Some victims are children. DOL and USAID Fully Documented Their Monitoring Activities for All Selected Projects, but State Did Not Fully Document Its Activities for 16 of 37 Selected Projects

		State, DOL, and USAID Use Similar Tools to Monitor Performance of Their Counter-Trafficking in Persons Projects

Monitoring is the collecting of data to determine whether a project is being  implemented as intended and the tracking of progress through  preselected performance indicators during the life of a project. Monitoring plan. Indicators and Targets. Targets are to be set for each performance indicator to indicate the  expected results over the course of each period of performance. Site Visits. DOL and USAID Fully Documented Their Monitoring Activities for Selected Projects, while State Did Not

We found, based on our review of 54 selected counter-trafficking in  persons projects (37 State, 3 DOL, and 14 USAID), that DOL and USAID  had fully documented their performance monitoring activities, while State  did not fully document its activities for 16 of 37 (43 percent) of the projects  we reviewed with project start dates between fiscal years 2011 to 2016. State TIP Office  officials also said that project officers may not have set targets due to  limited resources in previous years. In addition, according to State  officials, in SAMS-D, targets could be recorded as “to be determined” and  there are no controls in place to ensure that “to be determined” entries  are replaced with actual targets. Without controls to ensure full documentation of monitoring activities and  established performance targets, State is limited in its ability to assess  project performance, including project efficiency or effectiveness. State and USAID Do Not Have Sufficient Controls to Ensure the Reliability of Project Information, while DOL Had Consistent and Complete Performance Information in the Project We Reviewed

In our review of selected indicators in two State TIP Office and two  USAID projects, we found that State and USAID used inconsistent and  incomplete performance information to monitor these projects. In addition to direct project oversight, State TIP Office and USAID officials  stated that performance information from progress reports that the  agencies use to monitor counter-trafficking in persons projects is regularly  used for internal and external reporting, program decisions, and lessons  learned. Without implementing additional controls to ensure that performance  information are consistent and complete, State and USAID officials may  not fully or accurately understand what projects are, or are not, achieving  and, therefore, how their efforts could be altered as needed. Furthermore, we found that the  State TIP Office and USAID used project performance information  reported by the implementing partners—used for internal and external  reporting purposes—that was not always consistent or complete, and did  not have sufficient controls to ensure the reliability of performance  information. Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 includes a  provision for GAO to report on the programs conducted by the  Department of State (State), the Department of Labor (DOL), the United  States Agency for International Development (USAID), the Department of  Defense (DOD), and the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) that  address human trafficking and modern slavery, including a detailed  analysis of the effectiveness of such programs in limiting human  trafficking and modern slavery. This report (1) identifies the recent  projects in international counter-trafficking in persons that key U.S.  agencies have awarded to implementing partners, and for selected  projects, assesses the extent to which key agencies have (2) documented  their monitoring activities, (3) ensured the reliability of the performance  information they use in monitoring projects, and (4) reviewed the  usefulness of the performance indicators they use in monitoring projects. To determine whether State had fully  documented its monitoring activities, we reviewed the monitoring plan  for each project; fiscal year 2017 quarterly progress reports for each  project; and the final progress report, including indicators and targets,  for the seven projects that ended as of December 2017. To assess the extent to which key agencies have ensured the reliability of  the performance information they use to monitor selected projects, we  selected for review a nongeneralizable sample of 5 projects—2 State  projects, 1 DOL project, and 2 USAID projects—out of the 54 counter- trafficking in persons projects identified by agencies that started before or  during October 2015 and were active through fiscal year 2017. We based  our selection of these projects primarily on largest total award amounts. We found the performance data that DOL  used were consistent and complete for the project we reviewed.
Why GAO Did This Study

Human trafficking is a pervasive problem throughout the world. Victims are often held against their will in slave-like conditions.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 includes a provision for GAO to report on the programs conducted by specific agencies, including State, DOL, and USAID, that address trafficking in persons. Among other objectives, this report (1) identifies the recent projects in international counter-trafficking in persons that key U.S. agencies have awarded to implementing partners; and, for selected projects, assesses the extent to which key agencies have (2) documented their monitoring activities and (3) ensured the reliability of project performance information.
GAO reviewed State, DOL, and USAID project documents and interviewed agency officials. GAO reviewed monitoring documents for 54 of the 57 projects that were active from the beginning of fiscal year 2016 through the end of fiscal year 2017. Of these 54 projects, GAO selected a nongeneralizable sample of 5 projects, based primarily on largest total award amounts, for review of the reliability of project performance information.

What GAO Found

The Departments of State (State), Labor (DOL), and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)—through agreements with implementing partners—managed 120 international counter-trafficking in person projects during fiscal year 2017.
GAO reviewed a selection of 54 counter-trafficking projects (37 State, 3 DOL, and 14 USAID), and found that DOL and USAID had fully documented their monitoring activities, while State had not. All three agencies used similar tools to monitor the performance of their projects, such as monitoring plans, performance indicators and targets, progress reports, and site visits. GAO found, however, that State did not fully document its monitoring activities for 16 of its 37 projects (43 percent). GAO found that State did not have the monitoring plans or complete progress reports for one-third of its projects and often lacked targets for performance indicators in its final progress reports. State officials said they had not required targets for each performance indicator for the projects GAO reviewed, or had not set targets due to limited resources in prior years. State has taken steps to improve its monitoring efforts, including issuing a November 2017 policy that requires targets to be set for each performance indicator and developing an automated data system that would require targets to be recorded. However, because the pilot data system allows targets to be recorded as “to be determined” and does not have controls to ensure entry of actual targets, it is uncertain whether performance targets will be regularly recorded. Without full documentation of monitoring activities and established performance targets, State has limited ability to assess project performance, including project efficiency or effectiveness.
GAO reviewed the reliability of project performance information for 5 of the 54 counter-trafficking projects (2 State, 1 DOL, and 2 USAID) and found that State and USAID used inconsistent and incomplete performance information, while DOL used consistent and complete information. For example, some quarterly indicator results in State and USAID progress reports were inconsistent with annual total results, and narrative explanations for significant deviations from performance targets were sometimes not present in quarterly reports. According to agency officials, performance information from these projects is regularly used not only for direct project oversight but also for internal and external reporting, program decisions, and lessons learned. GAO found that State's and USAID's processes lack sufficient controls to ensure the reliability of project performance information, but did not find inadequate controls in DOL's process. For example, neither State nor USAID consistently used automated checks on indicator results to ensure consistency and completeness of performance indicator result calculations. In contrast, DOL used automated checks as part of its process. Without implementing controls to ensure that performance information is consistent and complete, State and USAID officials cannot fully or accurately understand what projects are, or are not, achieving, and how their efforts might be improved.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is making four recommendations to State and one recommendation to USAID, including that both agencies establish additional controls to improve the consistency and completeness of project performance information, and that State maintain monitoring activity documentation and establish targets for each performance indicator. State and USAID concur with GAO's recommendations.