Such activities are intended to  achieve a variety of objectives. Food-for-assets activities provide food in  exchange for participation in activities focused on constructing community  assets, such as roads or irrigation systems. USAID Does Not Track Use of Conditional Food Aid, although Most Title II Projects Included It in Fiscal Years 2013-2014

USAID does not track the use of conditional food aid in Title II projects,  although our comprehensive review of USAID data found that most Title II  projects included conditional food aid in fiscal years 2013 and 2014. Despite the prevalence of conditional food aid activities, USAID does not  systematically collect or use data on conditional food aid provided through  Title II projects and, as a result, could not readily provide data on the use  of these activities in USAID’s projects. Our review of available USAID  data for fiscal years 2013 and 2014 found that 111 of 119 Title II  development and emergency projects included conditional, as well as  unconditional, food aid activities and that funding for these projects  totaled $2.1 billion—87 percent of all USAID funding for Title II projects  during this period. USAID and its implementing partners implemented  various conditional food aid activities through these projects, including  food for assets, food for training, and maternal and child health care and  nutrition. However, without the ability to identify all conditional food aid  activities, USAID cannot reliably oversee the projects that use it. According to chapter 203 of USAID’s Automated Directives System  (ADS), USAID operating units must strive to continuously learn and  improve their approach to achieving results in order to meet development  goals. 1). 2). USAID Cannot Systematically Assess Food-for- Assets Activities, but Implementing Partners Highlighted Both Benefits and Challenges

USAID cannot systematically measure the performance of food-for-assets  activities across all Title II development projects and therefore cannot  determine the effectiveness of food-for-assets activities in achieving  short-term or longer-term development goals. While USAID uses  indicators to assess the overall effectiveness of these development  projects, the agency cannot use these indicators to systematically assess  the specific effectiveness of food-for-assets activities across all Title II  development projects. During our interviews with 10 implementing  partners that implemented 14 projects, partners identified several benefits  specific to food-for-assets activities, such as developing needed  infrastructure, teaching skills to beneficiaries, and achieving short-term  increases in food security. They also cited challenges in implementing  these activities, such as difficulty in ensuring the sustainability of the  assets created as well as weak technical capacity and inadequate  resources in host governments and communities. Additionally, chapter 203 of the ADS states that to ensure accountability,  metrics should be matched to meaningful outputs and outcomes that are  under the control of the agency. Recommendations for Executive Action

To strengthen USAID’s ability to monitor Title II conditional food aid and  evaluate food-for-assets activities’ impact on reducing food insecurity, we  recommend that the USAID Administrator take the following two actions: establish a mechanism to readily identify all Title II projects that  include conditional food aid activities and systematically collect  information about the type of conditional activity included in each  project and  systematically assess the effectiveness of food-for-assets activities in  development projects in achieving project goals and objectives. In its written comments, USAID concurred with our recommendations. Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Our objectives were to examine (1) the U.S. Agency for International  Development’s (USAID) use of conditional food aid through Title II  development and emergency projects in fiscal years 2013 and 2014, (2)  the factors that implementing partners considered and the challenges  they faced when designing food-for-assets activities in development  projects, and (3) the extent to which USAID assessed the effectiveness of  food-for-assets activities in development projects. Washington, D.C.: May  24, 2007.
Why GAO Did This Study

In fiscal year 2014, USAID awarded about $1.3 billion for emergency and development food aid under Title II of the Food for Peace Act. USAID's implementing partners may provide what is known as conditional food aid—that is, food in exchange for beneficiaries' participation in activities intended to support development. For example, food-for-assets activities are intended to address beneficiaries' immediate food needs while building assets to improve longer-term food security. Questions have arisen about whether the dual goals of addressing both immediate and long-term needs may compromise the ability to achieve either goal, underscoring the need to understand conditional food aid.
This report examines, among other things, (1) USAID's use of conditional food aid through Title II development and emergency awards in fiscal years 2013 and 2014 and (2) the extent to which USAID has assessed the effectiveness of food-for-assets activities in development projects. GAO analyzed agency and partner documents and interviewed agency and partner officials in Washington, D.C., and in three countries selected on the basis of project type and representing a variety of partners.

What GAO Found

The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) does not track the use of conditional food aid in projects funded under Title II of the Food for Peace Act. However, GAO's comprehensive review of USAID data found that most Title II projects included conditional food aid in fiscal years 2013 and 2014. Despite the prevalence of conditional food aid activities, USAID does not regularly collect data on conditional food aid provided through Title II projects and, as a result, could not readily provide data on the use of these activities in USAID's projects. Without the ability to identify all conditional food aid activities, USAID cannot systematically oversee the projects that include them. According to USAID's operational policy, USAID operating units must strive to continuously learn and improve their approach to achieving results in order to meet development goals. GAO's review of available USAID data for fiscal years 2013 and 2014 found that 111 of 119 Title II development and emergency projects included conditional food aid activities and that funding for these projects totaled $2.1 billion—87 percent of all USAID funding for Title II projects during this period. USAID and its implementing partners implemented various conditional food aid activities, most commonly a type known as food for assets, through these projects (see fig.). Beneficiaries of food-for-assets activities typically must work at constructing community assets, such as roads or irrigation systems, in exchange for food.
USAID cannot systematically measure the performance of food-for-assets activities across all Title II development projects and therefore cannot determine the effectiveness of food-for-assets activities in achieving short-term or longer-term development goals. According to USAID's operational policy, measures of program effectiveness should be matched to meaningful outputs under the agency's control. While USAID uses indicators to assess the effectiveness of Title II projects, USAID cannot use these indicators to systematically assess the specific effectiveness of food for assets across its Title II projects. However, during GAO's interviews with 10 implementing partners that implemented 14 projects, partners identified several benefits specific to food-for-assets activities, such as developing needed infrastructure, teaching skills to beneficiaries, and achieving short-term increases in food security. Partners also cited challenges in implementing these activities, such as difficulty in ensuring the sustainability of created assets as well as interruptions resulting from weather and civil conflict.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that USAID (1) establish a mechanism to readily identify all Title II programs that include conditional food aid activities and (2) systematically assess the effectiveness of food-for-assets activities in development projects. USAID concurred with the recommendations but disagreed with some aspects of GAO's findings. GAO continues to believe its findings are valid, as discussed in the report.