Abstract
Over the course of four decades, USAID's AFGRAD (African Graduate Fellowship [1963-1990]) and ATLAS (Advanced Training for Leadership and Skills [1991- 2003]) programs trained, at a cost of $182 million, over 3,200 African professionals for PhD and MA degrees at U.S. universities in fields critical to their country's growth. This report uses quantitative and qualitative information to assess the development impact of the two programs. USAID's investment in long-term training produced significant and sustained changes that furthered African development in measurable ways. Long-term degree training at U.S. institutions was critical in creating the necessary foundations for significant impact to occur. Participants reported that changes in institutional performance were attributable to U.S. training and gave concrete examples as justification. Running against prevailing views, participants cited critical thinking and research skills rather than improved technical and scientific knowledge more frequently as critical to achieving impact. Changes in attitudes towards work consistently appeared as major benefits. No difference in impact was observed between PhD and master's graduates. Improved management was a frequently cited training benefit, even though it received minimal attention during training. Participants from the education sector reported consistently higher impact and less difficulty applying their acquired knowledge and skills in their institutions than those from other sectors. Participants in financial fields, or those with MBAs, recorded lower impact than those in agriculture, health, and education. Although women reported more difficulty applying their knowledge and skills at the workplace than men, they reported impressive anecdotal examples of impact. No correlation could be found regarding impact and the frequency with which participants returned to their original workplace. Participants returned to their home countries after their U.S. training when conditions permitted. There is no significant evidence that long-term U.S. training under these sponsored programs contributed to brain drain of African human resources. The ATLAS/AFGRAD participants surveyed were well-advanced in their careers, making significant contributions to development. Several important lessons were learned or affirmed. (1) Target institutions for capacity-building in key sectors. A major reason for program success was a commitment to institutional change over individual improvement. (2) To ensure sustainable impact, USAID must invest in long-term graduate training in the United States. Short-term training is important in transferring technical knowledge and skills, but only through long-term training can developing country professionals absorb the research skills, modified work attitudes, and improved critical thinking needed to make a measurable difference in their home countries. (3) That participants cited the major importance of non-technical aspects of long-term training, e.g., work attitudes, critical thinking, and self-confidence, calls for more attention to these "soft" aspects of U.S. academic training than previously thought. That these benefits accrued to the extent they did with little programming attention or USAID investment underscores how vital they are. With a concerted effort from sponsors, future impact could be exponentially greater. (4) Although the assessment could not be conclusive on the role played by having a cadre of U.S.-trained staff at an institution, anecdotal evidence and some quantitative data support the notion that critical mass made a difference. Due to costs, managers have to select participants strategically from institutions -- and should recognize that the number of participants from an institution sent to the United States is less critical to impact than their area of expertise, potential for inducing future change, leadership, and commitment. (5) Master's and PhD participants reported nearly the same levels of institutional impact. This raised important questions about the value obtained for USAID's investment in the two degree programs (see report for details). (5) Assess the relative merits of in-country versus long-term U.S. training fairly. Although the present assessment did not compare the value of different training options used by USAID, the reasons for the demise of long-term academic training cannot be ignored. The high cost of U.S. training is often mentioned first. Yet the present assessment provides ample evidence that the cost of U.S. training measured by the impact (or value) obtained could be extraordinarily low. The tendency has been for USAID to consider the cost of training against the numbers of recipients, essentially viewing training as a benefit to be distributed to the largest number of local nationals. Instead of comparing the cost of a single academic program in the United States with the cost of training 50 junior accountants in a program in their own country to computerize financial management, program planners should estimate the value of the anticipated impact to be generated by the trained participants, once they apply their new knowledge, skills and attitudes (KSAs). Were program planners to focus on impact rather than cost, the return on having thousands of women in villages trained year after year about HIV/AIDS or about their marriage rights because one participant acquired and applied KSAs far exceeds the return from the junior accountant program. USAID program managers need new tools to be able to fairly and objectively evaluate whether to spend funds on in-country, U.S. short-term, or U.S. long-term academic training. (7) Maintain contact with returned participants. Women and participants from some sectors encountered greater difficulties in introducing changes in their workplaces than did participants in other sectors. Follow-up support should be factored into future long-term training programs. Sustained, in-country activities for returned participants are needed. (8) Select sectors carefully for impact-oriented long-term training. Since critical mass can provide internal synergies and support for accelerating changes in targeted sector-based institutions, planners should consider limiting sectors for long-term training. Another technique to increase impact and decrease the non-return possibility is to send a small number of participants from the same target institution to the same university in the United States for graduate work. Concentrating on sectors and institutions, as ATLAS/AFGRAD effectively did throughout the years, can help focus and sustain changes.