Report to Congressional Requesters

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO

August 2005 FOREIGN 

ASSISTANCE 

Middle East 

Partnership Initiative 

Offers Tools for 

Supporting Reform, 

but Project Monitoring 

Needs Improvement 

GAO-05-711 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-711.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact David Gootnick 

at (202) 512-3149 or dgootnick@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-05-711, a report to 

congressional requesters 

August 2005

FOREIGN ASSISTANCE

Middle East Partnership Initiative Offers 

Tool for Supporting Reform, but Project 

Monitoring Needs Improvement 

MEPI has worked with U.S. embassies, USAID headquarters in Washington, 

D.C., and USAID missions overseas to manage projects and obligate funding. 

In turn, MEPI and its partners have negotiated agreements with 

nongovernmental organizations, the private sector, and other U.S. agencies 

to implement the projects. MEPI has obligated about 45 percent of the $129 

million that it received for fiscal years 2002-2003, and its partners have 

obligated the remainder. 

MEPI used the State and USAID reviews of existing U.S. bilateral economic 

assistance programs in the Middle East and North Africa in two ways. First, 

in response to the reviews, MEPI targeted reform activities in the Middle 

East and North Africa that were not being addressed by other U.S. agencies. 

For example, responding to the reviews’ finding that little progress had been 

made in supporting women’s political involvement, MEPI provided funds to 

assist women candidates. Second, MEPI shaped its strategy in response to 

the reviews, particularly regarding the need to monitor projects’ short-term 

results and hold project implementers accountable for project performance.

Despite its strategic emphasis on monitoring projects’ performance, MEPI’s 

monitoring has been limited by unclear communication of roles and 

responsibilities and a lack of complete project information. MEPI has 

acknowledged these deficiencies and begun to address them; in July 2005, 

State and USAID agreed on a framework for project monitoring roles and 

responsibilities. Without the ability to evaluate its projects’ performance 

with certainty and access to complete information, MEPI’s capacity to meet 

its strategic goals of producing tangible results and making results-based 

decisions is limited. 

MEPI’s Area of Operations 

Libya Egypt

Algeria

Tunisia

Morocco

Western

Sahara

Jordan

Lebanon

Kuwait

Qatar

Bahrain

Yemen

Oman

Syria

Iraq

Iran

Saudi Arabia

Jordan

West Bank

Lebanon

Syria

Egypt

Gaza Strip

Countries (and West Bank/Gaza) with MEPI projects

Source: MapArt (image).

Israel

Israel

U. A. E.

In December 2002, the U.S. 

Department of State (State) 

established the Middle East 

Partnership Initiative (MEPI) to 

promote democracy in the Middle 

East and North Africa. MEPI

provides assistance for political, 

economic, and educational reform 

and women’s empowerment. In 

fiscal years 2002-2004, State and 

the U.S. Agency for International 

Development (USAID) reviewed 

U.S. bilateral economic assistance 

programs in the region to ensure 

they were aligned with the new 

U.S. policy focus on promoting 

democracy and reform. In this 

report, GAO (1) describes MEPI’s 

structure for managing projects 

and allocating funding, (2) 

examines MEPI’s uses of the 

reviews, and (3) evaluates MEPI’s 

project monitoring. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that, to improve 

project monitoring, the Secretary 

of State ensure that MEPI 

managers (1) clearly delineate, 

document, and communicate 

monitoring roles and 

responsibilities; (2) systematically 

obtain, maintain, and communicate 

complete information on all MEPI 

projects; and (3) regularly assess 

progress in these areas. State and 

USAID agreed with GAO’s 

recommendations. State disagreed 

with the extent of our finding that 

it could not with certainty evaluate 

its projects’ performance. 

However, State said that it intends 

to improve its monitoring of MEPI 

projects. 
Page i GAO-05-711 Foreign Assistance 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 3 

Background 6 

MEPI and Administrative Partners Have Overseen Activities and 

Obligated Funding 11 

Reviews Identified New Reform Opportunities and Helped Shape 

MEPI’s Strategy 15 

Reviews Have Helped Shape MEPI’s Results-Based Strategy 19 

Unclear Roles and Responsibilities and Incomplete Information 

Have Inhibited MEPI’s Project Monitoring 20 

Conclusion 25 

Recommendations for Executive Action 25 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 26 

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 28 

Appendix II The Office of Middle East Partnership Initiative’s 

Organizational Structure 30 

Appendix III Comments from the Department of State 31 

GAO Comments 35 

Appendix IV Comments from the U.S. Agency for International 

Development 36 

Appendix V GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 38 

Figures 

Figure 1: MEPI’s Area of Operations 7 

Figure 2: MEPI Reform Pillars and Reform Goals 8 

Figure 3: MEPI Budget, Fiscal Years 2002-2005 9 

Figure 4: MEPI’s Relationships with Administrative Partners and 

Project Implementers 12 

Contents 
Page ii GAO-05-711 Foreign Assistance 

Figure 5: Obligation of Fiscal Years 2002-2003 Funds by MEPI and 

Administrative Partners 13 

Figure 6: Funding Obligations within MEPI’s Area of Operations, 

Fiscal Years 2002-2003 15 

Figure 7: Moroccan Products for Export 17 

Figure 8: MEPI Mother-Child Home Education Program 

Participants in Bahrain 18 

Figure 9: Bahraini Participants in U.S. Business Internships for 

Young Arab Women 19 

Abbreviations 

MEPI Middle East Partnership Initiative 

MOA memorandum of agreement 

NEA Department of State’s Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs 

NGO nongovernmental organization 

OIG Office of Inspector General 

USAID U.S. Agency for International Development 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately. 
Page 1 GAO-05-711 Foreign Assistance 

August 8, 2005 

The Honorable Tom Davis 

Chairman 

Committee on Government Reform 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable Christopher Shays 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats, 

 and International Relations 

Committee on Government Reform 

House of Representatives 

According to the United Nations, many Middle Eastern and North African 

countries face enormous deficits of human development, including limited 

political and personal freedoms and low economic growth. Because of 

concern that these issues could sharpen extremism and increase the risk 

of terrorist activities originating from an already unstable region, the U.S. 

government has shown a growing interest in improving socioeconomic 

and political conditions in the region. In December 2002, the U.S. 

Department of State (State) announced the establishment of the Middle 

East Partnership Initiative (MEPI) as a presidential initiative to support 

the administration’s new policy of promoting democracy and reform in the 

Middle East and North Africa. MEPI, which has received about $293 

million for fiscal years 2002-2005,1

 provides assistance in four reform 

areas, or pillars—political, economic, and educational reform and 

women’s empowerment.2

In 2002, at the request of the Deputy Secretary of State, State and the U.S. 

Agency for International Development (USAID) undertook reviews of 

existing U.S. bilateral economic assistance programs in the Middle East 

 1

MEPI’s budget is authorized for a period of 2 consecutive fiscal years. The funds must be 

obligated within this period and spent within 5 years after the end of the second fiscal year. 

2

MEPI operates in Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Morocco, 

Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates, the West Bank and Gaza, 

and Yemen. 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 
Page 2 GAO-05-711 Foreign Assistance 

and North Africa3 to ensure that they reflected the U.S. government’s new 

policy emphasis on promoting democracy and reform. These reviews were 

conducted for Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, the West Bank and Gaza, and 

Yemen. According to State officials, State initiated an interagency process 

to develop MEPI’s strategy, objectives, and goals, including the objective 

of providing close monitoring of projects4 to achieve tangible results and 

to facilitate results-based management decisions. In this report, we (1) 

describe MEPI’s structure for overseeing projects and obligating funds,5

(2) examine MEPI’s uses of the reviews of U.S. bilateral economic 

assistance in the region, and (3) evaluate MEPI’s monitoring of its 

projects. 

We examined reviews and supporting documentation provided by the 

State Department and USAID and reviewed documents describing MEPI 

and USAID activities and funding mechanisms. We also analyzed project 

agreement documentation and project performance reports for 25 MEPIand USAID-administered projects, representing MEPI’s four reform pillars, 

that we selected on the basis of their funding amount and their countryspecific or regionwide status.6

 Although our audit generally covered MEPI 

activities from December 2002 through May 2005, in reviewing MEPI’s 

budget information and project monitoring, we focused on data for fiscal 

years 2002-2003 because the data for those years were most complete.7

 In 

addition, we conducted structured interviews with representatives of 

some of MEPI’s implementing organizations. We also conducted 

interviews with officials at State and USAID headquarters in Washington, 

 3

These programs included those operated by USAID in Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, 

the West Bank and Gaza, and Yemen. 

4

Performance monitoring is the periodic tracking of selected measures of project 

performance and the regular reporting of these measures to managers and other specified 

audiences. Objective information is thus provided to managers and policymakers to 

improve decision making and strengthen performance and accountability. [See J. S. 

Wholey, H. P. Hatry, and K. E. Newcomer, Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation, 

2nd ed. (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2004), p. 99.] 

5

In this report, “obligating funds” refers to the awarding of MEPI funds by MEPI and its 

administrative partners (i.e., embassies; USAID headquarters in Washington, D.C.; and 

USAID missions overseas). 

6

Although our selection of MEPI projects covered 63 percent of total project funding for 

fiscal year 2003, these results cannot be projected to all MEPI projects. For more 

information, see appendix I. 

7

We determined that the budget data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this 

audit. 
Page 3 GAO-05-711 Foreign Assistance 

D.C.; officials representing embassies and USAID missions in 9 of the 14 

MEPI countries; and officials administering MEPI programs in the 

territories of West Bank and Gaza.8

 To assess MEPI’s mechanisms for 

monitoring its activities, we focused on relevant areas of MEPI’s 

management control system, including (1) roles and responsibilities of 

MEPI staff and administrative partners9

 in Washington, D.C., and overseas 

and (2) information flow. We performed our work in the United States, 

Bahrain, Egypt, Germany, and Morocco from July 2004 through May 2005 

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Appendix I provides a more detailed description of our scope and 

methodology. 

MEPI has worked with U.S. embassies, USAID headquarters in 

Washington, D.C. (USAID/Washington), and USAID missions overseas to 

oversee projects and obligate funds for fiscal years 2002-2003. In turn, 

MEPI and these U.S. government entities have negotiated agreements with 

nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), the private sector, and other U.S. 

agencies to implement the projects. MEPI funds have been obligated as 

follows: 

• MEPI has directly obligated about 45 percent of the approximately $129 

million that it received for fiscal years 2002-2003, with 33 percent going to 

NGOs and the private sector and 12 percent to U.S. government 

implementers. 

• The embassies have obligated about 1 percent of the 2002-2003 funds 

through MEPI’s small-grants program, awarding short-term grants of up to 

$25,000 to local organizations to build their capacity. 

• USAID/Washington has obligated about 40 percent of the 2002-2003 funds, 

including funding for many of MEPI’s largest projects, primarily through 

preexisting agreements between the U.S. government and implementing 

 8

We conducted interviews with U.S. officials who administer programs in Algeria, Bahrain, 

Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Morocco, the United Arab Emirates, the West Bank and 

Gaza, and Yemen. (MEPI assistance to Gaza and to Arab-Israelis in Israel is supported by 

the U.S. Embassy in Israel; projects in the West Bank are supported by the U.S. Consulate 

in Jerusalem.) 

9

In this report, “administrative partners” refers to U.S. government entities—embassies, 

USAID headquarters, and USAID missions—to which MEPI has delegated project 

administration responsibilities. 

Results in Brief 
Page 4 GAO-05-711 Foreign Assistance 

organizations. 

• USAID missions have obligated about 15 percent of MEPI’s 2002-2003 

funds. 

According to the State Department, the reviews of bilateral assistance 

programs in the Middle East and North Africa were used to identify new 

reform opportunities for MEPI to target and to shape MEPI’s strategy. 

• In response to the reviews as well as other U.S. entities’ input, MEPI 

targeted reform activities in the Middle East and North Africa that were 

not being addressed by other U.S. agencies. For example, responding to 

the reviews’ observation that little progress had been made in political 

reform, especially regarding women’s political participation, MEPI 

provided funds to assist with elections and help women candidates. 

• In response to the reviews—in particular, a review of the USAID/Egypt 

mission in fiscal years 2002-2003—MEPI officials included the close 

monitoring of projects as a primary objective of MEPI’s strategy. 

According to State officials, the 2002-2003 review noted that USAID/Egypt 

did not monitor its projects closely or frequently enough to obtain the 

performance information needed for short-term results-based funding 

decisions. In response, MEPI specified in its September 2004 project 

monitoring and management plan that all project agreements should 

include benchmarks and performance goals based on pillar-specific 

objectives and that MEPI staff should monitor project development and 

implementation. 

Unclear communication of monitoring roles and responsibilities and a lack 

of complete project information have limited MEPI’s ability to provide the 

project monitoring needed to measure results. MEPI has not clearly 

communicated the roles and responsibilities of its administrative partners 

for project monitoring, and many MEPI projects have not received the 

intended level of monitoring. Officials from 9 of the 14 U.S. embassies 

supporting MEPI projects stated that they were uncertain of their roles 

and responsibilities for monitoring MEPI projects and that MEPI had not 

yet specified their monitoring duties. Further, USAID mission officials in 

one country that we visited stated that they were not monitoring some 

USAID-administered MEPI projects because they had not been instructed 

to do so. On July 14, 2005, MEPI signed an agreement with USAID that 

established a framework for the roles and responsibilities, including 

monitoring, of MEPI and USAID officials in Washington and in the region. 

In addition, although MEPI was seeking to acquire software that would 

facilitate the tracking of project performance, MEPI’s ability to monitor 
Page 5 GAO-05-711 Foreign Assistance 

performance was limited by (1) a lack of baseline information, (2) 

inconsistency among projects’ performance reporting requirements, (3) 

unverified project information, (4) inconsistent communication of project 

information, (5) incomplete project records, and (6) lack of access to 

project information. 

To bolster MEPI’s ability to monitor and evaluate project performance, 

and to help ensure that it achieves its goals of producing tangible results 

and making results-based decisions, we are recommending that the 

Secretary of State ensure that MEPI managers clearly delineate, document, 

and communicate roles and responsibilities for monitoring; that they 

systematically obtain, maintain, and communicate complete information 

about all MEPI projects; and that they monitor progress in this regard. 

State and USAID agreed with our recommendations. State disagreed with 

the extent of our finding that it could not with certainty evaluate its 

projects’ performance, but it did not point out specific aspects of that 

finding with which it disagreed. State’s comments acknowledged our 

recommendations regarding bolstering its ability to monitor and evaluate 

project performance. State’s comments laid out general steps that, if 

taken, would help ensure more comprehensive project monitoring, 

including steps to guarantee complete and accurate project information. 

State and USAID also provided technical comments that we incorporated 

as appropriate. 
Page 6 GAO-05-711 Foreign Assistance 

From the 1950s through 2001, U.S. bilateral economic assistance to the 

Middle East and North Africa focused primarily on promoting regional 

stability by providing funding for large bilateral military and economic 

programs, chiefly in Egypt, Israel, and Jordan, and by fostering 

development. In December 2002, the State Department announced the 

creation of MEPI, which has expanded U.S. assistance to other countries 

in the region and includes programs focused on democracy and reform. 

Figure 1 shows MEPI’s area of operation.10

 10Although Iraq is not included in MEPI’s area of operation and MEPI currently has no plans 

to implement projects in Iraq, MEPI has provided funding for Iraqi citizens to attend several 

regional training programs. 

Background 
Page 7 GAO-05-711 Foreign Assistance 

Figure 1: MEPI’s Area of Operations 

According to the administration, MEPI comprises a new approach to 

foreign assistance for the region, aimed at linking Arab, U.S., and global 

private-sector businesses, NGOs, civil society elements, and governments 

to develop innovative policies and programs that support reform in the 

region. MEPI is also an important element of the administration’s 

counterterrorism and public diplomacy strategies. MEPI projects are 

organized under its four reform pillars (see fig. 2). 

Libya Egypt

Algeria

Tunisia

Morocco

Western

Sahara

Jordan

Israel

Lebanon

Kuwait

Qatar

Bahrain

U. A. E.

Yemen

Oman

Syria

Iraq

Iran

Saudi Arabia

Jordan

West Bank

Lebanon

Syria

Egypt

Gaza Strip

Countries with MEPI projects

Countries (and West Bank/Gaza) with both MEPI and USAID projects

Source: MapArt (image).

Israel
Page 8 GAO-05-711 Foreign Assistance 

Figure 2: MEPI Reform Pillars and Reform Goals 

MEPI’s budget of $293 million for fiscal years 2002-2005 was derived from 

supplemental appropriations and annual foreign operations legislation. 11

Figure 3 shows MEPI’s budget for fiscal years 2002-2005. 

 11In fiscal year 2002, MEPI received an initial $29 million of fiscal year 2002 funding, of 

which $20 million came from an emergency supplemental appropriation, $5 million from 

the U.S.-Middle East Democracy Fund, and $4 million from the U.S.-North African 

Economic Partnership. In fiscal year 2003, MEPI received a total of $100 million, $90 

million of which came from an emergency supplemental appropriation, $4 million from the 

U.S.-Middle East Democracy Fund, $3 million from the U.S.-North African Economic 

Partnership, and $3 million reprogrammed within Economic Support Fund. In fiscal year 

2004, MEPI received a $90 million appropriation, which was reduced to $89.4 million after 

the rescission (P.L. 108-199). In fiscal year 2005, MEPI received $75 million, which was 

reduced to $74.4 million after the rescission (P.L. 108-447). 

TRADE: Enhance MEPI partner 

countries’ global competitiveness.

INVESTMENT: Encourage 

mobilization of foreign direct and 

domestic investment.

BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT:

Facilitate revenue and growth of 

microenterprises and small and 

medium enterprises.

Economic Political Education Women

DEMOCRACY: Strengthen 

democratic practices and civil 

society

GOOD GOVERNANCE: Promote 

the rule of law and accountable, 

effective government institutions. 

MEDIA: Strengthen the role of 

free and independent media in 

society. 

ACCESS: Expand access to basic 

and secondary education for all 

people, especially girls and 

women. 

QUALITY: Improve the quality of 

basic and secondary education 

including teacher training, 

curriculum content, community 

involvement, and digital readiness.

SKILLS DEVELOPMENT:

Promote skills development, 

especially literacy. 

OPPORTUNITY: Reduce barriers– 

cultural, legal, regulatory, 

economic, and political–to women’s 

full participation in society. 

Source: Department of State.

Pillars
Page 9 GAO-05-711 Foreign Assistance 

Figure 3: MEPI Budget, Fiscal Years 2002-2005 

Note: Numbers do not sum to $293 million because of rounding. 

The Office of Regional Affairs within State’s Bureau of Near Eastern 

Affairs (NEA) in Washington, D.C., administered MEPI activities during 

MEPI’s first 6 months. The office worked with USAID, which managed the 

long-standing bilateral economic assistance programs in the Middle East 

and North Africa, to implement most of its initial projects. The office also 

worked with the embassies in the region to implement projects funded 

through small grants. In June 2003, State established the Office of the 

Middle East Partnership Initiative within NEA to manage MEPI policy and 

projects and work closely with agencies across the U.S. government. The 

Deputy Secretary of State serves as Coordinator for MEPI. In August 2004, 

MEPI set up two regional offices in Tunisia and the United Arab Emirates. 

(See app. II for more details of MEPI’s organizational structure as of May 

2005.) 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2002 2003 2004 2005 

89

100

29

74

Budget (in $ millions)

Fiscal year

Source: GAO analysis of Department of State data.
Page 10 GAO-05-711 Foreign Assistance 

In fiscal years 2002-2004, State and USAID formally reviewed existing 

bilateral economic assistance programs in the Middle East and North 

Africa.12

• From June 2002 to May 2003, State and USAID jointly conducted an indepth review of U.S. bilateral assistance to Egypt, one of USAID’s largest 

programs, including assessing the programmatic and financial data for the 

seven strategic objectives in USAID/Egypt’s program. 

• From September to December 2003, State and USAID conducted an 

abbreviated review of USAID’s program in West Bank and Gaza. 

• In 2003, State participated in USAID’s periodic strategy reviews of its 

programs in Jordan, Morocco, and Yemen. 

In 2003 and 2004, State also considered information from U.S. embassies 

and from other U.S. government agencies with programs in the region to 

identify areas where MEPI could provide assistance.13 During this period, 

MEPI staff responsible for each of MEPI’s four reform pillars organized 

meetings with the other U.S. government agencies. In addition, State relied 

on several secondary sources to supplement the information received 

from formal reviews of USAID programs and input from embassies and 

other U.S. government agencies. Finally, State officials met with donors 

such as the World Bank and the European Union to learn about their 

activities in the region. 

State and USAID have used the reviews of existing U.S. bilateral economic 

assistance programs, as well as information obtained from other U.S. 

entities providing assistance in the region, to realign many existing 

programs, strategic plans, and coordination mechanisms to conform to the 

new U.S. policy of promoting democracy and reform in the Middle East 

and North Africa. 

 12In support of this effort, from June 2003 to February 2004, USAID conducted reviews of 

democracy and governance in Algeria, Bahrain, Jordan, Morocco, Tunisia, and Yemen. In 

addition, USAID organized technical workshops on rule of law, parliamentary 

strengthening, and political parties and elections and commissioned a report on Morocco’s 

technical assistance needs for the negotiation and implementation of its Free Trade 

Agreement with the United States. 

13These agencies included, among others, USAID and the Departments of Agriculture, 

Commerce, Education, and the Treasury. 
Page 11 GAO-05-711 Foreign Assistance 

In fiscal years 2002-2003, MEPI and its administrative partners—U.S. 

embassies, USAID/Washington, and USAID missions—oversaw MEPI 

projects. MEPI and its administrative partners also obligated MEPI funds, 

with MEPI obligating about 45 percent of its fiscal years 2002-2003 funding 

and its administrative partners obligating the remainder. 

MEPI oversaw some of its projects directly in fiscal years 2002-2003 and 

partnered with U.S. embassies, USAID/Washington, and USAID missions 

to oversee other projects. (See fig. 4.) MEPI and its administrative partners 

negotiated agreements with NGOs, the private sector, and other U.S. 

government entities to implement more than 100 projects.14

 14The U.S. government entities that implement MEPI projects include the Departments of 

Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Labor, and the Treasury; Customs and Border 

Protection; the Environmental Protection Agency; the Food and Drug Administration; and 

the Patent and Trademark Office. 

MEPI and 

Administrative 

Partners Have 

Overseen Activities 

and Obligated 

Funding 

MEPI Directly Oversaw 

Some Projects and Used 

Administrative Partners to 

Oversee Others 
Page 12 GAO-05-711 Foreign Assistance 

Figure 4: MEPI’s Relationships with Administrative Partners and Project 

Implementers 

Source: GAO analysis of Department of State and USAID data.

MEPI 

USAID

Washington

Embassies

U.S. 

government 

entities

Nongovernmental 

organizations/Private sector

USAID

missions

Project administration

Delegation of project administration

MEPI administrators

Project implementers
Page 13 GAO-05-711 Foreign Assistance 

MEPI and its administrative partners have obligated the $129 million that 

MEPI received for fiscal years 2002 and 2003. MEPI has directly obligated 

about 45 percent of the funds; MEPI’s administrative partners have 

obligated the remainder (see fig. 5). 

Figure 5: Obligation of Fiscal Years 2002-2003 Funds by MEPI and Administrative 

Partners 

Note: According to State and USAID officials, USAID obligations in fiscal year 2004 decreased to 

approximately 15 percent of total MEPI funds. 

• MEPI: MEPI has obligated about 45 percent ($58 million) of its 2002-2003 

funds directly to NGOs, the private sector,15 and U.S. government entities. 

 15MEPI has distributed funding to NGOs and the private sector through cooperative 

agreements and various grants. Applications for continuation grants funded under these 

awards beyond the initial budget period are considered on a noncompetitive basis for an 

additional year, subject to availability of funds, satisfactory progress of the grantee, and a 

determination that continued funding would be in the best interest of the U.S. government. 

MEPI and Administrative 

Partners Have Obligated 

2002-2003 Funds 

39%

15%

45% MEPI

1%

U.S. embassies

Source: GAO analysis of Department of State data.

USAID/Washington

$129 m (fiscal years 2002-2003)

USAID/Field missions

NGOs/Private sector (33%)

U.S. government implementers (12%)
Page 14 GAO-05-711 Foreign Assistance 

• NGOs and the private sector: MEPI has obligated 33 percent ($42.8 

million) of the funds in various grants directly to American or locally 

based NGOs or private companies. According to MEPI, these grants are 

intended to support innovative ideas that can be implemented quickly 

to produce concrete results, such as increasing women’s political 

participation. MEPI officials say that they would like to obligate more 

MEPI resources directly, but they acknowledge that such a shift would 

require MEPI staff to shoulder a significant administrative burden in 

monitoring these projects. 

• U.S. government implementers: Through interagency acquisition 

agreements, MEPI has obligated about 12 percent ($15.2 million) of its 

2002-2003 funds to U.S. government entities with specific expertise in 

the areas of reform that MEPI supports. These entities implement 

projects, such as the Department of the Treasury’s technical assistance 

project to develop expertise in surplus and debt management in 

Algeria. 

• U.S. embassies: Embassies have obligated about 1 percent ($1.4 million, or 

$100,000 per country) of MEPI’s 2002-2003 funds through its small-grants 

program. A central objective of the program is to build the capacity of 

local organizations, such as the Ibn Khaldun Center, which, among other 

things, introduces concepts of economic opportunity to young women in 

two of Egypt’s rural and urban areas to enable them to improve their living 

conditions. The embassies use the funds to award local organizations 

small, short-term grants of up to approximately $25,000. The MEPI office 

approves all small-grant decisions, and embassy staff perform grant 

administration. 

• USAID/Washington: USAID/Washington has obligated about 40 percent 

($50.8 million) of MEPI’s fiscal years 2002-2003 funds, including funding 

for many of MEPI’s largest projects. According to USAID and MEPI 

officials, many of these projects have been implemented through 

preexisting cooperative or contractual agreements between the U.S. 

government and U.S. NGOs or contractors. 

• USAID missions: USAID missions have obligated about 15 percent ($18.7 

million) of MEPI’s 2002-2003 funds, according to budget data provided by 

USAID and MEPI. These funds have been used to complement USAID’s 

existing efforts, such as civil society capacity building and local political 

party training. 

Figure 6 shows the obligation of MEPI funds to Middle Eastern and North 

African countries and West Bank and Gaza in fiscal years 2002-2003. 
Page 15 GAO-05-711 Foreign Assistance 

Figure 6: Funding Obligations within MEPI’s Area of Operations, Fiscal Years 2002-2003 

Note: This graph represents funding for projects in individual countries as well as the West Bank and 

Gaza, but it does not show funding for small grants or for regionwide and multicountry projects. MEPI 

funding to Israel is not shown, because MEPI funds only small grants to Arab-Israelis in that country. 

Regionwide and multicountry funding accounted for a majority of total MEPI funding obligated in fiscal 

years 2002-2003. Amounts shown are State Department estimates. 

According to State, the reviews of U.S. bilateral economic assistance have 

been used to (1) identify new reform areas that were not previously 

addressed and (2) develop a results-based strategy for implementing and 

evaluating the performance of MEPI activities. 

Reviews Identified 

New Reform 

Opportunities and 

Helped Shape MEPI’s 

Strategy 

Dollars in millions 

Source: GAO analysis of Department of State data.

0 5 10 15 20

Kuwait

Oman

Lebanon

West Bank/Gaza

Saudi Arabia

Qatar

Egypt

Tunisia

Bahrain

Algeria

Jordan 

Yemen

Morocco 16.1

7.8

7.8

3.0

2.4

2.3

0.8

0.8

0.6

0.5

0.3

0.3

0.2
Page 16 GAO-05-711 Foreign Assistance 

Responding to the reviews of U.S. bilateral economic assistance in the 

region, as well as information provided by other U.S. entities, MEPI has 

initiated reform activities that were not being addressed by U.S. agencies 

in the region, including countries where USAID does not operate. For 

example: 

• Political reform: The reviews found that in many countries where MEPI 

operates, little progress had been made in political reform, including 

women’s political involvement. In response, MEPI has provided funds to 

help increase the number of women candidates and assist them through 

activities such as improving their media presentation techniques. 

• Economic reform: The reviews revealed that although limited assistance 

was being provided to increase trade capacity within the region, U.S. 

agencies were not addressing the need to increase the access and capacity 

of small and medium-sized enterprises in countries such as Morocco. 

Regionally, MEPI has supported a program that aims to, among other 

things, increase managerial and entrepreneurial skills in several countries. 

MEPI also funds efforts to teach business people and managers of small 

and medium-sized enterprises how to take immediate advantage of U.S. 

bilateral free trade agreements by initiating export sales, acquiring new 

technology, and developing joint ventures and other strategic alliances 

with U.S. firms (see fig. 7). 

Reviews and Other 

Information Have Led 

MEPI to Target New 

Reform Opportunities 
Page 17 GAO-05-711 Foreign Assistance 

Figure 7: Moroccan Products for Export 

• Educational reform: U.S. agencies operating in the region identified gaps 

in education for the impoverished and for students in primary and 

secondary grade levels. MEPI funds implementers that provide Arabic 

books for elementary school children in Jordan, Lebanon, and Bahrain and 

Source: GAO.
Page 18 GAO-05-711 Foreign Assistance 

teach Bahraini mothers and preschool-age children living in poverty. (See 

fig. 8.) 

Figure 8: MEPI Mother-Child Home Education Program Participants in Bahrain 

• Women’s empowerment: U.S. agencies identified the lack of gender equity 

as an impediment to reform in the region. To create more opportunities for 

women, MEPI funds projects that provide young women from the Middle 

East and North Africa unique opportunities to learn management and 

business skills in the classroom and while working for U.S. companies. 

(See fig. 9.) 

Source: Mother Child Education Program.
Page 19 GAO-05-711 Foreign Assistance 

Figure 9: Bahraini Participants in U.S. Business Internships for Young Arab Women 

The 2002 and 2003 reviews of U.S. bilateral economic assistance in the 

Middle East and North Africa have significantly influenced MEPI officials’ 

development of MEPI’s results-based strategy, including the objective of 

providing close monitoring of MEPI projects. In particular, according to 

State, the comprehensive USAID/Egypt review cited weaknesses in 

USAID/Egypt’s mission performance monitoring system that limited the 

mission’s ability to strategically reallocate resources away from programs 

that were not achieving their objectives.16 According to one of the review’s 

principal authors, USAID/Egypt did not monitor its projects closely or 

 16State reported the results of the State-USAID review of USAID/Egypt’s assistance 

program to Congress in May 2004, in accordance with the directive issued by the House 

Committee on Appropriations report accompanying the 2003 Foreign Operations, Export 

Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Bill. H.R. Rep. No. 107-663, at 43 (2002). 

Reviews Have Helped 

Shape MEPI’s ResultsBased Strategy 

Source: GAO.
Page 20 GAO-05-711 Foreign Assistance 

frequently enough to obtain the performance information needed. State 

recommended that USAID make changes to the performance monitoring 

system, including engaging consultants and producing more rigorous, 

succinct, and integrated qualitative and quantitative measurements of 

performance at all levels of activity. 

MEPI officials told us that these observations made MEPI management 

aware of the need to monitor projects’ short-term performance and hold 

project implementers accountable for results. MEPI’s September 2004 

project monitoring and management plan indicates that all project 

agreements should include benchmarks and performance goals that reflect 

the results MEPI hopes to attain, based on pillar-specific objectives. The 

plan also states that, to prevent negative impacts on project outcomes, 

staff should ensure that project implementers are on the right track at all 

stages of project development and implementation. However, neither 

MEPI’s general strategy nor its monitoring and management plan provides 

specific guidance regarding project monitoring. 

MEPI’s ability to monitor the performance of its projects and measure 

results has been limited by (1) unclear communication of monitoring roles 

and responsibilities and (2) a lack of complete project information. 

MEPI has not clearly communicated roles and responsibilities for project 

monitoring in accordance with federal standards for management 

control,17 and as a result, not all projects have received the level of 

monitoring needed to measure results. According to MEPI officials, MEPI 

project monitoring responsibilities generally would include participation 

in project activities, regular review and assessment of implementer 

 17According to federal management control standards, organizations should clearly 

communicate key areas of authority and responsibility. See GAO, Standards for Internal 

Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 1, 1999) 

and Internal Control Management and Evaluation Tool, GAO-01-1008G (Washington, D.C.: 

Aug. 1, 2001). 

Unclear Roles and 

Responsibilities and 

Incomplete 

Information Have 

Inhibited MEPI’s 

Project Monitoring 

Unclear Communication of 

Roles and Responsibilities 

Has Limited Project 

Monitoring 
Page 21 GAO-05-711 Foreign Assistance 

performance reports, and regular feedback to implementers on project 

performance. However, we found that some MEPI administrative partners, 

particularly those overseas, have been confused about their roles and 

responsibilities for project monitoring and that some MEPI activities have 

been monitored sporadically or not at all. Officials from 9 of the 14 U.S. 

embassies supporting MEPI projects stated that they were uncertain of 

their roles and responsibilities for monitoring MEPI projects and that 

MEPI had not yet specified their monitoring duties. USAID/Washington 

officials told us that USAID mission staff were expected to assist 

USAID/Washington in monitoring MEPI projects that it administers. 

However, USAID mission officials in Rabat, Morocco, told us that MEPI 

projects administered by USAID/Washington were not being monitored 

and that they had not received instructions for monitoring these projects. 

Officials at USAID/Washington acknowledged that it had not performed 

many of its monitoring duties in the field and stated that 

USAID/Washington is currently working to ensure better communication 

and provide instructions to the missions regarding their support of project 

monitoring. In addition, MEPI and USAID officials in Washington, D.C., as 

well as MEPI regional office, embassy, and USAID mission office staff, 

said that they were uncertain of the role that the MEPI regional offices 

would play in monitoring MEPI projects. Although MEPI officials generally 

expect that regional office staff will lead the monitoring of projects that 

MEPI directly administers, currently only one of MEPI’s two regional 

offices has a monitoring specialist on staff. 

In April 2004, the Department of State’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) 

expressed concern that MEPI was communicating inconsistent priorities 

and causing confusion among a number of embassies. MEPI and USAID 

officials in Washington, D.C., acknowledged that confusion exists 

regarding roles and responsibilities for project monitoring. MEPI officials 

stated that they were still defining, and working toward agreement with 

USAID and other parties regarding, MEPI and its administrative partners’ 

respective roles and responsibilities. MEPI officials also stated that on July 

14, 2005, they signed an addendum to an October 2004 memorandum of 

agreement (MOA), establishing a framework for project management roles 

and responsibilities—including monitoring—of MEPI and USAID officials 

in Washington and in the Middle East and North Africa. 
Page 22 GAO-05-711 Foreign Assistance 

MEPI’s monitoring of project performance, in accordance with federal 

standards for management control,18 has been limited by (1) a lack of 

baseline information, (2) inconsistency among projects’ performance 

reporting requirements, (3) unverified project information, (4) inconsistent 

communication of project information, (5) incomplete project records, 

and (6) lack of access to project information. 

• Lack of baseline information: Our examination of a selected sample of 

MEPI project documents showed that for most of these projects, MEPI 

lacked baseline information against which to measure their performance. 

According to MEPI’s strategy, baseline data are necessary for measuring 

future progress on its projects, and MEPI officials told us that it was 

important to establish these measurements at the beginning of each 

project as the basis for determining project performance. However, of the 

project agreements we received from MEPI and USAID for the 25 projects 

in our selected sample, only three project agreements contained a 

requirement to establish a baseline, and none of the projects reported 

baseline measurements. MEPI officials told us that they were aware that 

they had not required baseline measurement in all of their project 

agreements but said that they planned to do so in future agreements. 

• Inconsistent reporting requirements: MEPI project agreements do not 

consistently require that implementers report on quantitative, measurable 

performance indicators. As a result, some implementing organizations 

report general project information instead of the measurable indicators of 

performance that MEPI has stated are needed to manage a results-based 

program. According to one MEPI official, some of the reports are therefore 

too vague to be useful in monitoring project performance. In our selected 

sample of 25 projects, a substantial majority of the performance indicators 

required in project agreements were qualitative in nature rather than the 

quantitative indicators of project performance that MEPI has stated are 

necessary for managing MEPI as a results-based program. Further, a 

February 2005 report by USAID’s OIG reported that 6 of 17 

USAID/Morocco MEPI projects did not have indicators to measure project 

performance.19 One MEPI official told us that they sometimes negotiate 

requirements for additional indicators informally over the telephone and in 

 18Federal management control standards require the maintenance and communication of 

relevant, reliable, and timely project performance and financial data[0]. See 

GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 and GAO-01-1008G. 

19USAID Office of Inspector General, Audit of USAID/Morocco’s Management of Activities 

Under the Middle East Partnership Initiative, 6-608-05-001-P (Cairo, Egypt: 2005). 

Incomplete Information 

Has Limited Project 

Monitoring 
Page 23 GAO-05-711 Foreign Assistance 

e-mail after signing a project agreement. However, these informally 

negotiated requirements are not formally documented, readily available, or 

tracked by MEPI or the implementers. MEPI officials said that they are 

seeking to acquire grant-tracking software that would facilitate the 

documenting of agreed-on indicators and closer monitoring of 

implementers’ reporting on these indicators. 

• Unverified project information: MEPI’s ability to verify the information 

reported in implementers’ quarterly reports and to provide detailed 

performance feedback to implementers has been limited, because MEPI 

and its administrative partners have not consistently observed project 

activities. In the sample we analyzed, only 8 of the 19 implementers we 

interviewed said that MEPI and its administrative partners had made onsite visits to discuss and observe project activities. According to embassy, 

MEPI, and USAID mission staff, they often do not have time to monitor 

MEPI projects, including visiting or observing project activities, because of 

conflicting demands on staff time. USAID OIG’s February 2005 report 

stated that, primarily because of limited resources, the USAID/Morocco 

mission had not validated the performance data reported by implementers. 

• Inconsistent communication of project information: MEPI has 

inconsistently communicated project information, particularly to 

embassies and USAID missions overseas. Overseas embassy and USAID 

officials stated that MEPI had not always informed them of important 

project information, including when new projects were to begin in their 

country of operation. USAID’S OIG February 2005 report noted that MEPI 

and USAID/Washington had not always notified USAID/Morocco when 

they awarded regional activities taking place within the country. As a 

result, in some cases, embassy officials have had little or no knowledge of 

some of the implementer’s activities. Officials from two embassies and one 

USAID mission told us that MEPI project implementers had arrived in 

country expecting embassy and USAID assistance, although the embassies 

and USAID missions had received little or no prior notice of the projects’ 

start or the implementers’ needs. In another example, in one country we 

visited, we arrived expecting to meet with a particular project 

implementer but found that embassy officials there were unaware of the 

project or the implementer’s operations in country. Further, when 

embassies have communicated with MEPI, MEPI has not always been 

responsive. Three embassies stated that, since MEPI’s inception, MEPI had 

provided no response or guidance in response to their regular reports on 

MEPI activities. However, according to MEPI officials, embassies have not 

always responded to MEPI’s communications. For example, according to 

one senior MEPI official, after the summer 2003 awarding of small grants 

through the embassies, the majority of embassies administering MEPI 
Page 24 GAO-05-711 Foreign Assistance 

projects did not respond to December 2003 requests from MEPI for basic 

evaluative descriptions of the projects the embassies were administering. 

According to this senior official, the embassies’ failure to respond to MEPI 

resulted, in some cases, in MEPI’s lacking records of actual activities 

conducted and descriptions of successes and lessons learned. 

• Incomplete project records: MEPI and USAID have not maintained 

complete records for all of the projects that they administer, which has 

limited their ability to monitor project performance. We found gaps in 

records that the MEPI office in Washington, D.C., maintained for the 

projects that it administered. For example, in our selected sample of 25 

projects, MEPI’s files for fiscal year 2003 projects that it administered 

directly contained 44 percent of quarterly reports that project 

implementers were to have submitted. MEPI officials said that the granttracking software they sought to acquire would enable them to track the 

submission of implementers’ quarterly reports. Without such software, the 

MEPI office has managed project data on Excel spreadsheets and office 

calendars, using the incomplete copies of quarterly reports that it has 

maintained since the program’s inception. MEPI officials in the past have 

asked implementers to provide copies of records missing from their files. 

In addition, we found that USAID had incomplete records for the projects 

that it administers for MEPI. For example, in our selected sample, USAID’s 

files for the fiscal year 2003 projects that it administered contained 63 

percent of MEPI project agreements with implementers and 62 percent of 

the quarterly reports that project implementers were to have submitted. 

USAID officials stated that their records were scattered in many 

locations—in the various bureaus in Washington, D.C., that administer 

MEPI projects20 and at USAID missions in the Middle East and North 

Africa. In other cases, USAID has had to obtain copies of the records from 

the implementing organizations themselves. 

• Lack of access to project information: MEPI has lacked ready access to 

information on USAID-administered MEPI projects, which has limited its 

ability to monitor those projects’ performance. According to MEPI’s 

strategy and officials, MEPI is responsible for ensuring the performance of 

all projects that it funds, including those administered by USAID. 

However, MEPI and USAID have maintained separate performance and 

financial records, and MEPI and USAID officials stated that prior to the 

July 2005 signing of the MOA addendum regarding monitoring roles and 

 20USAID’s Bureau for Asia and the Near East; Bureau for Democracy, Conflict, and 

Humanitarian Assistance; and the Bureau for Economic Growth, Agriculture, and Trade 

administer MEPI projects at USAID. 
Page 25 GAO-05-711 Foreign Assistance 

responsibilities, they had not reached agreement on the sharing of these 

records. Further, USAID officials stated that USAID has not maintained 

records for MEPI projects separately from its records for non-MEPIfunded projects. Some USAID implementers responsible for implementing 

MEPI projects have included MEPI performance reporting in their general 

reporting on the region, making USAID’s extraction of information on 

MEPI projects more difficult and time consuming. MEPI and USAID 

officials said that they expected the recently signed addendum to the 2004 

MOA to facilitate the sharing of performance and financial information. 

In accordance with the U.S. foreign policy of promoting democracy and 

reform in the Middle East and North Africa , State established MEPI to 

design and fund projects supporting political, economic, and educational 

reform and the empowerment of women. However, despite MEPI’s 

strategic emphasis on monitoring projects’ performance, a failure to 

clearly communicate roles and responsibilities and a lack of complete 

project information have hampered MEPI’s monitoring of its projects. In 

July 2005, subsequent to receiving our preliminary findings regarding the 

need to communicate project monitoring roles and responsibilities to its 

administrative partners, State finalized an agreement with USAID that 

establishes a framework for roles and responsibilities and coordination 

between the agencies. Although these guidelines represent progress in 

clarifying roles and responsibilities, it remains essential that specific 

monitoring duties be established for, and communicated to, all parties 

involved in each MEPI project. Without the ability to evaluate its projects’ 

performance with certainty, and lacking access to complete information, 

MEPI’s capacity to meet its strategic goals of producing tangible results 

and making results-based decisions is limited. 

To bolster MEPI’s ability to monitor and evaluate project performance, 

and to help ensure that MEPI achieves its goals of producing tangible 

results and making results-based decisions, we are making three 

recommendations to the Secretary of State. We recommend that the 

Secretary of State ensure that MEPI managers 

• clearly delineate, document, and communicate roles and responsibilities 

for project monitoring; 

• systematically obtain, maintain, and communicate complete information 

regarding all MEPI projects, including performance and financial data; and 

Conclusion 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action 
Page 26 GAO-05-711 Foreign Assistance 

• regularly assess MEPI’s progress in communicating roles and 

responsibilities and obtaining, maintaining, and communicating key 

information. 

We provided a draft of this report to the Secretary of State and the 

Administrator of USAID for their review and comment. Both officials 

provided written responses, which we have printed in appendixes III and 

IV. State and USAID also provided technical comments that we 

incorporated as appropriate. 

Although State and USAID agreed with our recommendations, State 

disagreed with the extent of our finding that it could not with certainty 

evaluate its projects’ performance; however, it did not point out specific 

aspects of that finding with which it disagreed. State’s comments 

acknowledged our recommendations regarding bolstering its ability to 

monitor and evaluate project performance. In its comments, State said that 

its July 2005 agreement with USAID regarding project management should 

improve the management, information flow, documentation, and 

monitoring of USAID-administered MEPI projects. In addition, State said 

that it would implement a monitoring and evaluation timetable for every 

project, identify projects that require on-site monitoring in the next year 

and assign responsibility to the appropriate MEPI action offices. 

State’s comments also laid out other general steps that, if taken, would 

help ensure more comprehensive project monitoring, including two steps 

to guarantee complete and accurate project information: (1) ensuring that 

files on every project are complete and (2) implementing an integrated 

grants and project management database system. In addition, State said 

that it would provide ongoing training in grants and project management 

for staff both in MEPI Washington and at MEPI regional offices and engage 

outside consultants to provide project monitoring support where 

necessary. 

State did not comment on our recommendation that it monitor progress on 

clearly delineating, documenting, and communicating roles and 

responsibilities for monitoring and systematically obtaining, maintaining, 

and communicating complete information about all MEPI projects. 

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of 

this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the 

date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies of this report to 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 
Page 27 GAO-05-711 Foreign Assistance 

interested congressional committees and to the Secretary of the State and 

the Administrator of USAID. We also will make copies available to others 

upon request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the 

GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me 

at 202-512-4128 or gootnickd@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page 

of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are 

listed in appendix IV. 

David Gootnick 

Director 

International Affairs and Trade 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 28 GAO-05-711 Foreign Assistance 

In this report, we (1) describe MEPI’s structure for administering projects 

and obligating funds, (2) examine MEPI’s uses of the reviews of U.S. 

bilateral economic assistance in the region, and (3) evaluate MEPI’s 

monitoring of its projects. 

To describe the administration of MEPI projects and obligation of MEPI 

funding, we examined budget and programmatic documentation provided 

by State and USAID. This documentation included information on funding 

levels and project administration for fiscal year 2002 and 2003 projects. We 

also interviewed State and USAID officials familiar with MEPI budget and 

project administration, in particular for fiscal years 2002 and 2003. 

Although our audit generally covered MEPI activities from December 2002 

through May 2005, in reviewing MEPI’s budget information and project 

monitoring, we focused on data for fiscal years 2002-2003, because they 

were the most complete data that MEPI could provide. 

To describe MEPI’s uses of the 2002-2004 reviews of U.S. bilateral 

economic assistance to the region, we examined (1) State’s and USAID’s 

joint reviews of programs in Egypt and West Bank and Gaza; (2) USAID’s 

reviews of democracy and governance for Algeria, Bahrain, Jordan, 

Morocco, Tunisia, and Yemen; and (3) other supplemental information 

provided by U.S. embassies and USAID missions in the region, including 

mission performance plans and USAID country strategies. We also 

conducted interviews with officials at State and USAID headquarters in 

Washington, D.C.; officials representing embassies and USAID missions in 

9 of the 14 MEPI countries; and officials administering MEPI programs in 

the territories of West Bank and Gaza. 

To assess MEPI’s mechanisms for monitoring its activities, we obtained 

information from MEPI on all of its fiscal year 2003 projects, including 

information on each project’s pillar, MEPI partner, implementing 

organization, funding level, project location, and project type (countryspecific or regionwide). From this information, we selected a 

nonprobability sample1

 of 25, or approximately 34 percent, of the 73 MEPI 

projects funded in fiscal year 2003. This sample also represented about 63 

percent of MEPI’s $100 million in fiscal year 2003 project funding. We used 

the sample to examine project monitoring performed by MEPI and its 

 1

The limitations of a nonprobability sample are that results cannot be used to generalize to 

a population, because some elements of the population being studied have no chance or an 

unknown chance of being selected as part of the sample. 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 29 GAO-05-711 Foreign Assistance 

administrative partners and reports provided by project implementers. Our 

sample included regionwide projects and projects from the countries we 

would be visiting, projects with the highest funding levels for fiscal year 

2003, projects administered both by MEPI and USAID, and projects from 

each of the four MEPI pillars. 

The documentation that we reviewed included project proposals, project 

agreements, scopes of work and work plans, and quarterly reports for the 

25 projects. Our analysis of these documents clarified the nature of MEPI’s 

monitoring and reporting requirements and supplemented and validated 

information that we obtained through interviews. We developed a 

structured interview instrument to systematically collect data on the 25 

projects, which included questions on implementer reporting 

requirements, the use of performance baselines and indicators, and 

feedback and verification by MEPI and its administrative partners. We 

analyzed the interview data by developing categories for each relevant 

response, using the categories to code the data, and tallying the codes to 

obtain the number of projects to which each response was applicable. We 

also interviewed officials from MEPI, USAID, U.S. embassies, and 

implementing organizations in the United States, Bahrain, Egypt, and 

Morocco regarding MEPI project monitoring. We selected these MEPIparticipating countries because (1) Bahrain is a high-income country and 

does not have a traditional U.S. bilateral assistance program; (2) Egypt, a 

lower-middle-income country, is one of the largest recipients of U.S. 

bilateral development funding; and (3) Morocco, a lower-middle-income 

country, was the largest recipient of fiscal year 2003 MEPI funding. We 

also traveled to Germany during a MEPI regional conference, where we 

met with embassy and USAID officials responsible for project monitoring 

in 8 of the 14 MEPI countries and in the West Bank and Gaza. In addition, 

we used U.S. government internal control standards to assess relevant 

areas of MEPI’s management control system that affected project 

monitoring, including (1) roles and responsibilities of MEPI staff and 

administrative partners in Washington, D.C., and overseas and (2) 

information flow. 

We conducted our fieldwork in Washington, D.C., and in Bahrain, Egypt, 

Germany, and Morocco from July 2004 to May 2005 in accordance with 

generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Appendix II: The Office of Middle East 

Partnership Initiative’s Organizational 

Structure 

Page 30 GAO-05-711 Foreign Assistance 

Appendix II: The Office of Middle East 

Partnership Initiative’s Organizational 

Structure 

Director

Staff Assistant Deputy Director Program Analyst 

Budget/ 

Congressional Issues

Regional Contractor

Senior 

Program Manager 

Political Pillar 

Manager

Political Pillar 

Program Manager

Political Pillar 

Program Manager

Office Management 

Specialist

Grants Officer Asst. Program 

Manager

(Grants)

Asst. Program 

Manager

(Grants)

Education Pillar 

Manager

Education Pillar 

Program Manager

Education Pillar 

Program Manager

Economic Pillar 

Manager

Economic Pillar 

Program Manager

Economic Pillar 

Program Manager

Abu Dhabi Regional 

Office Director

Abu Dhabi Regional 

Deputy Director

Abu Dhabi Regional 

Office Management 

Specialist

Tunis Regional 

Office Director

Tunis Regional 

Deputy Director

Tunis Regional 

Office Management 

Specialist

Maghreb 

Regional Coordinator

Levant 

Regional Coordinator

Gulf 

Regional Coordinator

Public Diplomacy 

Officer

Public Diplomacy 

Officer

Grants Officer

Senior Grants 

Program Manager

Source: Department of State.

Office Management 

Specialist
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of State 

Page 31 GAO-05-711 Foreign Assistance 

Appendix III: Comments from the 

Department of State 

Note: GAO comments 

supplementing those in 

the report text appear at 

the end of this appendix. 
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of State 

Page 32 GAO-05-711 Foreign Assistance 

See comment 1. 
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of State 

Page 33 GAO-05-711 Foreign Assistance 

See comment 3. 

See comment 2. 
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of State 

Page 34 GAO-05-711 Foreign Assistance 
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of State 

Page 35 GAO-05-711 Foreign Assistance 

The following are our comments on the Department of State’s letter dated 

July 22, 2005. 

1. State commented that it agreed with GAO’s conclusion that the 

Department of State has effectively launched MEPI reform programs. 

However, GAO did not audit the effectiveness of MEPI projects and 

did not present such a conclusion in this report. 

2. State commented that our report recognized that MEPI had established 

effective partnerships with other bureaus at State, with other U.S. 

government agencies, and with a wide range of nongovernmental 

organizations (NGOs), including the private sector. However, our 

report did not present such a conclusion. Our report describes rather 

than assesses the relationships between MEPI and other U.S. 

government and nongovernment entities. 

3. State said that it disagreed with the extent of our finding that MEPI 

cannot with certainty evaluate its projects’ performance, but it did not 

specify aspects of that finding with which it disagreed. State’s 

comments acknowledged our recommendations regarding bolstering 

its ability to monitor and evaluate project performance and laid out 

general steps that, if taken, would help ensure more comprehensive 

project monitoring. For example, State said that it would ensure the 

completion of every project’s files, to allow for periodic reviews of 

activity status and project outcomes and shortcomings; engage outside 

consultants to provide project monitoring and evaluation support, 

where necessary; and implement an integrated grants and program 

management database system. In addition, State pointed out that, 

subsequent to receiving our preliminary findings in May, it finalized, on 

July 14, 2005, an addendum to an October 2004 memorandum of 

agreement (MOA) with USAID on USAID’s administration of MEPI 

projects. This MOA addendum establishes a framework for roles and 

responsibilities and coordination between State and USAID. In its 

comments, State said that this agreement should improve the 

management, information flow, documentation, and monitoring of 

USAID-administered MEPI projects. 

GAO Comments 
Appendix IV: Comments from the U.S. Agency 

for International Development 

Page 36 GAO-05-711 Foreign Assistance 

Appendix IV: Comments from the U.S. 

Agency for International Development 
Appendix IV: Comments from the U.S. Agency 

for International Development 

Page 37 GAO-05-711 Foreign Assistance 
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Page 38 GAO-05-711 Foreign Assistance 

David Gootnick (202) 512-3149 

In addition to the individual named above, Zina Merritt (Assistant 

Director) as well as David Dornisch, Suzanne Dove, Reid Lowe, Grace Lui, 

and Addison Ricks made key contributions to this report. 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(320287) 
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost 

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

GAO’s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER