	Background

Congress first authorized the F2F program in the 1985 Farm Bill to  provide for the transfer of knowledge and expertise of U.S. agricultural  producers and businesses to middle-income countries and emerging  democracies on a voluntary basis. In the 2014 Farm Bill,  Congress increased the minimum annual F2F funding requirement to $15  million. USAID uses the  agreements to establish objectives, tasks, and responsibilities for the  implementing partners. All partners work with  hosts to develop a scope of work for each assignment, interview  candidates, and assess the volunteers’ performance. However, they have  inconsistent practices for screening volunteer candidates against terrorist  watch lists and do not have a means to systematically report negative  assessments of volunteers to USAID or each other. Partners Generally Follow Consistent Practices to Design Volunteer Assignments, Recruit Volunteers, and Manage Volunteer Assignments

We found that the implementing partners that send volunteers follow  consistent practices to design volunteer assignments, recruit volunteers,  and manage volunteer assignments, which are outlined in USAID’s F2F  program manual. The remaining three implementing partners do not screen candidates  against watch lists. For the fiscal years 2009 through 2013 program  cycle, USAID reported that 41 percent of the volunteers were repeat  volunteers. In addition, partners risk fielding volunteers who received  negative assessments on assignments with other implementers, which  could undermine the program’s goals and reputation. USAID Used a Program-wide Evaluation to Adjust F2F, but Does Not Obtain Information on a Key Aspect of Program Implementation

USAID used a program-wide evaluation to adjust the program and  conducts ongoing monitoring and evaluation, but USAID does not obtain  information on a key aspect of the program’s implementation. After a  2012 program-wide evaluation, USAID revised program indicators,  established a committee to discuss best practices, and increased training  for implementing partner staff. Specifically, USAID does not  review information on the extent to which volunteers meet the objectives  identified in the scopes of work. This information could provide additional  insight on the extent to which volunteers achieve established objectives  and therefore whether volunteers are being effectively used. Specifically, four partners do  not conduct any screening against terrorist watch lists as expected by  USAID. However, USAID is not reviewing information on a  key aspect of the program’s performance—the extent to which the  specified objectives and activities in scopes of work are accomplished. Recommendations for Executive Action

To enhance USAID’s oversight of the program, we recommend that the  Administrator of USAID take the following four actions: ensure F2F implementing partners screen volunteer candidates  against terrorist watch lists, as described in their cooperative  agreements and USAID guidance; develop guidance for the implementing partners on the types of  background checks they should perform as they screen volunteer  candidates; update the F2F program manual to ensure that implementing partners  systematically share negative volunteer assessment information with  USAID and each other; and further develop its monitoring process to review the extent to which  volunteers accomplish objectives and activities specified in the scopes  of work. Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

For this report, we examined (1) how the U.S. Agency for International  Development (USAID) administers the John Ogonowski and Doug  Bereuter Farmer-to-Farmer (F2F) program, (2) how partners implement  volunteer assignments and screen volunteers for the F2F program, and  (3) the extent to which USAID uses monitoring and evaluation to manage  the F2F program. In addition, we  reviewed USAID data on the number of volunteer assignments.
Why GAO Did This Study

First authorized in the 1985 Farm Bill, the F2F program leverages U.S. agricultural expertise by sending volunteers on short-term assignments to provide technical assistance to farmers, farm groups, and agribusinesses in developing and middle-income countries. During fiscal years 2009 through -2013, F2F funded about 2,984 volunteer assignments and obligated an average of $11.5 million annually.
In the 2014 Farm Bill, Congress mandated that GAO conduct a review of the F2F program. GAO examined (1) how USAID administers the program, (2) how partners implement volunteer assignments and screen volunteers, and (3) the extent to which USAID uses monitoring and evaluation to manage the program. To address these objectives, GAO reviewed program documents and met with USAID F2F officials and current implementing partners. In addition, we conducted fieldwork in two countries that we selected based on factors, including the number of volunteers assigned.

What GAO Found

The U.S. Agency for International Development's (USAID) Bureau for Food Security administers the Farmer-to-Farmer (F2F) program through implementing partners under 5-year cooperative agreements. USAID provides overall direction, but relies on partners to execute program activities. USAID uses the agreements to establish the partners' objectives, tasks, and responsibilities. Once selected, partners create work plans for USAID's approval that describe potential volunteer assignments, such as providing expertise on grain processing and storage or groundnut production.
Source: GAO. | GAO-15-478
USAID's partners follow consistent practices to implement volunteer assignments, but they have inconsistent practices for screening volunteer candidates against terrorist watch lists. All partners develop a scope of work for each assignment, interview candidates, and assess the volunteer's performance. However, only two partners screen candidates against the terrorist watch lists as expected by USAID. These partners and one other partner screen candidates against other watch lists. In addition, partners do not have a means to systematically report negative volunteer assessments to USAID or each other, even though 41 percent of volunteers in the last program cycle were repeat volunteers. Without conducting required checks and providing information on prior negative assessments, partners risk selecting volunteers who could undermine F2F's goals and reputation.
USAID uses its monitoring and evaluation process to adjust the program, but does not review information on a key aspect of the program's implementation. In response to a program-wide evaluation, USAID revised performance indicators, established a committee that discusses best practices, and increased training for implementing partner staff. However, USAID does not systematically review information on the extent to which volunteers meet the objectives identified in the scopes of work. Reviewing volunteer trip reports against scopes of work could improve USAID's understanding of the volunteers' performance and provide additional insight on implementation progress and whether volunteers are being effectively used.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is recommending that USAID (1) ensure F2F partners screen volunteer candidates against terrorist watch lists, (2) develop guidance on the other types of background checks implementing partners should perform, (3) ensure that implementing partners systematically share negative volunteer assessment information, and (4) monitor the extent to which the objectives and activities in the scopes of work are accomplished. USAID concurred with GAO's recommendations.