United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee

on Foreign Agriculture and Hunger,

Committee on Agriculture, House of

Representatives

November 1994 FOOD AID

Private Voluntary

Organizations’ Role In

Distributing Food Aid

GAO/NSIAD-95-35

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

National Security and

International Affairs Division

B-259032 

November 23, 1994

The Honorable Timothy J. Penny

Chairman, Subcommittee on Foreign

 Agriculture and Hunger

Committee on Agriculture

House of Representatives

Dear Mr. Chairman:

As requested, we are providing information about food aid granted by the

United States to private voluntary organizations (PVO) to support

development activities in foreign countries. Specifically, the report

describes (1) the role of PVOs in distributing food aid and (2) the impact of

direct feeding programs on enhancing the long-term food security of

recipient countries, including how well projects are targeted to people

vulnerable to malnutrition and whether food-for-work projects

significantly improve infrastructure.

Background The United States has provided food assistance to developing countries

since the passage of the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance

Act of 1954 (P.L. 480). Title II of the act, as amended, authorizes grants of

agricultural commodities to meet relief requirements and for activities to

alleviate the causes of hunger, disease, and death. The 1990 amendments

to Public Law 480,1

 emphasize food security of developing countries,

defining food security as “access by all people at all times to sufficient

food and nutrition for a healthy and productive life.”2

 Congress also

directed that at least 76 percent of the legislated minimum amounts of

commodities provided under title II be used for nonemergency

development activities of U.S. PVOs or cooperatives3

 or intergovernmental

and multilateral organizations such as the World Food Program. The title II

program is the responsibility of the Agency for International Development

(AID). We reviewed PVO food aid projects in Ghana, Honduras, and

Indonesia and conducted an extensive review of relevant literature on

PVOs’ food aid and development activities.

1

Agricultural Development and Trade Act (title XV of P.L.101-624).

2

The Agency for International Development has administratively refined the definition to highlight

three variables influencing food security: (1) availability, (2) access, and (3) utilization of food.

3

For purposes of this report, we refer to U.S.-based private voluntary organizations and cooperatives

as PVOs. Cooperatives are a special category of nongovernmental organizations that were formed to

provide business services and develop cooperatives in developing countries.

Page 1 GAO/NSIAD-95-35 Food Aid
B-259032 

Results in Brief PVOs, working with local governmental and nongovernmental

organizations overseas, generally address food security at the community

or individual level. PVOs engage in (1) food distribution (known as direct

feeding projects), which provides immediate access to food and (2) selling

(monetizing) commodities to generate local currencies for other types of

projects that address the primary cause of lack of food security—poverty.

PVOs have developed considerable expertise in handling food aid and have

well-established distribution networks in developing countries that enable

them to provide aid to remote areas. Their use of food aid is generally

consistent with legislative requirements and objectives. Although some

losses are still occurring, PVOs have taken steps to improve their

management and accounting for title II commodities.

The impact of direct feeding projects on advancement toward national- or

community-level food security is not clear. Economic, cultural, and

environmental factors beyond the control of a PVO may hamper a nation’s

long-term food security. At the community level, the long-term impact of

direct feeding projects depends on the projects’ design and

implementation. PVO and AID evaluations of some specific direct feeding

projects have shown some positive impacts on health, nutrition, and

income generation at the community or individual level. However, AID and

the PVOs have not systematically collected relevant data or developed

appropriate methodologies to assess the impact of food aid on food

security. According to AID, to do so, in some cases, would be cost

prohibitive and extremely difficult.

PVOs have had difficulty targeting the most vulnerable populations, and

some projects serve people who may not be the least food secure.

Food-for-work projects, usually directed at small, community-based

infrastructure improvements, seem to have the potential for improving the

community, as some beneficiaries reported significant improvements in

their lives. However, some of the infrastructure projects we reviewed did

not include plans for sustainability.

PVOs’ Role in

Distributing Food Aid

Has Been to Conduct

Community-Based

Projects

PVOs have established a unique role in delivering nonemergency food aid

by working with local organizations to support community-based projects.

Their food aid activities have evolved from primarily charitable relief

activities to projects aimed at alleviating poverty and improving health,

education, or community development. These activities are consistent

with the legislative purposes of title II—to alleviate the causes of hunger,

disease, and death. PVOs distribute donated commodities to meet the

Page 2 GAO/NSIAD-95-35 Food Aid
B-259032 

immediate needs of poor people or sell the commodities to generate local

currencies to support nonfood projects.

PVOs have (1) proven experience in the complexities of food shipment,

storage, and distribution; (2) distribution networks in developing

countries; and (3) the ability to work with communities and local

nongovernmental organizations. In fiscal year 1993, PVOs distributed

almost 1.2 million metric tons of U.S.-donated food aid, not including

emergency aid, to 58 countries. PVOs sold about 13 percent of the title II

commodities in 1993 to generate currency to pay costs associated with

direct feeding projects and to conduct nonfood projects. For example, a

project in Indonesia monetized 100 percent of the donated commodities

and used the local currencies generated from the sale to support local

cooperatives’ efforts to expand export of nontraditional crops such as

vanilla and cinnamon. A project in Ghana used monetization funds to

develop small palm-oil processing operations that would enable

beneficiaries to earn increased incomes.

AID and PVOs are taking steps to improve the PVOs’ track record in

accounting for title II commodities; however, problems remain.

Evaluations of PVO projects by AID’s Inspector General and others have

found instances of waste, mismanagement, and theft of commodities.

Impact of Direct

Feeding Projects on

Food Security

The impact of direct feeding projects on community- or national-level food

security is not clear. First, food security is a complex issue that involves

many factors, such as economic barriers, environmental situations, and

natural or man-made disasters. Second, according to AID officials and food

aid policy experts, direct feeding programs alone will not achieve

long-term food security in a country where national-level economic and

social policy reform is needed. In addition, some food experts believe that

long-term direct feeding projects may create dependency, lessening the

prospects for long-term food security. However, there is some evidence

that at the community level, direct feeding programs that are

well-designed have the potential to make small but important changes in

the food security of some communities and individuals. For example, a

well dug in a food-for-work project in Africa provided clean water, which

beneficiaries reported had decreased the incidence of guinea worm

disease. According to AID and PVO evaluations of specific projects, some

well-designed and well-implemented direct feeding programs appear to

enhance some food security indicators at the community or individual

Page 3 GAO/NSIAD-95-35 Food Aid
B-259032 

level. However, the impact of direct feeding projects at the national level is

less clear.

Determining the effectiveness of direct feeding projects on enhancing

long-term food security relies on systematic evaluation, that is, the

application of appropriate evaluation methodologies and collection of

baseline data. AID and PVOs have generally evaluated food aid projects

based on commodity management and outputs, such as numbers of

children fed or miles of road constructed, but have not assessed the

impact of their projects on long-term food security. AID has stated that it

and the PVOs are fully committed to doing a better job at evaluating the

impact of food aid development projects on long-term food security and

are making progress in developing and applying methodologies.4

Targeting Food to Reach

the Most Vulnerable to

Malnutrition Is Difficult

All projects we reviewed were designed to reach poor populations, but not

necessarily the people most vulnerable to hunger and malnutrition. We

found targeting problems in each of the countries we visited. In Honduras

and Ghana, large food aid programs served major portions of the

countries, and there was no process in place to identify individuals who

were the least food secure. In Indonesia, at least one food-for-work project

employed workers that were not necessarily food insecure. We also found

a slightly different problem in Indonesia. There were no PVO food aid

projects in some of the poorest areas of the country, including East Timor,

in part because of political reasons.

Moreover, PVOs sometimes use food aid to support development objectives

not related to nutrition. For example, in Honduras, the primary purpose of

school meals is to encourage attendance and increase educational levels

of the population. All children in the school receive a ration, even if they

are not among the poorest. Similarly, a maternal and child health project

we visited in Indonesia provided food rations as an incentive for mothers

to bring their children to health centers for routine care. The project did

not screen participants by nutritional status or degree of food security.

Food-for-Work Projects

Can Make Small-Scale

Improvements in

Infrastructure

PVOs sometimes use food aid to support small-scale community and

infrastructure projects. We found that small capital improvements such as

a well, latrine, or school, can make a significant improvement in

participants’ lives. For example, in a village where a PVO had completed a

4

We are currently reviewing AID’s progress in implementing the recommendations made in our 1993

report and will issue a report in early 1995.

Page 4 GAO/NSIAD-95-35 Food Aid
B-259032 

food-for-work sewer project in Honduras, residents reported fewer

instances of malaria and dengue fever. However, planning for

maintenance, which is critical to sustainability of project benefits, has not

always been part of the PVOs’ project designs.

Scope and

Methodology

This report builds on the results of our recent work on food aid.5 We

conducted an extensive literature search on previous experience in

delivering food assistance through direct feeding programs and the PVOs’

development activities. We interviewed officials from AID, the Department

of Agriculture, and food policy experts at the International Food Policy

Research Institute. We also discussed food aid objectives and projects

with PVO representatives, including Cooperative for American Relief

Everywhere, Incorporated (CARE), and Catholic Relief Services (CRS), the

PVOs with the largest food programs.6

Overseas, we interviewed AID mission officials, World Food Program

officials, PVO representatives, and host country government officials to

discuss food security needs and the impacts of food aid projects. We

visited project sites in Ghana, Honduras, and Indonesia to get information

on their objectives and how they might contribute to food security. When

possible, we spoke with project beneficiaries.

We chose to visit Ghana, Honduras, and Indonesia because they represent

a range of food security problems.7

 The case studies from these three

countries provide examples of how food aid is used in direct feeding and

monetization projects; however, the results cannot be generalized to the

entire title II program. We discussed issues related to controls over food

aid with mission and PVO officials, but we did not independently audit PVOs’

food aid accounting and management systems.

Our review was performed from February to August 1994 in accordance

with generally accepted government auditing standards. We did not obtain

5

Food Aid: Management Improvements Are Needed to Achieve Program Objectives

(GAO/NSIAD-93-168, July 23, 1993) and Foreign Assistance: Inadequate Accountability for U.S.

Donations to the World Food Program (GAO/NSIAD-94-29, Jan. 28, 1994).

6

In fiscal year 1994, CARE and CRS made up roughly 72 percent of the PVOs’ regular title II programs,

based on the approved commodity amounts. CARE’s regular programs comprised 45.5 percent and

CRS’ regular programs made up 26.2 percent of these commodities.

7

AID uses five basic indicators to establish a country category of food security, including gross

national product (GNP) per capita, average daily per capita calories availability, under-5 mortality rate,

gross foreign exchange earnings, and gross domestic food production. On this basis, AID has classified

Ghana as most food insecure. Honduras is classified as borderline food insecure, and Indonesia is

classified as relatively food secure.

Page 5 GAO/NSIAD-95-35 Food Aid
B-259032 

formal comments on this report from AID. However, we discussed its

contents with cognizant AID officials and have incorporated their

comments where appropriate.

Appendix I includes more information on our analysis of the PVOs’ role in

distributing food aid. Appendix II summarizes information on direct

feeding projects and their impact on food security. Appendix III details the

uses of food aid in the countries we visited.

We are sending copies of this report to the Administrator, AID, and other

interested congressional committees. We will also make copies available

to others upon request.

This report was prepared under the direction of Benjamin F. Nelson,

Associate Director, International Affairs Issues. If you have any questions

concerning this report, please call us at (202) 512-4128. Other major

contributors to this report are listed in appendix IV.

Sincerely yours,

Joseph E. Kelley

Director-in-Charge

International Affairs Issues

Page 6 GAO/NSIAD-95-35 Food Aid
Page 7 GAO/NSIAD-95-35 Food Aid
Contents

Letter 1

Appendix I 

Private Voluntary

Organizations’ Role in

Distributing Food Aid

10

PVOs Fill Development Niche by Implementing Grassroots

Projects

10

PVOs’ Food Aid Projects Are Consistent With Legislated

Purposes

11

Appendix II 

Impact and Targeting

of Direct Feeding

Projects

16

Impact of Direct Feeding Projects 16

Design and Implementation Are Important to Projects’

Long-Term Impact

17

Data on Project Impacts Lacking 25

Appendix III 

Case Study

Summaries

27

Title II Food Aid in Ghana 27

Title II Food Aid in Honduras 30

Title II Food Aid in Indonesia 33

Appendix IV 

Major Contributors to

This Report

36

Tables Table III.1: Title II-Approved Nonemergency Projects for

Sponsors in Ghana

28

Table III.2: Title II-Approved Nonemergency Projects for

Sponsors in Honduras

31

Table III.3: Title II-Approved Nonemergency Projects for

Sponsors in Indonesia

34

Figures Figure I.1: Sectors of Development Supported by U.S. Food Aid

for Fiscal Year 1993

12

Figure I.2: Furniture Cooperative in Indonesia Supported by Title

II Monetized Funds

14

Figure II.1: School Feeding Project in Honduras 19

Figure II.2: Maternal and Child Health Direct Feeding Project in

Honduras

20

Figure II.3: Well Built by Food-for-Work Project in Ghana 22

Page 8 GAO/NSIAD-95-35 Food Aid
Contents

Figure II.4: Drainage Ditch Built by Food-for-Work Project in

Honduras

22

Figure II.5: Dam Built by Food-for-Work Project in Indonesia 23

Abbreviations

ADRA Adventist Development and Relief Agency

AID Agency for International Development

CARE Cooperative for American Relief Everywhere, Incorporated

CRS Catholic Relief Services

GNP gross national product

NCBA National Cooperative Business Association

PVO Private Voluntary Organization

Page 9 GAO/NSIAD-95-35 Food Aid
Appendix I 

Private Voluntary Organizations’ Role in

Distributing Food Aid

The United States provides agricultural commodity assistance, or food aid,

to foreign countries to meet emergency needs, combat hunger and

malnutrition, encourage development, and promote U.S. foreign policy

goals. The Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954, as

amended, widely known as Public Law 480, provides the primary legal

framework for food aid. Title II of the act directs that at least 76 percent of

the legislated minimum amount of commodities provided under that title

go to support nonemergency development activities of private voluntary

organizations (PVOs) or intergovernmental organizations, such as the

World Food Program.1

 Commodities may be distributed to needy people or

sold (monetized) in the country to generate local currency to support

development activities.

The 1990 Agricultural Development and Trade Act (title XV of 

P.L. 101-624) made several changes in food aid, including emphasizing the

objective of enhancing the “food security” of needy countries. The

legislation authorized PVOs to use food for a variety of activities to achieve

this objective, including addressing the causes of malnutrition and disease,

promoting economic development, and promoting sound environmental

practices. Management of the title II program is the responsibility of the

Agency for International Development (AID).

PVOs Fill

Development Niche

by Implementing

Grassroots Projects

PVOs implement grassroots-level projects using commodities and local

currencies generated from their sale. They are responsible for planning,

organizing, implementing, controlling, and evaluating food aid programs.

While major donors have tended to focus on creating a policy environment

conducive to sustained economic development, PVOs generally focus their

efforts on small development projects that will have an immediate impact

on poor populations at the local level.

With the passage of Public Law 480 in 1954, PVOs began distributing U.S.

food aid worldwide. PVOs historically have provided food aid through relief

activities that were not designed for long-term impact. During the 1980s,

AID encouraged PVOs to move from simply distributing food to conducting

development activities supported by food aid resources. Such projects

may involve direct feeding of beneficiaries or other types of development

activities supported by the proceeds from sale of the donated

commodities.

1

This minimum allocation of commodities for nonemergency activities may be waived by the

Administrator of AID to meet emergency needs or if the food cannot be effectively used. The

requirement has been waived each year since fiscal year 1991 because of emergency needs for food

aid.

Page 10 GAO/NSIAD-95-35 Food Aid
Appendix I 

Private Voluntary Organizations’ Role in

Distributing Food Aid

In fiscal year 1993, PVOs distributed about 1.2 million metric tons of

U.S.-donated food aid, not including emergency assistance, in 58 countries

worldwide. The Cooperative for American Relief Everywhere,

Incorporated (CARE) and Catholic Relief Services (CRS) are the major PVOs

distributing food aid. Together, they distributed over 568,000 metric tons,

or about half of the title II nonemergency food aid in fiscal year 1993.

PVOs generally do not dispense commodities to beneficiaries themselves,

but instead work with governmental or nongovernmental organizations.

Over the years, PVOs have established networks of local governments, local

development organizations, churches, and schools, among others, to

dispense the commodities to beneficiaries and conduct development

activities. This arrangement enables PVOs to implement food aid programs

that may be larger or more geographically dispersed than otherwise would

be possible.

PVOs’ work with local organizations also is designed to build the in-country

capacity to provide services or conduct development activities. For

example, in Ghana, the Adventist Development and Relief Agency (ADRA)

works with the Ghanaian Forestry Department and a local

nongovernmental organization on a forestry project. In Honduras, CARE

works through the Ministries of Health and Education, and the National

Social Welfare Board to operate direct feeding activities for school feeding

and maternal and child health programs. CARE also works with the local

municipalities to improve municipal infrastructure through its

food-for-work project. In Indonesia, CRS works with several local

nongovernmental organizations, notably one local-level CRS counterpart in

Lombok, which appeared economically self-sufficient and had its own

rural credit bank. This counterpart’s officials indicated that it would

continue development work after CRS funding ended. Appendix IV provides

more specific information about the PVOs’ title II projects in the countries

we visited.

PVOs’ Food Aid

Projects Are

Consistent With

Legislated Purposes

Public Law 480 directs that PVOs use food aid provided under title II to

conduct activities to enhance the food security of people in developing

countries. This goal is consistent with the goal of most PVO overseas

activities, that is, working to alleviate the hardships caused by poverty, the

primary cause of food insecurity.

PVOs use food aid to support projects in many different development

sectors, including health, education, small business development, and

Page 11 GAO/NSIAD-95-35 Food Aid
Appendix I 

Private Voluntary Organizations’ Role in

Distributing Food Aid

democracy building. In the countries we visited, the PVOs supported

projects in health, education, environment, income generation, water and

sanitation, and others (see app. III). Figure I.1 shows different sectors of

development supported by food aid worldwide in 1993.

Figure I.1: Sectors of Development Supported by U.S. Food Aid for Fiscal Year 1993

Nutrition education


Immunization and other child survival


Supplementary/therapeutic feeding


Agriculture/soil conservation


Forestry


Road construction/maintenance


Water/sanitation systems


Irrigation


Construction


Grain banks/cooperatives


Credit/banking

0 10 20 30 40 50

Number of projects

Source: Food Aid Management, Directory of Food-Assisted Projects, 1993.

Page 12 GAO/NSIAD-95-35 Food Aid
Appendix I 

Private Voluntary Organizations’ Role in

Distributing Food Aid

PVOs have used food to support the following types of direct feeding

projects:

• maternal and child health projects that provide supplementary food to

children and pregnant and lactating women to ensure that they have an

adequate diet and to improve their nutrition;

• food-for-work projects that provide take-home rations or on-site meals to

unemployed or underemployed individuals who participate in community

construction projects, such as building schools, roads, and irrigation

systems, or land improvement projects, including reforestation or

terracing; and

• school feeding programs that provide meals to students to improve their

health, learning capability, attendance, and nutrition and to adults who

attend training courses.

In addition, PVOs have distributed food through emergency programs to

provide relief to civilians displaced by wars, floods, famines, and other

man-made and natural disasters.

Commodities supplied through title II nonemergency programs may also

be sold (monetized), and local currencies generated from the sale may be

(1) used to transport, store, or distribute commodities; (2) used to finance

development activities; or (3) invested, with the interest earned used to

support relief and development activities. We found at least one example

of projects supported by selling 100 percent of the title II commodities in

each of the countries we visited: a palm-oil processing program in Ghana,

a housing sanitation program in Honduras, and a cooperative development

program in Indonesia (see fig. I.2). Many development officials told us that

projects supported by monetization may be preferable to direct feeding in

some cases because of (1) the difficulties of moving and storing food and

(2) concerns about dependency on donated food and detrimental effects

on local production. In commenting on a draft of this report, AID officials

stated that AID is starting an evaluation of monetized programs.

Page 13 GAO/NSIAD-95-35 Food Aid
Appendix I 

Private Voluntary Organizations’ Role in

Distributing Food Aid

Figure I.2: Furniture Cooperative in

Indonesia Supported by Title II

Monetized Funds

Efforts to Improve

Accounting for

Commodities

Although PVOs work through local organizations to distribute food to

remote locations, they are accountable for ensuring that food is used

according to agreed-upon purposes. PVOs have historically had difficulty

managing and accounting for title II commodities. AID Inspector General

reports and other evaluations have identified instances of food aid losses

due to inadequate management controls, theft, and fraud. An association

of nine U.S. PVOs formed Food Aid Management in 1989 with a grant from

AID to improve the management and accountability of food aid. Among its

activities, Food Aid Management has developed PVO guidelines and

operating standards such as the Generally Accepted Commodity

Accountability Principles. In addition, requirements for independent

audits2

 have imposed more discipline in managing food resources. AID

officials and development experts agree that PVOs are making progress

toward improving their handling and accounting for commodities over the

last decade.

Despite these efforts, we reviewed documents indicating losses in each

country we visited. For example, a 1991 AID Inspector General audit report

2

Office of Management and Budget Circular A-133, Audits of Institutions of Higher Education and

Other Nonprofit Organizations.

Page 14 GAO/NSIAD-95-35 Food Aid
Appendix I 

Private Voluntary Organizations’ Role in

Distributing Food Aid

on the Ghana title II program noted evidence of theft, but the auditors

could not verify the extent of losses. The audit report stated that PVOs’ loss

reports to the mission were often incorrect and their reporting systems did

not account for losses resulting from thefts. In Indonesia in 1992, a case

occurred in which the U.S. PVO counterpart could not account for 

47 metric tons of rice. The loss was attributed to malfeasance on the part

of the warehouse supervisor. To attempt to prevent losses from recurring,

CRS introduced the end-use check function and incremental improvements

in their accountability systems. The Honduran title II program also

experienced instances of losses and difficulties in accounting for

commodities.

Page 15 GAO/NSIAD-95-35 Food Aid
Appendix II 

Impact and Targeting of Direct Feeding

Projects

Impact of Direct

Feeding Projects

The impact of PVOs’ direct feeding projects on food security at either the

national or community levels is uncertain. Determining the impact of PVOs’

direct feeding projects involves complex methodological issues. Further,

data on countrywide social conditions that could be useful in constructing

indicators of food security, such as infant mortality and household

income, are not often readily available in developing countries.

(Evaluation is discussed more fully on pp. 25-26.) According to food aid

and development experts, while food security is often affected by

national-level social and economic policies, PVOs’ local development

activities supported by food aid can complement national-level changes by

providing assistance to the needy until economic growth can raise

incomes. Mission officials in the three countries we visited told us that

direct feeding activities were a way to remedy immediate needs, but were

not sufficient to attain food security without necessary policy reform.

Some well-designed and well-implemented PVO direct feeding projects

appear to enhance food security at the community or individual level.

Beneficiaries of some projects indicated that the projects have improved

their lives.

Some experts believe that food aid actually fosters dependency. They

argue that at the national level, food aid enables governments to divert

resources to other priorities than feeding their populations and may make

it unnecessary for them to enact needed food policy reforms. Some critics

of food aid also argue that the presence of donated commodities acts as a

disincentive to increased local food production.

Food Aid in Ghana,

Honduras, and Indonesia

to Be Retargeted

In Ghana, Honduras, and Indonesia, we found that either the AID mission

or the PVOs were trying to phase out or retarget direct feeding activities to

improve the impact of food aid projects on the people who are least food

secure, without contributing to dependency. In Ghana, AID officials were

assessing the need for continuing direct feeding programs. AID/Ghana

officials told us that (1) direct feeding projects were mismanaged and did

not contribute to development and (2) the Ghanaian government should

only establish and fund emergency or short-term relief programs to

vulnerable groups. The Ghanaian Ministry of Agriculture’s plans for

achieving food security do not include long-term continuation of PVOs’

direct feeding programs for persons not considered to be in a vulnerable

group, such as disabled persons, refugees, pregnant women, and children.

The Ministry’s plans focus instead on increasing food production and

raising the income of Ghanaians.

Page 16 GAO/NSIAD-95-35 Food Aid
Appendix II 

Impact and Targeting of Direct Feeding

Projects

Similarly, in Honduras, AID, CARE, and Honduran government officials were

reassessing the need for continuing direct feeding projects because they

asserted that the food security situation in the country has not improved

significantly over the 40 years of direct feeding projects. According to AID,

CARE, and Honduran government officials, the current direct feeding

activities are too geographically dispersed, and the projects have not

always reached the most vulnerable people. In addition, AID and CARE

officials noted the long-term feeding programs may have created

disincentives to local food production. CARE’s planning documents indicate

that the number of projects should be reduced and the projects’ objectives

redefined to target the most needy. However, AID officials stated that direct

feeding activities or a direct subsidy of some sort is important for the most

vulnerable groups, such as malnourished children and rural poor.

Despite the pockets of food insecurity in Indonesia, AID/Indonesia and CRS

officials suggested that the food distribution program should not continue

because the country is relatively food secure. According to the mission

director, the amounts of title II commodity imports are relatively small and

the impact of providing food to Indonesia on a national level is

insignificant.1

 Both AID and PVO officials preferred to conduct development

activities using funds from monetization rather than continuing direct

feeding projects.

Design and

Implementation Are

Important to Projects’

Long-Term Impact

How projects are designed, implemented, and maintained determines

whether direct feeding projects will have a long-term impact. Among the

projects we reviewed, some appeared to have successfully met their

objectives. In Ghana, for example, a PVO scholarship program was

successful in raising school attendance rates by providing take-home

rations as an incentive for parents to keep their children in school, and a

PVO cooperative in Indonesia, funded through sale of commodities, had

increased the incomes of participants.

Other projects appeared to be less successful in meeting stated objectives

because of design and implementation problems. For example,

implementors of maternal and child health projects that provided dry

rations that mothers took home to prepare could not be sure that

malnourished mothers and children consumed the food so that their

nutritional status was improved rather than sharing the food with other

family members. Implementation was also a problem in a maternal and

1

The 1993 title II allocation was about 10,000 metric tons of rice, and the World Bank estimated that in

1991 Indonesia produced about 44 million tons of rice domestically.

Page 17 GAO/NSIAD-95-35 Food Aid
Appendix II 

Impact and Targeting of Direct Feeding

Projects

child health project in Honduras. Growth monitoring varied among project

sites and was inadequate in some cases, so the PVO could not track

whether the children’s nutritional status improved because of the food

received. In this case, the PVO’s project was designed to rely on persons

that did not have the skills to implement the project adequately. For

example, nearly all the women who prepared meals and monitored

children’s growth at the community centers had little or no formal

education and so they had difficulty keeping accurate records.

Direct Feeding Programs

Generally Try to Target the

Poor

The direct feeding projects targeted the poor in the countries we visited,

and the beneficiaries receiving the food were generally considered poor,

but not necessarily the most vulnerable populations. The targeting of the

food projects in the countries we visited varied by type and objective.

School feeding projects provide meals to students to improve their health,

learning capability, attendance, and nutrition. The objective of the school

feeding projects in Honduras and Ghana was to increase school

attendance, but the projects had no specific nutritional objectives. In

Honduras, for example, the schools that received the supplemental food

were chosen by region, not by the individual student’s nutritional need.

Since the goal was to increase attendance, the projects measured

attendance, not nutritional impact on the children. Schools in 9 of the 

18 departments in Honduras were recipients of food aid through the

school feeding project, and the food was distributed to 3,800 schools 

(see fig. II.1). CARE, the PVO managing the project, AID, and Honduran

officials are reassessing the program and redesigning the projects to meet

the food needs of the most vulnerable people, such as pregnant and

lactating women, and children under 6 years old.

Page 18 GAO/NSIAD-95-35 Food Aid
Appendix II 

Impact and Targeting of Direct Feeding

Projects

Figure II.1: School Feeding Project in

Honduras

Maternal and child health projects generally target children and pregnant

and lactating women because of their nutritional vulnerability 

(see fig. II.2). However, rather than having nutritional goals, projects in all

the countries we visited used food as an incentive for mothers to bring

children to health centers for inoculations and preventive care. In some

projects, nutritional problems were not criteria for participation. For

example, in Indonesia, according to PVO and local officials, PVOs have

established projects where the government of Indonesia had not provided

adequate health coverage. The community health centers used food as an

incentive for women to attend classes in nutrition and family planning.

According to project officials, although the women served were poor, they

were not screened for nutritional status and were not necessarily the

poorest. Maternal and child health projects sponsored by PVOs in Honduras

and Ghana provided food to poor mothers. The Honduran project provided

food to persons who were not eligible under the project criteria, according

to a recent evaluation and local project officials. PVO officials told us the

project in Ghana may not have served the poorest mothers because they

lacked the status to join the informal socializing of mothers who came to

the centers.

Page 19 GAO/NSIAD-95-35 Food Aid
Appendix II 

Impact and Targeting of Direct Feeding

Projects

Figure II.2: Maternal and Child Health

Direct Feeding Project in Honduras

In commenting on a draft of this report, AID said it recognizes, as the PVOs

do, that it is not always possible to reach the most vulnerable groups in a

society. It also stated that

“. . .the goal of food aid programs under Title II must be to assist the poor and hungry.

However, there are many factors which go into designing a successful sustainable

development project. For example, it is often essential that recipients bring some small

personal resources to an activity, even if only their labor. Some level of receptivity to

change is usually important. Simple access can be a problem in some countries. All these

factors make it difficult for a PVO to identify and target groups and individuals that are

absolutely the most needy in a country.”

Food-for-work projects are usually considered self-targeting to the poorest

because the work is difficult and wages are low. The objectives of

food-for-work projects were generally to offer short-term employment and

improve infrastructure, such as roads or sewers. Rations are usually based

on the amount and difficulty of the work performed and are not usually

calculated to improve nutritional status for the workers and their families.

Infrastructure improvement projects are based on the assumption that, in

Page 20 GAO/NSIAD-95-35 Food Aid
Appendix II 

Impact and Targeting of Direct Feeding

Projects

addition to short-term employment provided through the project, the

workers benefit from community improvements.

In most projects we visited, the participants were considered poor but did

not have to be among the most vulnerable populations to participate. For

example, in Ghana, the food-for-work project targeted seasonally

employed agricultural laborers between harvests. In Indonesia, a

food-for-work project was constructing a dam and an irrigation system for

a community that had not been served by the government. Although these

villagers were not food insecure, rice was provided in payment for labor.

Project officials said that the workers could sell the rice and use this

income to purchase other types of foods. However, the PVO did not track

how the rice was used.

Infrastructure

Improvements Are Usually

Small and

Community-Based

Food-for-work projects are usually small-scale, local infrastructure

improvement efforts. For example, in Honduras, food-for-work projects

supported the construction of sewage lines, drainage ditches, and

sidewalk and street construction and repairs. In Ghana, water wells,

latrines, and schools were completed, and in Indonesia, food-for-work

projects upgraded irrigation systems and built a small dam.

Although many of the infrastructure projects were small in scale, the

beneficiaries told us that the projects had significantly improved their

living conditions. In Ghana, prior to the completion of a well-digging

food-for-work project (see fig. II.3), the villagers used unclean water from

a river about 1 kilometer away from the village. One beneficiary told us

that since the villagers had started using the well water, the children’s

health had improved greatly and the incidence of guinea worm disease had

sharply declined. In Honduras, beneficiaries told us that the sewage and

drainage improvements kept the latrines from filling up during heavy rains

and reduced the incidence of malaria, dengue fever, and illnesses among

the children (see fig. II.4).

Page 21 GAO/NSIAD-95-35 Food Aid
Appendix II 

Impact and Targeting of Direct Feeding

Projects

Figure II.3: Well Built by Food-for-Work

Project in Ghana

Figure II.4: Drainage Ditch Built by

Food-for-Work Project in Honduras

Page 22 GAO/NSIAD-95-35 Food Aid
Appendix II 

Impact and Targeting of Direct Feeding

Projects

Many of the PVOs’ infrastructure projects also produced results in addition

to the planned infrastructure. For example, an Indonesian dam and

reservoir project enabled the local farmers to increase their crop

production from one crop of rice to two crops per year. After the dam was

completed, the villagers not only increased their crop production, but also

used the reservoir for raising fish (see fig. II.5).

Figure II.5: Dam Built by

Food-for-Work Project in Indonesia

In Honduras, a community project coordinator told us that besides

constructing a sewage drainage system, the community, with the PVO’s

help, had resolved other problems with the municipality, such as land

titling, electricity, and water hook-up. The coordinator did add, however,

that he had encountered problems keeping “trained” workers (i.e.,

bricklayers). The trained participants were able to get jobs at the

government public works program making over three times the daily

ration. Although unplanned, one of the long-term impacts may be enabling

workers to get higher-paying jobs.

Page 23 GAO/NSIAD-95-35 Food Aid
Appendix II 

Impact and Targeting of Direct Feeding

Projects

Planning for Maintenance

Is Critical to Sustainability

Whether a project leads to improvements over the long term depends on

how well it is maintained. If an infrastructure project is well-designed, a

maintenance plan is part of the project design. We saw evidence that some

PVOs plan for maintaining projects. For example, in Indonesia, a PVO had

assisted in the design and building of a small dam. The PVO helped the local

nongovernmental organization design a local maintenance fund and a plan

for maintaining the dam. On the other hand, some PVO projects did not

include planning for the project’s maintenance. Project officials in

Honduras told us they had not completed a maintenance plan yet,

although the municipal infrastructure project providing food-for-work had

been ongoing for 4 years.

Field site visits and past evaluations suggest that projects’ implementation

can be improved. For example, in Ghana, we observed a food-for-work

project where two wells were to be built; however, only one well was

completed. The unfinished well, which was started in 1991, had collapsed

during construction.

PVOs’ project evaluations we reviewed recommended several things that

PVOs can do to improve project design and implementation, such as the

following:

• Design the project on the community’s perceived needs.

• Begin with an agreed-upon plan to phase out food-for-work in an area.

• Plan for project maintenance, including the constraints and possible

contingency actions.

• Increase the amount of money available for tools and other supplies for

construction.

• Provide better training for the local communities.

Long-term impact of direct feeding projects also may depend on the

continuing support of the community or the recipient government. We saw

projects where the PVOs had planned for the project’s maintenance, but the

community had difficulties maintaining the project as planned. For

example, in Honduras, one community encountered problems with the

drainage ditches, completed under a food-for-work project, not draining

properly. According to PVO officials, they had provided instruction to this

community for maintaining the ditches. To maintain the proper drainage,

residents had to keep the ditches free of debris. However, according to

local residents, not all of the residents had maintained the system

properly. In Ghana, a PVO had assisted the community in digging a well in

1991. However, at the time of our visit in 1994, debris had filled the holes

Page 24 GAO/NSIAD-95-35 Food Aid
Appendix II 

Impact and Targeting of Direct Feeding

Projects

in the well’s sides where the water entered so that the well had dried up.

According to PVO officials, although the villagers had been taught how to

unplug the well, the villagers had not unplugged the holes and were

instead waiting for the PVO or the government to unplug the sides and

make the well functional again. Without the well, the villagers were using a

mountain stream that during the dry season was considered unclean. At

the time of our visit, no action had been taken to make the well

operational.

Some PVOs have been successful in overcoming some of these obstacles to

ensure long-term impacts of their projects. In the three countries we

visited, we saw successful projects where PVOs have encouraged village or

community participation, used appropriate technologies, provided

education and training, planned for sustainability, and strengthened local

institutions.

Data on Project

Impacts Lacking

As we reported in our 1993 report,2 AID is implementing its food aid

programs without empirical evidence that they enhance food security. AID

has not yet developed methodologies for measuring what the long-term

impacts of its food aid programs are or whether food aid is an efficient

method for achieving or sustaining the food security objective. Further, it

has not gathered data to support its assumptions about the positive

long-term impacts of food aid programs, even where an impact might be

measurable.

Until recently, AID and the PVOs’ evaluations of direct feeding activities

have centered on improving management accountability for the food

resources. Evaluations have measured outputs, such as the number of

children fed or miles of road paved, rather than the project’s impacts. PVO

officials agreed that baseline data measuring the degree of food insecurity

were not usually gathered. Officials from one PVO acknowledged that

baseline data were available in only about 15 percent of their food

projects.

In the three countries we visited, most PVOs’ projects lacked baseline data

or recent evaluations, making it difficult to assess the impact of the direct

feeding programs on long-term food security. In Indonesia, the PVOs’ most

recent evaluations of the maternal and child health and food-for-work

programs were in 1989 and 1990. In Honduras, the PVOs’ food-for-work and

2

Food Aid: Management Improvements Are Needed to Achieve Program Objectives

(GAO/NSIAD-93-168, July 23, 1993).

Page 25 GAO/NSIAD-95-35 Food Aid
Appendix II 

Impact and Targeting of Direct Feeding

Projects

housing sanitation projects did not have baseline data to measure the

community’s present situation in order to demonstrate any future impact

that these projects might have. In Ghana, the PVOs’ food-for-work projects

measured the number of trees planted, schools built, and wells dug;

however, the PVOs did not assess the impact of these activities. In a

food-for-work project in Ghana that built wells, the PVO tracked the

number of wells constructed. However, the PVO does not generally follow

up to determine if after the well was completed the villagers had used it,

whether they maintained it, or whether it had collapsed.

Discussions are underway between AID and the PVOs on what data to

collect and how to monitor and assess projects’ impact. For example, a

rapid appraisal assessment process is being tested that would determine

food security status in a cost-effective manner by identifying and

collecting a few key indicators. In commenting on a draft of this report, AID

said that it agrees with our observation that AID and the PVOs must do a

better job evaluating the impact of title II development projects, and it has

taken steps toward developing and applying methodologies. Among other

efforts, in February 1994, AID circulated to PVOs a report that recommended

means for improving design and evaluation of title II programs; and in

spring 1994, a multidisciplinary team of PVOs and AID evaluation experts

conducted a comprehensive evaluation of the CARE India project, the

largest title II program in the world, with a goal of more comprehensive

assessment of impact. According to food policy experts, when such

indicators are developed and tracked, PVOs will have more than anecdotal

evidence to evaluate a project’s success.

Page 26 GAO/NSIAD-95-35 Food Aid
Appendix III 

Case Study Summaries

Title II Food Aid in

Ghana

Food Needs AID’s World Food Day Report classifies Ghana as food insecure.1

 More than

one-third of Ghana’s population faces some food insecurity problems.

Some households, especially the urban poor, are food insecure throughout

the year, although for most households food insecurity is mainly a

seasonal occurrence. Ghana’s northern and coastal savannah regions,

particularly in certain remote areas of the country, are the least food

secure regions. In contrast to several other African countries where the

diet is often only one or a few staples, Ghana’s food production and

consumption pattern is widely diverse and varies by region. Ghana is

self-sufficient in many of the locally produced food crops, with the major

exception of rice. Ghana imports about 50 percent of its rice.

Key problems contributing to Ghana’s food insecurity are poverty,

compounded by a poor distribution system, and the inefficient use of

resources. Ghana’s high annual population growth rate of 3.1 percent adds

to the country’s food insecurity. With an average income of about $400 per

year, in 1992, households spent an average of 49 percent of their income

for food. With a population of over 16 million, more than 36 percent of the

population is chronically malnourished. Although Ghana’s trend for total

food production has been positive since 1983, the extent of Ghana’s food

security is still highly dependent on climatic conditions, such as droughts,

insects, and crop pests.

PVOs’ Activities Using

Food Aid in Ghana

Three PVOs received title II food in Ghana in fiscal year 1994: CRS, ADRA, and

Technoserve. CRS and ADRA both have direct feeding programs and

monetization programs. Technoserve’s title II program sold (monetized)

100 percent of the donated commodities to generate local currency for an

income-generation project. Table III.1 indicates the title II commodity

amounts that AID has approved for PVOs’ nonemergency projects in Ghana.

The commodities approved for Ghana were rice, bulgur, wheat soy blend,

sorghum grits, and wheat.

1

AID uses five basic indicators for the reported countries, including GNP per capita, average daily per

capita calorie availability, under-5 mortality rate, gross foreign exchange earnings, and gross domestic

food production.

Page 27 GAO/NSIAD-95-35 Food Aid
Appendix III 

Case Study Summaries

Table III.1: Title II-Approved

Nonemergency Projects for Sponsors

in Ghana (Fiscal Year 1994) 

Dollars in thousands

Sponsor Metric tons Commodity value Freight cost

ADRA

Food-for-work 981 $ 288.1 $ 122.6

Other 10,559 1,514.7 819.9

Subtotal 11,540 1,802.8 942.5

CRS

Food-for-work 346 72.0 43.2

Maternal and child health 1,946 519.6 243.3

School feeding 1,005 209.0 125.6

Other 12,063 1,769.4 972.4

Subtotal 15,360 2,570.0 1,384.5

Technoserve 8,000 1,080.0 600.0

Total 34,900 $5,452.7 a $2,927.1 a

aFigures do not add due to rounding.

Catholic Relief Services CRS established its mission in Ghana in 1956. CRS’s primary direct feeding

projects include maternal and child health activities; institutional feeding

(preschool and school lunch programs) and other child feeding; farmer

training; and general relief for disaster victims, the elderly, and other

vulnerable or needy groups. The most recent evaluation noted that in

fiscal year 1990, CRS assisted about 160,000 beneficiaries using food aid in

Ghana.

In Ghana, CRS provides take-home rations to girls who enroll and attend

school. CRS’s premise is that educating females will reduce poverty through

greater economic opportunity, improve productivity of women, and ease

population pressure by delaying childbearing. In October 1991, CRS began

collecting data to determine whether the take-home rations were, in fact,

increasing girls’ enrollment and attendance. At the end of the second year,

attendance at schools providing rations was approximately 9 percent

higher than attendance at schools providing no rations.

Adventist Development and

Relief Agency

ADRA’s involvement in the title II program in Ghana dates from Ghana’s

1983-84 food shortage. In 1985, using the infrastructure it had developed

during the food shortage period, ADRA began development-oriented

activities. ADRA’s projects provide food through the following activities:

agro-forestry (tree seedling and food crop planting); school, latrine, and

well construction; and general relief to disaster victims, elderly, and other

Page 28 GAO/NSIAD-95-35 Food Aid
Appendix III 

Case Study Summaries

vulnerable or needy groups. According to the most recent evaluation, ADRA

assisted over 42,000 beneficiaries in Ghana in fiscal year 1990.

Since 1988, ADRA has provided food-for-work as part of an agro-forestry

project in which selected rural communities plant tree seedlings for later

harvest and sale as firewood. Another component of the project is growing

food crops on the same land that has been cleared for planting trees,

before the trees grow large enough to shade the crops. According to ADRA

officials, these projects have resulted in increased food harvests and

income generation to farmers through the sale of firewood. According to

AID officials, this project did not promote sustainable development

because the long-term demand for firewood is declining due to the

increased use of propane gas and charcoal in Ghana.

Technoserve Technoserve’s monetization program in Ghana is intended to enhance

food security through agricultural income-generating activities.

Technoserve has used monetization funds to assist rural businesses in

palm-oil processing and marketing, cereals marketing, and nontraditional

export development.

In Ghana, Technoserve provides assistance and training to 18 cooperatives

that are operating, or are in the process of installing, village-based,

fee-for-service palm-oil processing mills. The mills provide an alternative

to state-owned mills that are located long distances from producing areas

and generally pay the producers very little for their palm fruits. The

cooperatives provide rural employment and income for farmers,

processors, transporters, and numerous others, enabling them to stay in

their villages instead of moving to urban areas in search of employment.

According to AID, Technoserve’s activities promote rural income

generation and national food security and offer innovative ways to

effectively sustain development programs in rural communities.

Other Food Programs In addition to these PVOs, the World Food Program also has emergency and

nonemergency feeding programs in Ghana.2

 The World Food Program

activities include food-for-work projects for railway, port, highway, and

feeder road construction; supplementary feeding and nutritional education

projects; and emergency food distribution for Togolese refugees.

2

The World Food Program did not receive title II commodities for Ghana programs in fiscal year 1994.

Page 29 GAO/NSIAD-95-35 Food Aid
Appendix III 

Case Study Summaries

Title II Food Aid in

Honduras

Food Need According to the 1993 World Food Day report, Honduras is considered

borderline food insecure. Problems contributing to food insecurity include

poor farming practices, as well as poverty, all leading to insufficient diets

and lack of sanitation. The government of Honduras has limited access to

hard currency with which to purchase food commercially. Environmental

degradation of the land from traditional farming practices and

deforestation has also produced declining crop yields. Honduras is a net

importer of food crops, especially in the basic commodities of corn, beans,

and rice, although its exports of nontraditional agricultural products have

increased.

Honduras is considered one of the poorest countries in the western

hemisphere, with an estimated population of 5.4 million in 1993 and 1992

gross national product of $634 per capita. According to AID, approximately

62 percent of the Honduran population does not consume the

recommended caloric level per day. Poverty has also contributed to the

lack of sanitation, which is one of the worst problems facing Honduras.

Thirty-eight percent of the households lack appropriate excreta disposal,

and 36 percent do not have access to safe water. Honduras’ poverty

problem is aggravated by the rapid population growth of about 2.8 percent

per year.

PVOs’ Activities Using

Food Aid in Honduras

CARE is the only U.S. PVO conducting title II direct feeding programs in

Honduras. The Cooperative Housing Foundation sold its title II

commodities to fund a project to improve housing sanitation. In addition

to U.S. food assistance, several other food aid donors, including the World

Food Program, have programs in Honduras. Table III.2 indicates the

approved title II amounts for nonemergency projects in Honduras in fiscal

year 1994 by sponsor and project type. The approved commodities for

Honduras included red beans, yellow corn, corn soy masa flour, bulgur,

vegetable oil, corn soya blend, and wheat.

Page 30 GAO/NSIAD-95-35 Food Aid
Appendix III 

Case Study Summaries

Table III.2: Title II-Approved

Nonemergency Projects for Sponsors

in Honduras (Fiscal Year 1994) 

Dollars in thousands

Sponsor Metric tons Commodity value Freight cost

CARE

Food-for-work 808 $ 379.4 $ 88.7

Maternal and child health 5,979 3,273.7 727.7

School feeding 2,813 791.7 351.6

Subtotal 9,600 4,444.8 1,168.0

Cooperative Housing

Foundation 3,000 405.0 225.0

World Food Program 4,800 647.3 377.5

Total 17,400 $5,497.1 $1,770.5

CARE CARE’s direct feeding activities in Honduras, administered through the

Ministries of Health and Education and the National Welfare Board,

include school feeding, maternal and child health, and urban

food-for-work projects. CARE began working in Honduras in 1954 to

respond to the emergency needs of flood victims. CARE/Honduras, through

its counterpart agencies, has developed an extensive direct feeding

program. Through the Ministry of Education, CARE supplies snacks to

about 300,000 students and a school breakfast to about 2,300 students in

primary schools throughout the country. In its maternal and child health

projects, CARE works with (1) the Honduran Ministry of Health to provide

dry rations at 302 health centers with 44,000 beneficiaries and (2) the

National Social Welfare Board to provide daily meals to 72,500

beneficiaries at 1,100 on-site feeding centers.

CARE has been active in training local nongovernmental organizations and

strengthening its counterpart institutions so that the responsibility for

administering the school feeding and maternal and child health projects

can be transferred to the government of Honduras. The latest evaluation of

the school feeding and maternal and child health projects reviewed how

well the counterparts were able to administer the direct feeding activities.

It found that the government counterparts must learn a variety of tasks,

principally administrative, in order to assume total management. In

addition, this evaluation made several recommendations to promote

greater accountability and improve logistics. In certain cases, the

management of the food itself has required the formation of village groups,

which have organized community activities, such as school gardens, tree

nurseries, and animal husbandry projects, all of which helped to sustain

local programs.

Page 31 GAO/NSIAD-95-35 Food Aid
Appendix III 

Case Study Summaries

CARE’s Municipal Infrastructure and Technical Assistance project is an

urban sanitation and infrastructure food-for-work project in northern

Honduras. The project provides technical assistance and training to

municipalities for improving basic services on a cost-recovery basis. The

project targets urban communities characterized by high rates of

unemployment and limited public services. Project participants construct

or improve basic infrastructure, including potable water systems, storm

and sewage drainage, and sidewalk/street repairs within the participants’

community. CARE has worked with the local communities and

municipalities to develop the skills to (1) improve local infrastructure,

(2) increase community participation, and (3) strengthen the municipal

governments’ ability to provide basic services. CARE project staff have

conducted workshops and on-site training in administration, supervision,

and construction techniques, which CARE reported had improved

teamwork and technical skills in the community and municipal

governments. CARE also reported that the infrastructure project completed

20 improvements, out of a target of 21, in 10 municipalities in fiscal year

1993. These projects included latrines, potable water systems, and sewageand water-drainage systems.

The Cooperative Housing

Foundation

The Cooperative Housing Foundation monetizes 100 percent of title II

commodities to fund a project to improve housing sanitation in Honduras.

With the proceeds from the commodity sale, the Cooperative Housing

Foundation is expanding an ongoing sanitation and housing improvement

project. These funds will be added to an existing revolving fund through

which local nongovernmental organizations’ activities make small loans to

families for housing-sanitation improvements, such as building a latrine,

shower, or water storage unit. Although the sale of title II commodities

had not been completed when we were in Honduras, we observed housing

improvements completed through this project, and beneficiaries reported

improvements in sanitation. The Cooperative Housing Foundation plans to

expand to other communities in Honduras by using the proceeds from the

commodity sale.

Other Food Programs The World Food Program also receives title II funds and conducts

food-for-work and maternal and child health direct feeding activities

through the government of Honduras.

Page 32 GAO/NSIAD-95-35 Food Aid
Appendix III 

Case Study Summaries

Title II Food Aid in

Indonesia

Food Need AID considers Indonesia a relatively food secure country. Since 1984, the

country has maintained self-sufficiency in rice. Indonesia imports less than

10 percent of its rice needs and exports about similar quantities. Although

Indonesia has reached food security on a national basis, some regions still

suffer from food insecurity because of poor distribution and low income.

Some areas of Indonesia have limited water supplies, poor agricultural

practices, and suffer from deforestation. The northern and eastern islands,

in particular, have limited access to food supplies due to transportation,

storage, and distribution problems. According to AID, poverty has declined

roughly 50 percent in Indonesia from 54 million in 1976 to an estimated

27 million people in 1990. However, about 15 percent of the population

remains below the poverty line. AID/Indonesia reported that a recent

Indonesian government survey found that 30 percent of Indonesian

villages are still poor. AID estimates that the average per capita income is

about $600.

PVOs’ Activities Using

Food Aid in Indonesia

Three PVOs conduct Public Law 480 title II projects in Indonesia, although

only one PVO has a project with a direct feeding component. CRS manages

both direct feeding and monetized development activities, while the other

two PVOs—CARE and the National Cooperative Business Association

(NCBA)—manage projects funded through monetization of title II

commodities. In addition to the World Food Program, CRS has been the

only PVO to receive title II assistance since fiscal year 1989. Table III.3 lists

the approved quantities under title II nonemergency programs for CRS and

World Food Program projects in Indonesia. The commodities approved

were rice, wheat, and wheat soy blend. Both CARE and NCBA operate their

projects from the proceeds of commodities sold in fiscal year 1989.

Page 33 GAO/NSIAD-95-35 Food Aid
Appendix III 

Case Study Summaries

Table III.3: Title II-Approved

Nonemergency Projects for Sponsors

in Indonesia (Fiscal Year 1994) 

Dollars in thousands

Sponsor Metric tons Commodity value Freight cost

CRS

Food-for-work 3,695 $1,662.8 $461.9

Maternal and child health 1,555 634.0 194.4

Other 8,000 1,080.0 600.0

Subtotal 13,250 3,376.8 1,256.3

World Food Program 5,200 702.0 390.0

Total 18,450 $4,078.8 $1,646.3

Catholic Relief Services CRS has been providing food assistance in Indonesia for over 30 years. CRS

manages its title II assistance in three program areas: (1) maternal and

child health care, (2) food-for-work, and (3) enterprise development.

Through local counterparts, CRS’ maternal and child health project

supports improved health care for mothers and children at health centers

in poor, rural villages. The project uses food as an incentive for mothers to

bring their children for preventive care but claimed no nutritional goals. In

the health centers we visited, participants were selected on the basis of

income and background (social and religious). Project officials considered

the food incentive successful in improving health coverage. They told us

that many more women participate in the health program than those who

have received food because word of the health services had spread from

those who receive the food supplement to other women of the village. In

fiscal year 1993, the CRS counterparts conducted health activities at 

736 community health centers and served 42,291 participants. However,

according to the project officials, this project did not reach the poorest

villagers because they could not afford transportation to the village health

center.

The goal of CRS’ food-for-work project is to improve income from

agricultural production. Activities include (1) water resource development

projects, such as dams, reservoirs, irrigation systems, and drainage canals;

(2) soil conservation projects, such as terracing; and (3) agricultural

intensification, such as swamp reclamation. The food-for-work program

completed 301 infrastructure and agricultural projects in fiscal year 1993.

Improvements include construction of drainage ditches, irrigation canals,

terraced farmland, 4 small dams, and over 891 hectares of new farmland

opened. Over 122,900 recipients received rice rations.

Page 34 GAO/NSIAD-95-35 Food Aid
Appendix III 

Case Study Summaries

CRS’ goal for the microenterprise project is to increase off-farm income

generation opportunities for the rural poor. Through local counterparts,

CRS provides funds from monetized title II commodities to establish local

savings and loan networks for the rural poor. These projects focus on

poverty alleviation, but not on food security specifically. Mission and CRS

officials agree that the size of the title II distribution program in Indonesia

is too small to affect national-level food security. Nevertheless, CRS

officials told us that the title II program has had a positive impact on the

local level.

CARE CARE has been working in Indonesia since 1967. CARE currently manages a

water and sanitation project under a title II no-cost extension until July 22,

1996. With monetization proceeds, CARE helps communities work together

to design, organize, build, and maintain village water and sanitation

systems. CARE provides technical assistance on the design and

construction of the systems. CARE also provides community training on

(1) how to finance projects through user fees and (2) health and hygiene

education. This project was part of a community-based water and

sanitation project funded through AID/Washington called Water and

Sanitation for a Healthier Environmental Setting project, which ended in

fiscal year 1991. This project increased rural communities’ access to

reliable and safe water supplies and sanitation facilities.

The National Cooperative

Business Association

NCBA has managed two title II monetization projects during the last 5 years.

NCBA, through cooperative-building efforts, uses monetization proceeds to

expand Indonesia’s nontraditional exports, such as processed cinnamon,

vanilla, and cocoa. One project was designed to improve the indigenous

capacity to develop production and marketing services for food crops,

livestock, and fishery production.3

 The project targeted small farmers who

had the potential to increase their production. By the end of the project, in

mid-1992, economic activity developed under the project provided

full-time employment to about 11,000 people and part-time employment to

an additional 5,000 people. The other NCBA monetization project is

designed to create a cooperative that will provide financing for the

agribusiness sector.4

3

The Cooperative Agribusiness Enterprise Development Project was approved as a $2,838,194 title II

monetization project.

4

This project, the Indonesia Enterprises and Trade Development Project, was approved as a $4,629,770

title II monetization project.

Page 35 GAO/NSIAD-95-35 Food Aid
Appendix IV 

Major Contributors to This Report

National Security and

International Affairs

Division, Washington,

D.C.

Ronald A. Kushner, Assistant Director

Margaret Gaddy Morgan, Evaluator-in-Charge

Debra R. Johnson, Senior Evaluator

European Office George A. Taylor, Jr., Site Senior

Jodi McDade-Prosser, Evaluator

Far East Office Dennis Richards, Site Senior

Kimberly M. Gianopoulos, Evaluator

(711069) Page 36 GAO/NSIAD-95-35 Food Aid
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a

single address are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 6015

Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (301) 258-4097 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Mail

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100
GAO/NSIAD-95-35 Food Aid