Accessible Version

FOREIGN 

ASSISTANCE

USAID Venture 

Capital Approach 

Relies on Evidence of 

Results but Could 

Strengthen 

Collaboration among 

Similar Programs

Report to Congressional Requesters

December 2015

GAO-16-142

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-16-142, a report to 

congressional requesters

December 2015

FOREIGN ASSISTANCE

USAID Venture Capital Approach Relies on Evidence 

of Results but Could Strengthen Collaboration among 

Similar Programs

Why GAO Did This Study

USAID established the DIV program in 

2010 with a goal of creating a portfolio 

of innovations that contribute to 

reducing global poverty. Borrowing 

from the venture capital model, DIV 

seeks to identify and test innovative 

development solutions based on three 

core principles: rigorous evidence, 

cost-effectiveness, and potential to 

scale up. As of 2014, India was the 

largest recipient of DIV funding, 

representing approximately one-third of 

the program’s portfolio.

In this report, GAO examines the DIV 

program’s (1) distribution of funding

and (2) efforts to measure progress 

toward achieving its goals, and for 

DIV’s activities in India, GAO examines 

(3) the extent to which DIV uses 

evidence to make funding decisions 

and assess results and (4) DIV’s 

collaboration with similar U.S. 

development assistance innovation 

programs. GAO reviewed and 

analyzed DIV documents and data for 

fiscal year 2010 to 2015, and 

interviewed agency officials and grant 

recipients. GAO selected India as a 

nongeneralizable case study and 

conducted fieldwork in that country. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that USAID 

establish (1) performance targets to 

assess DIV’s progress toward its goal 

and (2) a joint approach to 

collaboration for similar programs in 

India, while considering such an 

approach in other countries, as 

appropriate. USAID agreed with these 

recommendations and noted steps it is 

taking to implement them.

What GAO Found

From fiscal years 2010 to 2015, the U.S. Agency for International Development’s 

(USAID) Development Innovation Ventures (DIV) program obligated 

approximately $72.5 million for innovation projects to reduce poverty across a 

range of sectors, including energy, health, and education. In India, for example, 

DIV funded intensive learning camps that group children by reading and math 

abilities rather than by grade level, and a solar micro-grid service providing 

lighting to off-grid customers for approximately $0.27 per week. While DIV has a 

global focus and is open to applications regardless of source, approximately 52 

percent of its funding is concentrated in two countries, India and Kenya, and 40 

percent of its funding is concentrated with four grantees. 

USAID Development Innovation Ventures Projects in India’s Education and Energy Sectors

DIV is collecting data for several program-level performance measures, which 

show some positive outcomes, but has not established targets for these 

measures, making it difficult to assess DIV’s progress. GAO’s review of DIV’s 

draft framework indicates that it does not include performance targets.

DIV has applied evidence-based requirements for awarding grants and 

assessing results, emphasizing rigorous evaluations. Specifically, applications 

that DIV funded in India have generally met the program’s evidence 

requirements, such as including evaluation plans. DIV grantees in India have 

also provided final reports and evaluations that generally met DIV’s 

requirements. In addition, DIV recently has taken action to ensure that the final 

reports and evaluations of its projects are publicly disseminated, as generally 

required by USAID policy.

DIV’s limited collaboration with similar U.S.-funded innovation programs in India 

has contributed to missed opportunities to share information and leverage 

resources. DIV and several other U.S.-funded programs in India support similar 

objectives and beneficiaries. For example, the strategy of the USAID mission in 

India focuses, in part, on innovation and modeled its Millennium Alliance program 

after DIV. Such programs have funded some similar innovations, such as “clean” 

cook stoves and low-cost eyewear. Although DIV has begun implementing a plan 

to improve collaboration, it does not yet reflect a joint approach among similar 

programs, including those of other agencies. Without such an approach, DIV may 

not be capitalizing on opportunities to gain efficiencies and maximize the impact 

of its innovation programs.

View GAO-16-142. For more information, 

contact David B. Gootnick at (202) 512-3149 

or gootnickd@gao.gov.
Letter 1

Page i GAO-16-142 USAID Development Innovation Ventures

Background 3

DIV Has Funded Innovation Projects across Nine Sectors and Has 

Concentrated Funding Largely in Two Countries and among 

Four Grantees 5

Lack of DIV Performance Targets Makes It Difficult to Determine 

Progress 13

DIV Has Established Evidence-Based Requirements for Funding 

and Evaluating Grants and Has Applied These Requirements to 

Grants in India 16

DIV’s Limited Collaboration with Similar Innovation Programs in 

India Has Contributed to Missed Opportunities to Share 

Information and Leverage Resources 22

Conclusions 29

Recommendations for Executive Action 30

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 30

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 32

Appendix II: Published DIV Studies for Projects in India 35

Appendix III: Comments from the U.S. Agency for International Development 37

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 40

GAO Contact 40

Staff Acknowledgments 40

Appendix V: Accessible Data 41

Agency Comment Letter 41

Data Tables 44

Tables

Table 1: USAID Development Innovation Ventures Staged 

Funding Model, Maximum Funding Amounts, and 

Maximum Duration, by Stage 4

Table 2: USAID Development Innovation Ventures (DIV) 

Performance Measures and Data Reported as of 2015 14

Contents
Table 3: Extent to Which USAID Development Innovation 

Ventures (DIV) Projects Conducted a Randomized 

Controlled Trial (RCT) 17

Table 4: GAO Analysis of Applications for USAID Development 

Innovation Ventures (DIV) Projects Awarded in India 19

Table 5: GAO Analysis of USAID Development Innovation 

Ventures (DIV) Final Reports for Projects in India 20

Table 6: GAO Analysis of Whether USAID Development 

Innovation Ventures (DIV) Final Reports for Projects in 

India Provided Information Based on DIV’s Three Core 

Principles 21

Table 7: Comparison of U.S.-Funded Innovation Programs in India 23

Data Table for Figure 1: USAID Development Innovation Ventures 

(DIV) Obligations and Number of Grants, Fiscal Years 

2010-2015 44

Data Table for Figure 2: USAID Development Innovation Ventures 

(DIV) Funding and Number of Grants, by Stage, Fiscal 

Years 2010-2015 45

Data Table for Figure 3: USAID Development Innovation Ventures 

Funding and Number of Grants, by Sector, Fiscal Years 

2010-2015 45

Data Table for Figure 6: Numbers of USAID Development 

Innovation Ventures (DIV) Projects, by Country, Fiscal 

Years 2010-2015 46

Data Table for Figure 7: USAID Development Innovation Ventures 

Funding and Number of Grants Awarded, by Grantee, 

Fiscal Years 2010-2015 47

Figures

Page ii GAO-16-142 USAID Development Innovation Ventures

Figure 1: USAID Development Innovation Ventures (DIV) 

Obligations and Number of Grants, Fiscal Years 2010-

2015 6

Figure 2: USAID Development Innovation Ventures (DIV) Funding 

and Number of Grants, by Stage, Fiscal Years 2010-2015 7

Figure 3: USAID Development Innovation Ventures Funding and 

Number of Grants, by Sector, Fiscal Years 2010-2015 8

Figure 4: Students Receiving USAID Development Innovation 

Ventures-Funded Math and Reading Instruction at 

Pratham Learning Camps in Rural India 9
Figure 5: Solar Micro Grid Installed by Mera Gao Power (MGP), 

and MGP Employee Collecting Weekly Payments for 

Solar Lighting Service, in a Village in India 10

Figure 6: Numbers of USAID Development Innovation Ventures 

(DIV) Projects, by Country, Fiscal Years 2010-2015 11

Figure 7: USAID Development Innovation Ventures Funding and 

Number of Grants Awarded, by Grantee, Fiscal Years 

2010-2015 13

Figure 8: Innovation Projects Funded by USAID Development 

Innovation Ventures and Other U.S.-Funded Innovation 

Programs in India 25

Page iii GAO-16-142 USAID Development Innovation Ventures

Abbreviations

DEC Development Experience Clearinghouse

DIV Development Innovation Ventures

FAS Foreign Agricultural Service
GPRA Government Performance and Results Act

GPRAMA GPRA Modernization Act of 2010

IPA Innovations for Poverty Action

J-PAL/IFMR Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab at the Institute for 

Financial Management and Research

MDR-TB Multidrug-resistant tuberculosis

MGP Mera Gao Power

OMB Office of Management and Budget

RCT Randomized controlled trial

State Department of State

USAID U.S. Agency for International Development

USAID India USAID Mission in India

USTDA U.S. Trade and Development Agency

Page iv GAO-16-142 USAID Development Innovation Ventures

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

United States. The published product 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-16-142 USAID Development Innovation Ventures

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

December 21, 2015

The Honorable Matt Salmon

Chairman

The Honorable Brad Sherman

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific

Committee on Foreign Affairs

House of Representatives

The Honorable Steve Chabot

House of Representatives

In 2010, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) initiated 

the USAID Forward reform agenda to strengthen USAID by pursuing a 

more results-oriented approach, developing new partnerships, and 

investing in innovative solutions to development challenges. In October 

2010, USAID established the Development Innovation Ventures (DIV) 

program as a key component of this initiative. DIV’s goal is to create a 

portfolio of innovations that contribute to reducing global poverty. 

Borrowing from the venture capital model, DIV seeks to test new 

approaches to development assistance and identify those that can deliver 

more impact per dollar spent. DIV also aims to manage risks by investing 

relatively small amounts of funding in new and innovative ideas for 

solving development problems, and investing larger amounts in ideas that 

have proven to work through rigorous evaluation. In 2012, the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) cited DIV’s model as an example of 

transforming a traditional competitive grant program into an innovative, 

evidence-based program.1 DIV’s planned fiscal year 2015 budget is 

approximately $21.8 million, according to a DIV official.

Five years after its initial experiment with this new funding model and 

approach, DIV has gained experience implementing projects in real-world 

settings and has an opportunity to determine what results have been 

 

1OMB issued memos in 2012 and 2013 to the heads of executive branch agencies emphasizing the 

need for evidence and rigorous evaluation in budget decisions and offering guidance on using 

evidence and innovation to improve government performance. OMB cited DIV’s use of 

evidence-based grants as an example in these memos to other agencies.

Letter
achieved and what lessons have been learned thus far to inform future 

planning for the program. You asked us to review various aspects of 

DIV’s program. As of 2014, when we began reviewing DIV, India was the 

largest recipient of DIV funding, representing approximately one-third of 

the program’s portfolio. In this report, we examine the DIV program’s (1) 

distribution of funding and (2) efforts to measure progress toward 

achieving its goals, and for DIV’s activities in India, we examine (3) the 

extent to which DIV uses evidence to make funding decisions and assess 

results and (4) DIV’s collaboration with other similar U.S. development 

assistance innovation programs.

To address these objectives, we reviewed and analyzed USAID program 

documents and data, including DIV project data for fiscal years 2010 

through 2015. To assess the reliability of these data, where possible, we 

cross-checked the data with other sources, evaluated the data for internal 

consistency, and interviewed agency officials knowledgeable about the 

data sources. We determined the data presented in this report to be 

sufficiently reliable for our purposes. To examine the distribution of DIV 

funding and DIV’s efforts to measure progress toward achieving its goals, 

we also interviewed USAID officials in Washington, D.C. We selected 

India as a nongeneralizable case study based on our analysis of USAID 

project data. Of the 39 countries DIV had supported through 2014, India 

had received the largest amount of funding and had the largest number of 

projects. To examine the extent to which DIV uses evidence to make 

funding decisions and assess results in India, we reviewed and analyzed 

applications, final reports, and final evaluations for DIV projects in India, 

for fiscal years 2010 to 2015. To examine DIV’s collaboration with similar 

U.S. development assistance innovation programs in India, we 

interviewed officials from USAID, the Departments of State (State) and 

Energy, and the Department of Agriculture’s Foreign Agricultural Service 

(FAS) in Washington, D.C. We also traveled to the USAID mission in New 

Delhi, India, to interview officials and obtain data and information, from 

USAID, State, FAS, the U.S. Trade and Development Agency (USTDA), 

and the Department of Commerce, regarding development assistance 

and innovation programs managed by the USAID mission and offices 

within the U.S. embassy. In addition, we interviewed DIV grant recipients 

that implemented projects across several sectors.

We conducted this performance audit from July 2014 to December 2015 

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

Page 2 GAO-16-142 USAID Development Innovation Ventures
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

DIV’s goal is to support USAID’s mission

Page 3 GAO-16-142 USAID Development Innovation Ventures

2

and improve the lives of millions 

of people around the world within 10 years, especially those living in poverty or 

extreme poverty. To achieve this global development goal, DIV awards 

grants and cooperative agreements (in this report, collectively referred to 

as grants) to academic institutions, nongovernmental organizations, and 

businesses, among other types of organizations, to advance 

development-related innovations. DIV defines such innovations as novel 

business or organizational models, operational or production processes, 

or products or services that could lead to substantial improvements in 

addressing development challenges.

According to DIV officials, the program does not outline specific problems 

to be solved or propose specific solutions but is intentionally open-ended, 

funding grants on the basis of three core principles:

· Evidence: rigorous evaluation of what works and what does not, 

scaling up only those solutions proven to produce demonstrable 

impact

· Cost-effectiveness: potential to deliver greater development impacts 

per dollar than traditional development assistance

· Potential to scale up: a plan to deliver and maintain widespread 

impact by increasing the geographic scope of operations and reaching 

financial sustainability beyond DIV’s support through private or public 

funding

Managed at USAID headquarters,3 DIV takes a venture capital approach to 

investing in innovations, by awarding grants through a three-stage funding 

model. The model is intended to identify, evaluate, and scale up 

development innovations that demonstrate widespread impact and cost-

 

2USAID’s mission statement is to partner to end extreme poverty and promote resilient, 

democratic societies while advancing security and prosperity. 

3DIV is a part of USAID’s Global Development Lab. USAID established the lab in 2014 to 

incorporate new and preexisting USAID programs with a focus on science, technology, and 

innovation. USAID officials stated that the lab was established to seek innovative tools 

and approaches in USAID’s fight to end extreme poverty and impact millions of lives. 

Background
effectiveness. According to DIV officials, the program developed this 

three-stage model as a risk mitigation approach.

· Stage 1—Proof of Concept. In stage 1, DIV provides small grants for 

testing the viability of an innovation in a real-world setting. Grantees 

must assess whether the innovation will yield results through 

evaluation or performance monitoring. Innovations that have 

demonstrated results and satisfied stage 1 criteria are eligible for 

stage 2 funding to support evaluations that will test for impact.

· Stage 2—Testing and Positioning for Scale. In stage 2, grantees 

determine, through rigorous assessments including impact 

evaluations, whether the solution can achieve larger-scale impact and 

can also be implemented successfully at a larger scale. Innovations 

that have credible evidence of development impact at stage 2 

standards are eligible for stage 3 funding.

· Stage 3—Transitioning Proven Solutions to Scale. In stage 3, DIV 

funding supports innovations that seek to transition a solution from 

large-scale implementation to widespread adoption in one country or 

to replication in an additional country.

DIV has established maximum funding amounts and project durations for 

each funding stage of this model, as shown in table 1.

Table 1: USAID Development Innovation Ventures Staged Funding Model, Maximum 

Page 4 GAO-16-142 USAID Development Innovation Ventures

Funding Amounts, and Maximum Duration, by Stage

Stage

Maximum funding 

amounts

Maximum 

duration

Stage 1—Proof of Concept $25,000 to $150,000 Up to 2 years 

Stage 2—Testing and Positioning for 

Scale

$150,000 to $1.5 million Up to 3 years 

Stage 3—Transitioning Proven 

Solutions to Scale

$1.5 million to $15 million Up to 5 years

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) data. | GAO-16-142

According to DIV officials, the staged funding model was not envisioned 

as an inevitable progression of projects from stage 1 to stage 3. For 

example, only 7 of 56 projects received stage 2 funding after having 

previously received a stage 1 grant. Grantees can receive funding at any 

stage without necessarily implementing a DIV project at an earlier stage, 

provided they meet the established requirements for that stage. For 
example, in many cases, stage 2 grantees have demonstrated a proof of 

concept prior to receiving a DIV grant.

In addition, DIV places a particular emphasis on using rigorous evaluation 

methods, such as randomized controlled trials (RCTs), to determine 

impact.

Page 5 GAO-16-142 USAID Development Innovation Ventures

4 DIV officials noted that because DIV has set a maximum funding 

level of $150,000 for stage 1 grants, grantees conducting evaluation 

studies often require additional funding from a source other than USAID. 

DIV officials also noted that other funding sources may be required 

because the time frame for completing a study may extend beyond the 

duration of the DIV grant. In the case of projects at stage 2 or stage 3, the 

grantee has already tested its idea and requires funding to bring the 

project to scale.

In fiscal years 2010 through 2015, DIV obligated approximately $72.5 

million for innovation projects across nine sectors, including energy, 

economic growth, health, and education. DIV directed approximately 52 

percent of project funding to two countries where it funded projects and 

40 percent of funding to four grantees, which supported projects in India 

and Kenya, as well as other countries.

 

4Often used as the methodology for clinical trials in drug discovery and development, RCTs 

compare outcomes for groups that were randomly assigned either to a treatment group or 

to a nonparticipating control group before the intervention, to control for factors external to 

the intervention. Differences in the groups’ outcomes are believed to represent the 

intervention’s or project’s impact.

DIV Has Funded 

Innovation Projects

across Nine Sectors 

and Has 

Concentrated 

Funding Largely in 

Two Countries and 

among Four Grantees
In fiscal years 2010 through 2015, USAID obligated approximately $72.5 

million for DIV grants, with annual funding rising from nearly $1 million in 

fiscal year 2010 to approximately $19 million in fiscal year 2015 (see fig. 

1). The number of DIV grants increased from 8 in fiscal year 2010 to 41 in 

fiscal year 2013 and declined to 33 in fiscal year 2015.

Figure 1: USAID Development Innovation Ventures (DIV) Obligations and Number of 

Page 6 GAO-16-142 USAID Development Innovation Ventures

Grants, Fiscal Years 2010-2015

Overall, DIV has awarded 142 grants from over 7,500 applications 

submitted since July 2010. These awards consisted of 83 grants for stage 

1 (Proof of Concept), 56 grants for stage 2 (Testing and Positioning for 

Scale), and three grants for stage 3 (Transitioning Proven Solutions to 

Scale). The three stage 3 grants represented 21 percent of overall DIV 

funding, as shown in figure 2.5

 

5

For example, DIV funded a $7.4 million project to expand the use of chlorine water dispensers in 

Kenya, Uganda, and Malawi. The project aims to address the problem of lack of access to safe 

drinking water by expanding the coverage of these dispensers at community water 

sources. Initial testing found that the introduction of the chlorine dispensers led almost 

two-thirds of households to use chlorine to purify their water. 

DIV Has Funded $72.5 

Million for Innovation 

Projects across Nine 

Sectors
Figure 2: USAID Development Innovation Ventures (DIV) Funding and Number of Grants, by Stage, Fiscal Years 2010-2015

Page 7 GAO-16-142 USAID Development Innovation Ventures

Overall, DIV has funded a range of projects across nine sectors, with the 

largest share of funding supporting projects in the energy sector ($16.6 

million) and the economic growth sector ($15.8 million), as shown in 

figure 3.
Figure 3: USAID Development Innovation Ventures Funding and Number of Grants, 

Page 8 GAO-16-142 USAID Development Innovation Ventures

by Sector, Fiscal Years 2010-2015

Two DIV projects in India, in the education and training sector and the 

energy sector, respectively, provide illustrative examples of the types of 

grantee organizations and innovations that DIV has funded.

· Education and training sector. In 2013, DIV awarded a $927,000 

stage 2 grant to the Pratham Education Foundation to expand its 

evaluation of intensive learning camps in selected villages using a 

randomized evaluation, and determine if this model is a good 

candidate for implementation at scale (see fig. 4).

6 The intensive 

learning camps were intended to improve learning outcomes for children in 

grades 3 through 5. The project organized and grouped students by 

ability, rather than grade level, to provide more focused instruction 

tailored to students’ learning needs. For example, for reading 

 

6DIV awarded this grant as a stage 2 project, and these learning camps were previously 

tested on a smaller scale for proof of concept separately from DIV. 
instruction, Pratham grouped students by their ability to recognize 

Hindi characters, words, and sentences, while for math instruction, it 

grouped students by their ability to recognize numbers. The project’s 

evaluation showed that the reading and math scores of students who 

participated in the learning camps increased by as much as 22

percent over the scores of students who did not participate in the 

learning camps.

Figure 4: Students Receiving USAID Development Innovation Ventures-Funded Math and Reading Instruction at Pratham 

Page 9 GAO-16-142 USAID Development Innovation Ventures

Learning Camps in Rural India

· Energy sector. In 2011, DIV provided a $300,000 stage 2 grant to 

Mera Gao Power (MGP) to test whether its solar micro-grid system 

providing low-cost electricity to off-grid villages in India was 

commercially viable. After micro grids were installed, MGP’s 

customers paid a weekly subscription fee of approximately $0.27 for 

the use of two LED lights and one phone charger. An MGP staff 

member came to subscribing villages each week at prearranged times 

to collect customer payments in cash (see fig. 5). By the conclusion of 

the grant in March 2013, MGP had installed the service in 

approximately 180 villages, reaching 4,480 households—exceeding 

its targets of 40 villages and 4,000 customers. MGP officials told us in 

March 2015 that they had further expanded the service to 

approximately 17,000 customers and had secured external financing 

from an impact investment firm.
Figure 5: Solar Micro Grid Installed by Mera Gao Power (MGP), and MGP Employee Collecting Weekly Payments for Solar 

Page 10 GAO-16-142 USAID Development Innovation Ventures

Lighting Service, in a Village in India

While DIV has funded projects in 43 countries since 2010, over half of its 

project funding—roughly $37.8 million—is concentrated in India and 

Kenya where it has awarded 64 of its 142 grants (45 percent).

7 Figure 6 

provides information on the number of DIV projects by country, including those 

that were part of multicountry projects. In India, DIV funded 18 stage 1 projects 

and 21 stage 2 projects. In Kenya, DIV funded 14 stage 1 projects, 9 stage 2 

projects, and 2 stage 3 projects.

 

7These include 7 grants, totaling $12.2 million, which supported projects in multiple countries,

including India, Kenya, or both countries.

DIV Funding Is

Concentrated in Two 

Countries and with Four 

Grantees
Figure 6: Numbers of USAID Development Innovation Ventures (DIV) Projects, by 

Page 11 GAO-16-142 USAID Development Innovation Ventures

Country, Fiscal Years 2010-2015

Note: According to DIV officials, the country of implementation for one project was in final 

negotiations as of October 2015 and is therefore not represented in the figure.
According to DIV officials, to support its global development goal, DIV 

awards grants through an open-ended process to applicants that best 

meet its criteria, regardless of geographic location. DIV officials stated 

that the program did not target or prioritize India and Kenya for the 

implementation of its projects, and that the concentration of funding in 

these two countries reflects the relative strength of their applications. 

These officials indicated that in recent years DIV had expanded its 

geographic distribution of projects and made efforts to work with USAID 

missions to promote the program in other countries. In 2015, for example, 

DIV funded 33 projects in 22 countries. However, our analysis of DIV data 

showed that the distribution of DIV projects remained concentrated—at 

over 40 percent of all DIV projects—in India and Kenya in fiscal years 

2013 through 2015.

DIV funding is also concentrated among its grantees, awarding roughly 

$29 million (40 percent of program funding) to four grantees—the Abdul 

Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab at the Institute for Financial Management 

and Research (J-PAL/IFMR), Innovations for Poverty Action (IPA), Off 

Grid Electric Limited, and Georgetown University (see fig. 7).

Page 12 GAO-16-142 USAID Development Innovation Ventures

8

JPAL/IFMR and IPA—research organizations that focus on evaluating 

development interventions using RCTs—have received a total of 31 (22 percent) 

of DIV’s 142 grants. J-PAL/IFMR received 13 grants, totaling $4.13 million, 

and IPA received 18 grants, totaling $14.1 million—the largest total 

amount awarded to a DIV grantee. In 2015, Off Grid Electric received a 

stage 3 grant totaling $5 million and is the only grantee to have received a 

grant for each of the three stages. These three grants supported the 

testing and expansion of an innovation to provide electricity to households 

in Tanzania with limited access to the electric grid. Georgetown University 

has received three DIV grants totaling $4.28 million, the third largest total 

dollar amount awarded to a DIV grantee. One of the grants to 

Georgetown University, a $3 million stage 3 grant, supports the 

expansion of an innovation to reduce traffic accidents in Kenya and other 

countries in East Africa. In a previous evaluation, researchers tested the 

effects of placing behavior change messages on stickers in buses that 

urged passengers to speak up against dangerous driving and encourage 

their bus drivers to slow down. They found that accident insurance claims 

for buses with stickers fell by half compared with claims for buses without 

stickers.

 

8

J-PAL/IFMR is based in India and has implemented each of its 13 grants in that country.
Figure 7: USAID Development Innovation Ventures Funding and Number of Grants 

Page 13 GAO-16-142 USAID Development Innovation Ventures

Awarded, by Grantee, Fiscal Years 2010-2015

As with the concentration by country, DIV officials stated that the 

concentration of funding among four grantees reflects the relative 

strength of their applications and that DIV did not target these 

organizations for awards.

DIV has developed and is collecting data for several program-level 

performance measures, which show some positive outcomes, but has not 

established specific targets for these measures, making it difficult to 

assess DIV’s progress. DIV is in the process of developing a new results 

framework; however, our review of a draft version of the framework 

shows that it does not include performance targets.

DIV has used various program-level measures to track performance since 

the beginning of the program, and DIV officials provided data that they 

have collected for these performance measures through October 2015 

(see table 2). These range from process-oriented measures related to 

overall DIV program management to measures that capture results from 

specific grantees. Examples of process-oriented measures include 

Lack of DIV 

Performance Targets 

Makes It Difficult to 

Determine Progress

DIV Collects Data on 

Performance Measures 

but Has Not Established 

Corresponding Targets
tracking the length of time between receiving an application and the final 

decision on whether or not to make an award, and the length of time 

between approving an application and issuing the award.

Page 14 GAO-16-142 USAID Development Innovation Ventures

9

Examples of outcome-oriented performance measures include the 

percentage of projects conducting RCTs and the number of grantees that 

connect to outside sources of funding after the award of the DIV grant. 

DIV’s outcome-oriented measures, including those focused on bringing 

awards to scale, are similar to measures used by some venture capital 

firms. For example, DIV reported that as of October 2015, 11 of its 

grantees had obtained outside sources of funding after the award of the 

DIV grant, and 5 of its awards had scaled up through the public sector.

Table 2: USAID Development Innovation Ventures (DIV) Performance Measures and 

Data Reported as of 2015

Performance measure Data reporteda

Percentage of applicants new to USAID 48 percent

Leverage / cost share $1.26 for every $1 of 

DIV funding 

Percent of portfolio conducting a randomized controlled trial 43 percent

Number of grantees connected to outside sources of funding 

after award of grant

11

Number of DIV awards that have been commercializedb4

Number of awards that have scaled up through the public 

sectorc

5

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) data. | GAO-16-142

Notes:

aDIV provided data for these performance measures as of October 2015.

b

Awards for which solutions have been successfully marketed by a for-profit entity following closure of 

the DIV grant.

c

Awards for which a public sector organization (e.g., a government or a public international 

organization) funded implementation of the solution on a large scale following the DIV grant.

Although DIV established performance measures and is collecting data 

that correspond to these measures, DIV officials stated in November 

2015 that they have not established targets for these measures as a 

 

9

For these performance measures on the time between receiving the application and the final 

decision and on the time between final decision and final award, DIV provided separate data by 

funding round rather than a total average for the length of the program. Therefore, we did 

not include these measures in table 2. 
means for assessing DIV’s performance. Therefore, it is difficult to 

determine the level of performance that DIV is intending to achieve and to 

determine DIV’s actual progress against targets. Our past work has

shown that, although agencies collect a significant amount of 

performance information, they have not consistently used that information 

to improve management and results. The GPRA Modernization Act of 

2010 (GPRAMA)

Page 15 GAO-16-142 USAID Development Innovation Ventures

10 requires agencies to establish performance measures to 

assess progress toward goals. Moreover, we have previously identified 

practices for enhancing agency use of performance information, including 

communicating performance against targets.11 Without related targets, DIV 

may be unable to demonstrate to key stakeholders, including Congress and 

the public, that it is making progress in achieving agency goals.

During the course of our review, DIV officials were in the process of 

developing a results framework for the program and provided us with a 

draft version of the framework. Although the draft framework provided an 

expanded list of indicators for measuring results, it did not include targets 

for these indicators. DIV officials did not provide a specific time frame for 

completing this results framework but stated that they expect to finalize 

the results framework in 2015. These officials stated that they are 

developing the results framework as part of an effort to better articulate 

and measure the program’s goals and to link to other related USAID 

programs. DIV officials also stated that, as part of this effort, they are 

outlining a monitoring and evaluation plan to inform learning objectives for 

the program.

 

10Pub. L. No. 111-352, 124 Stat. 3866 (Jan. 4, 2011). The acronym “GPRA” in the act’s title 

refers to the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993. Pub. L. No. 103-62, 107 

Stat. 285 (Aug. 3, 1993). 

11For example, see GAO, Managing for Results: Agencies Should More Fully Develop Priority 

Goals under the GPRA Modernization Act, GAO-13-174 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 19, 2013), 

and GAO, Managing for Results: Enhancing the Use of Performance Information for 

Management Decision Making, GAO-05-927 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 9, 2005). 
DIV has established and applied evidence-based requirements when 

awarding grants and assessing results, emphasizing the use of rigorous 

evaluation. For example, applications that DIV funded in India generally 

met the program’s evidence requirements, such as including evaluation 

plans. In addition, most completed DIV projects in India provided final 

reports and evaluations that corresponded with DIV’s evidence 

requirements. DIV also has recently taken action to ensure that the final 

reports and evaluations of its projects are publicly disseminated, as 

generally required by USAID policy.

Page 16 GAO-16-142 USAID Development Innovation Ventures

12

DIV emphasizes the testing of potential development solutions and 

rigorously evaluating impact, to scale up only those solutions with proven 

results. DIV outlines specific evidence requirements for each funding 

stage, with greater evidence of impact required, the higher the stage 

applied for. For example, while applicants for stage 1 grants are not 

required to provide evidence of prior testing of the proposed solution, they 

are required to present a plan for assessing results or impact, including 

specific metrics for success. Applicants for higher-stage grants are 

required to discuss prior experiences implementing or testing their 

solutions and evidence of successful development impact. Additionally, 

stage 3 applicants are required to discuss specific evaluation 

methodologies and findings.

DIV encourages grantees to utilize rigorous evaluation methods, including 

RCTs, in their projects, while recognizing that RCTs are not appropriate in 

all cases. Our review of DIV project data showed that approximately 43 

percent of its global portfolio, and 54 percent of projects in India, included 

an RCT to assess development impact (see table 3). Of the 103 DIV 

projects in countries other than India, 39 percent of these projects 

conducted RCTs. We found that DIV projects across all three stages 

conducted RCTs. DIV officials also stated that, although many awards 

use an RCT, this type of evaluation design is not applicable for every 

question being examined. However, these officials added that each grant 

does include a test of some sort and analysis of the data.

 

12This policy allows missions or offices to request an exemption from the requirement where 

national security considerations or proprietary information may be involved. See ADS 203.3.1.10.

DIV Has Established 

Evidence-Based 

Requirements for 

Funding and 

Evaluating Grants 

and Has Applied 

These Requirements 

to Grants in India

DIV Has Established 

Specific Evidence 

Requirements and 

Emphasizes Rigorous 

Evaluations
Table 3: Extent to Which USAID Development Innovation Ventures (DIV) Projects 

Page 17 GAO-16-142 USAID Development Innovation Ventures

Conducted a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) 

Number of 

projects

Conducted 

RCTa

Did not 

conduct RCT

Percentage of 

RCT use

India 39 21 18 54%

Worldwide 142 61 81 43%

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) data. | GAO-16-142

Note:

aDIV officials stated that some awards focused primarily on funding an RCT, while other awards 

supported the implementation of an innovation while also incorporating an RCT into the project.

Our review of DIV documents and meetings with India-based grantees 

found a number of examples of DIV projects in India that are employing 

RCTs as part of the DIV award. For example, two DIV grantees that we 

met with were evaluating the use of biometric fingerprinting technologies 

as a tool for making improvements in different aspects of India’s health 

care system.

· J-PAL/IFMR stage 2 DIV grant to evaluate the problem of 

absenteeism among medical staff in India through an RCT. 

Awarded in 2010, this study evaluated the impact of an intervention 

using a digital attendance and medical information system to monitor 

attendance of medical staff in government health centers in the state 

of Karnataka. J-PAL/IFMR randomly assigned primary health centers 

to treatment and control groups, and the treatment health centers 

were equipped with fingerprint reader devices and a mobile device for 

uploading attendance and patients’ data. The preliminary results of 

the program showed a modest effect on the attendance of nurses, 

pharmacists, and lab technicians, but no effect on the attendance of 

medical officers.

· Operation ASHA stage 2 DIV grant to evaluate the effectiveness 

of a fingerprint identification system in preventing the 

occurrence and lapses in the treatment of Multidrug-resistant 

tuberculosis (MDR-TB) through an RCT.13 Awarded in 2012, this 

project evaluated the effectiveness of fingerprint reader devices in 

 

13Operation ASHA is an Indian nonprofit organization focused on improving tuberculosis 

treatment and prevention for poor and underserved populations in India. 
preventing lapses in treatment of MDR-TB patients.

Page 18 GAO-16-142 USAID Development Innovation Ventures

14 These devices 

register the presence of patients and staff at treatment centers in 

receiving MDR-TB treatments, and Operation ASHA’s system informs 

TB counselors when a patient misses a treatment. Operation ASHA is 

carrying out the RCT involving about 12,000 patients across 

approximately 200 health centers to establish the effectiveness of the 

fingerprint identification system as a tool for ensuring patients’ 

compliance with their MDR-TB treatments.

Our review of the applications for grants DIV awarded in India found that 

the applications generally met evidence and other requirements.15 We 

examined 33 of the applications to determine the nature and types of evidence 

and other information that they contained, as well as the extent to which they 

met DIV’s evidence requirements (see table 4).16 For example, we found 

that 31 of the 33 applications fully or partially provided information on how 

the innovation would be evaluated for impact. In addition, we determined 

that 16 of 19 applications that were awarded stage 2 grants provided 

evidence that the innovation had previously been tested for impact.17 We 

also found that 29 of the 33 applicants included an analysis or information on the 

innovation’s cost-effectiveness,18 although the level of information on costeffectiveness varied among the applications. In some applications, for 

example, we found that the applicants discussed cost-effectiveness, but 

did not provide supporting data or analysis to compare the costs of their 

solution to competing solutions or traditional methods of delivering 

development assistance.

 

14Patient lapses in tuberculosis treatment are a key cause of MDR-TB, which requires over 60 

visits to receive treatments over 6 months.

15In addition to reviewing the applications for DIV’s evidence requirements, we also reviewed 

other characteristics of these applications. For example, we found that 32 of the 33 applications 

clearly stated what the innovation was and how it differed from other approaches. In addition, 

we found that 29 of the 33 applications clearly stated who would benefit from the 

application and how the innovation would scale up. 

16At the time we conducted our analysis, DIV had awarded 33 grants for projects in India. 

17DIV has not awarded any stage 3 grants in India.

18To demonstrate cost-effectiveness, the DIV application requires applicants to explain why their 

proposed solutions have the potential to yield greater impact per dollar than alternate solutions 

and to provide estimates of impact per dollar for the solution and for alternatives, if 

possible.

Applications DIV Funded 

in India Generally Met 

Evidence Requirements
Table 4: GAO Analysis of Applications for USAID Development Innovation Ventures 

Page 19 GAO-16-142 USAID Development Innovation Ventures

(DIV) Projects Awarded in India

DIV evidence requirement Yes Partiallya No N/A Total

Provided information on how the project will be 

evaluated to determine impact 25 6 2 0 33

Provided evidence that the innovation had 

previously been tested for impact 15 1 3 14b33

Included cost-effectiveness analysis to compare 

the solution to other approaches 20 9 4 0 33

Source: GAO analysis of DIV applications. | GAO-16-142

Notes:

aWe assigned the “partially” category to applications that contained some information related to the 

assessment question but did not fully address the question.

bDIV awarded 14 of these 33 applications as stage 1 grants, which did not require that the innovation 

had previously been tested for impact.

Based on our review of DIV documents, we found that most DIV grantees 

in India provided final reports and evaluations that met DIV’s 

requirements. We reviewed grant agreements for 33 of the DIV projects in 

India, and these agreements contained specific requirements linked to 

estimated completion dates and funding amounts that would be disbursed 

upon completion of each milestone. The DIV grants we reviewed 

contained requirements for delivering final reports and evaluations, 

although these requirements varied across projects. For example, some 

grant agreements required specific elements to be included in the final 

report, such as an analysis of the cost-effectiveness of the project, while 

other grants generally required that a final report be delivered without 

requiring that the report include specified elements.

We analyzed 18 DIV final reports and found that almost all of the reports 

provided information that met DIV’s milestone requirements for a final 

report or final evaluation (see table 5).19 Specifically, we found that 16 of the 

18 projects met DIV’s requirements for completing a final report to close 

the grant agreement. In addition, we found that 10 of 13 projects 

completed the evaluation requirement.20

 

19Based on our review of DIV project data, the implementation period had closed for 18 of DIV’s 

33 projects in India, and DIV provided us with final reports for each of these 18 projects. 

20We found that 13 of the 18 projects for which DIV provided a final report also contained a 

requirement for a final evaluation. 

DIV Grantees in India 

Provided Final Reports 

and Evaluations That 

Generally Met DIV’s 

Requirements
We also found that 13 of the 18 final reports we reviewed provided data 

on results and outcomes consistently with the methodologies discussed in 

the respective applications. In some cases, we found inconsistencies 

between the evaluation methodology discussed in the application and the 

corresponding information in the final report. When asked for clarification, 

DIV officials explained that, in some cases, during the award process they 

negotiated changes to grantees’ methodologies or implementation plans 

from what was initially discussed in the application, based on updates or 

contextual changes.

Table 5: GAO Analysis of USAID Development Innovation Ventures (DIV) Final 

Page 20 GAO-16-142 USAID Development Innovation Ventures

Reports for Projects in India

GAO assessment Yes Partially No N/A Total

Met DIV’s requirements for completing a final 

report 16 1 1 0 18

Met DIV’s requirements for completing a final 

evaluation 10 2 1 5

a

18

Reported on the results and outcomes of the 

project consistently with what was stated in the 

application 13 5 0 0 18

Source: GAO analysis of DIV final reports. | GAO-16-142

Note:

a

Five of the 18 projects did not contain a specific requirement for a final evaluation.

In addition, we found that the 18 final reports for India generally 

addressed DIV’s three core principles: (1) evidence, (2) costeffectiveness, and (3) potential to scale up (see table 6). For example, 17 

of 18 final reports fully or partially provided evidence of the project’s 

development outcomes. We also found that 13 of the 18 final reports fully 

or partially provided information on DIV’s core principle of costeffectiveness, although they varied in the levels and types of information 

provided. For example, the final report for a project testing a metered 

pricing system for off-grid power provided a detailed cost breakdown of 

the solar micro-grid system in comparison to the costs of competing 

energy sources, such as diesel generators and household solar panels. In 

another example, a grantee reported that undertaking a cost-benefit 

analysis was difficult because of the challenge of quantifying the 

intervention’s economic benefits, but it did report the cost of conducting 
the intervention. Finally, in five other cases, final reports did not include 

any discussion of cost-effectiveness.

Page 21 GAO-16-142 USAID Development Innovation Ventures

21

Table 6: GAO Analysis of Whether USAID Development Innovation Ventures (DIV) 

Final Reports for Projects in India Provided Information Based on DIV’s Three Core 

Principles

DIV core principle Yes Partially No N/A Total

Provided evidence of the project’s development 

outcomes (e.g., what works and what does not) 13 4 1 0 18

Provided information on the project’s costeffectiveness 11 2 5 0 18

Provided information on the project’s potential to 

scale up 13 5 0 0 18

Source: GAO analysis of DIV final reports. | GAO-16-142

DIV has recently taken action to ensure that its final reports and 

evaluations are publicly disseminated, as is generally required by USAID 

policy. USAID’s policy states that evaluation findings should be shared as 

widely as possible with a commitment to full and active disclosure.22 A 

standard requirement for USAID grants, including DIV’s grants, is that 

grantees post final reports and evaluations from completed projects on 

USAID’s Development Experience Clearinghouse (DEC),23 the agency’s 

online repository of research information. This requirement was specified in DIV 

grant agreements we reviewed that were awarded after the requirement 

came into effect. However, when we initially reviewed the DEC in July 

2015, it did not contain any DIV final reports or evaluations. After raising 

the issue with DIV officials, we searched the DEC again in November 

2015 and found that it contained 87 total documents from DIV projects, 

including 46 final reports. These included 22 total documents and 13 final 

reports from projects based in India, and 64 total documents and 33 final 

reports from DIV projects in other countries. Appendix II provides a list of 

published studies by DIV grantees in India.

 

21For some grant agreements we reviewed, DIV did not include a specific requirement for the 

grantee to discuss cost-effectiveness in the final report, while in other grant agreements 

DIV included this requirement.

22The policy allows for exceptions in cases of classified or proprietary information. 

23This requirement became effective in 2012.

DIV Has Begun to Publicly 

Disseminate Final Reports 

and Evaluations
DIV and other U.S.-funded innovation programs in India support similar 

objectives and beneficiaries, and in several cases these programs have 

funded the same types of innovations. Collaboration among these 

overlapping programs in India has been limited, which has contributed to 

missed opportunities to share information and leverage resources. During 

the course of our review, DIV began implementing an action plan 

intended to improve its collaboration with the USAID mission in India 

(“USAID India”) and other missions. However, the plan does not establish 

a joint approach to development among these programs. Without such an 

approach, USAID may not be capitalizing on opportunities to gain 

efficiencies and maximize the impact of its innovation programs.

We identified several U.S.-funded innovation programs in India with 

similar objectives and beneficiaries, as shown in table 7. These 

Page 22 GAO-16-142 USAID Development Innovation Ventures

overlapping programs award grants to promote proven innovations that 

will benefit poor, underserved populations in India. USAID India’s 2012-

2016 country development strategy has two objectives focused on 

innovation, including supporting innovations that impact those living in 

extreme poverty, and supporting innovations proven in India and 

disseminating them to other countries. To support these objectives, 

USAID India created several innovation programs similar to DIV. For 

example, in 2012 USAID India established the Millennium Alliance, an 

innovation grant program modeled on DIV. This program provides funding 

to Indian grantees that demonstrate cost-effective solutions that address 

the needs of the extreme poor in India. Like DIV, the program uses a 

staged funding model to make relatively small initial investments, test 

more developed solutions, and scale up those that have proven 

development impact through rigorous evaluations. USAID India also 

created the U.S.-India Partnerships program to overcome critical 

development challenges through new technologies and other innovations 

that can be rigorously tested, shared, and scaled up in India and abroad. 

State also funds innovations to support economic growth and clean 

energy for underserved populations in India through the U.S.-India 

Science and Technology Endowment Fund and the PACESetter fund, 

respectively.

DIV’s Limited 

Collaboration with 

Similar Innovation 

Programs in India 

Has Contributed to 

Missed Opportunities 

to Share Information 

and Leverage 

Resources

DIV and Other U.S 

Innovation Programs in 

India Support Similar 

Objectives and 

Beneficiaries
Table 7: Comparison of U.S.-Funded Innovation Programs in India

Page 23 GAO-16-142 USAID Development Innovation Ventures

Agency program Description Objectives Areas of focus Beneficiaries

USAID Development 

Innovation Ventures 

(DIV) 

Innovation fund supporting 

private or public sector 

solutions to development 

challenges

Discover innovations to 

source, test, and support 

proven, cost-effective 

interventions

Global focus, open to 

all sectors

Poor urban and rural 

populations in developing 

countries

USAID India Millennium 

Alliancea

India-focused innovation 

fund supporting private or 

public sector solutions to 

development challenges, 

focusing on small inventors

Identify innovative 

solutions, rigorously test 

promising solutions, and 

scale up those that work 

USAID India priority 

sectorsa

Poor urban and rural 

populations in India 

USAID India 

Partnerships Program

Public-private sector 

partnerships focused on 

overcoming development 

challenges

Leverage private sector 

resources and talent to 

jointly address 

development challenges

USAID India priority 

sectors

Poor urban and rural 

populations of India

State U.S.-India Science 

and Technology 

Endowment Fund

Competitive grant program 

supporting joint research 

and development initiatives

Promote partnerships 

between U.S. and Indian 

researchers and 

entrepreneurs who apply 

science and technology 

to benefit the public

Economic 

development

Not specified, although 

must have social impact 

on populations within 

India

State PACESetter Fund Bilateral clean energy 

innovation grant fund

Support development 

and testing of innovations 

to improve the viability of 

off-grid renewable energy

Clean energy/climate 

change

Unserved and 

underserved populations 

in India

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and Department of State (State) data. | GAO-16-142

Note:

a

The Millennium Alliance supports projects in the following USAID India priority sectors: basic 

education, water and sanitation, health, agriculture / food security, and clean energy / climate change.

While these programs have similar objectives and beneficiaries, they also 

have some differences in the way they are implemented. For example, 

the Millennium Alliance and the U.S.-India Science and Technology 

Endowment Fund are managed in cooperation with the Indian 

government, while DIV is funded and managed solely by USAID. In 

addition, the USAID India Partnerships Program requires partners to 

share the costs and contribute at least $500,000 in cash and in-kind 

resources for a one-to-one match totaling at least $1 million, while DIV 

has no requirements for cost-sharing.24

 

24The USAID India Partnerships Program requires partner contributions to be non-U.S. 

government resources for the proposed partnership. 
Our review of project data for innovation programs in India identified 

examples in which these programs have funded innovations similar to 

those funded by DIV, as shown in figure 8. For example, both DIV and 

another program supported projects to test the viability of “clean” cook 

stoves in rural markets—that is, stoves designed to reduce air pollution 

and firewood consumption compared with traditional cook stoves.

Page 24 GAO-16-142 USAID Development Innovation Ventures

25 DIV 

and two other programs supported projects to provide inexpensive eye care and 

eyewear for poor and underserved populations. DIV and two other programs 

funded projects to support the development, testing, or implementation of 

micro grids for people living in rural areas who are unconnected to the 

power grid.

 

25DIV funded a $1,000,000 grant in 2013 to market and test the viability and health impacts of a 

cook stove design in the state of Orissa in eastern India, while the State U.S.-India Science 

and Technology Endowment Fund provided $375,000 (Rs. 22,500,000) in 2013 for cook 

stoves that employ similar combustion and electricity-generating technologies and are 

being distributed in rural districts across India. 

DIV and Other USAID and 

State Innovation Programs 

Fund Some Similar 

Projects in India
Figure 8: Innovation Projects Funded by USAID Development Innovation Ventures and Other U.S.-Funded Innovation 

Page 25 GAO-16-142 USAID Development Innovation Ventures

Programs in India

USAID and State officials we interviewed in India stated that they 

generally supported the implementation of similar innovation programs in 

India by different organizations if the programs resulted in additional 

resources being made available to poor and underserved populations. 

According to these officials, there is a vast need for innovations, such as 

clean energy and off-grid electricity, which improve the lives of the poor in 

that country. In addition, State officials commented that in a country of 

1.25 billion people, with significant diversity in cultural, linguistic, and 

religious norms, as well as considerable geographic diversity, different 

solutions to the same problem may produce varying levels of success in 

different contexts. These officials said that, as a result, it may be in some 

cases necessary to fund several similar or competing solutions in an 

effort to identify the few that demonstrate widespread impact and costeffectiveness. USAID India officials added that because of the variety of 

difficult and intractable problems in India, the mission does not see it as 

problematic that there would be more than one activity aimed at 

addressing the same problem.
We have previously found that several key practices that enhance 

collaboration, including articulating a joint strategy and common 

outcomes, agreeing on roles and responsibilities, and identifying and 

addressing needs by leveraging resources, can help manage programs 

with similar objectives and beneficiaries.

Page 26 GAO-16-142 USAID Development Innovation Ventures

26 Collaboration among U.S.-funded 

innovation programs in India has not routinely or systematically included these 

practices and, with some exceptions, has been limited to USAID India’s 

providing initial input to DIV regarding grant award decisions.

During USAID India’s technical reviews of DIV applications, DIV routinely 

communicated with USAID India officials, requesting that the mission 

review applications for projects that DIV subsequently funded in India. 

USAID India officials rated the proposals, provided narrative information 

on the strengths and weaknesses of the projects, and in some cases 

raised concerns.

However, according to DIV officials and a wide range of USAID India and 

State officials we spoke with in India, collaboration among programs 

beyond these examples has been limited and has not routinely included 

the key practices we identified. For example, these officials indicated that 

after award decisions were made, DIV and the other programs did not 

systematically share information about project results, or reach 

agreements on their respective roles and responsibilities, such as roles in 

coordinating planning for the use of grant funds or in monitoring the 

implementation of grants. State officials we interviewed in India who 

manage other innovation programs—such as the U.S.-India Science and 

Technology Endowment Fund and the PACESetter fund—stated that, 

while they were aware of some of the activities that DIV has supported in 

India, DIV had not communicated with these other agency programs to 

collaborate on ongoing or upcoming efforts.

USAID India and State officials we interviewed in India who manage 

innovation programs under the India Partnerships program and the 

PACESetter Fund, among others, told us that limited collaboration among 

these programs and DIV had resulted in missed opportunities to share 

information and leverage USAID India resources by providing outreach 

 

26See GAO, Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication: An Evaluation and Management Guide, 

GAO-15-49SP (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 14, 2015); Results-Oriented Government: 

Practices That Can Help Enhance and Sustain Collaboration among Federal Agencies, 

GAO-06-15 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 2005).

Collaboration among U.S.-

Funded Innovation 

Programs in India Has 

Been Limited and 

Opportunities Have Been 

Missed to Share 

Information and Leverage 

Resources
and monitoring of project implementation and marketing DIV innovations. 

We have previously found that, without engaging in collaboration 

practices such as agreeing on roles and responsibilities or identifying 

common outcomes, overlap can have a negative effect in that limited 

resources may not be used in the most efficient and effective manner and 

opportunities may be missed to leverage resources.

Page 27 GAO-16-142 USAID Development Innovation Ventures

27 The following 

provide some examples of missed opportunities to share information and 

leverage the mission’s resources.

· Missed opportunities to provide outreach to DIV grantees and 

monitor project implementation. USAID India officials stated that in 

many cases, they did not know DIV grants had been awarded and 

thus missed opportunities to provide outreach and establish 

productive working relationships with DIV grantees in India because 

roles and responsibilities were not clarified. For example, USAID India 

officials from the India Partnerships program, and the health sector, 

cited examples in which DIV grantees had contacted USAID India 

seeking assistance but found that the mission was unaware that DIV 

had awarded grants to these organizations, limiting the effectiveness 

of USAID India’s outreach to them. In addition, USAID India officials 

stated that the mission’s and DIV’s respective roles and 

responsibilities were not always clear to USAID India officials or to 

DIV grantees, which negatively affected some grantees’ perceptions 

of USAID. USAID India officials also discussed missed opportunities 

to conduct project monitoring on DIV’s behalf, and DIV officials stated 

that they had not sought assistance from USAID India in monitoring 

DIV projects.

· Missed opportunities to market DIV innovations. USAID India and 

State officials responsible for promoting U.S.-funded clean energy 

projects in India, including those of the PACEsetter Fund, indicated 

that they had missed opportunities to share those results with the 

government of India or other stakeholders with the means to scale 

them up, if appropriate. For example, during a recent high-level U.S. 

government delegation’s visit to India, USAID India officials stated that 

they had missed an opportunity to highlight promising DIV projects 

focused on clean energy activities, because they were unaware of the 

projects’ results.

 

27GAO-15-49SP, GAO-06-15.
Although collaboration among innovation programs in India has been 

limited, DIV officials provided some additional examples of 

communication and consultation with USAID India beyond the initial 

consultation on DIV applications. For example, USAID India and DIV 

jointly funded a project to rigorously test an innovation to increase full 

immunization rates in rural areas. This project is testing the viability of 

implementing the innovation in cooperation with the government system 

in the Indian state of Haryana. USAID India and DIV officials also 

discussed DIV’s consultations with the USAID India energy team and 

corresponding interactions between DIV grantees and the USAID India 

energy program, which was in contrast to more limited consultations 

between DIV and USAID India officials from other programs.

During the course of our review, DIV officials, acknowledging that 

collaboration could be improved, began implementing an action plan to 

improve collaboration with missions and bureaus within USAID. The plan 

outlines steps to share information on DIV’s activities across the agency, 

including establishing DIV points of contact for outreach with missions 

and bureaus and developing tools for providing more frequent updates on 

DIV projects with the missions. The plan also discusses time frames for 

collaboration activities, including identifying opportunities for joint 

management and co-investment with missions on DIV projects. During 

our visit to India, a DIV official briefed staff at the mission about the DIV 

program and about its broader plans to increase outreach to USAID 

missions. DIV officials also provided us with additional examples of 

briefings and outreach that it conducted with other bureaus and missions. 

In addition, in 2015, DIV collaborated with the USAID mission in Jordan to 

hold a regional competition for innovators to pitch their ideas for 

development solutions to be considered for grants in the Middle East and 

North Africa region, where DIV has made the fewest awards thus far.

We previously found that developing a joint approach among related 

programs, including reaching agreement on a joint strategy, common 

outcomes, roles and responsibilities, and leveraging resources, can 

improve collaboration and generate greater results than the programs 

could achieve independently.

Page 28 GAO-16-142 USAID Development Innovation Ventures

28 However, DIV’s action plan, while a 

promising step toward improving collaboration, does not yet represent a joint 

 

28GAO-06-15.

DIV Has Begun 

Implementing an Action 

Plan to Improve 

Collaboration but Has Not 

Agreed on a Joint 

Approach with Relevant 

Programs in India
approach among the overlapping innovation programs that we identified 

in India. Thus, DIV cannot ensure that the benefits of its initial outreach 

efforts will be realized. DIV has not extended its action plan to include the 

similar innovation programs we identified outside USAID India, for 

example. Also, DIV has not harmonized its award selection processes 

with those of the other innovation programs to help ensure that funding 

similar projects is appropriate and not unnecessarily duplicative. 

Furthermore, DIV has not reached agreement with the other U.S.-funded 

innovation programs on a common approach to monitoring and evaluation 

of the projects they select to fund to help ensure that results from similar 

projects are being assessed consistently. Consequently, it may be difficult 

to determine which version of a technology or innovation has the greatest 

potential to scale up and where further U.S. support would have the most 

impact.

USAID created DIV to demonstrate a new model of U.S. development 

assistance, and DIV’s approach has shown promise, especially through 

the rigorous evaluation of an innovation’s results and outcomes before 

determining whether to increase the agency’s investment to bring these 

innovations to scale. After 5 years of experience in implementing projects 

and testing its model in real-world situations, DIV has an opportunity to 

assess what results have been achieved and what lessons have been 

learned from these initial experiences. However, because DIV lacks 

clearly identified performance targets for its program, and its draft results 

framework does not contain targets, it is difficult to assess DIV’s overall 

progress toward achieving its goal of promoting global development for 

the poor through its portfolio of innovations.

Since DIV was established in 2010, several other U.S. grant programs 

have emerged that overlap with DIV and in some cases have funded the 

same types of innovations. Although USAID’s mission in India prioritized 

innovation and modeled one of its programs after DIV, DIV and the 

mission collaborated to a limited extent during the implementation of 

DIV’s projects. As a result, DIV and the USAID mission in India have 

missed opportunities to share information and leverage resources. While 

DIV has begun implementing an action plan to improve collaboration with 

other USAID missions and bureaus, the action plan does not establish a 

joint approach, including reaching agreement on a joint strategy, common 

outcomes, or roles and responsibilities among all relevant programs and 

agencies. Thus, USAID may not be capitalizing on potential synergies 

among these innovation programs or maximizing their efficiency and 

impact.

Page 29 GAO-16-142 USAID Development Innovation Ventures

Conclusions
To help ensure that DIV is making progress toward achieving its global 

development goal, we recommend that the Administrator of USAID take 

the following two actions:

1. Establish performance targets that will allow periodic assessment of 

DIV’s progress toward achieving its goal.

2. Establish a joint approach to collaboration reflecting agreement with 

the USAID mission in India and with other related U.S. agency 

programs in India, and consider where such a joint approach would be 

beneficial in other countries.

We provided a draft of this report to USAID and State for comment. 

USAID and State provided technical comments, which we incorporated 

into the report as appropriate. USAID also provided written comments, 

which are reprinted in appendix III.

USAID agreed with our recommendations, stating that our review had 

helped identify areas for improvement. USAID also discussed steps it is 

taking to respond to the recommendations. With regard to the 

recommendation to establish performance targets that will allow periodic 

assessment of DIV’s progress toward its goal, USAID noted that it had

recently established a results framework that includes targets and 

performance milestones to be assessed on a semiannual basis. With 

regard to the recommendation to establish a joint approach to 

collaboration with the USAID mission in India and with other agency 

programs in India, USAID discussed collaboration and coordination 

between DIV and the USAID mission in India that had occurred during the 

course of our review. USAID also stated that it would build on these 

collaboration efforts, discuss where improvements could be made, and 

take action to formalize them. 

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 

committees, the Administrator of USAID, the Secretary of State, and other 

interested parties. In addition, the report is available at no charge on the 

GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.

Page 30 GAO-16-142 USAID Development Innovation Ventures

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact 

me at (202) 512-3149 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 key contributions to this 

report are listed in appendix IV.

Page 31 GAO-16-142 USAID Development Innovation Ventures

David B. Gootnick

Director

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

Methodology

We were asked to review the U.S. Agency for International 

Development’s (USAID) Development Innovation Ventures (DIV) 

program. In this report, we examine the DIV program’s (1) distribution of 

funding and (2) efforts to measure progress toward achieving its goals, 

and for DIV’s activities in India, we examine (3) the extent to which DIV 

uses evidence to make funding decisions and assess results and (4) 

DIV’s collaboration with other similar U.S. development assistance

innovation programs.

To examine the distribution of DIV funding, we obtained and analyzed 

funding data for projects from fiscal years 2010 to 2015. These data 

included information on the stage of the project, the fiscal year, and the 

award start and end dates of the projects, among other things. Projects 

implemented in more than one country were counted as one project per 

each country. For example, by 2015 DIV had funded 33 individual 

projects in India and 6 projects that were implemented in multiple 

countries—of which India was one—for a total of 39 projects for India. To 

assess the reliability of these data, where possible, we cross-checked the 

data with other sources, evaluated the data for internal consistency, and 

interviewed agency officials knowledgeable about the data sources. We 

determined the data presented in this report to be sufficiently reliable for 

our purposes.

To examine DIV’s efforts to measure progress toward achieving the 

program’s goals, we reviewed and analyzed DIV’s performance data and 

interviewed USAID officials in Washington, D.C. Specifically, we analyzed 

performance data publicly available on the USAID website, reviewed data 

and documentation on the DIV program provided by USAID, and 

interviewed officials in the DIV program office at USAID. To assess the 

reliability of these data, where possible, we cross-checked the data with 

other sources, evaluated the data for internal consistency, and 

interviewed agency officials knowledgeable about the data sources. We 

determined the data presented in this report to be sufficiently reliable for 

our purposes.

Based on our analysis of USAID project data, we selected India as a 

nongeneralizable case study for two objectives. Of the 33 countries DIV 

had supported through 2014, India had received the largest amount of 

funding and had the largest number of projects. To examine the extent to 

which DIV uses evidence to make funding decisions and assess the 

results of projects it funded in India, we reviewed and analyzed DIV 

documents, including applications, final reports, and final evaluations. We 

focused our analysis on projects implemented in India, including 

Page 32 GAO-16-142 USAID Development Innovation Ventures

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

multicountry projects where India was one of the countries where the 

project was being implemented, for a total of 33 projects. For the 

applications analysis, we reviewed USAID applications for funding 

through the DIV program, for multiple rounds, and developed a data 

collection instrument based on criteria in the application. We 

independently reviewed the applications and rated the extent to which the 

applicant responded to the question, supplying data and citations when 

necessary. We then reconciled any instances where the ratings of the 

initial and secondary reviewer did not concur. We aggregated and 

reported the outcomes of several questions we developed in the data 

collection instrument. For the final reports and evaluations, we reviewed 

the award letters for all 18 projects in India that had completed the grant 

agreement and submitted a final report or final evaluation. The award 

letters contain the terms and conditions of the grant agreement, including 

required tasks to be completed with the supporting documentation, to be 

submitted periodically to DIV by the grant recipient. We developed a data 

collection instrument based on DIV’s principles of testing and scaling 

innovations that demonstrate widespread impact and cost-effectiveness. 

In addition, we analyzed the award letters, the applications, and the final 

reports and evaluations submitted to DIV to determine the extent to which 

the methodologies in final reports and evaluations corresponded to the 

proposed methodologies in the application.

Finally, we examined DIV’s collaboration with other similar U.S. 

development assistance innovation programs, using India as a 

nongeneralizable case study. We interviewed officials at USAID, the 

Department of State (State), the Department of Agriculture’s Foreign 

Agricultural Service (FAS), and the Department of Energy, in Washington,

D.C. We traveled to the USAID mission in New Delhi, India, to interview 

officials from USAID, State, FAS, the U.S. Trade and Development 

Agency (USTDA), and the Department of Commerce, and to obtain 

information on any development and assistance innovation programs 

managed by the USAID India mission or the U.S. embassy. During our 

fieldwork, we observed DIV projects and interviewed grant recipients. We 

also identified programs at the USAID mission and embassy in New Delhi 

that had innovation and development components. We interviewed 

program officials from these agencies, including the Chief of Mission and 

the Deputy Chief of Mission, to obtain information on the programs and 

their experiences in collaborating with the DIV office in Washington, D.C. 

In addition, we analyzed program data that we obtained from DIV, and 

from USAID India and other agency officials in New Delhi, to determine 

the extent to which the DIV program overlaps with programs from USAID 

Page 33 GAO-16-142 USAID Development Innovation Ventures
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

and other U.S. agencies in India, and has funded projects that could 

overlap or duplicate projects funded by U.S. agencies in India.

Page 34 GAO-16-142 USAID Development Innovation Ventures
Appendix II: Published DIV Studies for Projects 

in India

DIV officials provided us with the following list of published studies 

relating to DIV projects implemented in India.

Page 35 GAO-16-142 USAID Development Innovation Ventures

· Ashraf, Nava, Oriana Bandiera, and Scott S. Lee. “Do-gooders and 

Go-getters: Career Incentives, Selection, and Performance in Public 

Service Delivery.” Harvard Business School Working Paper, March 

2015.

· Banerjee, Abhijit, Donald Green, Jennifer Green, and Rohini Pande. 

“Can Voters be Primed to Choose Better Legislators? Experimental 

Evidence from Rural India.” Working Paper, 2010.

· Borkum, Evan, Anitha Sivasankaran, Swetha Sridharan, Dana Rotz, 

Sukhmani Sethi, Mercy Manoranjini, Lakshmi Ramakrishnan, and Anu 

Rangarajan. “Evaluation of the Information and Communication 

Technology (ICT) Continuum of Care Services (CCS) Intervention in 

Bihar.” Mathematica Policy Research Report, May 8, 2015.

· Callen, Michael, and James Long. “Institutional Corruption and 

Election Fraud: Evidence from a Field Experiment in Afghanistan.” 

American Economic Review, vol. 105, no. 1 (2015): 354-381.

· Dhaliwal, Iqbal, and Rema Hanna. “Deal with the Devil: The 

Successes and Limitations of Bureaucratic Reform in India.” NBER 

Working Paper No. 20482, September 2014.

· Duflo, Esther, Michael Greenstone, Rohini Pande, and Nicholas Ryan. 

“The Value of Regulatory Discretion: Estimates from Environmental 

Inspections in India.” NBER Working Paper No. 20590, October 2014.

· Duflo, Esther, Michael Greenstone, Rohini Pande, and Nicholas Ryan. 

“Truth-Telling by Third-Party Auditors and the Response of Polluting 

Firms: Experimental Evidence from India.” The Quarterly Journal of 

Economics, vol. 128, no. 4 (2013): 1499-1545.

· Duflo, Esther, Michael Greenstone, Rohini Pande, and Nicholas Ryan. 

“What Does Reputation Buy? Differentiation in a Market for Thirdparty Auditors.” American Economic Review: Papers & Proceedings, 

vol. 103, no. 3 (2013): 314–319.

· Habyarimana, James, and William Jack. Results of a Large-scale 

Randomized Behavior Change Intervention on Road Safety in Kenya. 

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2015.

Appendix II: Published DIV Studies for 

Projects in India
Appendix II: Published DIV Studies for Projects 

in India

Page 36 GAO-16-142 USAID Development Innovation Ventures

· Karlan, Dean, and Leigh L. Linden. Loose Knots: Strong versus Weak 

Commitments to Save for Education in Uganda. No. w19863. National 

Bureau of Economic Research, 2014.

· Maitra, Pushkar, Sandip Mitra, Dilip Mookherjee, Alberto Motta, and 

Sujata Visaria. “Financing Smallholder Agriculture: An Experiment 

with Agent-Intermediated Microloans in India.” Hong Kong University 

of Science & Technology Institute for Emerging Market Studies

Working Paper No. 2015-23, April 2015.
Appendix III: Comments from the U.S. Agency 

for International Development

Page 37 GAO-16-142 USAID Development Innovation Ventures

Appendix III: Comments from the U.S. 

Agency for International Development

Note: We received the

agency comment letter on 

December 10, 2015.
Appendix III: Comments from the U.S. Agency 

for International Development

Page 38 GAO-16-142 USAID Development Innovation Ventures
Appendix III: Comments from the U.S. Agency 

for International Development

Page 39 GAO-16-142 USAID Development Innovation Ventures
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

David B. Gootnick, (202) 512-3149 or gootnickd@gao.gov.

In addition to the contact named above, James Michels (Assistant 

Director), Jeremy Latimer (Analyst-in-Charge), Debbie Chung, Daniel 

Kuhn, Jill Lacey, Christopher J. Mulkins, Kyerion Printup, and Ozzy 

Trevino made key contributions to this report.

Page 40 GAO-16-142 USAID Development Innovation Ventures

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments
Appendix V: Accessible Data

Page 41 GAO-16-142 USAID Development Innovation Ventures

USAID

FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

David Gootnick

Director, International Affairs and Trade

U.S. Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

Dear Mr. Gootnick:

I am pleased to provide USAID's formal response to the Government 

Accountability Office (GAO) draft report entitled , "USAID Venture Capital 

Approach Relies on Evidence of Result but Could Strengthen 

Collaboration among Similar Program s 11 (GA0-16-142).

This letter, together with the enclosed USAID comments, is provided for 

incorporation as an appendix to the final report.

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the GAO draft report and for 

the courtesies extended by your staff in the conduct of this audit review.

Sincerely,

Angelique M. Crumbly

Assistant Administrator

Appendix V: Accessible Data

(321036)

Agency Comment 

Letter

Text of Appendix III: 

Comments from the U.S. 

Agency for International 

Development

Page 1
Appendix V: Accessible Data

Bureau for Management

U.S. Agency for International Development

Enclosure: a/s

USAID COMMENTS ON GAO DRAFT REPORT

No. GA0-16-142

USAID's Development Innovation Ventures (DIV) program is an open 

competition founded on the principle that the next breakthrough 

development solution can come from anyone, anywhere. DIV seeks to 

bring in fresh new ideas for solving problems facing millions around the 

world, and to increase the accountability of these ideas for delivering 

more impact, for less money, with greater potential for sustainable scale. 

In this way, DIV is raising the bar for evidence and accountability in the 

U.S. Government's development efforts. Through a highly competitive 

selection process, DIV accepts applicants that aim to rigorously 

dete1mine whether their new approach works by using evaluation tools 

ranging from key performance indicators to randomized control trials. DIV 

strategically tests new ideas, gathers evidence of what works, finds 

failures quickly, cheaply, and without long-term commitments , and 

continues to support only proven solutions . With this combined model of 

openness and accountability, DIV serves as a bridge for innovations to 

prove their impact, and reach sustainable scale. DIV applies these three 

pillars of evidence, cost-effectiveness, and scale across its portfolio, 

informing how new ideas are selected and supported.

We appreciate GAO's engagement on the DIV program. This review 

began after approximately four years of implementation experience, and 

this engagement helped identify areas for improvement. We support the 

recommendations and our responses are outlined below.

GAO Recommendations

To help ensure DIV is making progress toward achieving its global 

development goal, we recommend that the Administrator of USAID take 

the following two actions:

1. We recommend that the Administrator of USAID establish 

pe1formance targets that will allow periodic assessment of DIV's progress 

toward achieving its goal.

Page 42 GAO-16-142 USAID Development Innovation Ventures

Page 2
Appendix V: Accessible Data

USAID Response:

We agree with this recommendation and have already implemented it. 

DIV recently established a results framework that includes targets and 

performance milestones to be assessed on a semi- annual basis. The 

overall objective is to identify 20 high impact solutions within 5 years. The 

framework will enable DIV to track progress along the way to reaching 

this objective, drawing upon metrics such as the level of evidence when 

innovations enter the portfolio compared to the level of evidence after DIV 

funding, the extent to which the application process is open and 

accessible to a wide range of innovators, the percentage of grantees 

meeting their expected milestones and targets, and the extent to which 

DIV is drawing upon evidence for program decision-making. These 

metrics draw upon DIV's experiences over the past 5 years and are 

intended to enable continued assessment of DIV's progress toward 

achieving its objectives.

2. We recommend that the Administrator of USAID establish a joint 

approach to collaboration reflecting agreement with the USAID mission in 

India and with other related U.S. agency programs in India, and consider 

where such a join t approach would be beneficial in other countries.

USAID Response:

We agree that a joint approach to collaboration is important to meet 

program objectives. There has been a great deal of collaboration and 

coordination between DIV and USAID/India to date. During the process of 

this engagement with GAO, DIV and USAID/India have been actively 

discussing what is working well with these collaborative efforts, where we 

can build upon these successes, and where improvements can be made. 

Both operating units are committed to ensuring an optimal level of 

collaboration that serves to advance individual and collective objectives. 

Going forward, we will document a joint approach that incorporates 

existing practices that reinforce good collaboration, as well as additional 

actions we will identify through consultations.

DIV's global focus on innovations with demonstrated evidence, cost 

effectiveness and scale paths is complemented by USAID/India's focus 

on catalyzing the Indian innovation ecosystem. Building on these mutually 

reinforcing expected outcomes, the two teams have committed to sharing 

information and supporting one another. For example, when USAID/India 

was designing the Millennium Alliance, the DIV team provided insights 

from its experiences. During program implementation, the DIV and 

Page 43 GAO-16-142 USAID Development Innovation Ventures

Page 3
Appendix V: Accessible Data

Millennium Alliance teams have leveraged one another's experiences and 

insights as both work to advance their complementary programs and this 

will continue. The Millennium Alliance's greater focus on smaller 

innovators from India benefits from DIV's experience at larger scale 

across the globe, just as DIV is able to gain a great deal of insight from 

the Millennium Alliance's country-specific focus at earlier stages in the 

innovation lifecycle. USAID/India's energy team also engages regularly 

with DIV grantees and factored in their activities when developing a new 

USAID/India energy strategy.

Collaboration has also occurred at a very tactical level, largely related to 

operational procedures and ongoing monitoring. For example, when new 

awards are made, DIV reaches out to the Mission to gauge their 

preference for how to engage with new grantees. There are different roles 

and responsibilities the Mission can choose to undertake and DIV offers 

the Mission various options at the outset of each award. In addition, DIV 

and USAID/India maintain a spreadsheet of projects and hold quarterly 

check-in calls. Going forward, additional USAID and USG staff will be 

invited to join these check-ins to facilitate information sharing and 

learning.

We will take action to formalize these significant collaboration effo1ts. As 

to what may be beneficial for DIV interactions with other USAID Missions, 

it should be noted that many of the coordination and collaboration 

approaches that exist between USAID/India and DIV are also standard 

practice with all other operating units. For example, we engage Missions 

in the review process pre-award and offer options for Mission 

management or oversight roles during project implementation. The 

additional interactions between DIV and USAID/India should serve as 

useful examples of what could be done between DIV and other USAID 

Missions. DIV will consider where these types of practices would be 

beneficial in other countries.

Data Table for Figure 1: USAID Development Innovation Ventures (DIV) Obligations 

Page 44 GAO-16-142 USAID Development Innovation Ventures

and Number of Grants, Fiscal Years 2010-2015

Fiscal year 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

U.S. dollars (in millions) 1 1.2 17.1 16.2 17.8 19.1

Number if DIV grants 8 6 29 41 25 33

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Agency for International Development data. | GAO-16-142

Data Tables
Appendix V: Accessible Data

Data Table for Figure 2: USAID Development Innovation Ventures (DIV) Funding and 

Page 45 GAO-16-142 USAID Development Innovation Ventures

Number of Grants, by Stage, Fiscal Years 2010-2015

DIV total funding, by stage (U.S. dollars in millions)

Stage 1: Stage 2: Stage 3:

Proof of concept/ Testing and Transitioning proven 

Initial testing positioning for scale solutions to scale

$10.02 $47.08 $15.41 

14% 65% 21%

Number of grants, by stage

Stage 1: Stage 2: Stage 3:

Proof of concept/ Testing and Transitioning proven 

Initial testing positioning for scale solutions to scale

83 56 3

59% 39% 2%

Source: GAO analysis of United States Agency for International Development data. | GAO-16-142

Data Table for Figure 3: USAID Development Innovation Ventures Funding and 

Number of Grants, by Sector, Fiscal Years 2010-2015

U.S. dollars (in millions) Number of grants

Agriculture/Food Security

Democracy/Governance

$ 7.0 20

Democracy/Governance $ 1.8 4

Economic Growth $ 15.8 36

Education and Training $ 5.5 11

Energy $ 16.6 25

Environment $ 0.5 2

Health

Humanitarian Assistance 

$ 11.7 27

Humanitarian Assistance $ 0.5 3

Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene $ 13.2 14

Source: GAO analysis of United States Agency for International Development data. | GAO-16-142
Appendix V: Accessible Data

Data Table for Figure 6: Numbers of USAID Development Innovation Ventures (DIV) 

Page 46 GAO-16-142 USAID Development Innovation Ventures

Projects, by Country, Fiscal Years 2010-2015

Country Number of DIV projects

India 39

Kenya 25

Uganda 13

Tanzania 12

Bangladesh 7

Ethiopia 5

Ghana 5

Rwanda 4

Brazil 3

Guatemala 3

Mexico 3

Mozambique 3

Nicaragua 3

Peru 3

Philippines 3

Zambia 3

Afghanistan 2

Cambodia 2

Dominican Republic 2

Honduras 2

Indonesia 2

Malawi 2

Nepal 2

Senegal 2

Sierra Leone 2

South Africa 2

Vietnam 2

Azerbaijan 1

Burkina Faso 1

Burma 1

Costa Rica 1

Egypt 1

El Salvador 1

Haiti 1

Jordan 1
Appendix V: Accessible Data

Page 47 GAO-16-142 USAID Development Innovation Ventures

Country Number of DIV projects

Liberia 1

Namibia 1

Oman 1

Pakistan 1

South Sudan 1

Sudan 1

United States 1

Zimbabwe 1

Data Table for Figure 7: USAID Development Innovation Ventures Funding and 

Number of Grants Awarded, by Grantee, Fiscal Years 2010-2015

Funding Category

$ 14.1 Innovations for Poverty Action (18 grants)

$ 4.1 Institute for Financial Management and Research (IFMR) / Abdul Latif 

Jameel Poverty Action Lab (JPAL) (13 grants)

$ 10.4 Off Grid Electric (3 grants) and Georgetown University(3 grants)

$ 9.9 Grantees receiving two grants(18 grants)

$ 34.0 Grantees receiving one grant(85 grants)
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 website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. 

Listen to our Podcasts and read The Watchblog.

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov.

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

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

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

PleasrintoRecyldPapr.