Joint management evaluation of the cooperative agreement between US Agency for International Development and African American Labor Center (African labor development II, 698-0442)

External evaluation involved site visits to Kenya, Botswana, Zaire, and Senegal and covers the period 1985-1989. AALC has managed the grant well, particularly considering the field personnel reductions and program changes that were necessitated by overall budget cuts and changing circumstances in Africa. AALC's flexibility and responsiveness is evident in that it has expanded one program dramatically (Sudan), reduced another sharply (Ghana), and started six new country programs. Similarly, one regional program has been dropped because of budget cuts and inadequate African support and one has been expanded to reflect African unions' desires for more worker services. The content of the AALC program has also been modified. While training is still the most important element, the types of training provided have shifted from information, communications, finances, and industrial relations to responses to the economic crisis, labor economics, and instructor training. Country program objectives have shifted from strengthening the central headquarters to strengthening regional operations and expanding services to affiliates. In response to the increase in structural adjustment programs among African nations, AALC has also begun to emphasize economic training and research. AALC has complied with A.I.D. requirements on progress reporting, but the reports are too long, lack information on overall labor trends, and are presented in a format not very useful to project officers or others interested in the program. AALC's financial reporting also meets requirements, but does not provide information in accordance with country program objectives. Annual budget submissions have been excessive in volume and detail. Potential impact of the program has been reduced for three reasons: (1) reduction of the overall budget by about $1 million due to expansion of the Sudan program, (2) erosion of funding by inflation and the drop in the value of the dollar, and (3) habitually late A.I.D. approval of annual budgets. The AALC perceives a lack of appreciation on the part of A.I.D./W and the Missions, while A.I.D. has the attitude that the AALC is not a legitimate development agency, but rather a creature of the State Department. Given this antagonistic relationship and AALC's good track record, a grant agreement rather than a cooperative agreement should be used to finance the follow-on program. A follow-on is also justified by the increasing maturity of African trade unions, and their potential for playing an important role in their respective countries' economic development. Both AALC and A.I.D. should recognize that many African unions are capable of acting as intermediaries in A.I.D. programs.