Evaluation of institutional development for agricultural training (IDAT) : USAID project number 615-0239

EU implemented the project without any full-time advisors, but with assistance from UIUC through a host country contract. Project implementation was complicated by the sudden upgrading of Egerton to a fully independent university, covering majors in addition to agriculture, and an increase in enrollment from 1,600 to over 6,000 in a 4-year time period. Major conclusions are as follows. (1) EU has established, reviewed, and revised (in a reasonably frequent manner) its academic curriculum. EU faculty deserve high praise for setting up a full university with limited notice. (2) Training of faculty and staff contributed to the development of EU as a center of excellence in agricultural sciences. The project more than met its targets regarding graduate training of faculty. (3) A long-term relationship between EU and UIUC has been established. (4) Evidence regarding the demand for EU graduates is incomplete. While those who find employment show a strong appreciation for the training provided by EU, in the current economic slowdown some degree holders are having trouble finding jobs. It is imperative that an agriculture personnel needs assessment be carried out to determine the market demand by discipline for both undergraduate and postgraduate training. (5) EU has expanded its research capacity through establishment of the Integrated Biotechnology Research Laboratory (IBRL). (6) Its Agricultural Resource Center continues to host continuing education programs. Regional in-service training in crop management research and training is in place. (7) EU has made considerable progress in developing itself along the lines of the land grant model but still has to expand its efforts in research and extension to meet the goal of 25% of faculty time spent in some combination of these activities. (8) Despite the widely accepted 1992 report detailing new financial management systems, actual development of these systems, particularly in the areas of computer and accounting systems, has not kept pace with EU's expansion. This is due, in part, to insufficient resources, a need for external assistance, a possible loss of momentum with a change in senior staff, and the need for a more phased approach given the scale of changes needed. (9) Because of the long-term relationship between USAID and EU and because of the value of EU's teaching, research, and extension, continued USAID support for the University is important. It is recommended that: more commitment be given to EU's goal of agricultural appointments with 75% teaching and 25% research and/or extension; USAID give particular attention to the IBRL and to EU's ability to develop extension education packages for use by the Ministry of Agriculture; efforts be made to expand and modernize library resources and install E-mail in all research offices; and the strengthening of financial management be made both a priority and a precondition for future direct assistance to EU. The following are lessons learned. (1) Two universities making a formal commitment to work towards the goal of establishing a long-term relationship is a valuable institutional building technique. (2) Basic project management tasks emphasizing priority-setting should be applied formally, regardless of how successfully the implementation is progressing. (3) This model of project implementation with no full-time chief of party could be replicated elsewhere under similar conditions: discrete and occasional project interventions; and a long relationship with a strong and improving beneficiary organization.