For example, through a  cooperative agreement with AED, USAID is funding the FANTA-2 project  to initiate the following multiyear studies in 2009:    a study of exit strategies in Bolivia, Honduras, and Kenya, which will  produce recommendations for effective ways to sustain program benefits  after U.S. nonemergency food aid programs have been phased out;    a study to identify key components of success in Preventing Malnutrition  in Children Under 2 Approach (PM2A) programs in Guatemala and  Burundi;    a study to improve the early warning and response capacity in FFP’s  multiyear assistance programs in Haiti, Niger, and Uganda;    an update of the 2002 Food Aid and Food Security Assessment, which will  evaluate progress made under FFP’s Strategic Plan for 2006-2010; and    a study testing the efficacy and safety of emergency food products (EFP)  that is co-funded by USAID’s Bureau for Global Health and FFP. However, USAID has determined that the Food for Peace Act precludes  the agency from using the newly authorized funding for monitoring and  evaluation of nonemergency food aid for grants and cooperative  agreements. USAID’s Monitoring and Evaluation of Nonemergency Food Aid Are Not Fully Integrated with Program Management

USAID’s monitoring and evaluation of its nonemergency food aid  programs are consistent to varying degrees with some of the principles  established by AEA to integrate evaluation into program management. We  found that USAID’s actions were (1) generally consistent with the AEA  principles for policies and procedures and for independence; (2) partially  consistent with the principles for scope and coverage, dissemination of  results, professional competence, and resources; and (3) not consistent  with the principles for monitoring and evaluation plans. As FFP does not have reliable data on the number of its field  staff that perform monitoring and evaluation functions, and the specific  skills and competencies of those staff, it is not possible to determine their  overall competence. Greater Resources Are Now Available for Monitoring and Evaluation, but Their Sufficiency Is Difficult to Determine Absent a Needs Assessment

The Food for Peace Act provides FFP with a stable source of new funding  of up to $22 million annually for each of the fiscal years 2009 through 2012  to improve, monitor, and evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of  nonemergency food aid programs. USAID’s Actions Were Not Consistent with the AEA Principles for Monitoring and Evaluation Plans

According to FFP officials, FFP plans some of its monitoring and  evaluation activities, but lacks an overall plan that integrates its  monitoring and evaluation with program management. Conclusions

Nonemergency food aid programs are an essential component of the U.S.  strategy to reduce global food insecurity, and Congress has authorized  new funding for USAID to improve its oversight of these programs. However,  weak planning could impede these efforts, including the upgrade of FFP’s  information technology system. As a result, planned actions that are  essential to effective program management, such as the expansion of a  computerized monitoring system for food aid programs and cross-cutting  evaluations, could be jeopardized. It would also describe system  characteristics for a proposed system from a user’s point of view and  include high-level descriptions of information systems, their  interrelationships, and information flows. USAID concurred with our first recommendation to develop a concept of  operations document to help reduce the risks associated with upgrading  FFP’s information technology system. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are  listed in appendix V.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

In passing the Food for Peace Act in 2008, Congress required the  Comptroller General of the United States to review the U.S. Agency for  International Development’s (USAID) Report to Congress on the agency’s  efforts to strengthen the monitoring and evaluation of its nonemergency  food aid programs and provide recommendations for improvement. To  address this congressional mandate, we reviewed (1) USAID’s plans and  actions to improve its monitoring and evaluation of nonemergency food aid  programs provided under the Food for Peace Act and (2) the extent to  which USAID has integrated its monitoring and evaluation of nonemergency  food aid with program management, particularly with regard to established  principles.
Why GAO Did This Study

In passing the Food for Peace Act in 2008, Congress authorized up to $22 million annually for fiscal years 2009 to 2012 to the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to improve, monitor, and evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of nonemergency food aid programs. Congress also required USAID to report on its oversight of these programs and the Comptroller General to review and report to Congress on USAID's report. Through analysis of agency documents; interviews with agency officials, experts, and partners; and visits to Bangladesh and Haiti, this mandated report reviews (1) USAID's plans and actions to improve its monitoring and evaluation of nonemergency food aid programs and (2) the extent to which USAID has integrated its monitoring and evaluation of nonemergency food aid with program management.

What GAO Found

USAID's actions to improve its monitoring and evaluation of these programs could be hindered by weak planning. Monitoring is essential to ensuring that USAID's nonemergency food aid programs in developing countries are implemented as intended, and evaluation helps to assure that these programs achieve their goal of reducing global food insecurity. First, with funding from the Food for Peace Act, USAID's Office of Food for Peace (FFP) plans to increase the number of field staff responsible for the monitoring of nonemergency food aid programs, has provided funding for the Famine Early Warning Systems Network, and has initiated an upgrade of its information technology system. However, FFP's plans for the information technology upgrade lack a concept of operations document, which describes system characteristics for a proposed system from a user's point of view and includes high-level descriptions of information systems, their interrelationships, and information flows. Second, with funding from other sources, USAID plans to carry out additional actions in an effort to improve its oversight of food aid, including the expansion of a computerized system for monitoring the implementation and management of nonemergency food aid programs. However, USAID has not determined a stable source of funding for these initiatives beyond the first year of operations due to legal restrictions that preclude the agency from using the newly authorized funding for grants and cooperative agreements. USAID's monitoring and evaluation of its nonemergency food aid programs are consistent to varying degrees with some of the principles established by the American Evaluation Association's Task Force on Evaluation Policy to integrate evaluation into program management. GAO found that (1) FFP's actions were generally consistent with the principles for policies and procedures and for independence. For example, FFP has issued policies and procedures for monitoring and evaluating food aid programs and generally uses external evaluators to assess its multiyear assistance programs. (2) FFP's actions were partially consistent with the principles for scope and coverage, dissemination of results, professional competence, and resources. For example, FFP relies on a range of staff to perform its monitoring and evaluation, but does not have reliable data on the numbers of field staff who have competencies in monitoring and evaluation, or their specific skills. (3) FFP's actions were not consistent with the principles for monitoring and evaluation plans. While FFP plans some of its monitoring and evaluation activities--such as final evaluations for multiyear assistance programs--it lacks an integrated plan to ensure that monitoring and evaluation results will be used to improve program management.