Evaluation of the Students at Risk program

The Students at Risk program (the StAR program) supports students who, due to their human rights’ activism, are «at risk» of being formally or de facto denied educational or other rights in their home country. It was established on basis of an initiative by the Norwegian Students’ and Academics’ International Assistance Fund (SAIH) and the National Union of Students in Norway (NSO).

The program has been running since 2013 and has awarded scholarships and study places to more than 100 students in total. Funding is provided by the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and is managed by the Norwegian Directorate for Higher Education and Skills (HK-dir).

Students that are accepted under the program are enrolled in academic programs at participating Norwegian Higher Education Institutions and are provided with a scholarship during their stay in Norway.

Evaluation questions and methods

HK-dir assigned Proba Research with this evaluation project, which should respond to the following main evaluation questions:

• To what extent does the Students at Risk program achieve its goal of enabling students from OECD/DAC countries who are human rights defenders and, for security reasons, cannot continue their studies in their home countries, to complete higher education in Norway?
• To what extent – and in what ways – do StAR students become strengthened as human rights defenders through participation in the Students at Risk program? C. Does the period of study in Norway have other effects beyond potentially strengthening the students as human rights activists?
• To what extent have the recommendations from the 2020 evaluation been followed up?
• How effective is the administration of the Students at Risk program?

The mandate of the project included 28 specific sub-questions to the main evaluation questions. The evaluation methodology includes document studies, a survey directed at current and former students, and interviews with program actors and students.

The program objectives

We identify a total of nine program objectives – more or less explicitly stated in program documents and interviews. The target group definition which is being applied in the practical administration of the Students at Risk program includes an additional objective of geographical distribution of students.

We find that the expectation of students returning to their home country is not interpreted by the program actors to be a program objective. Hence, it should be rephrased as a preambular statement and not as a program objective.

The multitude of objectives implies that the Students at Risk program is characterized by objective profusion. We identify dimensions from the three policy areas higher education, foreign policy and development cooperation.

On the one hand, objective profusion may dilute the focus of the program, but on the other, it may serve to accommodate the interests of the various stakeholders that participate as system actors.

Our assessment is that further clarification and qualification of the different goals would be beneficial, preferentially by organizing the various objectives and measures in a formalized program framework logic. The framework logic could include a goal structure based on a theory of change detailing the objectives on the levels of impact, outcomes and output. Specifying an overarching objective detailing the intended societal impact of the program is particularly important in this respect.

Goal attainment – selection of students

We find that on the program goal for which the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has specified measurable indicators, the Students at Risk program is successful. The program achieves its objective of giving human rights activists a chance to complete their studies in Norway. Most of the students complete their studies, and most of them within the stipulated time. All places have been filled in recent years and there is an even gender balance both among nominated and accepted candidates.

We also find that the program has improved somewhat in achieving its goal of geographical distribution, but that the accepted students are still quite heavily concentrated to a few countries. However, no target values have been set.

Nomination and selection processes

It seems to be an inherent and almost inevitable feature of the program that the candidates face highly diverging risk situations and are assessed differently depending on which country they come from and the entity nominating them. Even though the nominating entities’ perception is that the nomination criteria are clear, their application is challenging.

In practice, the at-risk criterion is an inclusion criterion, and not a ranking criterion. This implies that the program subordinates the at-risk objective to the objectives of gender balance and the somewhat understated objective (c.f. the chapter 2 discussion) of geographical distribution. This underscores the need for clarification of program objectives.

The excess of nominated and qualified candidates is a relatively novel challenge for the Students at Risk program. We recommend that HK-dir reconsiders the current selection procedure with the aim of assessing the feasibility of alternative mechanisms, such as introducing a maximum possible number of nominations from each nominating actor, restricting the number of participating countries each year, or introducing the lottery or another attrition mechanism at an earlier stage in the selection process. The reassessment should consider how different mechanisms will affect the nominating entities, the candidates and the HK-dir secretariat itself.

StAR students’ as human rights activists

A majority of students (79 percent) report engaging in human rights activism while studying in Norway. Their activism ranges from local involvement to continued work for causes in their home countries. Reports from a few students who have exited the Students at Risk program display varying degrees of activism post participation. One main reason for not engaging is safety concerns.

Most students report that the program motivates continued activism and provides valuable knowledge, skills, and networks. Some of the students do however wish for more assistance in finding and networking with human rights organizations and networks in Norway. We also find that none of the system actors is responsible for connecting students with human rights networks or activism opportunities and the support students receive varies.

We recommend that StAR contacts be assigned with the task of providing written information about activism opportunities, both on the national and local level. We suggest that HK-dir considers organizing online seminars with the same purpose.

The previous evaluation advised HK-dir to collect data on graduates’ careers and activism to assess program impact. However, concerns about safety, anonymity, and the high cost of maintaining such a database presents major challenges. As a result, implementing this measure is not recommended.

StAR students need more comprehensive support measures than those currently being provided. In our opinion, a corollary of the program objective of supporting the students as human rights activists is that the system actors have an obligation to support and protect the students in areas that are essential for their psycho-social well-being. This includes several of the topics discussed above – in particular the return issue, dealing with the transnational repression risk, and psycho-social support.

Overall, the academic provision in the Students at Risk program functions well. Most students are satisfied with the academic relevance of their studies in Norway and value the international learning environment. Students are also satisfied with housing and financial support and value the practical and academic assistance provided by the program. Here, the StAR contacts are instrumental. HK-dir could, however, review if the information provided in the initial phase of the program could be more detailed and/or comprehensive.

Students’ plans to return home after program exit are highly varied and are influenced by personal safety, family, political conditions, and ongoing assessment of risks in their home countries. They wish for better support in handling decisions of return, as well as handling their situation of being at risk. Many also report a wish for better information on psycho-social services.

We find that there is no systematic support for students in handling risk and return, and that there is a need for better information and training for students, as well as for StAR contacts on risk and return. We recommend introducing the following measures:

• Systematic counselling that includes questions related to mental health, return and risk management for students
• Practical training for students on how to handle risk and return
• Training of StAR contacts on how to advise students in questions of return and risk
• Detailing a centrally defined mandate for the StAR contacts
• Introducing a voluntary safe-exit mechanism by which students confirm safe arrival in their home country
• Extending the scholarship by a two month “grace period” after final exams to allow for exit preparations

Cooperation and information

Generally, both cooperation and information flows work well in the Students at Risk program. There is general satisfaction communicating with HK-dir. System actors report that they get frequent updates, quick answers to questions and that the information provided is accurate and extensive. Experience with HK-dir’s facilitating contact between the system actors is also positive.

The cross-cutting issues

We observe that either of the two main system actors – the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and HK-dir – fall somewhat short of their respective obligations with respect to the four cross-cutting issues – human rights; women’s rights and gender equality; climate change and environment; and anti-corruption. Future policies on the cross-cutting issues in the Students at Risk program should include:

• An assessment of whether any short term “activist drain effects” are offset by the intended long-term effect of strengthening students as human rights defenders
• A brief assessment of possible risks for the issue of women’s rights and gender equality
• A travel policy encompassing an assessment of the environmental impact and risks resulting from the program, while making sure that the objectives of the program are upheld and the welfare of the students is not reduced
• An assessment of how to mitigate inherent risks of transnational repression
• A general risk assessment of the program, including the risk of corruption
• In addition, policy documents should clarify to what extent and how the crosscutting issues should be included in or encompassed by the program objective

Main conclusion

Given the objective profusion, and the absence of a specified impact objective and a framework logic, it is not possible to assess the suitability of the design and administration of the program in relation to its objectives to its full extent (sub-question 27). Nevertheless, based on the program objectives listed and discussed in chapter 2 we may draw the following conclusions.

An overall impact objective for the program should be defined, and other objectives and design elements should be formulated so as to support its achievement one in a form of program theory or logical framework. Such a logical framework would clarify whether selection criteria should accord primacy to geographical distribution, academic potential of the student, degree of risk (i.e. need for protection), or potential as human rights defender?

On the program goal for which the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has specified measurable indicators, the Students at Risk program is successful – specifically regarding completion of studies, use of study places, gender balance, and possibly geographical distribution.

The general design of the program – the system actors, their responsibilities, their interaction – appears to be appropriate. We have identified a number of shortcomings that should be addressed, related to StAR students needing more comprehensive support measures than those currently being provided – in particular related to the return issue, dealing with the transnational repression risk, and psycho-social support.

The system actors spend significant administrative resources on the nomination and selection processes, as well on StAR contact follow-up of students during the study phase. Although we have made no efforts at quantifying these costs, our overall impression is one of efficient use of administrative resources. A notable exception is however that excessive resources appear to be spent on evaluating candidates who eventually are not admitted. With that caveat, the current administrative cost level appears to be an inherent feature of the program.

For the most part, the recommendations of the 2020 evaluation have been addressed – the exemption being the issues with program goals and objectives.