USAID Higher Education Capacity Strengthening Toolkit

• Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (MEL) for Higher Education Capacity Strengthening Activities

  This document can be used by USAID activity design and management teams and implementing partners to better understand MEL for higher education capacity strengthening activities. It intends to provide guidance and good practices, which should be adapted to the appropriate context of the USAID higher education activity

Understanding higher education capacity strengthening requires awareness of concepts pertaining to both higher education and capacity strengthening. As such, this component of the toolkit addresses these two primary themes, as well as the leading theoretical construct (systems thinking) and implementation mechanism (institutional partnerships) for advancing work in this space.

Higher education institutions (HEIs) and higher education systems are critical to the success of many USAID activities because of their roles as implementers and partners, and their versatility: higher education can be the entity delivering local capacity strengthening interventions and/or the recipient of such assistance. Yet, the significance of higher education to local capacity strengthening is too often overlooked. 

 Download the Introduction to Higher Education Capacity Strengthening 

When Designing and Implementing Higher Education Capacity Strengthening Activities

USAID and its partners should consider the following questions when designing higher education capacity strengthening activities. The questions are not prescriptive—they are meant to provoke brainstorming and innovative thinking during the activity design phase. These questions were informed by interviews with USAID staff and implementing partners, USAID documents and reports, and peer-reviewed literature. 

You can consider the six questions individually or as a whole, when starting to design a higher education capacity strengthening activity or throughout implementation. These questions can guide discussions with a team in your Operating Unit (OU) or with your partner country counterparts, and the list of questions can illuminate where you need to seek additional information, consultation, expertise, or assessments. 

 Download the Six Questions to Consider

1. Why does your Operating Unit want to support higher education capacity strengthening programming?

It is important to know why your OU wants to embark on higher education capacity strengthening programming and what it hopes to achieve. The original motivation or idea may need to be examined to ensure it aligns with USAID development objectives. Having a clear vision and purpose for the programming will shape the activity design.

2. What development objectives will the higher education capacity strengthening activity help you achieve?

Understanding the country context is key to developing a meaningful and sustainable activity. Activity teams should be aware of the political environment, resource constraints, cultural nuances, higher education traditions, and business customs when working with the partner country’s higher education system. Navigating different cultures can be difficult, and all stakeholders must work together to find common ground.

Activity Spotlight: STRIDE Philippines The Science, Technology, Research, and Innovation for Development (STRIDE) activity in the Philippines focused heavily on creating partnerships and networks between academia and industry, as well as the involvement of government institutions. STRIDE leveraged existing contacts and relationships between USAID Mission staff and local stakeholders. These relationships strengthened local buy-in for the activity and resulted in more cooperation and co-design. Building trust between institutions before, during, and after activity design increases the likelihood of activity success.

3. How can co-creation be incorporated into activity design and implementation to advance locally led development and account for the expectations and priorities of relevant local actors?

Co-creation can elevate the voices of local actors and nontraditional participants in the design, management, and implementation of higher education capacity strengthening programs. Using this tool across the Program Cycle can ensure that local higher education stakeholders’ expectations and priorities are incorporated not only into the activity design, but also implementation. Forms of pre-solicitation co-creation, such as stakeholder covenings or requests for information, can inform the activity’s program description. A multi-phase approach to procurement could allow for co-creation before a full application is received from partners. Co-creation can even be employed during an award’s early stages as part of a refinement or inception period to co-define activity objectives with all the partners. More information about co-creation can be found in the “Introduction to Higher Education Capacity Strengthening” product from this toolkit and in USAID Co-Creation for Higher Education Institutions.

Activity Spotlight: Co-Design Year at Fulbright University Vietnam The Co-Design Year at Fulbright University Vietnam aimed to cultivate a new generation of socially responsible leaders equipped with the skills and mindset to address the complex challenges of the twenty-first century. By fostering collaboration, critical thinking, and innovation, the Co-Design Year allowed students to make meaningful contributions to their communities and create positive social impact. Working with youth to develop a university program and curriculum that served their needs is an example of the importance of co-creation.

4. Do your funding parameters or other factors influence the type of implementing partner you can work with on the activity?

While USAID expects unrestricted competition in the award of discretionary grants and cooperative agreements, some higher education funding, specifically the higher education partnership sub-directive, requires that activities include a partnership between at least one higher education institution in the United States and at least one in the partner country. Based on pre-approved conditions per ADS 303, there may be other reasons to restrict eligibility of an award to a U.S. HEI or local HEI, new or underutilized partners, or other types of implementing partners.

5. How can you develop partnerships and activity outcomes that will be sustainable and drive progress beyond the activity life cycle?

USAID activities are time bound, meaning the funding will end after a set period of time, typically between three and five years. From the start, higher education capacity strengthening activities should be designed with sustainability in mind and should strive to maximize their impact even after the USAID funding period ends. Working with a wide variety of local actors to strengthen their individual capacity to maintain activities is essential. Strengthening the capacity of the local system enhances its ability to absorb key activity components and therefore enhances the likelihood that activity goals will outlive the funding period. Local higher education actors should determine the scale and future desired outcomes, and begin mapping how to achieve these outcomes before the end of the USAID award.

Activity Spotlight: Morocco Career Center Activity The Morocco Career Center Activity (2015–2020) bridged a critical gap between the labor market and academic and vocational training centers. USAID launched six physical career centers and one virtual career center to assist students in the transition from education to employment through improved understanding of employment trends, skills demands, and private sector opportunities. From the start, the Morocco Career Center activity collaborated closely with key Moroccan stakeholders, including government representatives. This led to long-term funding for the career centers. While USAID funding ended in 2020, six of the original career centers were still open and operational as of 2023. The Government of Morocco scaled up the career center model and had opened six new career centers using its own funding by the end of 2022.

6. What evidence do you need to best inform implementation and learning about higher education capacity strengthening for this activity and beyond? 

Activity designers should seek to integrate monitoring, evaluation, and learning (MEL) requirements in the award that are robust but flexible and allow for continuous local partner and stakeholder input.

This inventory provides key information about common intervention approaches found in USAID higher education programming, as well as higher education approaches embedded in cross-sectoral

programming. An intervention is defined as a discrete component of programming that is expected to affect outcomes by changing knowledge and skills, behavior, or organizational or systems performance.

Activities should be tailored to the specific context of an Operating Unit/Mission and adapted to fit local needs and goals—in alignment with the 2018 USAID Education Policy and the USAID Higher Education Program Framework intervention approaches. This tool is not meant to be prescriptive, or suggest what ought to be done when designing, managing, or implementing USAID higher education activities. Rather, it is meant to give recommendations and provide a starting point for designing and implementing effective higher education programming based on the needs of the local system. This inventory is not exhaustive; new technologies have led to effective but untested approaches that are not included here.

Each intervention “card” in this inventory features USAID standard indicators that can potentially be used to measure outputs or outcomes for that particular intervention. These indicators are illustrative and may be used as a starting point for developing a robust monitoring approach. As standard indicators, their use should be prioritized over similar alternatives wherever applicable, to allow for streamlined and comprehensive aggregate global reporting by USAID Operating Units.

The intervention approaches shared in this resource come from a desk review and analysis of USAID activity solicitations, evaluations, and other reports and resources.

Download the Higher Education Intervention Approaches Inventory 

Desired Outcomes of USAID Higher Education Programming

The intervention approaches in this inventory support one or more of five core higher education programming outcomes that align with the USAID Education Policy and the USAID Higher Education

Program Framework:

• Increased access, retention, and completion of quality higher education (Education Policy Priority 1/Core Function Education and Training);
• Youth gain relevant skills (Education Policy Priority 3/Core Function Education and Training);
• Higher education (HE) systems have improved research and innovation capacity (Education Policy Priority 4/Core Function Research and Innovation);
• HE systems and institutions deliver quality education (Education Policy Priority 4/Core Function Education and Training); and 
• Higher education engages with communities and networks (Education Policy Priority 4/Core Function Community Engagement).

Many of the intervention approaches can support achieving multiple desired outcomes. This inventory is presented in alphabetical order and each card includes a category discussing relevant outcomes.

Cross-Cutting Themes

In line with the 2018 USAID Education Policy, there are several cross-cutting principles and themes that are not unique to any individual intervention approach, but should be considered as a component of all intervention approaches. These include: promoting equity and inclusion, using data and evidence, strengthening local systems, working in partnership and leveraging resources, and promoting sustainability and locally led development to identify problems and implement solutions.

Sample Card Structure

The tool itself provides all of the information above for each of the following interventions: 

Higher education institutions (HEIs) in the United States (U.S.) have a long history of partnering with partner countries’ HEIs to support basic and higher education activities, as well as other sectoral work, and to enhance research and scientific collaborations between the United States and partner countries. Given Congressional directives that require partnerships between U.S. HEIs and partner country HEIs, it is important for Mission staff and non–higher education implementing partners to understand the U.S. higher education system and the diverse range of U.S. HEIs that could become implementers or partners in capacity strengthening activities. 

The United States has nearly 4,000 HEIs of various types. Among them are world-class research universities, distinctive liberal arts colleges, robust networks of community colleges, professional institutes, and minority-serving institutions. Each institution type brings different resources to partnerships. Awareness of their relative strengths and weaknesses can help Mission staff to draft more effective notices of funding opportunities and can assist implementing partners in expanding their partnership base to engage more, new, and underutilized HEIs.

This tool provides an overview and descriptions of different types of U.S. HEIs and tips for partnering with them. While this is not a comprehensive list, it is a place to start to understand which types of institutions can be key partners in USAID activities. This document draws from current USAID literature and toolkits, academic literature, and interviews with USAID staff and experts in higher education capacity strengthening. It provides information on:

• Types of U.S. HEIs
• Challenges in Partnering with U.S. HEIs
• Tips for Partnering with U.S. HEIs

Download the Consideration for Engaging U.S. Higher Education Institutions