Taller de apreciación teatral para formar espectadores.

AUCC’s decentralized program management made use of systems that were already in place at participating Canadian universities. This approach reflects the nature of AUCC’s relationship with its members – it does not try to exert control in any aspect of its work with members. It respects the independence and capacities of its members and believes in letting them do what they do best.

AUCC provided clear guidelines and requirements for all aspects of the program and operated on the basis of trust that universities would comply with the requirements. Guidance on issues such as, what a governance project might include, requirements for pre-departure orientation and reporting requirements, were updated and strengthened over the course of the year based on feedback from universities and Steering Committee members as well as CIDA. All guidance documents are easily accessible through the AUCC Web site.

The downside to AUCC’s very decentralized system, included:

• AUCC’s main contact, the ILO, was usually not directly involved with the students participating in the internship or team project. This sometimes made it difficult for AUCC to get all the required information in a timely way.

• AUCC cannot check that universities followed requirements, or that approaches were consistent. It only learned about problems if students or partners

complained to AUCC or CIDA.

Based on the information available from 2005 reports and the ILO survey, it appears that universities generally followed program requirements related to selecting participants, time frame for the projects, public engagement, financial management and reporting. However, the role of developing country partners in project planning seems to vary a lot. The fact that the program is responsive at the university level also means that projects are not required to build on previous success.

Informal feedback received from several students during the course of the evaluation suggests that practices for pre-departure orientation and debriefing are not uniform at all universities and may not be adequate in some cases. Another intern indicated that his work focused on establishing contacts for the Canadian university rather than activities that would benefit the partner organization directly.

Two areas seem to warrant further consideration and guidance from AUCC: a) Strengthening the requirements for project development:

• Wherever possible, build on an established relationship with a developing country partner. This is not required at the moment but could be considered since there is greater potential for long-term results where a working

relationship is already established.

• Ensure that developing country partners have a substantive role in the planning stage to clarify expectations, define internship and team project results, and have a role in selecting student participants.

b) Developing methods for student participants to evaluate the support provided by their university.

4.10.2 Allocation of internships

The current practice of allocating one internship to each member institution is an advantage for smaller institutions that might not have the resources to undertake international programming. However, the allocation process does not enable AUCC to ensure consistent quality in the internships. Very few proposals are rejected, though about a third have been sent back to the university for improvements. First year results suggest that some universities have been more successful than others for a variety of reasons. Considering previous results would make the process more competitive and could increase the quality of the internships.

4.10.3 Reporting

a) University reports to AUCC

Most of the reports reviewed provided sufficient information to get a good sense of the project although there were some weak areas. For example: some reports did not include comments from the partner organization; some comments had not been translated; some reports did not clearly explain how results related to governance. In a few cases, public engagement activities had not been

completed because the student had extended his/her overseas stay to take a job or another internship. All of the 2005 reports were weak in relating the project to gender equality issues because this information was not specifically requested in the form. Many reports included additional information on public engagement activities or links to Web blogs or other sites that provided additional information on the project.

AUCC has strengthened the reporting requirements for 2006 by requesting specific information related to governance and gender equality, providing more space for answers, and clearly requesting responses from developing country partners as well as students and the Canadian university. A review of the reports received will enable AUCC to assess the effectiveness of these changes and

identify any areas that need further improvement.

b) AUCC reports to CIDA

AUCC’s reports to CIDA include a variety of statistical information concerning the program but they lack information related to results for the developing country partners, or the partners’ level of satisfaction with the projects. Given that this information was available to a large degree in the written reports from universities to AUCC, it is surprising that it was not included in the CIDA reports.

Identification of partner organizations and a sample of their comments would have given a more complete picture of the nature of the program and the results it had attained in its pilot year. However, AUCC indicated that the format and level of detail responded to CIDA’s request for reporting. AUCC indicated that CIDA had received the communications package, which highlights results and experiences from a number of the projects.

4.10.4 Satisfaction of stakeholders

a) Universities

Responses to the ILO survey indicate that ILOs are very satisfied with: the criteria and processes used by AUCC to select university projects, the resource material developed by AUCC, the support provided by AUCC staff, the length of time for the internship (geared to one academic term).

On the other hand, ILOs suggested the following changes for the program: • Longer lead time for the application and selection process (the time available

was affected by when the CCUPP or SFD was approved by CIDA); • Multi-year funding to facilitate longer term planning at the university level; • A staged approach – initial funding to develop a relationship followed by a

longer-term project;

• Decreased emphasis on governance – expanded range of development issues eligible for funding;

• More team projects;

• More internship to respond to high demand at the university level. They suggest an overall increase in program funding or a smaller allocation for each internship;

• Consideration of a university’s track record when awarding internships; • Reduced administrative burden and greater allocation for administration at

the university level;

• Opportunities for overseas monitoring;

• More follow-ups and sharing of lessons learned. b) Host organizations

All of the host organizations interviewed expressed a great deal of support for the internship program, although they did not always distinguish between the AUCC program and others they are involved in. All the organizations were supportive of internship programs in general. Some expressed particular appreciation for the

flexible and hardworking nature of the Canadian interns. Some indicated that a longer internship would be more beneficial (at least 6 months).

Interviews also indicated that organizations would appreciate the opportunity to participate in a reverse internship program where a local student could spend time in Canada.

Most of the host organizations interviewed indicated that the cost of supervising and mentoring the intern was low, and where there were costs, they were deemed to be worthwhile. However, several of the written reports to AUCC indicated that host organizations had taken on local costs such as transportation or translation that were beyond the in-kind cost of mentoring, but could not be reimbursed through the project. Another host indicated that the internship had been beneficial for the organization but they had decided not to participate again because there was no recognition of the financial burden entailed, especially for a small organization. (This feedback is similar to a finding of the recent

evaluation of the University Partnerships in Cooperation and Development (UPCD) program administered by AUCC.) This organization also felt that the differential in funding undercut the possibility of a true partnership between the Canadian and developing country institution.

4.11 Cost Effectiveness of the CCUPP and SFD

CIDA’s contribution to each of the two projects was $2 million. Participating institutions were expected to provide in-kind contributions in the amount of $500,000 per year. For 2005, AUCC estimates that universities contributed $853,973 in kind - $353,973 more than expected.

Table 1 shows the cost for internships and team projects over the two years, as well as the amounts designated for public engagement activities and the university’s

administrative allowance. The allocation for each type of project was reduced for 2006 to reflect more closely the actual costs reported in 2005 and the reduced period of time abroad for 2006. The allocations specified for public engagement in 2006 were requested by CIDA.

With CIDA’s consent, savings realized in administrative costs during the 2005 program were directed to developing a communications package that highlighted success stories from the program.

The cost per intern for the CCUPP is less than CIDA’s International Youth Internship Program, which provides $12,000 for intern’s costs*. The administrative costs are also lower - $2,000 for an internship in 2005 compared to $3,000 for IYIP*. For the 2006 SFD program, the university’s administrative allowance was reduced to 12.5% for internships and 8% for team projects. These reasonable costs suggest good value for money, especially when results and satisfaction of developing country hosts are also taken into consideration.

Table 3: CCUPP and SFD Project Costs

Internship Costs _{Team Project Costs} 2005 Total $13,000

• Internship - $11,000 • University - $2,000 for

administration and public engagement

Total $50,000

• Team members costs - $44,000 • University - $6,000 for

administration and public engagement

2006 _{Total $12,000}

• Internship - $10,000 • University - $2,000

($1,500 for administration; $500 for public engagement)

Total $46,000

• Internship - $40,000 • University - $6,000

($3,250 for administration; $2,750 for public engagement)

Opinions vary on whether the level of funding for students is appropriate. Of the ILOs who responded to this question on the ILO survey, 14 indicated funding is adequate while 4 indicated that it was not adequate to cover transportation costs to Africa. Comments offered on this issue included a reminder that students who participated in summer internships missed the opportunity to earn funds for the following academic year. One response indicated that the amount for students should be reduced to $5,000 and the number of internships increased. This proposed amount is similar to the amount estimated by World University Services of Canada (WUSC) for a 4-6 month placement (see benchmarking information below.)