1). Awards for such projects grew from about $76 million in  fiscal year 2010 to nearly $432 million in fiscal year 2015 (see fig. Minimum reporting requirements for project final reports. USAID and Implementing Partners Have Established Processes for Monitoring Cash and Voucher Projects

USAID has established a process for monitoring implementation of EFSP  cash transfer and food voucher projects by assigning monitoring roles  and responsibilities to headquarters and in-country mission staff,  developing country monitoring plans, and developing tools to assist its  field staff. To ensure that assistance is delivered  according to their procedures and to the targeted beneficiaries,  implementing partners monitor distributions and interview beneficiaries  about the distribution process. In addition, implementing partners conduct  postdistribution surveys to gather information about the relevance,  efficiency, and effectiveness of the assistance. While most of the 14 final reports that we reviewed included most of the  required data on project beneficiaries, only 1 report, for a food voucher  project in Sudan, included all 12 data elements required by USAID; the  other reports lacked up to 8 of the required elements. USAID’s Current Indicators for Assessing Cash and Voucher Projects’ Timeliness, Cost- Effectiveness, and Appropriateness Have Weaknesses

USAID’s indicators for measuring cash transfer and food voucher  projects’ timeliness, cost-effectiveness, and appropriateness have  weaknesses that limit the agency’s ability to evaluate these aspects of  projects’ performance. Further, USAID does not have a benchmark for the market  appropriateness indicators that measure the impact of cash or voucher  assistance on local markets. According to federal standards for internal  control, management should use quality information, including relevant  data from reliable sources, to achieve an agency’s objectives. USAID’s Indicator for Cost- Effectiveness Does Not Produce Comparable Data

The indicator that USAID uses to measure the cost-effectiveness of cash  transfer and food voucher projects does not include a standardized unit  for measuring cost. According to WFP officials, WFP may also change the assistance  modality as a result of price fluctuations. In addition, weaknesses in USAID’s indicators for measuring EFSP  cash transfer and food voucher projects’ timeliness, cost, and  appropriateness—criteria that USAID considers in approving the  projects—limit the extent to which reported data can demonstrate the  effectiveness of such projects and be used to evaluate the performance  of cash and vouchers relative to in-kind food aid. Recommendations for Executive Action

To strengthen USAID’s monitoring and evaluation of cash transfer and  food voucher projects and help ensure improved program oversight of  these projects, we recommend that the USAID Administrator take the  following two actions:
Take steps to ensure that final reports submitted for cash transfer and  food voucher projects comply with USAID’s minimum data  requirements. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report  are listed in appendix V.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope and Methodology

In this report, we (1) examine the U.S. Agency for International  Development’s (USAID) and implementing partners’ processes for  monitoring cash transfer and food voucher projects; (2) analyze the extent  to which monitoring data that partners reported to USAID can be used to  evaluate the performance of such projects; and (3) review studies that  examined the relative impacts of cash transfers, food vouchers, and food  transfers on food security outcomes and the relative cost of these  modalities. 2.
Why GAO Did This Study

For more than 60 years, the United States provided assistance to food-insecure countries primarily in the form of food commodities procured in the United States and transported overseas. In recent years, the U.S. government has increasingly provided food assistance in the form of cash transfers or food vouchers. In fiscal years 2010 through 2015, USAID funding for Emergency Food Security Program (EFSP) for cash transfers and food voucher projects grew from about $76 million to nearly $432 million.
GAO was asked to review USAID's monitoring and evaluation of cash-based food assistance. This report examines, among other things, (1) USAID's and implementing partners' processes for monitoring cash transfer and food voucher projects and (2) the extent to which monitoring data reported to USAID can be used to evaluate the performance of such projects. GAO analyzed program data, interviewed relevant officials; and conducted fieldwork in Kenya and Liberia, selected on the basis of criteria such as funding and types of projects. GAO also reviewed the final reports for a nonprobability sample of closed cash transfer and food voucher projects.

What GAO Found

The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and its implementing partners have established processes to monitor cash transfer and food voucher projects. To monitor the implementation of these projects, USAID has assigned monitoring roles and responsibilities to staff, is developing country monitoring plans and monitoring tools, and is working to verify information that partners have provided through actions such as conducting site visits, and speaking with beneficiaries. To ensure that assistance is delivered according to their procedures and to the targeted beneficiaries, implementing partners monitor distributions, and interview beneficiaries regarding the distribution of the assistance. In addition, implementing partners conduct postdistribution surveys to gather information about the relevance, efficiency, and effectiveness of the assistance (see figure).
Incomplete reporting and weaknesses in certain performance indicators limit USAID's ability to use monitoring data to evaluate cash transfer and food voucher projects' performance. GAO's review of 14 final reports, which USAID requires for each project, found that a majority of the reports lacked required data elements, such as prices for key staple foods. Only 1 report included all 12 required data elements, and the other reports were missing up to 8 elements. As a result, USAID has limited ability to assess the overall performance of these projects. Further, GAO found weaknesses in USAID's indicators for measuring cash and voucher projects' timeliness, cost-effectiveness, and appropriateness. USAID's indicator for timeliness does not track delays in implementation. In addition, the indicator for cost-effectiveness does not include a standardized unit for measuring project costs. Further, the indicator for project appropriateness does not have associated benchmarks for measuring cash transfer and food voucher projects' impact on local markets. As a result, USAID lacks information that would be useful for evaluating the projects' effectiveness relative to that of in-kind food aid. According to standards for internal control in the federal government, management should use quality information, including relevant data from reliable sources, to achieve an agency's objectives.

What GAO Recommends

USAID should (1) take steps to ensure compliance with its requirements for data in final reports and (2) strengthen the indicators it uses to measure the timeliness, cost-effectiveness, and appropriateness of cash transfer and food voucher projects. USAID concurred with GAO's recommendations.