GAO-13-141R Nonemergency Food Aid

December 12, 2012

The Honorable Daniel Akaka

Chairman 

The Honorable Ron Johnson

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce,

 and the District of Columbia

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

United States Senate

The Honorable Tom Coburn

United States Senate

The Honorable Howard Berman 

United States House of Representatives

Subject: International Food Assistance: U.S. Nonemergency Food Aid Programs Have 

Similar Objectives but Some Planning Helps Limit Overlap 

In fiscal years 2008 through 2011, U.S. agencies obligated about $3 billion toward 

nonemergency food aid programs.1 The primary goal of these programs is to increase 

agricultural capacity and reduce malnutrition. Nonemergency food aid programs are primarily 

development assistance programs that address long-term chronic hunger (food insecurity). 

The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and United States 

Department of Agriculture (USDA) administer these programs.

2 In 2008, we identified factors 

that contribute to food insecurity—such as low agricultural productivity, limited rural 

development, government policy disincentives, and poor health among agricultural workers. 

We previously reported that efforts to mitigate these factors have been fragmented and 

uncoordinated across the U.S. government.

3

 

1

Though international food assistance includes both emergency and nonemergency food aid programs, this report 

focuses only on nonemergency food aid programs. 

In response to your concerns about 

2

USAID previously referred to these development programs as nonemergency programs. Development programs 

typically include a range of objectives, such as agricultural development, health and nutrition, or community 

development. Emergency programs may have some of these same objectives, but they are generally focused on 

alleviating hunger and malnutrition in countries affected by disaster. In this report, our focus includes only Title II 

development in-kind food assistance programs authorized by Title II of the Food for Peace Act, as amended, 7 

U.S.C. § 1721 et seq. 

3

GAO, International Food Security: Insufficient Efforts by Host Governments and Donors Threaten Progress to 

Halve Hunger in Sub-Saharan Africa by 2015, GAO-08-680 (Washington, D.C.: May 29, 2008).

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548
Page 2 GAO-13-141R Nonemergency Food Aid

fragmentation, overlap, and duplication in USAID and USDA nonemergency food aid 

programs, we examined the extent to which these agencies’ nonemergency food aid

programs pursue similar objectives.4

To identify USAID and USDA objectives for their nonemergency food aid programs, we 

analyzed program legislation and agency documents and interviewed agency officials and 

implementing partners in Washington, D.C. To determine how these objectives were 

operationalized, we reviewed program funding, geographic focus, country-level activities, and 

agency planning processes. To capture annual funding amounts toward nonemergency food 

aid programs, we examined data from USAID and USDA on the amounts they obligated for 

these programs from fiscal years 2008 through 2011. We interviewed cognizant officials 

about agency definitions for nonemergency food aid obligations, costs included in the data 

(i.e., commodity, freight, transport costs), and if the process for capturing the data has 

changed during fiscal years 2008 through 2011. We determined that the data we used were 

sufficiently reliable for our purposes. To determine whether USAID and USDA were 

conducting nonemergency food aid programs in the same countries, we analyzed the U.S. 

International Food Assistance Report 2011.

5 To illustrate whether USAID and USDA had 

planned similar project-level activities in the same countries, we selected two countries, 

Guatemala and Uganda, where (1) three nonemergency food aid programs were active in 

fiscal year 2011 and (2) recent GAO food aid audit work had been completed. These projectlevel activities are not generalizable for all nonemergency food aid programs. We also 

collected information on headquarters and field coordination (i.e., e-mails, guidance, 

budgets) in planning nonemergency food aid programs. Our review did not address internal 

controls or field-level implementation of project activities (i.e., program management, costs, 

results, and monitoring and evaluation). For a broader discussion on coordination 

mechanisms to limit overlap and duplication in food aid programs, we plan to issue a report 

on Feed the Future, the government-wide global food security initiative, in 2013. (See 

enclosure I for more details on scope and methodology.)

We conducted this performance audit from July 2012 to December 2012 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 the evidence 

obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit 

objectives. 

Results in Brief

USAID and USDA share broad objectives for nonemergency food aid programs; however, 

the agencies have established some planning processes to limit overlap in these programs. 

For example, both USAID and USDA have objectives that address financial services, 

 

4

Fragmentation occurs when more than one federal agency (or more than one organization within an agency) is 

involved in the same broad area of national interest. Program overlap occurs when programs have similar goals, 

similar activities or strategies to achieve them, or similar target recipients. Fragmentation can lead to overlapping 

programs and can create the potential for inefficiencies such as duplication, which occurs when two or more 

agencies or programs are engaged in the same activities or provide the same services to the same beneficiaries. 

See GAO, 2012 Annual Report: Opportunities to Reduce Duplication, Overlap and Fragmentation, Achieve 

Savings, and Enhance Revenue, GAO-12-342SP (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 28, 2012). 

5

U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Agency for International Development, U.S. International Food 

Assistance Report 2011 (Washington, D.C.: 2012). 
Page 3 GAO-13-141R Nonemergency Food Aid

infrastructure, agricultural productivity, agribusiness development, and child and maternal 

nutrition needs in food insecure countries. Some of these shared objectives are the result of 

authorizing legislation, through which Congress outlines nonemergency food aid objectives, 

while others are included in presidential initiatives and agency strategies. We also found that 

USAID and USDA nonemergency food aid programs shared common geographic focus 

areas in which they implemented similar activities. For example, in fiscal year 2011, both 

USAID and USDA had nonemergency food aid programs in Guatemala and Uganda and 

both programs were providing agricultural training. Furthermore, implementing partners in 

Guatemala and Uganda administering programs for both agencies told us that USAID and 

USDA have parallel administrative structures in the field and distinct requirements for 

performance management. However, we found that these agencies have established some 

processes to plan and coordinate country activities in efforts to limit overlap. For example, to 

improve coordination in nonemergency food aid programs, USAID and USDA officials told us 

that they exchange information on program proposals during the solicitation phase and seek 

comments from one another. In addition, both agencies share country program information 

that includes organization, beneficiary, commodities, and total costs for programs in an effort 

to better coordinate activities.

Background

Nonemergency food aid programs generally monetize6 U.S. agricultural commodities to 

generate cash for development projects.7 The commodities are purchased by USDA with 

funds appropriated for that purpose.8 While USDA manages the purchase and delivery of all 

international food aid commodities, both USAID and USDA administer nonemergency food 

aid programs by using U.S. commodities to implement development programs. The 

objectives of currently active nonemergency food aid programs are outlined in these four 

program authorities:

• USAID Title II Development Assistance. Authorized by Title II of the Food for Peace 

Act,9 these programs include the donation of commodities to meet emergency and 

nonemergency needs as well as the sale of commodities in-country to obtain funds 

for development purposes, including food security goals. 

• USDA Food for Progress. Authorized by the Food for Progress Act of 1985,10

 

6

Monetization is the sale of U.S. food aid commodities in developing countries to obtain local currency for use in 

U.S. development assistance programs. For further information on monetization, see GAO, International Food

Assistance: Funding Development Projects through the Purchase, Shipment, and Sale of U.S Commodities Is 

Inefficient and Can Cause Adverse Market Impacts, GAO-11-636 (Washington D.C., June 23, 2011).

this 

program provides for the donation or credit sale of U.S. commodities to developing 

7

For some programs, funding and direct feeding at schools are also provided to implement education programs. 

Development programs also include food-for-work activities in which beneficiaries receive food commodities in 

exchange for their work supporting development projects. 

8

The Farm Bill authorizes the purchase of U.S. commodities for nonemergency food aid programs. Congress has 

periodically passed farm bills in part to provide domestic and international food assistance, promote economic 

development in rural areas, and help advance alternatives to petroleum fuel, among other things.

9

Section 3001 of Pub. L. No. 110-246, the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, changed the title of the 

underlying legislation from the Agricultural Trade Development Assistance Act of 1954, also known as P.L. No. 

480, to the Food for Peace Act. Title II of the Food for Peace Act is codified at 7 U.S.C. 1721 et seq. Our review 

included only Title II development in-kind food assistance programs.

10Pub. L. No. 99-198, § 1110, 7 U.S.C. 1736o.
Page 4 GAO-13-141R Nonemergency Food Aid

countries and emerging democracies committed to introducing and expanding free 

enterprise in the agricultural sector. In most cases, commodities are sold in-country to 

support agricultural projects to increase rural incomes and enhance food security by 

improving agricultural productivity, supporting agribusiness development, and 

expanding availability of financial services.

• USDA McGovern-Dole (Food for Education). Authorized by the Farm Security and 

Rural Investment Act of 200211 to support education, child development, and food 

security for some of the world’s poorest children, this program provides for donations 

of U.S. agricultural commodities, as well as financial and technical assistance, for 

school feeding and maternal and child nutrition projects in low-income, food-insecure 

countries that are committed to universal education.

• USDA Local and Regional Procurement Pilot. USDA established this pilot

program—also authorized by the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 200812—to 

purchase local and regional food products to help with emergency and 

nonemergency food needs in developing countries during fiscal years 2008 through 

2012. One of the program’s objectives is to provide a basis for determining the 

efficacy and impact of local and regional procurement of food aid. 

As shown in table 1, from fiscal year 2008 through fiscal year 2011, USAID and USDA 

obligated about $3 billion toward nonemergency food aid programs. Total funding during this 

period grew by 11 percent. USAID Title II Development Assistance programs represented 

the largest funding amount (58 percent), followed by USDA’s Food for Progress (22 percent), 

Food for Education (19 percent), and Local and Regional Procurement Pilot (1 percent) 

programs. 

Table 1: Total Obligations for Nonemergency Food Aid, Fiscal Years 2008 through 2011

Millions of dollars

Nonemergency Food Aida 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total 

(2008-

2011)

Percentage

USAID Title II Development Assistance 

Programs 

 

$476 

 

$422 

 

$422 

 

$414 

 

$1,734 58

USDA Food for Progress 137 204 151 164 655 22

USDA McGovern-Dole (Food for 

Education)

 96 85 178 207 566 19

USDA Local and Regional Procurement 

Pilot

- 5 11 4 20 1

Total $709 $715 $762 $789 $2,975 100

Source: USAID and USDA budget documents.

Note: Total obligations include U.S. value of the commodity, shipping, inland transportation, and freight charges. Local and 

Regional Procurement Pilot obligations include the cash amount provided to the implementing partner based on the partner’s 

budget to procure and transport commodities as well as the estimated program administration costs. 

a

Nonemergency food aid obligations data may not be comparable to the funding amounts reported in the annual U.S. 

International Food Assistance Report. 

 

11Pub. L. No. 107-171, § 3107, 7 U.S.C. 1736o-1.

12Pub. L. No. 110-246, § 3206, 7 U.S.C. 1726c.
Page 5 GAO-13-141R Nonemergency Food Aid

USAID and USDA Have Common Objectives, Geographic Focus Areas, and Activities 

for Nonemergency Food Aid Programs but Have Established Some Planning 

Processes to Limit Overlap 

Agencies’ Programs Share Broad Economic, Agricultural, and Health-Related Objectives 

Based on a legislative review, we found that USAID’s and USDA’s nonemergency food aid 

programs share broad economic, agricultural, and health-related objectives. Congress 

through authorizing legislation outlines nonemergency food aid program objectives (see table 

2). For example, the legislation for both USAID’s Title II Development Assistance programs 

and USDA’s McGovern-Dole (Food for Education) program stipulate that combating 

malnutrition among women and children is a program objective.

Table 2: Nonemergency Food Aid Objectives by Program Authority

Program and program 

authority

Objectives in program authority a

Economic Agriculture Health

USAID Food for Peace Act 

Title II Development 

Assistanceb

Food for Peace Act, Title II

• Promote economic and 

community development

• Promote economic 

security by increasing 

educational, training, and 

other productive activities

• Promote food security and 

support sound environmental 

practices

• Carry out feeding programs

• Combat malnutrition, 

especially in children 

and mothers

• Carry out activities that 

attempt to alleviate the 

causes of hunger, 

mortality, and morbidity

• Promote nutritional 

security by increasing 

educational, training, 

and other productive 

activities

USDA Food for Progress 

Program

Food for Progress Act of 

1985 as amended

• Economic freedom

• Establishment of marketdetermined foreign 

exchange rates

• Private, domestic production of 

eligible commodities for 

domestic consumption

• Creation and expansion of 

efficient domestic markets for 

the purchase and sale of 

eligible commodities

• Access, on the part of farmers 

in the country, to private, 

competitive markets for their 

product

• Market pricing of eligible 

commodities to foster adequate 

private sector incentives to 

farmers

• Timely availability of production 

inputs (such as seed, fertilizer, 

or pesticides) to farmers

• Access to technologies 

appropriate to the level of 

agricultural development in the 

country

• Construction of facilities and 

distribution systems necessary 

to handle perishable products

NA

USDA McGovern–Dole 

(Food for Education) 

• Improve literacy and 

primary education, 

• Improve food security

• Reduce the incidence of hunger

• Maternal, infant, and 

child nutrition programs 

for pregnant women, 
Page 6 GAO-13-141R Nonemergency Food Aid

Sec. 3107 of Pub. L. No. 

107-171, the Farm Security 

and Rural Investment Act of 

2002, as amended

particularly for girlsc nursing mothers, 

infants, and children 

who are five years of 

age or younger.

USDA Local and Regional 

Procurement Pilot

Sec. 3206 of Pub. L. No. 

110-26: Food, Conservation, 

and Energy Act of 2008 

(Farm Bill)

b • Local and regional 

purchase of food 

commodities. 

NA NA

Legend: NA = not applicable.

Source: GAO analysis of authorizing legislation for the various programs and agency program documents.

Notes: The types of activities implemented through nonemergency food aid programs include direct feeding, food for work, 

agricultural and market access training, road rehabilitation, health and nutrition education, school gardens, and infrastructure 

projects to improve sanitation facilities.

a

U.S. nonemergency food assistance programs are authorized by three major laws: Food for Peace Act, as amended, 7 U.S.C. 

1736o (Food for Progress), 7 U.S.C. 1736o-1 (McGovern-Dole), and 7 U.S.C. 1726c (Local and Regional Procurement Pilot).

b

Program legislation governs both emergency and nonemergency food aid. In this report, we included nonemergency food aid. 

USAID also implements Local and Regional Procurement Pilot projects ($300 million in fiscal year 2011); however, those 

projects are exclusively for emergency needs. 

c

USAID and USDA planning documents also outline common objectives among the four 

nonemergency food aid programs. As shown in table 3, USAID and USDA have both 

focused on common sectors to achieve programmatic goals and objectives: financial 

services, infrastructure, agricultural productivity, agribusiness development, and child and 

maternal nutrition. USAID officials told us that due to the broad objectives outlined in 

legislation, they have flexibility in country, sector, and project selection.

Since one of the primary goals for improving literacy and primary education attendance is to increase economic opportunities 

for girls, we categorized this intervention as an economic objective. 

Table 3: USAID and USDA Nonemergency Food Aid Programs, by Sector

Agency objectives by sector

Economic Agriculture Health

Program Location Target 

group

Financial 

services

Infrastructure Agricultural 

productivity

Agribusiness 

development

Child and 

maternal 

nutrition

USAID 

Title II 

Development 

Assistance 

Programs

Countries vulnerable 

to or with existing food 

insecurity

Vulnerable 

populations

    

USDA 

Food for Progress 

Program

Developing countries 

and emerging 

democracies

Rural 

populations    

USDA

McGovern–Dole 

(Food for 

Education)a

Low-income,

food-deficit countries

Children and 

mothers   

USDA

Local and Regional 

Procurement Pilot

Developing countries 

experiencing a 

disaster or food crisis

Not specified



Legend: refers to program that has objectives within the sector; an empty cell signifies a program without objectives in the sector.

Source: GAO analysis of USAID and USDA documents.

a

USDA’s McGovern–Dole (Food for Education) program also has education-related objectives to improve literacy and primary education.
Page 7 GAO-13-141R Nonemergency Food Aid

USAID and USDA also align their food aid activities in response to presidential initiatives and 

with government-wide objectives to enhance global food security. For example, in 2009 the 

U.S. government's global hunger and food security initiative (Feed the Future) and its 

international health program (Global Health Initiative) raised concerns about malnutrition and 

stunting in food-insecure countries. As a result, U.S. agencies have increased their focus on 

reducing malnutrition in food aid programs. 

Agencies’ Programs Share Geographic Focus Areas Where They Implement Similar 

Activities

As shown in table 4, our review of nonemergency food aid programs in fiscal year 2011 

found that USAID and USDA were implementing some nonemergency food aid programs in 

the same countries. For example, of the 34 countries that received nonemergency food aid in 

fiscal year 2011, 11 countries benefited from both USAID and USDA nonemergency food aid 

programs.

Table 4: Countries with Multiple Nonemergency Food Aid Programs, Fiscal Year 2011

Countrya USAID Title II 

Development 

Assistance 

USDA Food for 

Progress

USDA McGovernDole (Food for 

Education)

USDA Local Regional 

Procurement Pilot

Number of 

programs in fiscal 

year 2011

Democratic Republic 

of Congo   2 

Mozambique   2 

Mali   2 

Niger   2 

Bangladesh    3 

Burkina Faso    3 

Guatemalab

   3 

Haiti    3 

Malawi    3 

Liberia    3 

Ugandab

   3 

Legend:  signifies that a program was active in the country in fiscal year 2011; an empty cell signifies a program was not active in the 

country in fiscal year 2011.

Source: USAID and USDA International Food Assistance Report 2011.

a

In addition to the countries listed here, 2 countries benefited from multiple USDA nonemergency food aid programs and 21 other 

countries had one active nonemergency food aid program in fiscal year 2011.

b

To illustrate whether USAID and USDA had planned similar project-level activities in the same countries, we selected two countries, 

Guatemala and Uganda, where (1) three nonemergency food aid programs were active in fiscal year 2011 and (2) recent GAO food aid 

audit work had been completed.

Both USAID and USDA were implementing nonemergency food aid programs in Guatemala 

and Uganda in fiscal year 2011, and we found that these programs shared common 

geographic focus areas, activities, and implementing partners (see enclosure 2 for a more 
Page 8 GAO-13-141R Nonemergency Food Aid

detailed discussion). In Guatemala and Uganda, we found the following:

• Geographic Focus: Some USAID and USDA nonemergency food aid programs were 

delivered in the same geographic areas. For example, in Guatemala, USAID’s Title II 

Development Assistance Programs and USDA’s McGovern-Dole (Food for 

Education) were both operating in the same geographic region, Baja Verapaz. In 

Uganda, USAID’s Title II Development Assistance programs and USDA’s Local and 

Regional Procurement Pilot programs were both operating in the same districts, 

Kitgum and Pader.

• Similar Activities: Some USAID and USDA nonemergency food aid programs 

carried out similar activities; however, in these cases the activities were either 

delivered to different participant groups or different locations, or implementation time 

lines varied. For example, in Guatemala, USDA’s Food for Education and USAID’s 

Title II Development Assistance programs both provided sanitary infrastructure (i.e., 

constructing latrines) and agricultural training. In Uganda, USDA’s Local and 

Regional Procurement Pilot and USAID’s Title II Development Assistance programs 

both included rehabilitation of rural roads, but USAID’s program in Guatemala 

benefited households, while USDA’s program benefited school children. Additionally, 

though agricultural training was a common activity for both USAID and USDA 

programs, the project time lines varied, so that, for example, one program was 

initiating its activities while the other was in the closeout phase. In Guatemala, both 

McGovern-Dole (Food for Education) and USAID’s Title II Development Assistance 

had capacity-building efforts such as training to improve agricultural productivity; 

however, both programs were not active in the same geographic area. In some 

cases, where the geographic focus and project activities were similar, agency 

program agreements had stipulations to avoid program participant overlap. For 

example, in Uganda, USAID’s Title II Development Assistance programs and USDA’s 

Local and Regional Procurement Pilot were both rehabilitating feeder roads through 

food-for-work programs in the Kitgum and Pader districts. However, to avoid program 

participant overlap, the USDA’s Local and Regional Procurement Pilot program 

agreement included a stipulation that participants in the program could not be 

receiving similar support from any other program.

• Common Partners: Some USAID and USDA nonemergency food aid programs used 

common implementing partners to administer the programs. In Guatemala, out of six

nonemergency food aid programs active in 2011, two programs (one USAID and one 

USDA) had the same implementing partner. Similarly in Uganda, out of five 

nonemergency food aid programs active in 2011, two programs (one USAID and one 

USDA) had the same implementing partner. According to these implementing 

partners, Mercy Corps and Share Guatemala, though program goals and objectives 

between these two agencies may overlap, the program participants do not. For 

example, Mercy Corps officials in Uganda told us that while the focus of both USAID 

Title II and USDA Food for Progress programs were smallholder farmers, the program 

participants varied because they lived in different geographic focus areas. Similarly, a 

Share Guatemala official told us that while the focus of USDA’s McGovern-Dole 

(Food for Education) program and USAID’s Title II was to improve chronic 

malnutrition through food rations, the target populations were different (i.e., schoolage children versus households). Additionally, these implementing partners, Mercy 

Corps and Share Guatemala, also told us that while some program management 
Page 9 GAO-13-141R Nonemergency Food Aid

aspects of USAID and USDA nonemergency food aid programs may overlap, most 

are addressed separately. For example, in some cases implementing partners’ 

monitoring and evaluation systems and country offices are centralized, while the staff 

and resources used to implement the programs are separate. These implementing 

partners also noted that USAID and USDA have different administrative structures in 

the field and distinct requirements for performance management. For example, Mercy 

Corps officials in Uganda told us that there was no USDA Foreign Agricultural Service 

representative in Uganda, and as a result their interaction was primarily with officials 

in USDA’s Washington headquarters, while their interaction with USAID was primarily 

with field representatives in Uganda. 

Agencies Have Established Some Planning Processes to Limit Overlap 

Since 2010, to improve coordination in nonemergency food aid programs, USAID and USDA 

have shared program proposals and annual program information and conducted periodic 

joint meetings. USAID and USDA officials both told us that they have shared information on 

program proposals during the solicitation phase and have sought comments from one 

another. For example, in 2010 USAID field staff raised concerns about costs, timelines, and 

potential for duplicative procurement and activities in a proposal for USDA’s Local and 

Regional Procurement Pilot in Mozambique. USDA decided to reject the proposal and to 

move forward with another program in the country. Additionally, since 2010, USDA has 

provided annual program information that included country, organization, beneficiary, 

commodities, and total costs for all Food for Education and Food for Progress programs to 

USAID Title II officials in an effort to coordinate activities. USDA officials told us that the main 

objectives for sharing such information is to know about the projects that each agency is 

funding and to discuss ways to complement each other’s activities to guard against funding 

overlapping activities. Similarly, since 2011, USAID has shared similar information with 

USDA and sought feedback and review. Furthermore, according to USDA officials, they 

conducted country meetings with USAID officials to discuss country activities relating to food 

aid, agriculture development, and education and sought recommendations or concerns on 

the initial priority list or suggestions for changes that should be made. 

Agency Comments

We provided a draft of this report to USAID and USDA for review and comment. Neither 

agency provided formal written comments, but both agencies provided technical comments

that were incorporated, as appropriate.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-

9601 or melitot@gao.gov. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are Phillip 

Thomas, Assistant Director; Farahnaaz Khakoo-Mausel, Analyst-in-Charge; David Dayton; 

Martin De Alteris; Mark Dowling; Mark Needham, Erin Preston, and Emily Gupta.

Thomas Melito, Director

International Affairs and Trade

Enclosures - 2
Enclosure I

Page 10 GAO-13-141R Nonemergency Food Aid

Scope and Methodology

To identify USAID and USDA objectives for their nonemergency food aid programs, we 

analyzed program legislation and categorized similar objectives by three main areas–

economic, agriculture, and health. To identify if agencies were active in similar sectors, we 

reviewed USAID and USDA agency documents and similarly categorized those sectors by 

these same three areas. We also interviewed agency officials in Washington, D.C., and 

conducted conference calls with implementing partners in Guatemala and Uganda. To 

determine how these objectives were operationalized, we reviewed program funding, 

geographic focus, country-level activities, and agency planning processes. Our review did 

not address internal controls or field-level implementation of project activities (i.e., program 

management, results, and monitoring and evaluation).

To capture annual funding amounts toward nonemergency food aid programs, we examined 

data from USAID and USDA on the amounts they obligated for these programs for fiscal 

years 2008 through 2011. We interviewed cognizant officials about agency definitions for 

nonemergency food aid obligations, costs included in the data (i.e., commodity, freight, 

transport costs), and whether the process for capturing the data had changed during fiscal 

years 2008 through 2011. We determined that the data we used were sufficiently reliable for 

our purposes. 

To determine whether USAID and USDA were conducting nonemergency food aid programs 

in the same countries, we reviewed the U.S. International Food Aid Report 2011. We tracked 

the number of nonemergency food aid programs by country for fiscal year 2011. To illustrate 

whether USAID and USDA had planned similar project-level activities in the same countries, 

we selected two countries, Guatemala and Uganda, where (1) three nonemergency food aid 

programs were active in fiscal year 2011 and (2) recent GAO food aid audit work had been 

completed. These project-level activities are not generalizable for all nonemergency food aid 

programs. For these two countries, we gathered grant and cooperative contract agreements 

for all nonemergency food aid programs active in fiscal year 2011. We collected information 

on the implementing partner, implementation timeline, program value, estimated 

monetization amount, commodities, goals and objectives, project activities, and geographic 

focus areas. To determine if similar activities existed, we compared project activities across 

programs, by country. To determine if there were common program participant groups and if 

overlap existed when project activities were similar across programs, we analyzed the 

timelines, geographic focus areas, and agreement stipulations. In addition, we spoke with 

two implementing partners (namely, Mercy Corps and Share Guatemala) who were 

implementing both USAID and USDA programs. 

We also collected headquarters and field coordination exchanges (i.e., e-mails, guidance, 

budgets) in planning nonemergency food aid programs. For a broader discussion of 

coordination mechanisms to limit overlap and duplication in food aid programs, we plan to 

issue a report on Feed the Future, the government-wide global food security initiative, in 

2013.

We conducted this performance audit from July 2012 to December 2012 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 the evidence 
Enclosure I

Page 11 GAO-13-141R Nonemergency Food Aid

obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit 

objectives.
Enclosure II 

Page 12 GAO-13-141R Nonemergency Food Aid

Nonemergency Food Aid Programs Active in Fiscal Year 2011 in Guatemala and Uganda

Program Project startend datesPartner Project 

value in 

millions $

Project goals and 

objectives

Examples of project 

activities

Geographic focus

Guatemala –

USAID Title II 

Development 

Assistance

October 2006-

July 2012

Catholic 

Relief 

Services

26.6 1. Improved agricultural 

productivity and 

sustainable use of natural 

resources

2. Increased resilience of 

family livelihood capacities

3. Improved health and 

nutritional status of children 

0-36 months and 

pregnant/lactating women

4. Improved community 

capacity to ensure its own 

food security 

food for work, agricultural 

training for farmers, 

education for mothers on 

child growth, construction of 

water systems and latrines, 

training for local and 

municipal ministry of health 

officials

Departments of San 

Marcos and Baja 

Verapaz

Guatemala –

USAID Title II 

Development 

Assistance

July 2009-June 

2015 

Mercy Corps 47.3 1. Improve nutritional status 

and health of women and 

children vulnerable to food 

insecurity in northern 

Guatemala 

2.Prevent malnutrition in 

children under the age of 

two 

3. Improve service quality 

and delivery of health care 

service providers at 

community through 

municipal levels

food rations for 

pregnant/lactating women, 

consultation with 

government and civil society 

leaders; build local 

community leadership 

capacity/ ministry of health 

capacity; establish 

emergency funds for 

transportation to health 

services

Departments of Alta 

Verapaz and Quiché

Guatemala –

USAID Title II 

Development 

Assistance

October 2006-

August 2012

Save the 

Children 

Federation, 

Inc.

23.8 1. Improve maternal and 

child health and nutrition 

2. Strengthen livelihoods 

management 

3. Build community 

resilience

maternal and child health 

and nutrition services; 

training of subsistence 

farmer groups, 

entrepreneurial groups, 

ministry of agriculture, and 

women’s income groups; 

seed distribution, road 

rehabilitation, reforestation, 

and water shed activities.

Department of 

Quiché 

Guatemala –

USAID Title II 

Development 

Assistance

August 2006-

June 2012

Share de 

Guatemala

30.9 1. Improve nutrition and 

health of lactating mothers, 

children under three, and 

pregnant women 

2. Improve family food 

production, incomes, and 

the management of 

resources 

3. Strengthen the capacity 

of communities to manage 

their own development 

4. Improve basic 

community infrastructure

food for work, sanitary 

infrastructure, food rations 

to families, home gardens, 

local development, post 

harvest storage, microcredit and savings groups; 

build capacity of local 

nongovernmental 

organizations; education 

activities on child and 

mother health 

Departments of 

Chimaltenango and 

Huehuetenango

Guatemala –

USDA 

McGovern- Dole 

( Food for 

Education)

September 

2011-December 

2015

Share de 

Guatemala

25.0 1. Improve school 

enrollment and attendance 

2. Reduce the incidence of 

school desertion for higherrisk students through the 

direct feeding, take-home 

rations, teacher training, 

sanitary infrastructure, 

health and nutrition 

education, school gardens, 

Departments of 

ChimaItenango, 

Huehuetcllango, 

Baja Verapaz, and 

Quiché
Enclosure II 

Page 13 GAO-13-141R Nonemergency Food Aid

provision or a take-home 

ration

3. Improve the quality of 

education 

4. Strengthening capacity 

of Parent-Teacher 

Associations (PTAs) and 

local indigenous

organizations

training on commodities for 

community

Guatemala –

USDA Food for 

Progress 

September 

2010-December 

2015

Universidad 

Del Valle De 

Guatemala

4.0 1. Develop food products 

and produce bio-fuel for 

small, medium, and large 

scale

farmers

2.Provide education, 

training and technical 

assistance to farmers and 

community groups

3.Create and strengthen 

small agribusinesses 

agriculture demonstrations 

and training, greenhouses, 

education on high quality 

food products, irrigation 

systems improvements

Departments of 

Escuintla, 

Suchitepequez, 

Solola, and Quiché

Uganda – USAID 

Title II 

Development 

Assistance 

August 

2008-July 2013

Mercy Corps 21.7 1. Improved food 

production, consumption, 

and sales among 

smallholder farming 

households 

2. Improved health and 

nutrition for pregnant/ 

lactating women and 

children under five 

3.Sustainable safe water 

access and improved 

water, sanitation, and 

hygiene practices

expand production and 

sales of field crops, 

education on sound 

agricultural practices, 

sanitation facilities, child 

and mother nutrition 

activities

Acholi Sub-Region 

(Kitgum and Pader 

districts)

Uganda – USAID 

Title II 

Development 

Assistance

October 2006-

August 2012 

ACDI/VOCA 76.2 1. Smallholder Agriculture: 

Reduced food insecurity 

and increased nutrition 

status for 170,600 farmers

2. Reduced food insecurity 

and improved nutrition for 

53,100 vulnerable people 

agricultural training for local 

nongovernmental 

organizations, training in 

nutrition and hygiene to 

rural households, improved 

seeds, technical assistance 

to agro producers, 

rehabilitation of rural roads, 

training on financial services

Lango (Apac, Lira), 

Acholi (Gulu, Kitgum, 

Pader),Teso 

(Amuria, 

Kaberamaido, 

Katakwi, Kumi, 

Pallisa, Soroti)

Uganda –USDA 

LRP

December 2010-

September 2011

World Vision, 

Inc

4.0 1.Reduce food insecurity 

and vulnerability of 

extremely vulnerable 

individuals in Kitgum and 

Pader Districts

2. Reduce food insecurity 

and vulnerability of 

moderately food insecure 

individuals in those districts 

3. Strengthen local market 

linkages and increase 

communities' access to 

local markets. 

food for work, rehabilitate 

rural roads, training on 

agronomic practices, food 

rations, home gardens

Acholi Sub-Region 

(Kitgum and Pader 

districts)

Uganda –USDA 

Food for 

Progress 

September 

2011-September 

2014

National 

Cooperative 

Business 

Association

9.9 1. Improve maize and bean 

production 2. 

Improve maize and bean 

marketing 3.Improve 

manufacturing links and 

tools for conservation 

farming

agricultural training for 

ministry officials, agrobusiness training, grants for 

tool manufacturers

Regions of Lango, 

Pallisa, Elgon, 

Western, and 

Mubende

Uganda –USDA 

Food for 

Progress 

September 

2011-September 

2014

Mercy Corps 9.5 1. Enhance smallholder 

farmer production and 

profitability 

2. Improve agri-business 

and trade performance in 

agricultural training for 

farmers in business, training 

for local government, 

rehabilitation of rural roads, 

financial technical 

Acholi Sub region 

(Lamwo district)
Enclosure II 

Page 14 GAO-13-141R Nonemergency Food Aid

key inputs and output 

markets 

3. Expand access to rural 

financial services 

4. Improve financial 

institutions to provide credit 

services to both 

smallholder fanners and 

agri-businesses

assistance, training on 

savings and loans

Source: USAID and USDA documents.

Notes: Totals are rounded to one decimal point. Total value of the agreement includes U.S. value of the commodity, inland transportation, freight 

charges, storage, handing, and monetization if any. The amount of funding available for development programs depends on the purchase price of the 

commodity in the country in a given time. For example, in 2011, 52.1 percent of the USAID Title II Development Assistance was monetized. 
Page 15 GAO-13-141R Nonemergency Food Aid

Related GAO Reports

International Food Assistance: Improved Targeting Would Help Enable USAID to Reach 

Vulnerable Groups. GAO-12-862. Washington, D.C.: September 24, 2012.

International Food Assistance: World Food Program Stronger Control Needed in High Risk Areas. 

GAO-12-790. Washington, D.C.: September 13, 2012.

International Assistance: Funding Development Projects through the Purchase, Shipment, and 

Sale of U.S. Commodities is Inefficient and Can Cause Adverse Market Impact. GAO-11-636. 

Washington, D.C.: June 23, 2011. 

International Food Assistance: Key Issues for Congressional Oversight. *$263. 

Washington, D.C.: September 30, 2009.

International Food Assistance: USAID Is Taking Actions to Improve Monitoring and Evaluation of 

Nonemergency Food Aid, but Weaknesses in Planning Could Impede Efforts. GAO-09-980. 

Washington, D.C.: September 28, 2009.

International Food Assistance: Local and Regional Procurement Provides Opportunities to 

Enhance U.S. Food Aid, but Challenges May Constrain Its Implementation. GAO-09-757T. 

Washington, D.C.: June 4, 2009.

International Food Assistance: Local and Regional Procurement Can Enhance the Efficiency of 

U.S. Food Aid, but Challenges May Constrain Its Implementation. GAO-09-570. Washington, 

D.C.: May 29, 2009.

International Food Security: Insufficient Efforts by Host Governments and Donors Threaten 

Progress to Halve Hunger in Sub-Saharan Africa by 2015. GAO-08-680. Washington, D.C.: May 

29, 2008.

Foreign Assistance: Various Challenges Limit the Efficiency and Effectiveness of U.S. Food Aid. 

GAO-07-905T. Washington, D.C.: May 24, 2007.

Foreign Assistance: Various Challenges Impede the Efficiency and Effectiveness of U.S. Food 

Aid. GAO-07-560. Washington, D.C.: April 13, 2007.

Foreign Assistance: U.S. Agencies Face Challenges to Improving the Efficiency and 

Effectiveness of Food Aid. GAO-07-616T. Washington, D.C.: March 21, 2007.

Food Aid: Experience of U.S. Programs Suggest Opportunities for Improvement. GAO-02-801T. 

Washington, D.C.: June 4, 2002.

(320929)
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.
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 (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 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. 

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

Contact:

Website: 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

Please Print on Recycled Paper.