand 2000
· ML Sultan Technikon 2000
· University of Transkei 1999
University and Technikon reports and reviews
· ML Sultan Annual Review1998
· University of the North Research Report 1997
· University of the North Research news May 1999
· MEDUNSA Exploration Vol.2 No.1 April 1999
· MEDUNSA Caladrius March 2000
· MEDUNSA Annual Report 1997
· Peninsula Technikon Annual Report 1998
· Eastern Cape Technikon Annual Report 1998
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
87
10.6 Interview List
USAID/South Africa
Dr K Nlovu
Lisa Franchett
Patrick Fine
Futi Umlaw
Eileen Oldwine
USAID/Washington
Henry Reynolds
Department of Education
Nasima Badsha, Deputy Director General, Higher Education
Molapo Qhobela, Chief Director, Higher Education Policy Development 
and Support
Nazeama Mohamed, Director, Higher Education Policy Development and 
Support
Themba Mohambi
Ahmed Esso,p Chief Director Higher Education Planning
UNCF/College Fund (South Africa) 
Ms Thandiwe January-Mclean (Chief of Party)
Prof Mike Phala (specific achievements)
Dr Gloria Braxton (Deputy Chief of Party)
Dr Rumilla Naran (TELP resource centre)
Ms A van der Vyfer (finance)
UNCF/College Fund (USA) 
Ms Liz Lowe (CEO, Special Programmes)
Dr Shelby Lewis (President, Development Consultants Network – Linkage Grants 
Subcontractor)
ML Sultan Technikon 
Prof Goba Vice-Chancellor
Prof Bharuthram (Director of Research and Development) Linkages
Robin Toli TELP Coordinator
Lesley Cooke Acting HOD Curriculum Development
Delysia Timm Senior Lecturer Chemistry Dept.
Shubnam Rambharos Lecturer Educational Development & Gender Forum
Haj Vahed Lecturer Educational Development Core Curriculum Programme
Sipho Zulu Lecturer Dept. Medical Sciences
Mdu Mokoena Staff Development Facilitator Dept Bio Sciences
Mpho Rakgotho HOD Student Life
Osman Seedat HOD Educational Development
Mal Reddy Senior Lecturer Law & Administration Faculty of Commerce.
Mrs Krish Chetty HOD (retired) Communications
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
88
Lesley Cooke Acting HOD Curriculum Development
M Moodley Human Resources
University of the Transkei
Dr Nkosi Administrator of the University of the Transkei
Prof Z Gebeda TELP Coordinator
Mrs Barbara Nomsa Mkosi (Health Sciences Deputy Director)
Dr MN Jadezweni Education Foundation
Mr LA Monyooe Education Foundation 
Prof T Dye Zoology Dept
Mr KK Govender Dept of Business Management
Prof K Mfenyama Faculty of Health Sciences
Mr J Nornwand Vice-Principal
Mr Matiwana Deputy Register Academic
Ms Nschtlhelani Acting Director of Human Resources
Mr PK Gqulu acting Deputy Registrar Administration
Dr Guwa Dean of Students
Ms Z Dotwana Acting head of Student Councelling
David Abbey – Programme & curriculum development 
Prof M Mahabir Dean of Economic Sciences
Prof Mwamwenda Coordinator of LINKAGES
Prof A Dye Dean of Research
Prof M Glencross HOD Maths and Science Education Director of the Research 
Resource Centre.
Peninsula Technikon
Prof Brian Figaji Vice-Chancellor
Merle Hodgson TELP Coordinator
Prof J Tromp Deputy Vice-Chancellor Academic Affairs
Prof L V Tanga Deputy Vice-Chancellor Student Affairs and International Relations
Thelo Wakefield
Paul Tennant
Bennett Alexander
Cecilia Jacobs
James Garraway
Norman Jacobs Dean faculty of Business
Johnny Basson
David Bleazard
Lorenzo Himunchul
Hilton Fransman Educational Development Centre
V der Linde
Shirely Levendal 
Siyabonga Ndabezithe Student Development
Dr D Gihwala Dean Faculty of Science
A P Staak Linkages Faculty of Engineering
DR B Sun Linkages
Thabong Molusi (student)
Arele Foster (student)
Michael Foster (student)
Wessel Badenhorst
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
89
Tobias Titus Faculty of Business
Nicky Arends Faculty of Business
Graham Renecke Faculty of Business
Lynn Coleman Materials Development
University of the Western Cape
Prof Cecil Abrahams Vice-Chancellor
Prof Peter Vale Deputy Vice-Chancellor
Muhammed Haron TELP Coordinator
Lionel Nicholas
Tahir Wood
Natalie Pekeur-Engelbrecht
Kailene Merawr
E R Delves
Larry Pohpas
Rensche Bell
Ruth Wills
Hermine Engel Writing Centre
Venda University
Prof. D R Thakhathi Deputy Vice-Chancellor
Republic Monakedi – TELP Coordinator
Prof Nkomo Linkages
Dr Brian Brink Library
Nic Hoffmann Dept Religious Studies
Vincent Bvuma – English
Murray Hofmeyr – Religious Studies
Ben Siyakwazi – Educational Foundation
Bao Davhana – Student Affairs
Marhudu Maselerel – Nursing Science
Thidi Tshiguvho – Biological Sciences
Technikon Northern Gauteng
Prof G Lenyai – Vice-Chancellor
Ntsatsi Mantsho – TELP Coordinator
Dr M Collen – Vice Principal Student Services
Ms T Maja Research
Mr Mukhola Student Leadership
Mr C Baloyi Student Leadership
Ms M Seerane Student Academic Development
Mr X Mankazana Student Academic Development
Mr T Abraham Student Academic Development
Ms C Selepe Curriculum Development
Mrs A van der Westhuizen Curriculum Development
Mr T Pudikabekwa - Dean of Engineering
Mr J Makina Research
Ms N Ngozwana Research
University of the Durban Westville 
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
90
Nadia Minty TELP Coordinator
Ms Leanne Browning Student Academic Development
Ms Rajie Tudge Strategic Planning
Mr Nelson Moodley Research office
Mrs M Doorasamy Research office
Ms N Tengimfene Student Leadership & Enrichment
Prof Dsoni Linkages
Ms S Beerilall Workstudy
Mr B Hadebe Science Education Project
Ms S Seetal HOD Career Counselling
Ms V Govendar Student Employment Office
Mr B Nel School of Education Studies: Educational Technology
University of Zululand
Prof Dlamini Vice-Chancellor
Ms G Gugule TELP Coordinator
Prof H Glass Dept Sociology
Ms T Dlamini Warden of Residences
Prof P Dlamini Dean of Students
Ms J Kiamba Dept Consumer Science
University of Fort Hare
Mr Z Hloma TELP Coordinator
Miss N G Scott Training and Development Officer
Mr J Mhaga Dean of Students
Ms Nokweti Finance
Jeremy Punt Strategic Planning sub-committee convenor
Petrus Strydom Special assistant to the VC
Eastern Cape Technikon
Mr A Bomvu Vice Principal
Mr V Mapolisa TELP Coordinator
Irene Harvey Staff Development & Research
Lindewa Mpono Student Councellor
Faith Sigaba Student Affairs
N Zulu HOD Quality Management
Chris van Wyk Staff Development
University of the North 
Prof Golele Acting Vice-Chancellor
Morwamoche Ntwampe TELP Coordinator
Mangosuthu Technikon
E Zingu Acting Vice-Chancellor
Mrs N Mkhize
Border Technikon
Prof Brunyee Vice-Chancellor
M A Dandala TELP Coordinator
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
91
Medunsa University
Prof T P Masihleho Deputy Principal for Administration
Frank Daniels TELP Coordinator
University of North West
Prof Nico Gouws Vice-Chancellor
Ms Masabata TELP Coordinator
Dr M W Legotto Deputy Vice-Chancellor Linkages Coordinator
Prof Simeon Taohe Dean of Science & Technology
Mr Mkosama Mavuso Project manager
Mr M A Makgwa Finance officer
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
92
10.7 Methodology
The following document comprises the methodology plan submitted on 3rd
April 2000. See Section 2.2 for details about subsequent changes to this 
plan.
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
93
TELP Mid-Term Evaluation
DRAFT Methodology as of 3 April 2000
Purpose:
This mid-term evaluation of TELP will “determine progress made in the achievement 
of the project goals and will test the validity of the underlying hypotheses and critical 
assumptions of the programme.” The evaluation will identify future actions and make 
recommendations so that it can be used as a planning document. It will focus on the 
15 Historically Disadvantaged Institutions (HDIs) that have participated throughout 
the project.
The evaluation will employ a highly consultative participatory process with key
individuals who will be interviewed in their own right, key institutions and 
discussions with a number of focus groups. A reference group consisting of members 
of the TELP Executive Committee (the four Vice-Chancellors plus representatives 
from the Department of Education and USAID) will be used to test the methodology. 
All interviews and the focus group discussions will have prepared protocols.
Deliverables:
1. A workplan which includes the method of evaluation and evaluation instruments
2. A pilot study in two institutions to test the instruments. The reference group will 
be instrumental in approving the methodology. A report will be presented to the 
reference group at the end of the pilot study with the object of presenting 
preliminary findings and of reviewing the methodology if necessary.
3. A draft report with recommendations on the evaluation.
4. A workshop with partners on 10 July 2000.
5. A final report.
Research Team:
Dr Gretta Middleton (Senior Evaluation Leader)
Dr Michael Rice (Team Leader)
Mr Thozamile Nomvete (Team Member)
Dr Howard Williams (Evaluation Specialist off-site)
Dr Michael Cross (Policy Specialist)
Ms Amanda Fitschen (Finance Specialist)
Dr Philip Christensen (Activity Coordinator)
Data collection:
The information to be collected will encompass quantitative and qualitative data. Data 
will be collected by means of: 
1. A literature survey.
A survey of the relevant documents will be undertaken, with special reference to the 
UNCF Progress Report, the DEVTEC Semi-Annual Report – appendix No. 4, 
Minutes of meetings, financial reports, the Devtech Academic Audit and so on.
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
94
2. Interviews. 
Individuals to be interviewed:
· Vice-chancellors of each institution
· TELP Coordinators at each institution where there is one
· UNCF/College Fund personnel
· Ms Thandiwe January-Mclean (Chief of Party)
· Prof Mike Phala (specific achievements)
· Dr Gloria Braxton (linkage grants)
· Dr Stanley Van Harte (institution specific achievements)
· Dr Rumilla Naran (TELP resource centre)
Special interviews will be conducted with representatives from:
· The Department of Education
· USAID
· Other contractors and grantees
3. Focus groups
1. Institute-specific joint activities: a focus group consisting of two participants from 
each of the Focus Areas. (Curriculum development with particular reference to the 
NQF and SAQA.)
2. Institutional activities & PILS: a focus group consisting of two participants each 
from proposal-writing and implementation workshops, plus representatives from 
the PIL Focus Areas, excluding the TELP Coordinator. (Ensure that students are 
included where relevant, at least two including the SRC President).
3. Linkages: a focus group from each parameter of the focus.
The choice of participants in each focus group will be crucial to its success. Certainly, 
every attempt will be made to include in the relevant focus groups the Dean of 
Students, the Dean of Science, the DVC Academic Affairs/HR and the Project 
Directors, as well as a representative group from the student leadership.
Each focus group will have a specifically designed discussion schedule.
4. Questionnaires.
Questionnaires will be designed to capture the relevant quantitative data, especially 
the financial data.
Process:
The evaluation of the institutions will take the following form:
· The methodology will be referred to the Reference Group for comment and 
amendment.
· Interviews to be conducted with the Department of Education, USAID and UNCF.
· A literature survey of available documents will be carried out. 
· The Finance Specialist will conduct a financial analysis of the whole TELP 
operation.
· The Senior Evaluation Leader and the Team Leader will pilot the methodology in 
two of the HDIs. Each institution will be visited for two days.
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
95
· A report on the initial findings of the pilot will be written and submitted to the 
Reference Group, then discussed by the Executive Committee at a workshop on 
9
th May.
· The Team Leader and Member will conduct interviews and focus group meetings 
at eight additional HDIs. Each institution will be visited for two days beginning 
15th May.
· The Senior Evaluation Leader will conduct interviews with the Vice-Chancellors 
and TELP Coordinators at all 13 remaining HDIs.
· A draft report will be submitted to the TELP Advisory Panel which, when 
approved by USAID, will be sent to the Vice-Chancellors, the Department of 
Education and USAID contractors and grantees.
· A one-day workshop will be held to discuss the draft report with the Vice￾Chancellors on the 10th July.
· The final report will be submitted to USAID by 14th July.
Scope:
The evaluation shall:
1. Determine whether current strategies supported by TELP are relevant.
2. Determine the extent of the changing environment of the HDIs and whether or not 
TELP is addressing these changes.
3. Determine if TELP activities are linked to achieved stated results, and if not 
provide recommendations to do so.
4. Determine whether TELP is achieving progress towards its stated results using 
programme benchmarks. If not provide recommendations.
5. Determine if the achievements of TELP are cost effective.
6. Determine whether actual TELP results are focussed towards intended results.
7. Identify intended and unintended results.
8. Determine if TELP accomplishments are sustainable. If not provide 
recommendations.
9. Identify the most effective ways to achieve TELP objectives.
10. Identify ways to address problem areas.
Areas to be evaluated:
1. Institution specific activities: a sample of institution specific activities funded 
through PILs. Specific activities to be decided in consultation with USAID. 
Interviews will be conducted with Vice-Chancellors, TELP Coordinators, Activity 
Managers and a sample of persons participating (in focus groups) in the activities.
2. Joint activities: A sample of activities supported or funded through contractors or 
grantees. This is a departure from the original terms of reference necessitated by 
the decision to sample 10 institutions rather than survey all 15. Data will be 
collected from the DOE, Vice-Chancellors, TELP Coordinators, Activity
managers, persons participating (in focus groups) and contractors and grantees.
3. Linkage activities: The linkages funded through PILs and contractors. Interviews 
will be conducted with Vice-Chancellors, TELP Coordinators, Activity Managers 
and a sample of persons participating (in focus groups) in the activities.
Evaluation questions:
Overall questions:
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
96
1. Are the current development strategies supported by USAID/SA relevant to 
address development constraints TELP was designed to address?
2. To what extent has TELP been responsive to the changing environment of the 
HDIs and to the critical challenges facing the HDIs? 
3. Are TELP activities sufficiently integrated to achieve the stated results?
4. Is TELP achieving satisfactory progress towards its stated goals and objectives?
5. Are TELP activities cost effective? 
6. What are the intended and unintended impacts of TELP?
7. Are the accomplishments of TELP sustainable?
Process questions:
8. Do appropriate management structures exist at USAID/SA and the HDIs to 
facilitate the implementation of TELP?
9. Have TELP Project Coordinators been able to coordinate TELP activities at their 
institutions?
10. Is TELP supporting the appropriate mix of activities to build capacity at HDIs? 
What other activities or approaches should TELP consider?
11. Are long term staff development mechanisms appropriate to facilitate the 
improvement of capacity building at HDIs?
12. To what extent are TELP initiatives integrated into the institutional development 
plan or three year rolling plan?
13. Are TELP activities and strategies responsive to the needs of individual 
institutions?
14. Have synergies being actively explored between TELP and other development 
activities at their institution?
15. To what extent are institutions evaluating progress of ongoing TELP interventions 
and applying the lessons learned?
Outcome questions
16. Which TELP activities are contributing the most to the achievement of TELP 
objectives?
17. Which activities are contributing least to the achievement of TELP objectives?
18. To what extent are returning TELP candidates contributing to institutional 
strengthening?
19. To what extent are recipients or participants of TELP staff development initiatives 
retained by institutions?
20. What factors account for the success or failure of TELP to achieve its objectives?
Impact questions
21. Do TELP initiatives have institution-wide impact?
22. Is there a discernable correlation between training received and subsequent 
performance of training participants at their institutions?
Institutions:
The institution evaluation will be preceded by a pilot evaluation to test the 
methodology.
Pilot institutions:
University of the Transkei
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
97
ML Sultan Technikon
Institutions to be sampled:
Zululand University
University of Fort Hare
Eastern Cape Technikon
Venda University
Technikon Northern Gauteng
Peninsula Technikon
University of Durban Westville
University of the Western Cape
Rationale for the selection of the institutions:
Budget and time constraints have resulted in the original strategy, of carrying out in￾depth evaluations at each of the 15 historically disadvantaged institutions (HDIs), 
being modified. It is no longer possible to produce institution-specific reports to 
support the main evaluation. This does not mean that the different experiences of the 
various institutions will be ignored. On the contrary, such variety will inform the 
project-wide findings and recommendations. However, it will not be possible to 
examine every HDI in depth. Each HDI will be visited during the course of the 
evaluation, but a sample of 10 (two for the pilot, eight for the evaluation) will be 
examined more carefully. In other words, the methodology has moved from being a 
census to a sample.
The sample has been stratified on the basis of perceived institutional success within 
the TELP context: low, medium, high. Accordingly, it can be seen that those 
institutions that have a high or low success rate are to receive the most attention. 
Further, an attempt has been made to balance the technikon/university representation. 
The same principles apply to the pilot. A constraining factor was the necessity to 
choose institutions that had a functioning TELP Coordinator. However, it was also 
agreed that it would be useful to see how the project had fared at an institution where 
there is at present no TELP Coordinator, and accordingly one such institution was 
chosen.
INSTITUTION FOCUS GROUP PROTOCOLS 
The following presents the generic focus areas for discussion in all focus group 
meetings at all the institutions. Issues specific to individual institutions are 
detailed below.
GENERAL QUESTIONS:
· Why only three focus areas?
· To what extent are TELP initiatives integrated into mainstream initiatives? 
Synergy?
· What lessons have been learned?
· Are lessons learned being applied?
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
98
· Which activities are contributing most/least to the TELP objectives?
· To what extent are TELP candidates contributing to institutional strengthening?
· To what extent are recipients of staff development retained by the institutions?
· What factors account for the success or failure of TELP?
· Do TELP initiatives have institution wide impact?
· Is there a correlation between training and subsequent performance?
· Comment on the quality of presentation and organisation at workshops.
JOINT ACTIVITIES:
Curriculum design: 
· understanding of the role of SAQA, NQF requirements and the technical needs to 
meet NQF requirements
· understanding of the NQF requirements
· understanding of the technical needs to meet NQF requirements
· technical assistance on writing of learning outcomes
· build capacity towards uniform understanding of NQF technical requirements
· usefulness of workshop on where institutions should be by June 2000
· understanding of the interplay between SAQA, DOE and CHE re DOE and SAQA 
to comply with June 2000 and June 2003 NQF requirements
Student development
· new challenges to student development and facilitate the development of draft 
institutional five year student development plans
· work study model that will provide financial assistance to students which 
encouraging cooperative learning
· leadership training 
· 5 year student development plans
· train staff to set up and administer bridging programmes for under prepared first 
time entering undergraduate students
· assess the status of work study and development of and implementation of 
modified DTET work study models.
Management & administration development
· first round of three year rolling planning process, problem areas and capacity 
building strategies
· gender
· awareness of national planning issues and the facilitation of the process of 
developing a planning framework; enhance management capacity to develop three 
year rolling plans
· role of leadership in institutional change; facilitate awareness of best practice.
· equity
INSTITUTION SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES & PILS: all institutions received workshops 
in:
· Proposal writing
· Implementation
LINKAGES are specified individually
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
99
SPECIFIC INSTITUTIONAL ACTIVITIES
Eastern Cape Technikon
JOINT ACTIVITIES: specific workshops and areas to probe:
Curriculum design: 
· writing of learning outcomes
Student development
· clarify SATS/Version 2 of diagnostic tests
Management & administration development
· equity
INSTITUTION SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES & PILS
· Staff dev & linkages
· Eastern Cape
LINKAGES: Texas Southern University 
Parameters of the focus: Engineering, Business Science, Applied Technology
Academic, Administrative and Support Staff development
Research, curriculum development
Programme design
M L Sultan Technikon
INSTITUTION SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES & PILS
· Student & staff development
· Programme & curriculum dev.
· Research
LINKAGES: Letter of Intent with Savannah State University
Parameters: Science , Engineering
Staff development and infrastructure in:
· Waste Water Technology
· Food Science
· Renewable energy for rural development
Peninsula Technikon
JOINT ACTIVITIES: specific workshops and areas to probe:
Curriculum design: 
· language support into curriculum
· development of qualification specifications
Student development
· clarify SATS/Version 2 of diagnostic tests
Management & administration development
· equity
INSTITUTION SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES & PILS
· Programme, Staff & Curriculum Development
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
100
· Staff and student development
LINKAGES: University of Michigan 
Parameters: Mechanical Engineering
· Cleaner production technology research
· Smart Materials and Structures
University of Durban-Westville
INSTITUTION SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES & PILS
· Curriculum, Staff Development & Linkages
· Programme and curriculum development
LINKAGES: Letter of Intent with Penn State Consortium
Paremeters: All leadership levels
· Management and leadership
· Staff Development
University of the Transkei
JOINT ACTIVITIES: specific workshops and areas to probe:
Curriculum design: 
· understanding of OBE
· development of qualification specifications
Student development
· clarify SATS/Version 2 of diagnostic tests
INSTITUTION SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES & PILs
· Programme and curriculum dev.
LINKAGES: Letter of Intent with University of Connecticut
Parameters: Central Admin
· Strategic, institutional and organisational development
· University-based business development and income generating strategies through 
research 
· Management and the development of quality assurance academic programmes
University of the Transkei
INSTITUTION SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES & PILS
· Programme and curriculum development
LINKAGES: City College of New York
Parameters: Law, Medicine and Health Sciences, Arts and Social Sciences and 
Economic Sciences.
· Staff development
· Student development
· Curriculum development
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
101
University of Venda
INSTITUTION SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES & PILS
· Programme and staff development
LINKAGES: Letter of Intent with Georgia State University
Parameters: School of Business, Economics and Administrative Sciences
· Tourism and Hospitality, Business Information Systems, Centre for 
Entrpreneurship
University of the Western Cape
JOINT ACTIVITIES
Management & administration development
· equity
INSTITUTION SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES & PILS
· Linkages and staff development
· Student development
· Programme and curriculum development
LINKAGES: University of Missouri System
Parameters: Science, Community and Health Sciences, Economics and Management 
Sciences, Education, Law, Humanities
· Staff development
University of Zululand
INSTITUTION SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES & PILS
· Programme and curriculum development
LINKAGES: Mississippi Consortium for International Development
Parameters: Chemistry, Home Economics, Business Economics, Social Work
· Research, curriculum design and development, Finance, Management, 
Information Systems, alumni networks, student exchange, library development.
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
102
10.8 Approved Activity Plan
This annex presents the activity plan approved by the Reference Group at 
the beginning of the evaluation activity. It shows scheduled tasks and
indicates anticipated participation (level of effort) by specific team
members. Mr. Nomvete’s withdrawal (see Section 2.2.5 above) caused the 
most significant changes to this plan, with Dr. Middleton joining Dr. Rice
for the two-day site visits and Dr. Cross substituting for Dr. Middleton on 
five of the single-day interview sessions with Vice-Chancellors and TELP
Coordinators. The Reference Group also added one meeting on 28th June 
to review the preliminary draft of this report prior to its circulation to
stakeholders. 
With the exception of the above-note changes the following plan was
implemented up to the end of June with only minor changes to dates and 
participation schedules.
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
103
TELP EVALUATION ACTIVITY PLAN: REVISION 2
Notes:
· Deliverables noted in italics
· All dates mm/dd/yy format
· Time d=days, w=weeks
· Level of effort
o n = discrete person-days for category
o 0 = task assigned but person-days included in another task
· “ExCo” = TELP Executive Committee
Key to Consultant Level of Effort
· 1: Activity Manager (Christensen)
· 2: Senior Evaluation Leader (Middleton)
· 3: Team Leader (Rice)
· 4: Team Member (Nomvete)
· 5: Evaluation Specialist (Williams, off-site)
· 6: Policy Specialist (Cross)
· 7: Finance Specialist (Fitschen)
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
104
Activity Time Start End
L O E
Notes
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. PLANNING PHASE Mon 
3/27/00
Fri 
4/7/00
2. Review project documentation 2d Mon 
3/27/00
Tue 
3/28/00
0 0 0
3. Initial USAID briefing 0.5d Mon 
3/27/00
Mon 
3/27/00
.5 .5 .5
4. Draft strategies, evaluation meth. & 
instruments, financial review model, 
data collection plan, work plan
4d Mon 
3/27/00
Thu 
3/30/00
3.5 3.5 3.5 2 2 2
5. Select 2 pilot institutions 0.5d Fri 
3/31/00
Fri 
3/31/00
.5 .5 .5
6. Hold planning meeting with USAID 0.5d Fri 
3/31/00
Fri 
3/31/00
.5 .5 .5
7. Solicit feedback from ExCo 3d Mon 
4/3/00
Wed 
4/5/00
Office staff distributes and follows 
up
8. Arrange pilot HDI visits 1d Mon 
4/3/00
Mon 
4/3/00
Office staff
9. Preliminary visits DOE, key 
contractors, grantees
3d Mon 
4/3/00
Wed 
4/5/00
3 3 2 Financial specialist gathers macro￾level data
10. Continue documentation review, 
refine methodology & instruments
3d Mon 
4/3/00
Wed 
4/5/00
2 0 0 3 Financial specialist gathers macro￾level data
11. Revise instruments, work plan 2d Thu 
4/6/00
Fri 
4/7/00
2 2
12. Print instruments, work plan 1d Fri 
4/7/00
Fri 
4/7/00
OFFICE STAFF
13. Submit & distribute work plan 0d Fri 
4/7/00
Fri 
4/7/00
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
105
Activity Time Start End
L O E
Notes
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
14. PILOT PHASE Mon 
4/10/00
Thu 
5/11/00
15. Distribute questionnaires 13 HDIs 3w Mon 
4/10/00
Thu 
5/4/00
Office staff
16. Arrange visits 13 HDIs 1w Mon 
4/10/00
Fri 
4/14/00
Office staff
17. Visit 1st pilot institution 2.5d Mon 
4/10/00
Wed 
4/12/00
2.5 2.5
18. Visit 2nd pilot institution 2.5d Wed 
4/12/00
Fri 
4/14/00
2.5 2.5
19. Draft pilot study report & begin 
methodology revisions
4d Mon 
4/17/00
Thu 
4/20/00
4 4 1 2
20. Print copies draft report 1d Thu 
4/20/00
Thu 
4/20/00
Office staff
21. Submit 10 copies draft report 
USAID
0d Thu 
4/20/00
Thu 
4/20/00
22. Hold briefing session for USAID 0.5d Tue 
4/25/00
Tue 
4/25/00
.5 .5
23. Revise draft report, strategy & 
instruments as required
1.5d Tue 
4/25/00
Wed 
4/26/00
1.5 1.5 1 1
24. Print & distribute revised report for 
ExCo review
6d Fri 
4/28/00
Mon 
5/8/00
Office staff distributes and follows 
up
25. Interview remaining partners 4d Fri 
4/28/00
Thu 
5/4/00
4 4
26. Analyze questionnaire data 13 HDIs 2d Fri 
5/5/00
Mon 
5/8/00
1 2 2 2
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
106
Activity Time Start End
L O E
Notes
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
27. Workshop to solicit feedback from 
ExCo
1d Tue 
5/9/00
Tue 
5/9/00
1 1 1 1
28. Final revisions to report & 
instruments
2d Wed 
5/10/00
Thu 
5/11/00
2 2 2 1
29. Reprint report (as req’d) 1d Thu 
5/11/00
Thu 
5/11/00
Office staff
30. Submit and distribute final pilot￾phase report
0d Thu 
5/11/00
Thu 
5/11/00
31. EVALUATION PHASE 48d Fri 
5/12/00
Fri 
7/14/00
32. Print HDI visit instruments and docs 1d Fri 
5/12/00
Fri 
5/12/00
Office staff
33. Orient remaining team member 1d Fri 
5/12/00
Fri 
5/12/00
1 1 1 1
34. Team leader visits HDIs 1-4 + travel 
& write-up
6d Mon 
5/15/00
Sat 
5/20/00
1 6 Team members work one extra 
day/week (Sat.) for write-ups
35. Field team visits sample HDIs 1-2 + 
travel & write-up
6d Mon 
5/15/00
Sat 
5/20/00
6 6 Team members work one extra 
day/week (Sat.) for write-ups
36. Team leader visits HDIs 5-8 + travel 
& write-up
6d Mon 
5/22/00
Sat 
5/27/00
1 6 Team members work one extra 
day/week (Sat.) for write-ups
37. Field team visits sample HDIs 3-4 + 
travel & write-up
6d Mon 
5/22/00
Sat 
5/27/00
6 6 Team members work one extra 
day/week (Sat.) for write-ups
38. Team leader visits HDIs 9-12 + 
travel & write-up
6d Mon 
5/29/00
Sat 
6/3/00
1 6 Team members work one extra 
day/week (Sat.) for write-ups
39. Field team visits sample HDIs 5-6 + 
travel & write-up
6d Mon 
5/29/00
Sat 
6/3/00
6 6 Team members work one extra 
day/week (Sat.) for write-ups
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
107
Activity Time Start End
L O E
Notes
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
40. Team leader visits HDI 13 + write￾up
3d Mon 
6/5/00
Wed 
6/7/00
1 3
41. Field team visits sample HDIs 7-8 + 
write-up
4d Mon 
6/5/00
Wed 
6/7/00
4 4 3 Financial specialist completes 
sustainability analysis on sample of 
institutional activities
42. Follow-up w/ HDIs & other parties 
as necessary
2d Thu 
6/8/00
Fri 
6/9/00
2 1 1 2 Financial specialist completes 
sustainability analysis on sample of 
institutional activities
43. Completion field work 0d Fri 
6/9/00
Fri 
6/9/00
44. Preliminary results analysis 2d Mon 
6/12/00
Tue 
6/13/00
2 2 2 2 1 2
45. Write draft report 7d Wed 
6/14/00
Fri 
6/23/00
7 7 7 7 1 3
46. Submit 1 copy draft report USAID 0d Fri 
6/23/00
Fri 
6/23/00
47. USAID reviews draft report 3d Mon 
6/26/00
Wed 
6/28/00
48. Complete assignments 3d Mon 
6/26/00
Wed 
6/28/00
3 3
49. Revise draft report as required 2d Thu 
6/29/00
Fri 
6/30/00
2 2 2
50. Print revised draft report 1d Fri 
6/30/00
Fri 
6/30/00
Office staff
51. Submit revised report to all partners 0d Fri 
6/30/00
Fri 
6/30/00
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
108
Activity Time Start End
L O E
Notes
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
52. Partners review revised draft 5d Mon 
7/3/00
Fri 
7/7/00
53. Prepare for workshop 5d Mon 
7/3/00
Fri 
7/7/00
1 5
54. 1-day workshop w/ partners 1d Mon 
7/10/00
Mon 
7/10/00
1 1 1 1 1
55. Revise report as required 3d Tue 
7/11/00
Thu 
7/13/00
3 3 3 1 1
56. Print final report 1d Fri 
7/14/00
Fri 
7/14/00
Office staff
57. Submit final report to USAID 0d Fri 
7/14/00
Fri 
7/14/00
TOTAL LEVELS OF EFFORT 16w 84 129 124 61 4 4 52 TOTAL LOE: 0 PERSON-DAYS
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
109
10.9 Extended Activity Plan
At its meeting of 28th June the Reference Group asked the evaluation
team to provide greater specificity in several areas of the draft report,
especially in terms of findings about the role of different partners (USAID, 
the historically disadvantaged institutions as a group, and the Contractor) 
in various issues encountered so far in the project. The Reference Group
also requested another meeting to review the revised draft prior to its
circulation to all stakeholders. It was accepted that the evaluation team
would require additional time to respond to these requests.
This decision required postponing the stakeholders’ workshop originally
planned for 10th July and extending the evaluation team’s work. On 7
th
July AED submitted to USAID a revised activity plan for the concluding five 
weeks of the activity, as shown on the next page. The plan includes
revised levels of effort for five of the principal consultants, labelled as
follows in the following table:
1: Christensen
2: Middleton
3: Rice
4: Cross
5: Fitschen
At the 10th July Reference Group meeting it was decided to further
postpone (until August) the stakeholders’ workshop, due to lack of
available Vice-Chancellors on 31st July.
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
110
Activity Time Start End 1
L
2
O
3
E
4 5
58. Complete reanalysis and section 
rewriting.
5d Mon 
7/3/00
Fri 
7/7/00
4 5 5
59. Final rewriting and editing of 
second draft.
3d Mon 
7/10/0
0
Wed 
7/12/00
3 3 2
60. Circulate second draft to Ref. 
Group
1d Thu 
7/13/0
0
Thu 
7/13/00
1 1
61. Ref. Group meets again 1d Fri 
7/14/0
0
Fri 
7/14/00
1 1 1
62. Revise report 3d Mon 
7/17/0
0
Wed 
7/19/00
3 3 2 1
63. Print revised report 1d Thu 
7/20/0
0
Thu 
7/20/00
1 1
64. Circulate final report to all 
stakeholders
1d Fri 
7/21/0
0
Fri 
7/21/00
1 1
65. Prepare workshop 5d Mon 
7/24/0
0
Fri 
7/28/00
3
66. Hold final workshop 1d Mon 
7/31/0
0
Mon 
7/31/00
1 1 1 1 1
67. Make final revisions 3d Tue 
8/1/00
Thu 
8/3/00
3 3 3
68. Print final report 1d Fri 
8/4/00
Fri 
8/4/00
1
69. Submit final report to USAID 0d Fri 
8/4/00
Fri 
8/4/00
Totals (July/August) 5w 19 22 14 1 1
REVISED TOTALS 19w 1d 46 90 82 10 20
Original Totals 16w 32 77 72 4 26
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
111
10.10 Interview Protocols
10.10.1 Vice-Chancellor Interviews
· What is the role of the Advisory Panel? 
· Are relations between the Advisory Panel and USAID/SA satisfactory?
· Are relations between your institution and USAID/SA satisfactory?
· How are your relations with contractors and grantees?
· How has participation in TELP benefited your institution?
· Is TELP contributing to building capacity?
· Has TELP contributed to institutional empowerment?
· To what extent has TELP been responsive to the changing higher education 
environment at your institution?
· Is TELP responsive to the critical challenges that you face?
· Does the existing TELP structure facilitate or hinder programmatic 
implementation during this time of transformation?
· Are TELP activities and strategies responsive to institutional needs?
· Are TELP activities sufficiently integrated to achieve stated goals?
· What are the impacts of TELP?
· Do TELP initiatives have institution-wide impact?
· Has the TELP Project Coordinator been able to effectively coordinate TELP 
activities?
· Does the TELP Coordinator have adequate support to perform designated duties?
· Are staff development mechanisms appropriate and adequate to foster capacity 
building?
· Are TELP initiatives integrated into the institution’s development plan and rolling 
plans?
· Are synergies being actively explored between TELP and other development 
activities at the institution?
· Is TELP achieving satisfactory progress?
· Which activities contribute the most/least to the achievement of TELP goals and 
objectives?
· What factors contribute to the success or failure of TELP activities?
· Are TELP funded training participants contributing to institutional strengthening?
· To what extent are recipients or participants of TELP staff development initiatives 
being retained?
· Is there a discernible correlation between training received and subsequent 
performance of training participants?
· How do you measure performance?
· Comment on the implementation of Joint Activities, PILs and Linkages.
· Are the accomplishments of TELP sustainable?
· What are the TELP Project problem areas that need to be addressed?
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
112
10.10.2 TELP Coordinator Interviews
· Are you engaged full-time in TELP Project tasks? 
· Do you have other institutional responsibilities? If yes, how is your time divided?
· Do you have a good working relationship with USAID/SA?
· How are your relations with TELP funded organizations?
· Do you receive full cooperation and support from key personnel at your 
institution? 
· Is your position self-contained?
· Do you regularly interface with persons at the institution not involved in TELP 
activities? 
· Do you serve as a primary point of contact for TELP on campus?
· Is the training provided by USAID on procurement, financial management and 
other relevant topics adequate for effective job performance?
· Do you collaborate and network with other TELP coordinators?
· Are you provided secretarial support by the institution? 
· Does the TELP project make enough resources available for you to do a 
satisfactory job?
· Are there any obstacles to carrying out TELP related activities?
· Do you receive requisite data from the institution and participants on a timely 
basis?
· Are you generally able to meet USAID deadlines for submission of vouchers, 
reports and other documentation?
· How long have you been a TELP Project Coordinator?
· Have other persons previously occupied your post?
· What are the most/least satisfying aspects of your job?
· What are the major accomplishments of TELP?
· Are there any problem areas that need to be addressed?
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
113
10.11 Focus Group Protocols
INSTITUTION FOCUS GROUP PROTOCOLS 
The following presents the generic focus areas for discussion in all focus group meetings at all the 
institutions. Issues specific to individual institutions are detailed below. Please circulate to the 
relevant people. If anything has been overlooked please include it as appropriate.
GENERAL QUESTIONS:
ß To what extent are TELP initiatives integrated into mainstream initiatives? Synergy?
ß What lessons have been learned?
ß Are lessons learned being applied?
ß Which activities are contributing most/least to the TELP objectives?
ß To what extent are TELP candidates contributing to institutional strengthening?
ß To what extent are recipients of staff development retained by the institutions?
ß What factors account for the success or failure of TELP?
ß Do TELP initiatives have institution wide impact?
ß Is there a correlation between training and subsequent performance?
ß Comment on the milestones. Have they facilitated implementation?
ß Comment on the quality of presentation and organization at workshops.
ß Comment on the changing HE environment and how it is affecting TELP.
ß Comment on financial management traing
JOINT ACTIVITIES:
Curriculum design: 
ß understanding of the role of SAQA, NQF requirements and the technical needs to meet NQF 
requirements
ß understanding of the NQF requirements
ß understanding of the technical needs to meet NQF requirements
ß technical assistance on writing of learning outcomes
ß build capacity towards uniform understanding of NQF technical requirements
ß usefulness of workshop on where institutions should be by June 2000
ß understanding of the interplay between SAQA, DOE and CHE re DOE and SAQA to comply with 
June 2000 and June 2003 NQF requirements
Student development
ß new challenges to student development and facilitate the development of draft institutional five 
year student development plans
ß work study model that will provide financial assistance to students which encouraging cooperative 
learning
ß leadership training 
ß train staff to set up and administer bridging programmes for under prepared first time entering 
undergraduate students
ß assess the status of work study and development of and implementation of modified DTET work 
study models.
Management & administration development
ß first round of three year rolling planning process, problem areas and capacity building strategies
ß gender & equity
ß awareness of national planning issues and the facilitation of the process of developing a planning 
framework; enhance management capacity to develop three year rolling plans
ß role of leadership in institutional change; facilitate awareness of best practice.
ß Financial management training
INSTITUTION SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES & PILS: all institutions received workshops in:
ß Proposal writing
ß Implementation
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
114
LINKAGES are specified individually below.
SPECIFIC INSTITUTIONAL ACTIVITIES
Eastern Cape Technikon
JOINT ACTIVITIES: specific workshops and areas to probe:
ß Curriculum design: 
ß writing of learning outcomes
Student development
ß clarify SATS/Version 2 of diagnostic tests
Management & administration development
ß equity
INSTITUTION SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES & PILS
ß Staff dev & linkages
ß Eastern Cape
LINKAGES: Texas Southern University 
ß Parameters of the focus: Engineering, Business Science, Applied Technology
ß Academic, Administrative and Support Staff development
ß Research, curriculum development
ß Programme design
M L Sultan Technikon
INSTITUTION SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES & PILS
ß Student & staff development
ß Programme & curriculum dev.
ß Research
LINKAGES: Letter of Intent with Savannah State University
Parameters: Science , Engineering
Staff development and infrastructure in:
ß Waste Water Technology
ß Food Science
ß Renewable energy for rural development
Peninsula Technikon
JOINT ACTIVITIES: specific workshops and areas to probe:
Curriculum design: 
ß language support into curriculum
ß development of qualification specifications
Student development
ß clarify SATS/Version 2 of diagnostic tests
Management & administration development
ß equity
INSTITUTION SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES & PILS
ß Programme, Staff & Curriculum Development
ß Staff and student development
LINKAGES: University of Michigan 
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
115
Parmeters: Mechanical Engineering
ß Cleaner production technology research
ß Smart Materials and Structures
University of Durban-Westville
INSTITUTION SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES & PILS
ß Curriculum, Staff Development & Linkages
ß Programme and curriculum development
LINKAGES: Letter of Intent with Penn State Consortium
Paremeters: All leadership levels
ß Management and leadership
ß Staff Development
Technikon Northern Gauteng
INSTITUTION SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES & PILs
ß Student development – academic support
ß Research – design and implement a research programme
LINKAGES: Letter of Intent with Tennessee State University 
Parameters: Engineering and Built environment, Finance and management, agriculture
ß Mechatronics, Architecture and Art design
ß Food engineering
ß Finance and management
ß Research information and communications technology
University of the Transkei
INSTITUTION SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES & PILS
ß Programme and curriculum development
LINKAGES: City College of New York
Parameters: Law, Medicine and Health Sciences, Arts and Social Sciences and Economic Sciences.
ß Staff development
ß Student development
ß Curriculum development
University of Venda
INSTITUTION SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES & PILS
ß Programme and staff development
LINKAGES: Letter of Intent with Georgia State University
Parameters: School of Business, Economics and Administrative Sciences
ß Tourism and Hospitality, Business Information Systems, Centre for Entrpreneurship
University of the Western Cape
JOINT ACTIVITIES
Management & administration development
ß equity
INSTITUTION SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES & PILS
ß Linkages and staff development
ß Student development
ß Programme and curriculum development
LINKAGES: University of Missouri System
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
116
Parameters: Science, Community and Health Sciences, Economics and Management Sciences, 
Education, Law, Humanities
ß Staff development
University of Zululand
INSTITUTION SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES & PILS
ß Programme and curriculum development
LINKAGES: Mississippi Consortium for International Development
Parameters: Chemistry, Home Economics, Business Economics, Social Work
ß Research, curriculum design and development, Finance, Management, Information Systems, 
alumni networks, student exchange, library development.
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
117
10.12 Financial Survey Instrument
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
118
TERTIARY EDUCATION LINKAGES PROJECT (TELP)
MID TERM REVIEW
FINANCIAL QUESTIONNAIRE
Institution: ………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Respondent Details:
Name: ……………………………………………………………………………………………..
Telephone: ……………………………………………………………………………………….
Fax: ……………………………………………………………………………………….
E-mail address: ………………………………………………………………………………….
The aim of this instrument is to get information on how your institution uses the
funds it receives through TELP and how you manage those funds. 
Where questions ask for detail on actual expenditure please provide as detailed as 
possible breakdown of expenditure to date. Where specific detail is not available,
aggregate figures will be a valuable second best.
If you have any questions or require assistance in completing this instrument, please 
ring Amanda Fitschen on (082) 457-1299 or email her at amfit@yebo.co.za.
Please return the completed questionnaire to the evaluators when they visit your
campus. If you wish to submit additional information subsequently, please fax it to 
Amanda Fitschen on (021) 685-1604 or send it by overnight courier to:
Amandla Consulting
2 Alfred Road
Newlands
7700
Thank you for you assistance with this important input to the TELP mid-term 
evaluation.
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
119
Question 1: TELP Expenditures
We would like to know as much as possible about how you are spending TELP funds 
on specific projects and activities. This will help us analyse the different categories of 
expenditure across all institutions and focus areas.
Please attach to this questionnaire copies of your summary expenditure records for 
each TELP activity that your institution has managed. We imagine that you might
have a one-page summary for each activity showing how much money you received 
from USAID, when you received it, and how you spent it by broad category (such as 
project management, travel, supplies, communications, commodities, etc.) However, 
if your records are in a different format simply provide copies of whatever you have.
If you do not have activity-by-activity records, please explain your record-keeping 
system below and give us whatever information you have on TELP expenditures:
when funds were received, how much you received, and how you spent the monies. 
Use additional pages as necessary to answer this question.
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
120
Question 2: Focus Areas
TELP focuses on five areas - Staff Development, Curriculum and Programme
Development, Student Development, Management and Administrative Development 
and Research Skills Development.
a) Does your institution identify the five focus areas when accounting for
expenditure? 
YES NO
b) If yes, please provide the breakdown (in Rand) in the table below for you
expenditures to date in each focus area.
FOCUS AREAS EXPENDITURE (RAND)
Staff Development
Curriculum and Programme Development
Student Development
Management and Administrative Development
Research Skills Development
TOTAL
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
121
Question 3: Funding Mechanisms
TELP uses three main mechanisms to provide funds to institutions: institution￾specific activities (through PILs), joint activities and linkage grants. 
a) Does your institution identify the three different mechanisms when accounting for 
expenditure? 
YES NO
b) If yes, please provide the breakdown (in Rand) in the table below for you 
expenditures to date for each mechanism. We understand that money for joint 
activities and linkage grants also goes to other institutions (the TELP Contractor and 
co-operating U.S. institutions). In this question we only want to know how TELP 
funds that have come to your particular institution have been spent across these 
categories.
FUNDING MECHANISMS EXPENDITURE (RAND)
Institution-Specific Activities
Joint Activities
Linkage Grants
TOTAL
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
122
Question 4: Institutional Funds
a) Does your institution supplement TELP funds with its own resources to achieve 
the overall objectives of the programme, through in-kind or cash contributions?
YES NO
b) If YES, please report the level of your in-kind and cash contributions to TELP￾supported activities in the table below. If you do not have records of your
contributions by activity, you may report by focus area or just report your overall
contributions in the “Total” row. Use additional pages as necessary to answer this 
question.
TELP ACTIVITY OR FOCUS AREA IN-KIND 
CONTRIBUTION 
(RAND 
EQUIVALENT)
CASH CONTRIBUTION
(RAND)
TOTAL
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
123
Question 5: External Funds
a) Does your institution obtain funding from external sources (e.g., other than
USAID contributions and your own budget) to supplement TELP funds to achieve
overall objectives of the programme?
YES NO
b) If YES, what is the extent and source of such external funding? (If the funds are 
spent in specific focus areas please supply the details in the third column below, as 
show.) Use additional pages as necessary to answer this question.
SOURCE OF FUNDS AMOUNT (RAND) FOCUS AREA
TOTAL
c) If NO, please give reasons why your institution does not use external funding to 
supplement TELP funds.
REASON YES NO
TELP funds are sufficient – no need to supplement
No funders available
Do not have the human capacity to make application for funds
Funders not prepared to supplement TELP projects
Other reason(s): (please provide details)
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
124
Question 6: Expenditure Reimbursement Process
a) In general, does your institution feel that the TELP funding process is efficient?
YES NO
Please explain below:
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
b) Have you experienced delays in the receipt of funds owed to your institution for 
TELP?
FUNDING SOURCE YES NO N/A
USAID
Contractor (UNCF)
Linkage Grants (U.S. Institutions)
Other: 
____________________________________________
Please comment below as necessary:
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
125
c) What factors (if any) slow the reimbursement process down?
REASON YES NO
Time-consuming process set down by funders
Staff shortage at the institution to carry out the function
Lack of clear guidelines to support the process
Other factors: (please provide details)
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
d) How might the flow of TELP funds to your institution be improved?
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
126
Question 7: Linkage Funds
a) Has your institution experienced any difficulties accessing the linkage funds you 
need?
YES NO
b) If YES, please explain below:
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
127
Question 8: Travel Funds
a) Who provides funding for TELP-related travel within South Africa?
REASON YES NO
USAID
Contractor (UNCF)
Your Institution
b) What mechanism do you use for claiming reimbursement for travel funds? 
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
c) Have you encountered any problems with travel reimbursements?
YES NO
If YES, please explain below:
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
128
Question 9: Record keeping and Auditing
a) Who is responsible for the overall coordination and management of TELP funding?
b) Does your institution keep accounting records concerning TELP activities?
YES NO
If NO, please explain below and skip to Question 10.
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
c) What accounting records concerning TELP activities are kept by your institution?
NATURE OF RECORD PERSON 
RESPONSIBLE FOR 
RECORD KEEPING
RECORDS 
NOT KEPT
Detailed itemised records
Project level records (i.e. per PIL)
Aggregate/global expenditure records
Other – specify
_______________________________________
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
129
d) Does your institution use a manual or computer-based accounting system for 
TELP expenditures?
MANUAL COMPUTER
If your institution uses a computer-based system, what software package do you 
employ for TELP purposes?
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
e) Are the TELP accounting records audited?
YES NO
If so, who carries out the audit and what is the nature of the audit process?
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
TELP MID-TERM EVALUATION: REVISED FINAL REPORT
130
Question 10: Further Funding
a) Given the opportunity, would your institution apply for further funding from
USAID for TELP-supported projects?
YES NO
b) What, if anything, would deter you from applying for further TELP institution￾specific funded projects (PILs)?
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________