In working to reform foreign assistance, the  Director’s office, State/F, has taken a number of steps to integrate State  and USAID foreign assistance processes. Unlike USAID, State DRL manages its democracy  grant program centrally. Data Show Largest Allocations for USAID Democracy Assistance

State/F information systems show allocations of approximately $2.25  billion in GJD funding to operating units in fiscal year 2008, with about 85  percent of this amount allocated for State and USAID field-based  operating units, primarily country missions. In fiscal year 2008, more than half  of State DRL funding for democracy assistance went to Iraq, followed by  China, Cuba, Iran, and North Korea, and most NED funding for democracy  programs went to China, Iraq, Russia, Burma, and Pakistan. More than $1.95 billion, or about 85 percent of the total  allocation, was allocated to field-based operating units, primarily country  missions. However, in response to our request for information on USAID democracy  assistance funding, State/F and USAID compiled data provided by USAID  missions on GJD funding allocated to USAID for most country-based  operating units for fiscal years 2006 through 2008. Annualized funding per project averaged more than $2 million for USAID;  more than $350,000 for State DRL; and more than $100,000 for NED. However, USAID  and State DRL officials are often not aware of NED democracy assistance  projects, and although NED is not required to report on all of its  democracy assistance projects, State DRL officials and USAID mission  officials said that information on all NED’s active projects would be useful  in ensuring coordinated assistance. State DRL officials responsible for planning  and managing democracy grants in 7 of the 10 sample countries also told  us that they were not aware of NED’s current projects, and State DRL  officials responsible for managing projects in 5 of these 7 countries said  that receiving timely information on NED’s projects would improve  coordination and help reduce the possibility of duplicative programming. NED officials told us that, although there is no mechanism for routine  information sharing on NED projects, NED provides information to State  and USAID when asked. USAID Uses Standard and Custom Indicators to Assess and Report Democracy Assistance Results and Provides Some Independent Evaluations of Impacts

USAID uses standard indicators to report quantitative information on  immediate results of its democracy assistance programs and develops  additional custom indicators to assess specific projects. In addition,  USAID sometimes commissions longer-term independent evaluations of  program impact. Some USAID mission officials we met with noted that they conducted few  independent evaluations of democracy assistance because of the  resources involved in the undertaking and the difficulty of measuring   impact in the area of democracy assistance. The number of evaluations undertaken by USAID has declined. Appendix I: Objective, Scope, and Methodology

Our objectives were to (1) describe democracy assistance funding  provided by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and  the Department of State’s Bureau of Democracy, Labor and Human Rights  (State DRL), and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) in fiscal  year 2008; (2) examine USAID, State DRL, and NED efforts to coordinate  their democracy assistance activities to ensure complementary  programming; and (3) describe USAID efforts to assess results and  evaluate the impact of its democracy assistance activities. In total, we collected detailed information on U.S.  democracy programs in 10 countries. We reviewed  selected quarterly and final performance reports of USAID-funded  democracy projects in the 10 countries, which are required of USAID’s  implementing partners. We did not review State DRL and NED practices  for assessing results and evaluating impact, because their programs are  small and short term relative to USAID’s and because they generally do not  conduct independent evaluations of their activities’ impact.
Why GAO Did This Study

In fiscal years 2006- 2008, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), which has primary responsibility for promoting democracy abroad, implemented democracy assistance projects in about 90 countries. The Department of State's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (State DRL) and the private, nonprofit National Endowment for Democracy (NED) also fund democracy programs in many of these countries. Partly to lessen the risk of duplicative programs, State recently initiated efforts to reform and consolidate State and USAID foreign assistance processes. GAO reviewed (1) democracy assistance funding provided by USAID, State DRL, and NED in fiscal year 2008; (2) USAID, State DRL, and NED efforts to coordinate their democracy assistance; and (3) USAID efforts to assess results and evaluate the impact of its democracy assistance. GAO analyzed U.S. funding and evaluation documents, interviewed USAID, State, and NED officials in the United States and abroad, and reviewed specific democracy projects in 10 countries.

What GAO Found

Data available from State show total democracy assistance allocations of about $2.25 billion for fiscal year 2008. More than $1.95 billion, or about 85 percent of the total allocation, was provided to field-based operating units, primarily country missions. Although complete data on USAID funding per country were not available, USAID mission data, compiled by State and USAID at GAO's request, show that in a sample of 10 countries, most democracy funds are programmed by USAID. In the 10 countries, annual funding per project averaged more than $2 million for USAID, $350,000 for State DRL, and $100,000 for NED. In fiscal year 2008, more than half of State funding for democracy assistance went to Iraq, followed by China, Cuba, Iran, and North Korea, and NED funding for democracy programs was highest for China, Iraq, Russia, Burma, and Pakistan. USAID and State DRL coordinate to help ensure complementary assistance but are often not aware of NED grants. To prevent duplicative programs, State DRL obtains feedback from USAID missions and embassies on project proposals before awarding democracy assistance grants. State DRL officials generally do not participate in USAID missions' planning efforts; some State and USAID officials told GAO that geographic distances between State DRL's centrally managed program and USAID's country mission-based programs would make such participation difficult. Several USAID and State DRL officials responsible for planning and managing democracy assistance told GAO that they lacked information on NED's current projects, which they believed would help inform their own programming decisions. Although NED is not required to report on all of its democracy assistance efforts to State and there currently is no mechanism for regular information sharing, NED told GAO that it has shared information with State and USAID and would routinely provide them with information on current projects if asked. USAID uses standard and custom indicators to assess and report on immediate program results; USAID also conducts some, but relatively infrequent, independent evaluations of longer-term programs. The standard indicators, developed by State, generally focus on numbers of activities or immediate results of a program, while custom indicators measure additional program results. USAID commissions a limited number of independent evaluations of program impact. USAID mission officials told GAO that they did not conduct many independent evaluations of democracy assistance because of the resources involved in the undertaking and the difficulty of measuring impact in the area of democracy assistance. In response to a 2008 National Research Council report on USAID's democracy evaluation capacity, USAID has reported initiating several steps--for example, designing impact evaluations for six missions as part of a pilot program.