United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to the Ranking Minority Member,

Committee on International Relations,

House of Representatives

December 1995 FOREIGN

ASSISTANCE

Private Voluntary

Organizations’

Contributions and

Limitations

GAO/NSIAD-96-34

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

National Security and

International Affairs Division

B-262233 

December 15, 1995

The Honorable Lee H. Hamilton

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on International Relations

House of Representatives

Dear Mr. Hamilton:

This report responds to your request that we study (1) private voluntary organizations’ role in

delivering U.S. Agency for International Development-funded foreign assistance; (2) potential

issues and implications of increasing their role in delivering assistance, including accountability

issues; (3) the success of their projects in achieving their objectives; and (4) the extent to which

these organizations are dependent on U.S. government funding.

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of State, the Administrator of the U.S.

Agency for International Development, and appropriate congressional committees. We will also

make copies available to other interested parties upon request. Please contact me at

(202) 512-4128 if you or your staff have any questions concerning this report. Major contributors

to this report are listed in appendix VII.

Sincerely yours,

Benjamin F. Nelson

Director, International Relations and

 Foreign Trade
Executive Summary

Purpose In response to budget constraints and concerns about effectiveness, major

donors, including the United States, are reassessing their foreign aid

programs and strategies. The method of delivery is one of the prime areas

being reexamined. While most U.S. foreign aid is still delivered on a

government-to-government basis, the current administration has pledged

to increase the percentage of U.S. assistance being channeled through

nongovernmental organizations over the next 5 years. Some proposals in

the Congress have recommended that U.S. development assistance be

channeled through nongovernmental organizations, including private

voluntary organizations (PVO). Support for a greater PVO role in delivering

assistance seems to stem from (1) general disappointment with the results

of over 40 years of government-to-government assistance and (2) a

perception that private organizations are better able to identify

development needs and deliver help.

At the request of the former Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs

Committee, GAO undertook a study to examine some of the questions and

issues that policymakers may want to consider as they debate the future

role of PVOs in delivering U.S. development assistance. Specifically, this

report provides an analysis of (1) PVOs’ role in delivering U.S. foreign

assistance and potential issues and implications of increasing PVOs’ role in

delivering assistance, including accountability issues; (2) 26 PVO projects in

8 countries in 4 geographic regions and whether they were achieving their

objectives; and (3) the extent to which U.S. PVOs are dependent on U.S.

government funding.

Background While other agencies also work with PVOs, the majority of U.S. government

resources PVOs receive for relief and development come through the U.S.

Agency for International Development (USAID). USAID works with PVOs that

are nonprofit, tax-exempt organizations involved in relief and development

assistance overseas. PVOs are “private” in that a portion of their resources

comes from private sources and “voluntary” in that they receive voluntary

contributions from the general public. USAID considers labor and family

planning organizations and cooperatives to be PVOs for its purposes;

however, universities, colleges, and churches engaged exclusively in

religious activities are not considered PVOs.1

 Among the best-known PVOs

are Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere Inc. (CARE), Catholic

Relief Services, and Save the Children. U.S.-based PVOs often work with

1

Universities, colleges, accredited degree-granting institutions, private foundations, organizations

engaged solely in research or scientific activities, and churches or other organizations engaged

exclusively in religious activities are not eligible to register as PVOs.

Page 2 GAO/NSIAD-96-34 Foreign Assistance
Executive Summary

indigenous governmental and nongovernmental organizations to

implement projects.

PVOs received support valued at about $1.7 billion from the U.S.

government in 1993.2

 This report focuses on the $813.4 million of that

amount that USAID provided for development. The remaining support,

including commodities, was provided by other U.S. government agencies.

As of October 1994, 419 PVOs were registered with USAID. Their revenues

ranged from about $5,000 per year to over $650 million. USAID supports PVO

activities in countries in Africa, Latin America, Asia, the Middle East,

Eastern Europe, and the former Soviet Union.

Results in Brief The PVO community encompasses organizations of varying sizes, missions,

geographic focuses, and capabilities. They work in many different

development areas, including health, environment, and microenterprise

development to address varied development needs. PVOs serve as a

complement to traditional government-to-government assistance and can

be a mechanism to strengthen indigenous community-level organizations.

While PVOs have demonstrated that they are generally effective in carrying

out community-based development projects, most have not had wide

experience in working with governments and institutions on sectoral and

macroeconomic policy reforms necessary to create an environment

favorable to development, although some PVOs have begun to expand their

activities into these areas.

Twenty of the 26 PVO projects GAO reviewed were making progress toward

their objectives. Good project design, competent in-country staff, and local

participation were factors common to the most successful projects. PVOs

are increasingly using local groups to carry out projects, rather than doing

projects with their own staffs, which should increase the local capacity for

development. Most projects GAO reviewed included local capacity

building—which is critical to long-term development and sustainability.

Accountability for USAID assistance funds has been a continuing concern.

Over the last decade, USAID has encouraged and assisted PVOs to improve

their program and financial management systems. While there is evidence

of improved accountability in the PVO community, providing increased

amounts of foreign aid directly through PVOs or through a foundation, as

2

PVOs received support in the form of grants, contracts, U.S. government-owned excess property,

ocean freight subsidies, and Public Law 480 donated food.

Page 3 GAO/NSIAD-96-34 Foreign Assistance
Executive Summary

suggested in some reform proposals, would remove a key accountability

mechanism from the U.S. foreign assistance programs.

Although some individual PVO projects may be funded entirely by USAID,

PVOs, as a group, have become less dependent on U.S. funding. Federal

funding as a share of total funding for PVOs receiving federal support

dropped from 42 percent to 29 percent between 1982 and 1992, the last

year for which such data was available at the time of our analysis. U.S.

funding for PVOs has increased, but private resources have increased

faster.

Principal Findings

The PVO Community and

Its Development Niche

The PVO community comprises a very diverse group of

organizations—small and large, new and mature—with varying missions

and capabilities. Some focus on a single development issue, such as child

health, or a single geographic region, while others have very broad

missions that include work worldwide in sectors such as agriculture,

health, education, democracy, and population. For example, CARE, one of

the largest PVOs, conducts relief and development activities in over 40

countries in the areas of health, nutrition, natural resources management,

and agriculture, among others. In contrast, the National Telephone

Cooperative Association’s activities are generally restricted to technical

assistance and training for development of rural telephone cooperatives,

mainly in Poland and Bulgaria.

PVOs generally undertake relatively small, community-based,

labor-intensive projects, often working with the most difficult to reach

populations. In general, PVOs have not been involved in advocating changes

in national government or sectoral policy that affect the economic and

social climate for development, although some PVOs and indigenous

nongovernmental organizations have begun to undertake activities in

policy reform. Some PVOs believe that espousing governmental change

would be seen as a political threat and reduce their ability to work in some

countries. In addition, PVOs value their independence of action, and some

believe that close associations with governments could limit their freedom

to pursue their missions. Some PVOs coordinate U.S. volunteers, primarily

to deliver technical assistance or specialized services, such as medical

care.

Page 4 GAO/NSIAD-96-34 Foreign Assistance
Executive Summary

In response to historical concerns about waste and abuse, USAID and the

PVO community have worked together to improve the quality of oversight

and accountability for development assistance funds. USAID has taken

measures to help PVOs and indigenous nongovernmental organizations

strengthen their institutional capacity, and current auditing requirements

have led PVOs to make investments to improve accountability. However,

findings from recent audits of PVO activities suggest that problems still

remain. For example, a recent USAID Inspector General audit of PVOs in the

West Bank and Gaza concluded that some PVOs needed to improve in the

areas of program monitoring, financial management, and record-keeping

to manage U.S.-donated commodities.

Most PVO Projects Meet

Objectives and Involve

Local Participation

Of the 26 projects GAO reviewed in 8 countries, 20 were achieving all or

most of the expected activities. In two cases, the PVO was having difficulty

in implementing its plans, and in the remaining four cases, project

objectives were not stated in measurable terms so progress toward goals

could not be assessed. Good project design, competent PVO staff,

experience in the country and sector, and project objectives supported by

the intended beneficiaries were the key factors in project success. GAO did

not observe a correlation between PVO size, geographic region, or sector

and project success. Many PVOs now work with or through local

indigenous governmental or nongovernmental organizations to deliver

assistance, providing them with the technical assistance to design and

carry out development projects. Twenty-two projects GAO reviewed

actively addressed increased local participation and improved

development capacity through project activities.

Financial Dependency on

U.S. Funding Has

Decreased

The total amount of federal funding going to registered PVOs increased

about 41 percent between 1982 and 1992—from $1.07 billion to 

$1.51 billion. However, the portion of total PVO resources comprised of

federal funding dropped from 42 percent in 1982 to 29 percent in 1992.

This was due, in part, to the almost doubling of the number of PVOs

receiving federal funds and the relatively smaller increase in federal

funding for PVOs. Of the 384 PVOs registered with USAID in 1992, 231

(60 percent) received federal funding in that year compared to 126

(88 percent) of the 144 PVOs registered in 1982. In 1992, CARE and Catholic

Relief Services received the largest amounts of federal funding among

PVOs—$258.3 million and $221.2 million, respectively. The 20 PVOs receiving

the largest amount of federal funding received about two-thirds of the total

amount in 1992.

Page 5 GAO/NSIAD-96-34 Foreign Assistance
Executive Summary

Recommendations GAO is making no recommendations.

Agency Comments GAO received comments on a draft of this report from USAID, InterAction 

(a PVO membership organization), and Catholic Relief Services. Their

letters are published in appendixes IV, V, and VI, respectively. Specific

comments as to language or updated information have been incorporated

as appropriate. USAID and InterAction expressed general agreement with

the basic message of the report. However, all three organizations

expressed concern that the draft did not give appropriate recognition of

improvements that the PVO community has made in accountability

systems, with support from USAID. USAID was concerned that the discussion

of PVO accountability did not include recent efforts to improve financial,

management, and evaluation practices. InterAction said that the draft did

not acknowledge accountability standards presently required of PVOs by

the Office of Management and Budget. Catholic Relief Services’ comments

emphasized the diversity of the PVO community and the difficulty in

drawing broad generalizations about PVOs’ accountability and capacity to

put increased funds to effective use. GAO has modified the report to

present a fuller discussion of improvements in PVO accountability systems

over the last decade. InterAction and Catholic Relief Services concurred

with GAO’s treatment of their comments.

InterAction also said it was pleased with the generally positive nature of

the report but expressed concern about the lack of comparison of PVOs’

performance with other potential mechanisms for delivering foreign

assistance, such as contractors and universities. Such a comparison was

outside the scope of this review.

Page 6 GAO/NSIAD-96-34 Foreign Assistance
Page 7 GAO/NSIAD-96-34 Foreign Assistance
Contents

Executive Summary 2

Chapter 1 

Introduction

10

Evolution of U.S. Approach to Development 11

U.S. Government’s Support to PVOs 11

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 12

Chapter 2 

The PVO Community

14

PVO Activities Address Varied Development Needs 14

Some PVOs Use American Volunteers to Provide Technical

Assistance to Developing Countries

19

PVOs’ Orientation, Strategy, and Limitations 22

Accountability Issues 22

Chapter 3 

Projects Generally

Achieving Objectives

24

PVO Projects Generally Achieving Most Project Objectives 24

PVOs Face Difficulties in Achieving Project Objectives 26

Local Participation Evident in Some Projects 28

Chapter 4 

PVOs Are Less

Dependent on

Government Funding

31

PVOs Rely Increasingly on Private Donations 31

PVO Cost-Sharing Requirements Changed 35

Appendixes Appendix I: Case Study Projects 36

Appendix II: Distribution of PVOs by Levels of Federal Funding,

1982 to 1992

44

Appendix III: PVOs’ Federal Funding as a Share of Total Funding,

1982 and 1992 (in Constant 1992 Dollars)

45

Appendix IV: Comments From the Agency for International

Development

61

Appendix V: Comments From InterAction 66

Appendix VI: Comments From Catholic Relief Services 70

Appendix VII: Major Contributors to This Report 74

Selected Bibliography 75

Page 8 GAO/NSIAD-96-34 Foreign Assistance
Contents

Figures Figure 2.1: Silk Production in Microenterprise Project Supported

by CARE in Thailand

15

Figure 2.2: CARE Sewer Infrastructure Improvement

Food-for-Work Project in Honduras

16

Figure 2.3: Well Built in Ghana Food-for-Work Project Sponsored

by the Adventist Development and Relief Agency

17

Figure 2.4: A Child Survival Project, including Growth Tracking,

Conducted by Project HOPE, in Ecuador

18

Figure 2.5: Save the Children’s Remote Water System Project in

Honduras

19

Figure 2.6: Volunteers in Overseas Cooperative Assistance

Volunteer Assists Farmers on Seed Marketing Project in Romania

21

Figure 3.1: World Health Day Parade Sponsored by Project HOPE

in Ecuador

25

Figure 3.2: Concrete Water Reservoir Built by CARE in Indonesia 26

Figure 3.3: Home Restored by Project Concern International to

Be a Group Home for Mildly Handicapped Adolescents in

Romania

28

Figure 3.4: National Cooperative Business Association Furniture

Cooperative Project in Indonesia

29

Figure 4.1: Total Private and Federal Funding to Federally

Funded U.S. PVOs, 1982 to 1992

32

Figure 4.2: Median Levels of Federal Funding to U.S. PVOs that

Received Federal Funding, 1982 to 1992

33

Figure 4.3: Proportions of PVOs Relying on Federal Funding for

80 Percent or More, 50 to 79 Percent, and Less Than

50 Percent of Their Resources, 1982 to 1992

34

Abbreviations

CARE Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere, Inc.

GAO General Accounting Office

INGO indigenous nongovernmental organization

P.L. Public Law

PVO private voluntary organization

USAID U.S. Agency for International Development

Page 9 GAO/NSIAD-96-34 Foreign Assistance
Chapter 1 

Introduction

Since the 1940s, the U.S. government has assisted private voluntary

organizations’ (PVO)1

 overseas activities. After World War II, as PVOs

responded to emergency needs in Europe, the U.S. government began

donating excess property and supplies and financing shipping costs to

assist PVOs’ efforts. The Congress authorized donations of commodities in

1954. Public Law (P.L.) 480,2

 as amended, authorized commodity donations

to voluntary agencies for distribution overseas to meet emergency and

nonemergency food needs. Although still heavily involved in the provision

of emergency assistance overseas, since the mid-1960s PVOs have gradually

shifted their emphasis from charitable relief to development activities.

The PVO community is comprised of diverse organizations from the

traditional voluntary relief and development agencies to family planning

organizations, labor institutes, and cooperatives. PVOs range from

organizations with budgets of a few thousand dollars and narrow

objectives, such as the Pan-American Association of Eye Banks, to large

operations with worldwide programs and multimillion dollar budgets, such

as the Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere, Inc. (CARE) and

Catholic Relief Services.

Literature on PVOs’ development activities describes some of the qualities

that PVOs exhibit:

• familiarity with local populations and ability to work with the poor at the

community level,

• innovation in approaches and flexibility in responding to development

needs,

• lower cost compared to government-to-government aid programs,

• staff dedicated to the PVOs’ mission and willing to work under difficult

conditions,

• long-term commitment to development, and

• ability to work with INGOs to strengthen local development capabilities.

Additionally, development literature suggests that PVOs are generally weak

in the areas of strategic planning, realistic planning for sustainability, and

working with each other on common goals.

1

In this report, the term “private voluntary organization” is used to refer to U.S.-based

nongovernmental organizations working in development abroad. Organizations based and operating

within a developing country are referred to as “indigenous nongovernmental organizations (INGO).”

2

The Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954, Public Law 83-480 

(7 U.S.C. 1691, et seq.).

Page 10 GAO/NSIAD-96-34 Foreign Assistance
Chapter 1 

Introduction

Evolution of U.S.

Approach to

Development

Since the United States began providing foreign aid, its approach to

development has changed several times. During the 1960s, the U.S. Agency

for International Development (USAID) undertook large infrastructure

projects such as dams and road construction. Then, in the early 1970s,

USAID gave priority to addressing the basic human needs of the populations

of developing countries. In the 1980s, USAID took a more macroeconomic

approach to development, emphasizing economic growth through policy

reform and a stronger private sector. None of the approaches proved to be

the panacea for development problems. USAID’s current approach involves

both macroeconomic reforms (legal, policy, and regulatory) and direct

assistance to the poor in developing countries—to help them take

advantage of economic and development opportunities. Thus, USAID has

increasingly relied on PVOs to provide direct assistance while it focuses on

macrolevel reforms through policy dialogue. In early 1995, USAID

announced plans to increase the proportion of resources that it channels

through nongovernmental organizations, including PVOs. Other recent

proposals have advocated providing development assistance through a

foundation that would distribute funds to PVOs and other nongovernmental

organizations.

Although its record of success has been mixed, USAID has access to

developing countries’ governments and the technical expertise to assist

them in such areas as policy analysis, sectoral reform, privatization,

national programming, and structural adjustment. On the other hand, PVOs

have demonstrated that they have a comparative advantage in providing

direct assistance to meet varied development needs—often in areas

underserved by governments.

U.S. Government’s

Support to PVOs

In 1993, the U.S. government provided about $1.7 billion of aid through

PVOs, including $414 million in food commodities and freight. PVOs received

$813 million from USAID in grants and contracts. Other U.S. government

agencies provided another $439 million to PVO programs. For example, the

Department of State contributes to PVOs for refugee assistance and the

Department of Agriculture contributes surplus commodities for

humanitarian assistance.3 PVOs and INGOs must register with USAID to

receive grants for development assistance activities directly from USAID. As

of October 1994, 419 PVOs were registered with USAID. To be registered, a

PVO or INGO must, among other requirements, be

3

Dollar figures cited here are based on annual financial reports submitted by registered PVOs to

USAID. They do not correspond directly to USAID budget information.

Page 11 GAO/NSIAD-96-34 Foreign Assistance
Chapter 1 

Introduction

• a nonprofit and nongovernmental entity receiving funds from private

sources;

• voluntary in that it receives voluntary contributions of money, staff time,

or in-kind support from the public; and

• engaged in or anticipating becoming engaged in voluntary charitable or

development assistance operations overseas of a nonreligious nature,

which are consistent with the purposes and objectives set forth in the

Foreign Assistance Act and P.L. 480.

USAID both supports PVOs’ independent activities and uses PVOs as

intermediaries to carry out projects that USAID initiates in keeping with its

own priorities. The Office of Private and Voluntary Cooperation, in the

Bureau for Humanitarian Response, is the focal point for USAID work with

PVOs, although other offices within USAID—including regional bureaus; the

Bureau for Global Programs, Field Support and Research; the Office of

Foreign Disaster Assistance, and the Office of Food for Peace—also work

directly with PVOs. In countries where USAID maintains missions, PVOs can

apply to the missions for funding for specific development projects in the

host country. In addition to programs that are specifically restricted to

registered PVOs, PVOs may also compete for other grants and contracts

awarded by missions and USAID/Washington, D.C., bureaus.

Objectives, Scope,

and Methodology

The objectives of our review were to examine (1) PVOs’ role in delivering

USAID-funded foreign assistance; (2) potential issues and implications of

increasing their role in delivering assistance, including accountability

issues; (3) the success of their projects in achieving their objectives; and

(4) the extent to which these organizations are dependent on U.S.

government funding. We employed a combination of methods to address

these issues, including (1) an extensive review of development literature

to document the role PVOs play in the development spectrum (see selected

bibliography), (2) discussions with U.S. and foreign government officials

and PVO representatives, (3) case studies of selected projects in eight

countries, (4) a collection of descriptive data on PVOs and their projects

within each case study country, and (5) an analysis of financial data on PVO

resources.

For the case studies, we selected eight countries: Ecuador, Ghana,

Honduras, Indonesia, Nepal, Niger, Romania, and Thailand. We selected

these countries on the basis of the following criteria: (1) geographic

balance, (2) size and diversity of PVO programs, and (3) whether PVOs used

Page 12 GAO/NSIAD-96-34 Foreign Assistance
Chapter 1 

Introduction

food aid in the country.4 We used a structured data collection instrument

to collect basic descriptive data on PVO and INGO activities between 1991

and 1994.

To review the success of PVOs in meeting their objectives and enhancing

sustainable development, we conducted 26 case studies, including at least

2 projects in each country carried out by different PVOs in different

development sectors. We used project design, implementation, and

evaluation documentation; on-site observations of projects; and extensive

interviews with USAID, PVO, and host government officials to assess projects

as more or less successful relative to the projects’ success in meeting their

objectives, including developing local capacity.

To determine the degree to which projects met their objectives, we

considered factors such as whether (1) projects were meeting agreed-upon

measurable benchmarks or indicators within agreed costs and time frames

and (2) outcomes achieved project goals. In many cases, indicators were

not quantifiable, so we based our judgment on on-site observations of

projects and interviews with USAID and PVO officials about intended project

outcomes. We supplemented the fieldwork undertaken specifically to

answer this request with information generated in the course of our other

work in the last 3 years, including reports on P.L. 480 titles II and III and

PVOs’ role in food aid.5

To assess the degree to which PVOs depend on federal funding, we

examined data on private and federal funding published in Voluntary

Foreign Aid Programs, an annual publication of USAID’s Bureau for

Humanitarian Response. We analyzed the data from 1982 to 1992, the last

year for which complete information was available, after converting dollar

amounts into constant 1992 dollars. We did not independently verify the

published information, although we worked with USAID to resolve apparent

errors in the data.

We performed our work from November 1993 through April 1995 in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

4

We issued a separate report on PVO’s food aid activities in Honduras, Ghana, and Indonesia: Food

Aid: Private Voluntary Organizations’ Role in Distributing Food Aid (GAO/NSIAD-95-35, Nov. 23, 1994).

5

Food Aid: Management Improvements Are Needed to Achieve Program Objectives

(GAO/NSIAD-93-168, July 23, 1993) and Food Aid: Private Voluntary Organizations’ Role in Distributing

Food Aid (GAO/NSIAD-95-35, Nov. 23, 1994).

Page 13 GAO/NSIAD-96-34 Foreign Assistance
Chapter 2 

The PVO Community

PVOs, as a group, work in many different sectors—from providing health

services to pollution control to microenterprise development. They often

work in remote areas where governments cannot or do not provide

services. Some PVOs use U.S. volunteers to deliver technical services or

assistance to developing countries.

PVO Activities

Address Varied

Development Needs

PVOs sponsor projects in many different sectors, including agriculture,

education, environment, health and child survival, and small-enterprise

development, designed to address the many needs of people in developing

countries. Almost 30 percent of 274 USAID-funded PVO and INGO projects

operating in the 8 countries in our review1

 included health activities.

Natural resources management, private sector development, and

democracy were the next most frequently addressed issues—about

15 percent of projects addressed each of these issues. Other projects

focused on labor, agriculture, and education, among other sectors. In

several cases, PVO projects provided services in areas not served by the

host government.

The 26 projects we examined in detail represent the diverse areas of needs

PVOs try to address. For example, one of the USAID-supported PVO projects

addressed health and nutritional needs of children in Ghana. In Romania,

several projects focused on the needs of institutionalized and orphaned

children, while another PVO worked with state-owned enterprises to abate

pollution. Projects in Nepal, Honduras, and Thailand sought to increase

economic opportunities for women who traditionally have few

opportunities for economic advancement—two by providing credit and

technical assistance to microenterprises owned by women or employing

women and one by providing scholarships to girls so they could continue

their schooling. (See fig. 2.1 for a project supported by CARE in Thailand.)

In Ghana, we examined a PVO agroforestry project. In Honduras and

Indonesia, our sample included PVO projects to help communities to build

water and sewer systems.

1

Documentation was available for 274 USAID-funded projects.

Page 14 GAO/NSIAD-96-34 Foreign Assistance
Chapter 2 

The PVO Community

Figure 2.1: Silk Production in

Microenterprise Project Supported by

CARE in Thailand

PVO food aid projects we visited in Ghana, Honduras, and Indonesia either

directly distributed food to beneficiaries or sold commodities to generate

funds for development projects. Direct feeding projects included

mother-child health projects that targeted malnourished children and

pregnant or lactating women and school feeding projects in poor regions.

Food-for-work projects are generally assumed to be self-targeting to the

poorest because the work is generally difficult and the wages low. (See

figs. 2.2 and 2.3 for food-for-work projects in Honduras and Ghana.)

Page 15 GAO/NSIAD-96-34 Foreign Assistance
Chapter 2 

The PVO Community

Figure 2.2: CARE Sewer Infrastructure

Improvement Food-for-Work Project in

Honduras

Page 16 GAO/NSIAD-96-34 Foreign Assistance
Chapter 2 

The PVO Community

Figure 2.3: Well Built in Ghana

Food-for-Work Project Sponsored by

the Adventist Development and Relief

Agency

PVOs often conducted projects in remote areas not adequately served by

the governments of developing countries. For example, in Ecuador,

Catholic Relief Services and Project HOPE conducted child survival

projects that provided immunizations and education on hygiene and

nutrition to rural areas. (See fig. 2.4 for a child survival project in

Ecuador.) In Niger, Africare provided training for community health

workers in Diffa, an isolated area more than 900 kilometers from Niamey,

Page 17 GAO/NSIAD-96-34 Foreign Assistance
Chapter 2 

The PVO Community

the capital of Niger. Save the Children/Honduras and CARE in Indonesia

were assisting in construction of water and sewer systems in remote areas.

(See fig. 2.5 for a water system project in Honduras.) In Nepal, PVOs

provide most medical services. USAID officials told us that PVOs fill critical

voids in health and community development.

Figure 2.4: A Child Survival Project,

Including Growth Tracking, Conducted

by Project HOPE, in Ecuador

Page 18 GAO/NSIAD-96-34 Foreign Assistance
Chapter 2 

The PVO Community

Figure 2.5: Save the Children’s Remote

Water System Project in Honduras

Some PVOs Use

American Volunteers

to Provide Technical

Assistance to

Developing Countries

About 15 percent of PVOs registered with USAID in 1993 used American

volunteers in their overseas programs, according to information contained

in USAID’s report on voluntary foreign assistance. Some PVOs coordinate

volunteer service abroad to provide specialized services or technical

assistance not available in developing countries, which, according to these

PVOs, would be costly to provide through contractors. For example, health

sector PVOs, such as Operation Smile International and Project ORBIS

International, coordinate medical volunteers to provide medical care and

train health workers. The Farmer-to-Farmer program in the former Soviet

Union and worldwide included 8 PVOs and cooperatives and the Peace

Corps that coordinated over 1,300 volunteer assignments to provide

expertise on agricultural production and processes in over 60 developing

countries worldwide and expected to field about 1,700 volunteers to the

newly independent states of the former Soviet Union.2

 The International

Executive Service Corps and Volunteers in Overseas Cooperative

Assistance recruit volunteers to provide consulting services to private

sector businesses in developing countries. According to information

supplied by the International Executive Service Corps, it delivered almost

2

The Congress created the Farmer-to-Farmer program in 1985 to promote person-to-person exchange

of agricultural knowledge to assist indigenous farmers in low-income countries. The program, funded

with U.S. Department of Agriculture (P.L. 480) resources, has been expanded since then to over 60

countries, including the newly independent states of the former Soviet Union.

Page 19 GAO/NSIAD-96-34 Foreign Assistance
Chapter 2 

The PVO Community

75,000-person days of assistance in 1994 through its offices in 50 countries

at an average cost of $439 per day. According to PVO representatives,

volunteers are generally well received by the citizens of the developing

country because they are viewed as experts who volunteer their time and

are not perceived as having the political agendas sometimes associated

with bilateral assistance or the profit motive of contractors. (See fig. 2.6

for a volunteer project in Romania.)

Page 20 GAO/NSIAD-96-34 Foreign Assistance
Chapter 2 

The PVO Community

Figure 2.6: Volunteers in Overseas

Cooperative Assistance Volunteer

Assists Farmers on Seed Marketing

Project in Romania

Source: Volunteers in Overseas Cooperative Assistance.

However, the use of volunteers presents potential problems. For example,

lack of language skills and cultural sensitivity on the part of volunteers

and inability to adapt to living conditions in developing countries have

Page 21 GAO/NSIAD-96-34 Foreign Assistance
Chapter 2 

The PVO Community

limited the success of some volunteer experiences. Project evaluations

and USAID and PVO officials noted that clear expectations on the parts of

both the volunteers and the recipients of their services are critical to the

success of the visit. They also stressed the importance of an in-country

structure to (1) identify specific needs so that volunteers with appropriate

skills can be found and (2) continue contact with recipients of the

assistance to facilitate implementation of volunteers’ recommendations.

PVOs’ Orientation,

Strategy, and

Limitations

While a few PVOs have begun to work with governments of developing

countries on policy reforms, many believe they have a humanitarian

mission and would prefer to focus on person-to-person aid rather than

work with large institutions. PVOs have a comparative advantage in being

able to work directly with the poor, or with organizations that represent

the poor, than major donors can. Some PVOs prefer not to interact with

host governments and, as outside entities, may not have access or leverage

within a country’s government. In addition, many PVOs do not want to be

seen as linked too closely to the U.S. government. Thus, providing

economic assistance exclusively through nongovernmental organizations

could limit the degree to which the United States can use such aid to

achieve foreign policy interests other than supporting democratic

development. In addition, channeling U.S. aid exclusively through PVOs

also seems inconsistent with the current view of many U.S. government

leaders that there should be a close link between the provision of U.S.

assistance and specific U.S. foreign policy interests. Former foreign policy

officials testified before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations in

March 1995 that “bilateral foreign assistance programs should be directly

related to specific, identifiable U.S. foreign policy interests.”

Accountability Issues Currently, the Congress looks to USAID to ensure that U.S. assistance is

used efficiently and effectively. In recent years, USAID has encouraged PVOs

and INGOs to develop stronger financial management skills that would help

ensure accountability for resources. Regulations requiring external audits,

such as Office of Management and Budget Circulars A-110 and A-133, have

also led PVOs to focus on improving financial management systems. USAID

and InterAction believe the PVO community generally has taken seriously

its responsibility to improve financial and program management.3

However, some PVOs and particularly INGOs still have difficulties in meeting

3

In responding to a draft of this report, InterAction, a membership organization representing a large

network of PVOs, cited its PVO standards as evidence of the community’s emphasis on accountability.

The standards, by which member PVOs must agree to abide as a condition for membership, set

standards for governance, management practices, and financial reporting, among others.

Page 22 GAO/NSIAD-96-34 Foreign Assistance
Chapter 2 

The PVO Community

U.S. accountability standards. For example, USAID’s Inspector General

recently reviewed PVO activities in the West Bank/Gaza and found that

while PVOs generally had the capability to implement USAID programs, two

of the six needed to improve program monitoring, two needed to improve

financial management, and four did not maintain adequate inventory

records of USAID-funded commodities.4

 Additionally, a recent audit of a PVO

project in El Salvador discovered that funds had been misappropriated

through false village banks and dummy loans. As of September 1995,

$118,000 in USAID funds had not been recovered. The PVO reported that the

USAID mission, the PVO, and the INGO have been working closely to address

weaknesses that were exposed once the problem was discovered.

Providing assistance funds directly to PVOs or through a foundation, as

suggested in some of the reform proposals, would eliminate a key

accountability mechanism from the U.S. foreign assistance program, and

the Congress would have to accept more risk and less accountability for

funds expended.

4

Audit of USAID West Bank/Gaza and PVO Recipients’ Capability to Implement USAID Programs

(Report No. 6-294-95-008, July 1995). Regional Inspector General for Audit, Cairo, Egypt.

Page 23 GAO/NSIAD-96-34 Foreign Assistance
Chapter 3 

Projects Generally Achieving Objectives

We used criteria from development literature as the basis for our detailed

assessment of 26 PVO projects: (1) progress toward meeting objectives and

(2) building local capacity. While all projects experienced some

unanticipated challenges in implementation, 20 of the 26 projects were

making progress toward meeting all or most of their objectives. These

projects resulted in accomplishments such as construction of water

systems, improved provision of health care, and increased incomes for

participants. Two projects were having major difficulties in attaining their

objectives due to design or implementation problems. We were unable to

assess the progress of four projects because their objectives and

associated PVO or USAID evaluations were too general. We found no

correlation between the size, geographic region, or sectoral emphasis of a

PVO and its ability to achieve project objectives. In recent years, PVOs have

begun working extensively with local groups that carry out projects,

offering technical assistance and training to build institutional capacity

designed to increase local capacity, rather than doing the projects with

their own staffs. Most projects we reviewed included some activities

designed to improve local capacity. (App. I contains the details of our 

26 case studies.)

PVO Projects

Generally Achieving

Most Project

Objectives

The 20 projects in our case study that were making progress toward their

objectives reflected a combination of the factors identified in development

literature as being necessary for successful projects: good design and clear

objectives, experience in the country and the development sector,

qualified management and staff, and local participation. The following

examples illustrate some of these factors:

• In Nepal, a $328,000 female education scholarship project sponsored by

the Asia Foundation used a tested design and had local participation

through its INGO partner, which had strong leadership that found creative

solutions to problems the project encountered. As a result of the project,

girls’ school attendance increased in every district where the project was

implemented.

• USAID provided Katalysis $1.75 million to strengthen local INGOs in three

countries, including Honduras. In Honduras, the INGO partner conducted

projects aimed at increasing participants’ incomes. Katalysis provided

technical assistance for the INGO in a wide range of areas such as

long-range planning, information management systems, and fund raising.

The PVO had good project design, which included local input and clear

objectives, and had capable staff. The INGO ultimately designed and carried

out a project that increased incomes of beneficiaries.

Page 24 GAO/NSIAD-96-34 Foreign Assistance
Chapter 3 

Projects Generally Achieving Objectives

• In Ecuador, USAID provided $1.5 million to Project HOPE to develop a

community health model with the goal of reducing sickness and death in

children and women of childbearing age. The PVO had expertise in the

sector and prior work in the country. The project had good management

and design, and active community participation. The project was effective

in increasing participation and extending health care coverage. (Fig. 3.1

shows a parade and banner advertising diarrhea prevention and

treatment.)

Figure 3.1: World Health Day Parade

Sponsored by Project HOPE in

Ecuador

• In Indonesia, USAID provided about $2.05 million in food aid to CARE to be

sold to fund a pilot rural water and sanitation project. The project’s

objectives were to increase access and use of water and sanitation

facilities among villages in rural Indonesia and demonstrate that rural

communities could develop and self-finance improved facilities. The PVO

used proven technical approaches and the design included measurable

objectives. Rather than working with an INGO, CARE employed local staff to

work directly with the communities to plan and carry out the construction

of water systems, including designing and building the appropriate system.

(Fig. 3.2 shows the resulting water reservoir that is filled by gravity from a

Page 25 GAO/NSIAD-96-34 Foreign Assistance
Chapter 3 

Projects Generally Achieving Objectives

spring 400 meters away.) The communities agreed to take responsibility

for sustaining the improvements. An outside evaluation of the program

concluded that CARE’s approach was successful in creating sustainable

water sanitation systems. Beneficiaries of the project in one village told us

that the incidence of cholera had decreased since the system was built and

that villagers could spend the 2 hours a day they had spent hauling water

on more productive activities.

Figure 3.2: Concrete Water Reservoir

Built by CARE in Indonesia

PVOs Face Difficulties

in Achieving Project

Objectives

The projects that were having the most difficulties suffered from poor

design, inadequate project management, and lack of participation by the

local community. The following describes some of the problems evident in

the projects we examined:

• In Romania, USAID contributed $200,000 to a $1.02 million World Vision

health care project to improve the delivery of primary health care services.

The project was delayed almost a year due to internal management

problems and difficulties in recruiting suitable staff. Further, the PVO met

with difficulties in working with Ministry of Health officials because of

Page 26 GAO/NSIAD-96-34 Foreign Assistance
Chapter 3 

Projects Generally Achieving Objectives

changes in leadership there. A mid-term evaluation concluded that the

achievements of the project at that date were mixed and could not always

be clearly linked to project goals or to activities carried out. The final

evaluation of the program, conducted after our fieldwork, noted that the

conditions we observed had changed and the project achieved its

objectives. The evaluation cited accomplishments in improving health

knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors.

• In Niger, USAID provided Africare $1.8 million for a project to train

community health workers in child survival techniques such as oral

rehydration, growth monitoring, and nutrition. The project was delayed

over 6 months due to difficulties in recruiting project personnel. The

project design was flawed in that it was not integrated into the Ministry of

Health’s program, so no local level officials took responsibility. Further,

although Ministry of Health nurses were trained, the nurses refused to

train village health workers unless they received additional pay to ensure

their cooperation. When USAID and the PVO were unwilling to provide

additional pay, project activities were slowed. Supervision of project

personnel and monitoring of field activities were inadequate, and Peace

Corps volunteers working with the project complained that the PVO did not

provide them adequate guidance. There was little community participation

in the village health program the project set up. Africare stated that the

problems identified in the draft had been addressed and that the project is

now an integral part of Ministry of Health activities.

PVO projects are not immune to some of the traditional problems in

development, including difficulties identifying and retaining qualified staff

and lack of support from local and national governments, as the following

examples show:

• In Ecuador, Catholic Relief Services had difficulties implementing its

infant growth monitoring activities because the beneficiaries could not

read and were unable to keep accurate records.

• In Romania, USAID provided Project Concern International $1 million to

(1) train Romanians in obstetric and neonatal health care and (2) establish

a model facility for institutionalized adolescents who can be assisted to

function independently. The project successfully renovated a facility (see

fig. 3.3) and trained staff for a transitional living center to teach

handicapped adolescents independent living and job skills. However, the

PVO encountered resistance from Romanian institutions that were

reluctant to release adolescents into the private center. At the time of our

visit, only 6 children lived at the center designed and staffed to

Page 27 GAO/NSIAD-96-34 Foreign Assistance
Chapter 3 

Projects Generally Achieving Objectives

accommodate 40 residents. Project Concern was working with the

Romanian government and institutional officials to resolve such problems.

Figure 3.3: Home Restored by Project

Concern International to Be a Group

Home for Mildly Handicapped

Adolescents in Romania

Local Participation

Evident in Some

Projects

One concern about development projects is their sustainability.

Sustainability is often affected by the level of local participation in

planning and carrying out project activities. USAID has encouraged PVOs to

work closely in implementing projects with local counterpart

organizations, including national and local governments and INGOs, to

strengthen the in-country development capacity. Those projects that

respond to the development priorities of the intended beneficiaries have

been shown to have the best prospects for sustainability, according to

development literature. Since strengthening local capacity is fundamental

to a country’s long-term social and economic development, we examined

the extent to which local persons and groups were involved in planning

and carrying out project activities. Of the 241 projects in our inventory for

which the information was available, 146 (61 percent) involved one or

more INGOs. INGOs were project implementors in at least one-third of the

projects. For example, Private Agencies Collaborating Together provided

Page 28 GAO/NSIAD-96-34 Foreign Assistance
Chapter 3 

Projects Generally Achieving Objectives

technical assistance to local organizations that worked directly with street

children in Thailand. In Indonesia, the National Cooperative Business

Association supported local cooperatives in export-oriented businesses in

furniture and spices (see fig. 3.4).

Figure 3.4: National Cooperative

Business Association Furniture

Cooperative Project in Indonesia

Efforts to involve INGOs in planning and carrying out projects were

apparent in most of the 26 projects we reviewed in detail. Twenty-one

projects involved at least one local governmental or nongovernmental

organization in carrying out activities. Five projects focused specifically

on strengthening INGOs, primarily by providing technical assistance and

training to local organizations. Three projects focused on strengthening

some aspect of the developing countries’ government service delivery

mechanisms. For example, in Ecuador, Project HOPE worked with the

Ministry of Health to train community health workers, and in Romania,

World Vision worked with the Ministry of Health to improve primary

health strategies and service delivery. In Honduras, CARE worked with the

Ministry of Education on a school feeding program that included daily

meals to nearly 298,000 poor children at 3,743 schools. Others worked

directly with community groups, in some cases organizing residents for a

Page 29 GAO/NSIAD-96-34 Foreign Assistance
Chapter 3 

Projects Generally Achieving Objectives

particular purpose. Beneficiaries of assistance, including community

groups, were more likely to be involved in implementing projects and

adapting existing designs to local conditions than they were to be involved

in the design process.

One project we examined in Ghana demonstrates the need for local

involvement in planning and designing projects. In this case, USAID

provided the Adventist Development and Relief Agency about $459,000 in

fiscal year 1993 in food commodities and cash grants to support a project

to establish self-financing nurseries to grow and sell seedlings that

villagers would plant for later harvest and sale. However, the project did

not have local participation in design and did not take into account key

environmental and economic factors, including lack of demand for

seedlings. The project, according to an independent evaluation, was

“conceptualized, was designed, and is managed by outsiders (both

expatriate and Ghanaian) to funnel into villages a commodity (wood trees)

that was and is low on the scale of locally perceived priorities.” While the

project set up the nurseries and trained local staff paid with donated food,

the lack of demand for seedlings made it unlikely that the nurseries could

be self-sustaining. Further, the Peace Corps workers that had initially set

up and managed the nurseries were supposed to turn management

responsibilities over to the beneficiaries. However, no time period was set

for a phase over of responsibilities and, according to an outside evaluator,

there was no clearly defined withdrawal scenario in project documents.

According to project evaluations, no nurseries had been turned over to

local management 3 years after the project started. USAID and the PVO have

informed us that the problems identified during our fieldwork have been

addressed and that the project is showing positive results. The PVO hopes

to turn management of the project over to local workers beginning in 1996.

During our fieldwork, USAID officials in Washington and the field noted that

some PVOs have been more successful than others in developing INGOs and

turning over direct service activities to the local organizations. According

to USAID officials, PVOs that have developed expertise in and networks for

charitable service delivery in particular countries have tended to move

less quickly toward working with INGOs than PVOs that see their role as

enabling INGOs to serve their local communities.

Page 30 GAO/NSIAD-96-34 Foreign Assistance
Chapter 4 

PVOs Are Less Dependent on Government

Funding

Despite their status as private, nongovernmental organizations, many PVOs

receive significant amounts of federal funding. However, we found that

PVOs generally are less dependent on government funding than they were a

decade or more ago—although some individual PVO in-country projects are

funded entirely by USAID. While federal spending on PVOs has increased in

absolute terms since 1982, the percentage of total PVO resources coming

from the federal government has decreased 13 percent (for PVOs that

receive federal funds), from 42 percent in 1982 to 29 percent in 1992.1

 This

is because private donations have increased at a much faster rate than

federal funding.

PVOs must be registered with USAID to receive direct funding for purposes

other than disaster assistance. In 1992, 231 registered PVOs received federal

funding—an 83-percent increase from the 1982 total of 126. To qualify for

development assistance funding, PVOs must show a minimum level of

private funding (20 percent). This “privateness” calculation represents

PVOs’ total resources and not their contributions to the costs of specific

projects.

PVOs Rely

Increasingly on

Private Donations

Our analyses of data for PVOs that receive federal funding show that

reliance on government funding declined for many federally-supported

PVOs between 1982 and 1992. Total private funding for PVOs receiving

federal funds grew from $1.3 billion in 1982 to $3.4 billion in 1992 (in

constant 1992 dollars), a 160-percent increase. In contrast, federal funding

for PVOs fluctuated over this period—dropping to a low of $0.9 billion in

1984 and peaking at $1.5 billion in 1992, a 41-percent increase from the

1982 level of $1.07 billion (see fig. 4.1). The median level of private funding

for PVOs that received federal funding more than doubled, growing from

$1.3 million in 1982 to $2.7 million in 1992, after peaking at $3.4 million in

1989. Appendix II shows the distribution of PVOs by levels of federal

funding from 1982 to 1992, and appendix III shows PVOs’ federal funding as

a share of total funding in 1982 and 1992.

1

All dollar figures reported in this chapter have been converted to constant 1992 dollars. The analysis

concerns PVOs’ total programming (both domestic and international), since the financial data we

analyzed combined income for all PVO programs, including both emergency and nonemergency

activities. However, the same data set reported that most PVO expenses were for overseas programs.

In 1992, about 62 percent of PVOs’ total expenditures was for international programs; 27 percent for

domestic programs; and the remainder for administrative, management, and fund-raising costs.

Page 31 GAO/NSIAD-96-34 Foreign Assistance
Chapter 4 

PVOs Are Less Dependent on Government

Funding

Figure 4.1: Total Private and Federal Funding to Federally Funded U.S. PVOs, 1982 to 1992 (in Constant 1992 Dollars)

Dollars in millions

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992

PVOs’ fiscal years

Private fundinga

Federal fundingb

aPrivate funding includes private contributions, private revenue, and donations of goods and

services. It excludes funding from other governments and international organizations.

bFederal funding includes U.S. government grants and contracts, excess property, P.L. 480

commodities and freight, and USAID freight.

While federally supported PVOs received a median of 36 percent of their

total support from federal sources in 1982, in 1992 they received 

23 percent. The median amount of federal funding, in constant 1992

dollars, for PVOs that received any federal funding decreased 31 percent,

from $929,487 to $639,136 after peaking at $1.5 million in 19862

 (see

fig. 4.2). This decline was partly due to the increase in the number of PVOs

that received federal funding and the relatively smaller increase in federal

funding for PVOs.

2

Due to the large increase in the number of registered PVOs that did not receive any federal funding,

the median level of federal funding for all PVOs decreased even more dramatically—from $726,517 in

1982 to $60,244 in 1992.

Page 32 GAO/NSIAD-96-34 Foreign Assistance
Chapter 4 

PVOs Are Less Dependent on Government

Funding

Figure 4.2: Median Levels of Federal Funding to U.S. PVOs That Received Federal Funding, 1982 to 1992

Dollars in thousands

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992

PVOs’ fiscal years

929

1075

1216

1128

1522

1138

1251

1022 1059

710

639

A smaller percentage of PVOs depended on government funding for a

substantial portion of their resources in 1992 than in 1982. In 1982, the

44 percent that received federal funding received at least half of their total

funding from government sources; in 1992, only 24 percent did. Similarly,

the proportion of PVOs that received 80 percent or more of their funding

from the government declined from 22 percent to 10 percent (see fig. 4.3).

However, some PVOs still received a large percentage of their resources

from the U.S. government. For example, Catholic Relief Services and CARE

have consistently received the largest amounts of federal support among

PVOs, much of it in the form of food aid. Catholic Relief Services received

69 percent of its total revenues from the U.S. government in 1982 and

76 percent in 1992. Catholic Relief Services pointed out that if food aid is

deducted from the 1992 figures, the percentage of U.S. government

resources would be reduced from 76 percent to 38 percent. CARE also

received significant U.S. support—60 percent of its 1992 revenues came

from the U.S. government, although this is a decrease from 78 percent in

1982.

Page 33 GAO/NSIAD-96-34 Foreign Assistance
Chapter 4 

PVOs Are Less Dependent on Government

Funding

Figure 4.3: Proportions of PVOs Relying on Federal Funding for 80 Percent or More, 50 to 79 Percent, and Less Than

50 Percent of Their Resources, 1982 to 1992

Percent of all federally-funded PVOs

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992

PVOs’ fiscal years

PVOs with 80% or more federal funding

PVOs with 50-79% federal funding

PVOs with less than 50% federal funding

Total resources for PVOs that received federal funding grew from a median

of $3.6 million in 1982 to $5.2 million in 1992 (in constant 1992 dollars),

peaking in 1986 at $7.3 million. In 1992, five PVOs had resources totaling

over $200 million, and all of them received federal funding. Three of these

PVOs were also the largest PVOs in 1982.

The share of total federal funding going to the top 5 percent of federally

funded PVOs decreased from about 71 percent in 1982 (when 6 PVOs

received $762.4 million) to about 59 percent in 1992 (when 11 PVOs

received $893.6 million). The 5 percent of PVOs that got the smallest

amounts of federal funding received less than $12,800 each in 1982 and

less than $10,850 in 1992, or 0.005 and 0.006 percent of federal funding in

Page 34 GAO/NSIAD-96-34 Foreign Assistance
Chapter 4 

PVOs Are Less Dependent on Government

Funding

the respective years. In addition, 153 registered PVOs did not receive any

federal funding in 1992, compared to 18 in 1982.

PVO Cost-Sharing

Requirements

Changed

The preceding data on PVOs’ total financial resources provides a view of

decreasing financial dependence on the U.S. government, but it is also

necessary to examine how PVOs work with USAID on specific projects to

understand the issue of dependency. Although virtually all PVOs have some

private resources, PVOs must make choices about how much of their

private funding to devote to USAID projects and how much to spend on

self-determined, self-supported activities.

Until July 1994, USAID generally required PVOs to contribute at least 

25 percent toward the costs of PVO projects supported through USAID

grants.3 This cost-sharing requirement was meant to ensure that PVOs were

committed to their USAID-funded projects and to enhance the likelihood

that project activities and benefits would be sustained after USAID funding

ends. The requirement was also seen as a means of mobilizing additional

funding for projects and a mechanism to prevent PVO financial and

programmatic dependence on USAID. However, PVO officials told us that

cost sharing at the 25-percent level was often difficult on large dollar-value

projects, especially for smaller PVOs. For example, a $2 million USAID

project might require a $500,000 contribution from the grantee. In addition,

because PVOs did not always want to use private resources to meet USAID’s

priorities, USAID’s choice of PVO partners was sometimes limited. Because

of these problems, USAID changed its policy to encourage, but not require,

cost sharing for these grants.

USAID’s new policy allows more flexibility in determining the cost-sharing

level: it encourages the “largest reasonable and possible” level of cost

sharing without specifying any minimum. This policy change makes USAID

treatment of PVOs more consistent with its treatment of other grantees,

such as universities and other nonprofit organizations, which are not

required to make any minimum level of financial contribution to

USAID-funded projects. USAID stated that the purpose of the revision of the

cost-sharing policy was to standardize and streamline policy and process,

not to eliminate USAID’s preference for PVOs’ 25-percent contributions to

USAID activities. USAID stated it does not expect overall PVO contributions to

USAID activities to lessen as a result of this policy.

3

The requirement applied primarily to USAID funding that was reserved exclusively for PVOs.

However, under USAID’s matching grant program, PVOs were and are still required to contribute at

least 50 percent of program costs.

Page 35 GAO/NSIAD-96-34 Foreign Assistance
Appendix I 

Case Study Projects

Project/sector

Private voluntary

organization Objectives

USAID funding/life of

project Comments

Ecuador

Health/

child survival

Catholic Relief

Services

Improve child

health and nutrition.

Grant I: $610,601/

1985-92

Grant II: $400,000/

1992-95

At the second phase mid-term evaluation, the

projects had established health programs in

about 90 of the 120 target communities and

reduced the incidence of diarrheal disease in

target communities, although only about half of

the potential beneficiaries participated in the

mothers’ meeting through which services were

provided. Sustainability was made

questionable by weak commitment from the

Ministry of Health, among other factors. The

project involved community organizations, but

it had difficulty retaining trained community

volunteers.

Health/

child survival

Project HOPE Improve health of

children and

women of fertile

age.

Grant I: $750,000/

1989-93

Grant II: $780,000/

1992-95

The project worked in about half of the planned

communities and had trained 90 of the planned

200 Ministry of Health nurses. The Ministry of

Health’s inability to support the project, due in

part to financial difficulties, hampered

achievement of vaccination goals. Baseline

data was unavailable to track progress on

some health and nutritional indicators. The

private voluntary organization’s (PVO) close

relationship with Ministry of Health and use of

the community health model increased

prospects for sustainability. Developing local

capacity was a priority.

Trade and

investment

International

Executive Service

Corps

Promote private

sector investment

and provide

technical

assistance to small

and medium-sized

enterprises.

$675,000/1991-94a The project conducted industry surveys,

sponsored business seminars, and provided

technical assistance to three indigenous

nongovernmental organizations (INGO) and

several small businesses; however, changes in

project design made it impossible to measure

outputs against the original project objectives.

Beneficiaries were involved in determining their

needs for technical assistance and in

implementing recommendations.

Ghana

School feeding,

mother-child health,

farmer training, and

relief

Catholic

Relief

Services

Improve health

and nutrition of

rural Ghanaian

families and other

needy persons

and promote

literacy among

school-aged

children.

Food aid valued at

$2.57 million and

freight costs of 

$1.4 million in fiscal

year 1994

The project distributed food to about 160,000

beneficiaries in 1990, the last year for which

information was available, and its food

incentive program increased girls’ attendance

by 9 percent at target schools. The project did

not have plans for sustainability without the

donated commodities. Beneficiaries and some

local organizations were involved in carrying

out the project.

(continued)

Page 36 GAO/NSIAD-96-34 Foreign Assistance
Appendix I 

Case Study Projects

Project/sector

Private voluntary

organization Objectives

USAID funding/life of

project Comments

Food for work/

natural resources

and relief

Adventist

Development and

Relief Agency

Improve nutrition,

provide

employment, and

protect natural

resources.

Total support of 

$5.31 million/ fiscal

years 1992-94 

At the time of our review, the project operated

36 mother-child health centers, provided

materials for construction of 20 wells, 

10 schools, and toilet facilities and about 

1.7 million seedlings were planted through

food-for-work projects. The community forestry

component of the project established 16

nurseries to produce seedlings since activities

began in 1988. The food-for-work tree planting

component was not sustainable without

commodities for payment of laborers. The

financial self-sufficiency objective of the

nursery project component was not achieved

due in part to lack of demand for seedings.

Beneficiaries were involved in project

implementation but not in designing the project

components and had not taken on project

responsibilities. The PVO stated that, since our

fieldwork, the demand for seedlings has

increased and that the project is reaching its

objectives.

Microenterprise

development

Technoserve Increase incomes

and food security

by assisting rural

small businesses

and promoting

nontraditional

exports.

Total support of

$664,000/1993-97

The project established 27 rural agricultural

enterprises and cooperatives and provided

training and technical assistance to 29,700

beneficiaries, resulting in increased rural

productivity and incomes. The project relied on

outside funding for training and equipment;

plans to establish a trust fund to support

continued project activities met with

unanticipated problems, such as currency

depreciation, changes in the availability and

price of wheat, and competing Ghanaian

subsidy programs. Beneficiaries were involved

in managing rural businesses based on

business plans drawn up with PVO assistance.

Honduras

Food for work

(municipal

infrastructure)

CARE Improve

infrastructure in

poor urban areas.

Food aid valued at

$380,000 and freight

costs of $89,700/1994

This pilot project completed 20 of 21 planned

drainage, potable water, and latrine projects in

the last year for which full data was available;

municipalities’ failure to provide agreed inputs

caused some implementation problems.

Municipalities were involved in planning and

building infrastructure but did not have a strong

resource basis for sustainability, and the PVO

had not yet made maintenance plans. The

project developed local capacity by training

community leaders and municipal personnel in

organization and technical skills and by

involving communities in project decisions,

construction, and evaluation.

(continued)

Page 37 GAO/NSIAD-96-34 Foreign Assistance
Appendix I 

Case Study Projects

Project/sector

Private voluntary

organization Objectives

USAID funding/life of

project Comments

Housing and

sanitation

Cooperative

Housing

Foundation

Improve housing

and sanitation

through loans and

assistance to poor

families.

Food aid valued at

$410,000 with freight

costs of $22,500/1994

It appears that the project exceeded targets for

making loans to low-income persons but fell

short of goals for community improvement

loans during the period of USAID funding;

however, data was incomplete to compare

project objectives to outcomes. Similar loan

activities begun under a previous USAID grant

to the PVO have continued through a revolving

loan mechanism since USAID funding ended in

1990. The PVO developed local capacity by

providing funding and technical assistance to

INGO project implementors.

School feeding,

mother-child health

CARE Improve health

and nutrition of

mothers and

children and

improve school

attendance.

Food aid sold for local

equivalent of 

$1.8 million/1994-96

The project fed about 99 percent of targeted

300,000 school children and 85 percent of

mother-child health program beneficiaries in

1993, but progress toward objectives of

reducing malnutrition and infant mortality was

not systematically documented. The

government of Honduras contributed to the

project, but it does not have the resources to

continue the same level of feeding without

donor assistance. The PVO worked closely with

government agencies to train them to

administer the project, with mixed success;

communities were involved in project

implementation.

Health/water and

sanitation

Save the Children Improve health by

extending water

and sewer

services into rural

areas.

Funding provided as

host-country grant:

$700,000/1990-95

The PVO was on schedule to complete 77

water systems and 5,800 latrines by the end of

the grant period. The project planned for

maintaining water systems through user fees,

although collection was problematic for some

communities. The PVO worked with

communities to form organizations to build and

maintain water systems.

INGO development,

credit/

microenterprise

Katalysis Strengthen INGO’s

management and

planning abilities

to assist women’s

businesses.

$1.75 million for three

Latin American

countries/1991-93

The PVO strengthened its INGO partner

through training and technical assistance in

planning and management systems and

project design and implementation, and the

INGO undertook program activities that

resulted in new enterprises being created and

establishment of 27 community banks. The

INGO, however, still relied on grant funds from

the PVO. The project had a strong relationship

with the INGO and involved it in project design

and implementation.

(continued)

Page 38 GAO/NSIAD-96-34 Foreign Assistance
Appendix I 

Case Study Projects

Project/sector

Private voluntary

organization Objectives

USAID funding/life of

project Comments

Indonesia

Health/water and

sanitation

CARE Improve health by

extending water

and sewer

services into rural

areas.

Food aid valued at 

$2 million with freight

costs of 

$1.2 million/1988-93

(Extended to July 22,

1996, at no additional

cost to USAID.)

This project, supported by monetization of food

aid, provided assistance in construction of

water systems in 72 villages. The PVO involved

communities in planning, building, operating,

and maintaining the systems, and communities

financed the material and equipment. The

project planned for sustainability of the water

systems through user fees. CARE subsidized

construction of systems in over 30 percent of

villages too poor to mobilize the resources

needed.

Enterprise

development

National

Cooperative

Business

Association

Increase

employment and

incomes by

assisting

cooperatives.

Food aid valued at 

$5 million/1986-94

The food-monetization project provided

technical assistance to develop managerial

and marketing services for cooperative

businesses. Project activities generated

employment for about 20,000 workers;

however, the project documentation did not

have quantifiable indicators against which to

assess progress. USAID stated that the

project’s objectives of creating or expanding

labor-intensive businesses and increasing

production of agricultural export, among

others, have been met. The PVO works with

businesses to organize cooperatives to

develop markets. Economic activities

generated by the project will be susceptible to

economic circumstances in the marketplace.

Mother-child health,

food for work,

enterprise

development

Catholic Relief

Services

Improve health

and nutrition of

mothers and

children, increase

rural incomes.

Food aid valued at

$3.4 million and

freight costs of 

$1.3 million/1994

The project’s food-for-work component

completed 301 infrastructure improvement

projects in 1993 and over 122,900 participants

received food. The mother-child health project

component served 42,291 beneficiaries at 763

community health centers and began

establishing small financial institutions to

provide credit for economic activities. The

project has not planned for sustainability, and

the activities are not self-supporting. The PVO

used local counterpart organizations to provide

services.

INGO development Program for

Appropriate

Technology in

Health

Strengthen INGOs’

abilities to manage

and plan health

services.

$1.2 million/1991-94

(Extended to June 30,

1995, at no additional

cost to USAID)

The project provided technical assistance in

financial management, project design, and

strategic planning to more than 16 health

sector INGOs; however, documentation did not

use the original objectives to assess project

progress. The government of Indonesia has

integrated some project health strategies into

its objectives, but income generating activities

were problematic for INGOs. Beneficiary

INGOs were involved in planning and

implementing development projects.

(continued)

Page 39 GAO/NSIAD-96-34 Foreign Assistance
Appendix I 

Case Study Projects

Project/sector

Private voluntary

organization Objectives

USAID funding/life of

project Comments

Natural resources/

pesticide reduction

World Education Strengthen INGOs’

abilities to conduct

environmental

training projects.

$1.4 million/1991-95 The project awarded 9 of the expected 14

subgrants to INGOs but provided training and

materials for twice the expected number of

workshops for INGOs and farmers, training

about 1,000 people in pest management,

media development, or consumer education.

According to the PVO, pest management

activities decreased pesticide use by 

50 percent while maintaining product quality.

The advocacy models used have high potential

for sustainability, although whether the INGOs

can become financially independent of the

PVO is not clear. The project benefitted from

INGO involvement in planning and

implementation.

Nepal

Female education Asia Foundation Increase number

of girls that attend

and complete

secondary school.

$0.45 million/1991-95 The project, which provided scholarships to

girls who continued their educations after

primary school, succeeded in increasing the

number of girls attending secondary schools in

target areas by 65 percent. The project was a

pilot that USAID and the PVO hoped would be

funded by the World Bank. The project

strengthened the INGO partner’s organizational

skills, but the INGO did not yet have strong

planning skills. The project was a replication of

a project in Bangladesh, but the PVO worked

closely with an INGO that carried out the

project.

Rural community

development

Save the Children Improve quality of

life through

education, health,

agriculture, and

microenterprise

activities.

$1.1 million/1988-92 The project reached about 120,000 people with

activities in primary health care, water and

infrastructure improvements, agriculture,

resource conservation management, and

education, but it was unable to transfer all

responsibilities for sustaining activities to

community organizations during the grant

period. The PVO planned to continue project

activities after its USAID grant ended. The PVO

worked with 30 local organizations and

mobilized local volunteers to continue project

activities.

(continued)

Page 40 GAO/NSIAD-96-34 Foreign Assistance
Appendix I 

Case Study Projects

Project/sector

Private voluntary

organization Objectives

USAID funding/life of

project Comments

Niger

Health/child survival Africare Improve mother

and child health.

$1.8 million/1988-95 At its first phase mid-term evaluation, the

project had trained nurses from more

dispensaries than planned (15 rather than 13)

and village health teams (27 rather than 24),

but other planned activities that would have

enhanced the achievement of project

objectives, such as training for village health

management committees, were dropped. The

project suffered from poor management and

showed minimal accomplishments at the time

of our visit. Project sustainability depends on

the commitment of the government of Niger to

health services. Otherwise, activities will end

when assistance is withdrawn. The project was

not well-integrated into the Ministry of Health’s

local activities, and its efforts were replacing

and at times duplicating Ministry of Public

Health and other donors’ activities at the

dispensary level. USAID approved phase two

of the project, although no final evaluation was

conducted. Africare stated that it has

addressed all the problems identified during

our fieldwork, and USAID stated that recent

performance data showed positive project

results.

Private sector/credit

union development

World Council of

Credit Unions

Promote rural

credit union

formation through

technical

assistance.

$11 million/1989-97 The project organized 20 credit unions by the

end of 1993, trained over 50 credit union

leaders in literacy and bookkeeping, submitted

draft credit union legislation to the government

of Niger, and started loan activities. However,

the project was delayed by problems in

recruiting qualified local staff and faced an

inadequate legal and regulatory environment,

which the project sought to address. As of

Sept. 1995, draft legislation on credit unions

had been introduced. USAID believes that

about half the credit unions established under

the project are now viable. Beneficiaries were

involved in design and implementation of the

project.

(continued)

Page 41 GAO/NSIAD-96-34 Foreign Assistance
Appendix I 

Case Study Projects

Project/sector

Private voluntary

organization Objectives

USAID funding/life of

project Comments

Romania

Health and social

services

Project Concern

International

Improve care for

institutionalized

children through

training and a

model facility.

$1 million/1991-95 The project successfully established a

transitional living facility for handicapped

adolescents and worked with Romanian

medical workers in obstetrics and neonatal

care. However, the PVO relied entirely on

USAID funding for in-country operations and

had met with resistance from Romanian health

officials that hindered release of adolescents to

the group home, so facilities were underused.

Training of local staff was a priority, and local

leaders were involved in implementing some

project activities but not in designing the

project.

Health World Vision Relief

and Development

Improve primary

health care

systems and

health care for

institutionalized

children through

training and

technical

assistance.

$1 million/1991-94 The project improved clinical services to

institutionalized children and adults in target

institutions through direct service delivery and

training of Romanian staff, but activities to

strengthen local primary health systems

suffered from internal problems resulting in

delays and lack of clear objectives. Local staff

received training and assisted in project

implementation.

Health and social

services

Feed the Children Improve care for

institutionalized

children by

improving facilities

and providing

supplies.

$1.6 million/1991-95 The PVO successfully undertook 13 renovation

projects at institutions for orphans and

handicapped children in six districts, providing

basic services, such as water and heat, that

were previously unavailable. However, none of

the planned nutritional activities were

undertaken, and the PVO did not develop a

strategy to transfer activities to indigenous

institutions. Improvements were of good

quality, and local staff were trained in

maintenance. The PVO had local staff in

leadership positions, although its planned

partnership with an INGO did not materialize.

Environment World Environment

Center

Reduce industrial

pollution through

prevention

technologies.

$1.2 million/1990-95 The project assisted 10 enterprises through

technical assistance in environmental

assessments and demonstration of waste

management equipment and techniques. It is

unlikely that Romanian firms could undertake

capital improvements without outside funding.

The project developed local capacity by

involving the enterprise staff in implementing

new techniques.

(continued)

Page 42 GAO/NSIAD-96-34 Foreign Assistance
Appendix I 

Case Study Projects

Project/sector

Private voluntary

organization Objectives

USAID funding/life of

project Comments

Thailand

INGO development Private Agencies

Collaborating

Together

Strengthen INGOs’

abilities to develop

programs, build

coalitions, and

engage the public.

$1.6 million/1990-94 The project provided grants and technical

assistance in project management to 30 INGOs

and INGO coalitions. The PVO anticipated that

the INGOs would have difficulty finding

additional resources to sustain their operations.

The PVO worked closely with local counterparts

and involved them in implementing project

activities.

Microenterprise

development

CARE Increase incomes,

employment, and

productivity

through credit and

technical

assistance to

microenterprises.

$0.3 million/1988-1993 The project assisted 816 participant families in

30 villages, and there was some replication of

project activities in additional villages.

However, the PVO’s lack of experience in the

sector and the staff-intensive approach

selected in setting up businesses resulted in

the PVO being unable to provide needed

follow-up assistance. The project made

linkages with government organizations and

private sector markets for some producers’

wares, and the government of Japan agreed to

fund the project for an additional 2 years. The

beneficiaries were involved in carrying out

project activities, and the PVO provided

training in financial management.

aIn 1993, the Congress and the administration implemented laws and policies that prohibited

USAID from providing assistance aimed at investment promotion. Consequently, the project was

terminated in 1994, 3 years prior to its planned completion date.

Page 43 GAO/NSIAD-96-34 Foreign Assistance
Appendix II 

Distribution of PVOs by Levels of Federal

Funding, 1982 to 1992

Federal funding in constant 1992 dollars

Year

Total number of

registered PVOs $0 $1-$99,999

$100,000-

$499,999

$500,000-

$999,999

$1-

$19.9 million

$20-

$100 million

Over 

$100 million

1982 144 18 20 26 20 53 5 2

1983 142 23 15 20 22 56 4 2

1984 154 34 15 24 18 59 2 2

1985 158 37 15 23 17 60 4 2

1986 178 55 12 21 19 60 8 3

1987 189 54 17 27 19 60 10 2

1988 207 65 22 30 17 60 11 2

1989 241 87 27 34 15 63 13 2

1990 267 102 27 35 19 68 14 2

1991 334 128 50 39 31 70 14 2

1992 384 153 52 50 34 77 16 2

Source: USAID data.

Page 44 GAO/NSIAD-96-34 Foreign Assistance
Appendix III 

PVOs’ Federal Funding as a Share of Total

Funding, 1982 and 1992 (in Constant 1992

Dollars)

1982 1992

Dollars in thousands

PVO name

Total funding

from all

sources

Federal

funding

Federal

funding as

percent of total

funding

Total funding

from all

sources

Federal

funding

Federal

funding as

percent of total

funding

A Call to Serve International n/r n/r n/r $24,524.8 $42.8 0.2

The Academy for Educational

Development

n/r n/r n/r 71,334.8 60,910.5 85.4

Accion International $1,493.0 $831.7 55.7 3,956.6 1,131.5 28.6

Action Consulting Association n/r n/r n/r 6.1 0 0

Adventist Development and Relief

Agency International (formerly

Seventh-Day Adventist World Service)

23,403.2 17,185.2 73.4 55,246.3 41,302.2 74.8

Africa Rural Development n/r n/r n/r 194.6 0 0

African Children Welfare Foundation n/r n/r n/r 1,549.9 0 0

African Medical and Research

Foundation

n/r n/r n/r 1,388.8 366.3 26.4

The African Methodist Episcopal

Church Service & Development Agency

n/r n/r n/r 428.4 199.3 46.5

African Wildlife Foundation (formerly

African Wildlife Leadership Foundation)

1,331.3 0 0 5,634.4 842.7 15.0

The African-American Institute 16,840.2 13,722.6 81.5 25,570.9 23,134.4 90.5

African-American Labor Center 5,368.7 5,058.0 94.2 6,341.1 6,113.0 96.4

Africare 8,794.5 6,045.5 68.7 15,119.6 9,669.0 64.0

AFS Intercultural Programs n/r n/r n/r 32,887.3 433.2 1.3

Aga Khan Foundation, USA n/r n/r n/r 3,478.1 485.4 14.0

Agricultural Cooperative Development

International

3,635.5 3,250.7 89.4 13,214.2 12,300.8 93.1

Agricultural Development Council 2,735.8 941.1 34.4 n/r n/r n/r

Agua del Pueblo 159.6 33.6 21.1 n/r n/r n/r

AICF/USA (International Action Against

Hunger)

n/r n/r n/r 1,945.0 1,894.1 97.4

Aid to Artisans n/r n/r n/r 746.8 310.5 41.6

Air Serv International n/r n/r n/r 8,173.8 469.7 5.8

Aletheia Foundation n/r n/r n/r 99.6 0 0

Alliance for Communities in Action n/r n/r n/r 46.0 0 0

ALM International (formerly American

Leprosy Missions)

3,102.1 43.4 1.4 7,464.3 10.0 0.1

America-Mideast Educational and

Training Services

8,464.4 6,644.1 78.5 29,514.6 21,797.3 73.9

America’s Development Foundation n/r n/r n/r 2,272.5 1,900.8 83.6

(continued)

Page 45 GAO/NSIAD-96-34 Foreign Assistance
Appendix III 

PVOs’ Federal Funding as a Share of Total

Funding, 1982 and 1992 (in Constant 1992

Dollars)

1982 1992

Dollars in thousands

PVO name

Total funding

from all

sources

Federal

funding

Federal

funding as

percent of total

funding

Total funding

from all

sources

Federal

funding

Federal

funding as

percent of total

funding

American Association for International

Aging

n/r n/r n/r 198.3 96.4 48.6

American Association of Zoological

Parks and Aquariums

n/r n/r n/r 1,871.4 0 0

American Bureau for Medical

Advancement in China

435.0 0 0 n/r n/r n/r

American College of Nurse-Midwives n/r n/r n/r 2,920.1 372.0 12.7

American Colonization Society

Charitable Fund

n/r n/r n/r 17.5 11.5 65.6

American Committee for Aid to Poland n/r n/r n/r 293.7 157.4 53.6

American Committee for Shaare Zedek

Hospital in Jerusalem

8,902.1 343.3 3.9 11,099.2 0 0

American Council on Education n/r n/r n/r 21,735.8 3,060.1 14.1

American Dentists for Foreign Service 151.2 0 .0 409.2 0 0

American Friends of Kiryat Sanz

Laniado Hospital

2,656.4 0 0 1,461.4 0 0

American Friends Service Committee 24,043.6 861.4 3.6 36,380.7 0 0

American Himalayan Foundation n/r n/r n/r 382.6 0 0

American Institute for Free Labor

Development

14,221.9 13,636.3 95.9 15,544.5 14,286.1 91.9

The American Jewish Joint Distribution

Committee

75,336.9 19,026.8 25.3 83,193.7 6,690.7 8.0

American Jewish World Service n/r n/r n/r 2,217.2 1.5 0.1

American Latvian Association in the

United States

n/r n/r n/r 604.2 0 0

American Medical Resources

Foundation

n/r n/r n/r 336.5 0 0

American Mizrachi Women 3,348.0 43.4 1.3 n/r n/r n/r

American National Red Cross n/r n/r n/r 412,331.0 29,626.7 7.2

American Near East Refugee Aid 2,560.1 1,883.3 73.6 4,897.5 3,654.6 74.6

American ORT Federation 12,688.6 2,121.5 16.7 12,496.0 1,349.3 10.8

American Red Magen David for Israel 5,280.4 238.6 4.5 6,985.8 0 0

American Refugee Committee n/r n/r n/r 3,265.2 1,276.4 39.1

American Schools of Oriental Research 1,525.0 386.8 25.4 n/r n/r n/r

American Service to India n/r n/r n/r 90.2 0 0

American Urological Association n/r n/r n/r 11,389.6 210.7 1.9

Americans for the Restitution and

Righting of Old Wrongs

n/r n/r n/r 175.6 0 0

(continued)

Page 46 GAO/NSIAD-96-34 Foreign Assistance
Appendix III 

PVOs’ Federal Funding as a Share of Total

Funding, 1982 and 1992 (in Constant 1992

Dollars)

1982 1992

Dollars in thousands

PVO name

Total funding

from all

sources

Federal

funding

Federal

funding as

percent of total

funding

Total funding

from all

sources

Federal

funding

Federal

funding as

percent of total

funding

AmeriCares Foundation n/r n/r n/r 102,231.2 210.0 0.2

Amigos de las Americas 1,892.3 0 0 n/r n/r n/r

Andean Rural Health Care n/r n/r n/r 929.8 164.9 17.7

Appropriate Technology International n/r n/r n/r 4,544.2 3,763.7 82.8

The Armenian Assembly of America

Relief Fund

n/r n/r n/r 1,067.0 788.7 73.9

Armenian General Benevolent Union 3,569.2 205.0 5.7 19,329.6 713.7 3.7

Armenian Missionary Association of

America

n/r n/r n/r 3,995.0 385.4 9.7

The Armenian Relief Society n/r n/r n/r 650.3 0 0

The Armenian Relief Society of North

America

n/r n/r n/r 851.5 463.8 54.5

The Asia Foundation 11,181.4 9,667.5 86.5 43,030.2 31,165.3 72.4

Asian-American Free Labor Institute 5,824.6 5,648.3 97.0 4,056.1 2,625.4 64.7

Association for Voluntary Sterilization 16,556.8 15,758.4 95.2 n/r n/r n/r

Bethany Christian Services n/r n/r n/r 16,314.1 54.8 0.3

Bicentennial Volunteers n/r n/r n/r 3,567.0 2,692.3 75.5

Big Brothers/Big Sisters of New York

City

n/r n/r n/r 1,442.0 0 0

Booker T. Washington Foundation 4,185.2 3,945.3 94.3 n/r n/r n/r

Books for Africa n/r n/r n/r 884.9 15.0 1.7

Books for the World n/r n/r n/r 144.4 87.1 60.3

Boys’ Club of America 10,480.1 472.4 4.5 n/r n/r n/r

Brooke Foundation n/r n/r n/r 372.5 0 0

Brother to Brother International n/r n/r n/r 26,284.0 11.4 0

Brothers’ Brother Foundation 2,156.2 5.9 0.3 71,513.1 25,806.9 36.1

The Burma American Fund n/r n/r n/r 86.0 62.4 72.5

Cambodian Children’s Education Fund n/r n/r n/r 35.7 5.1 14.3

Caribbean Conservation Corporation n/r n/r n/r 713.5 245.1 34.4

Caribbean Food Bank n/r n/r n/r 370.9 122.9 33.1

Caribbean/Latin American Action n/r n/r n/r 1,220.5 50.0 4.1

Caribbeana Council 324.4 207.0 63.8 n/r n/r n/r

Carnegie Council on Ethics and

International Affairs

n/r n/r n/r 3,067.3 0 0

Catholic Medical Mission Board n/r n/r n/r 25,579.1 0 0

Catholic Near East Welfare Association n/r n/r n/r 18,371.2 0 0

(continued)

Page 47 GAO/NSIAD-96-34 Foreign Assistance
Appendix III 

PVOs’ Federal Funding as a Share of Total

Funding, 1982 and 1992 (in Constant 1992

Dollars)

1982 1992

Dollars in thousands

PVO name

Total funding

from all

sources

Federal

funding

Federal

funding as

percent of total

funding

Total funding

from all

sources

Federal

funding

Federal

funding as

percent of total

funding

Catholic Relief Services - USCC 483,074.8 332,227.3 68.8 290,335.0 221,192.0 76.2

Center for Citizen Initiatives n/r n/r n/r 1,089.2 0 0

Center for Clean Air Policy n/r n/r n/r 850.6 416.6 49.0

The Center for Health, Education and

Economic Research

n/r n/r n/r 14.8 0 0

Center for Marine Conservation n/r n/r n/r 7,877.7 639.1 8.1

The Center for Natural and Traditional

Medicines

n/r n/r n/r 186.9 0 0

Center for Racial Equality and

Democratic Opportunity

n/r n/r n/r 15.4 0 0

Center for Victims of Torture n/r n/r n/r 858.1 0 0

The Centre for Development and

Population Activities

n/r n/r n/r 6,201.8 4,518.6 72.9

Child and Family Service n/r n/r n/r 9,959.2 0 0

Child Hope Foundation n/r n/r n/r 486.7 70.0 14.4

Children International (Holy Land

Christian Mission)

9,036.3 1,268.1 14.0 36,738.5 0 0

Children’s Health Fund n/r n/r n/r 3,802.7 0 0

Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh n/r n/r n/r 161,967.1 0 0

Children’s Services of Colorado n/r n/r n/r 2,100.8 1,739.5 82.8

Chol-Chol Foundation (formerly

Chol-Chol Foundation for Human

Development)

429.8 0 0 384.7 0 0

Christian Blind Mission International n/r n/r n/r 1,111.1 0 0

Christian Children’s Fund 60,772.9 0 0 106,094.6 0 0

Christian Outreach Appeal n/r n/r n/r 1,341.2 0 0

Christian Reformed World Relief

Committee

n/r n/r n/r 5,115.2 190.6 3.7

Christian Relief Services n/r n/r n/r 37,433.7 407.6 1.1

Church World Service 87,744.0 38,111.8 43.4 43,590.3 9,467.1 21.7

Citizens Democracy Corps n/r n/r n/r 4,330.2 1,689.3 39.0

The Citizens Network for Foreign Affairs n/r n/r n/r 768.3 559.0 72.8

Community Development Foundation 2,199.0 2,026.1 92.1 n/r n/r n/r

Community of Caring n/r n/r n/r 816.6 4.3 0.5

Community Services Council n/r n/r n/r 8,751.1 0 0

Community Systems Foundation 445.4 262.0 58.8 458.2 87.4 19.1

Compassion International 1,193.2 319.4 26.8 47,997.6 0 0

(continued)

Page 48 GAO/NSIAD-96-34 Foreign Assistance
Appendix III 

PVOs’ Federal Funding as a Share of Total

Funding, 1982 and 1992 (in Constant 1992

Dollars)

1982 1992

Dollars in thousands

PVO name

Total funding

from all

sources

Federal

funding

Federal

funding as

percent of total

funding

Total funding

from all

sources

Federal

funding

Federal

funding as

percent of total

funding

Compatible Technology n/r n/r n/r 176.3 0 0

Congressional Human Rights

Foundation

n/r n/r n/r 453.3 0 0

The Conservation International

Foundation

n/r n/r n/r 11,671.6 2,079.1 17.8

Consortium for Community Self-Help 435.0 433.5 99.7 n/r n/r n/r

The Consortium for the MBA Enterprise

Corps

n/r n/r n/r 1,453.4 617.4 42.5

CARE 382,828.6 298,001.0 77.8 432,451.0 258,317.0 59.7

Cooperative Housing Foundation 1,237.5 1,113.1 90.0 3,377.5 2,712.8 80.3

Cooperative League Fund 420.5 0 0 n/r n/r n/r

Coordination in Development 2,940.4 1,753.0 59.6 1,657.9 600.0 36.2

Council of International Programs for

Youth Leaders and Social Workers

889.3 784.1 88.2 n/r n/r n/r

Counterpart Foundation (formerly

Foundation for the Peoples of the South

Pacific)

1,326.2 831.2 62.7 3,107.3 1,274.6 41.0

Covenant House n/r n/r n/r 80,842.0 1,398.8 1.7

Credit Union National Association 20,114.7 2,173.4 10.8 24,472.7 7,944.1 32.5

Croatian Democracy Project n/r n/r n/r 51.9 0 0

Cultural Survival n/r n/r n/r 4,262.7 388.9 9.1

Davis Memorial Goodwill Industries n/r n/r n/r 11,981.0 3,221.3 26.9

Delphi International n/r n/r n/r 5,194.4 4,635.4 89.2

Dental Health International n/r n/r n/r 70.9 0 0

Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund n/r n/r n/r 434.3 54.6 12.6

Direct Relief International 8,177.9 3.9 0.1 9,726.9 660.3 6.8

DKT International n/r n/r n/r 5,235.5 40.0 0.8

Docate International 5.7 0 0 n/r n/r n/r

Doctors Without Borders USA n/r n/r n/r 1,660.1 973.0 58.6

Domestic/Foreign Missionary Society of

the Protestant Episcopal Church

56,015.3 1,017.4 1.8 60,194.0 2,232.0 3.7

Doulos Community n/r n/r n/r 169.5 0 0

The East Los Angeles Community Union 22,463.6 15,862.9 70.6 n/r n/r n/r

East West Educational Development

Foundation

n/r n/r n/r 800.9 0 0

Educational and Research Foundation

for AAFPRS

n/r n/r n/r 880.3 0 0

(continued)

Page 49 GAO/NSIAD-96-34 Foreign Assistance
Appendix III 

PVOs’ Federal Funding as a Share of Total

Funding, 1982 and 1992 (in Constant 1992

Dollars)

1982 1992

Dollars in thousands

PVO name

Total funding

from all

sources

Federal

funding

Federal

funding as

percent of total

funding

Total funding

from all

sources

Federal

funding

Federal

funding as

percent of total

funding

Egyptians Relief Association n/r n/r n/r 43.4 0 0

Elwyn n/r n/r n/r 85,441.4 0 0

Enersol Associates n/r n/r n/r 270.2 74.2 27.5

ENTERPRISE Development International n/r n/r n/r 1,586.7 0 0

Environmental Law Institute n/r n/r n/r 5,262.6 2,184.6 41.5

Esperanca 1,422.6 97.3 6.8 2,343.6 593.9 25.3

Estonian American Fund for Economic

Education

n/r n/r n/r 101.4 0 0

Evangelical Association for the

Promotion of Education

n/r n/r n/r 1,173.3 0 0

Eye Care 376.0 0 0 415.6 217.2 52.3

Family Health International n/r n/r n/r 36,698.5 33,466.8 91.2

Feed My People International n/r n/r n/r 5,997.0 106.2 1.8

Feed the Children n/r n/r n/r 88,851.5 307.5 0.4

Financial Services Volunteer Corps n/r n/r n/r 16,757.2 1,425.3 8.5

Floresta USA n/r n/r n/r 227.4 0 0

Florida Association of Voluntary

Agencies for Caribbean Action

n/r n/r n/r 704.8 180.4 25.6

Food Corps, USA n/r n/r n/r 70.8 0 0

Food for the Hungry 8,812.0 0 0 32,476.9 7,627.4 23.5

Food for the Poor n/r n/r n/r 12,335.6 435.0 3.5

Foundation for International Community

Assistance

n/r n/r n/r 3,446.8 2,943.4 85.4

Foundation of Compassionate American

Samaritans

n/r n/r n/r 67.3 0 0

Free Trade Union Institute n/r n/r n/r 12,267.3 3,023.9 24.7

Freedom from Hunger (formerly Meals

for Millions/Freedom from Hunger

Foundation)

2,172.8 549.8 25.3 n/r n/r n/r

Freedom House n/r n/r n/r 2,927.1 106.6 3.6

Friends of Animals n/r n/r n/r 3,579.1 0 0

Friends of Children 578.7 0 0 n/r n/r n/r

Friends of Conservation - Friends of the

Masai Mara

n/r n/r n/r 348.6 0 0

Friends of Liberia n/r n/r n/r 38.9 0 0

Friends of the Shanta Bhawan n/r n/r n/r 40.0 0 0

Friends of Women’s World Banking n/r n/r n/r 327.8 0 0

(continued)

Page 50 GAO/NSIAD-96-34 Foreign Assistance
Appendix III 

PVOs’ Federal Funding as a Share of Total

Funding, 1982 and 1992 (in Constant 1992

Dollars)

1982 1992

Dollars in thousands

PVO name

Total funding

from all

sources

Federal

funding

Federal

funding as

percent of total

funding

Total funding

from all

sources

Federal

funding

Federal

funding as

percent of total

funding

Fund for Democracy and Development n/r n/r n/r 935.0 266.3 28.5

The Fund for Peace n/r n/r n/r 2,224.2 0 0

The German Marshall Fund of the

United States

n/r n/r n/r 16,099.8 0 0

Girl Scouts of the USA 26,079.2 45.2 0.2 n/r n/r n/r

Global Health Action n/r n/r n/r 824.0 24.4 3.0

Global Health Ministries n/r n/r n/r 391.6 0 0

Global Hunger Project n/r n/r n/r 4,144.6 0 0

Global Jewish Assistance and Relief

Network

n/r n/r n/r 797.3 0 0

Global Links n/r n/r n/r 2,449.1 4.2 0.2

Global Outreach 552.5 252.3 45.7 n/r n/r n/r

Goodwill Industries of America 5,127.0 1,449.9 28.3 6,927.9 945.6 13.7

The Greater Caribbean Energy and

Environment Foundation

n/r n/r n/r 28.7 0 0

Hadassah, The Women’s Zionist

Organization of America

50,672.3 925.2 1.8 83,049.1 1,927.4 2.3

The Haitian Health Clinic n/r n/r n/r 626.3 0 0

Hands to Clinical Labs of Third World

Countries

n/r n/r n/r 124.9 0 0

Harry T. Fultz Albanian-American

Educational Foundation

n/r n/r n/r 65.6 0 0

HE.R.MAN.D.A.D. n/r n/r n/r 62.7 0 0

Health and Development International n/r n/r n/r 54.7 0 0

Health Volunteers Overseas n/r n/r n/r 4,216.4 771.8 18.3

Heifer Project International 4,712.8 284.5 6.0 8,950.5 602.7 6.7

Helen Keller International 2,179.4 618.9 28.4 7,289.0 3,603.3 49.4

Hias 17,165.6 9,074.5 52.9 n/r n/r n/r

High Scope Educational Research

Foundation

3,198.5 2,156.4 67.4 5,887.2 161.6 2.8

Holt International Children’s Services 2,704.9 20.5 0 6,745.2 605.9 9.0

Home Management, Employment Skills

and Entrepreneurship Institute

n/r n/r n/r 130.7 0 0

Hospital Relief Fund of the Caribbean n/r n/r n/r 1.5 0 0

Humanity International n/r n/r n/r 1.9 0 0

Indus Medical Foundation n/r n/r n/r 100.2 0 0

Institute for Central American Studies n/r n/r n/r 128.7 0 0

(continued)

Page 51 GAO/NSIAD-96-34 Foreign Assistance
Appendix III 

PVOs’ Federal Funding as a Share of Total

Funding, 1982 and 1992 (in Constant 1992

Dollars)

1982 1992

Dollars in thousands

PVO name

Total funding

from all

sources

Federal

funding

Federal

funding as

percent of total

funding

Total funding

from all

sources

Federal

funding

Federal

funding as

percent of total

funding

Institute for Development Research n/r n/r n/r 370.7 13.3 3.6

Institute for International Development 1,643.0 729.9 44.4 n/r n/r n/r

Institute for Practical Idealism (Legacy

International)

n/r n/r n/r 657.5 45.2 6.9

Institute of Cultural Affairs 3,636.0 264.5 7.3 2,310.6 77.3 3.4

Institute of International Education 86,963.9 23,852.9 27.4 139,203.3 46,677.2 33.5

Institute of International Law and

Economic Development

21.0 16.4 78.2 n/r n/r n/r

Institutional Development and

Economic Affairs Service

308.4 284.7 92.3 n/r n/r n/r

INTER-AID INCORPORATED

(International Christian Aid)

n/r n/r n/r 789.7 0 0

International Aid n/r n/r n/r 1,984.2 0 0

International Alliance for Children 199.4 0 0 355.9 0 0

The International Book Bank n/r n/r n/r 11,874.1 80.0 0.7

The International Center n/r n/r n/r 1,126.1 52.9 4.7

International Center for Children’s Health n/r n/r n/r 1,573.0 19.1 1.2

International Center for the Solution of

Environmental Problems

n/r n/r n/r 219.4 0 0

International Child Care USA n/r n/r n/r 468.6 0 0

International Child Health Foundation n/r n/r n/r 336.1 0 0

International Child Resource Institute n/r n/r n/r 313.6 0 0

International Church Relief Fund n/r n/r n/r 4,656.0 23.3 0.5

International Clinical Epidemiology

Network

n/r n/r n/r 410.2 58.3 14.2

International Development Enterprises n/r n/r n/r 926.9 0 0

International Educational Development 1,278.9 1,098.4 85.9 n/r n/r n/r

International Executive Service Corps 22,532.5 6,156.2 27.3 56,366.0 23,426.5 41.6

International Eye Foundation 4,564.8 1,526.4 33.4 3,724.1 964.5 25.9

International Federation for Family Life

Promotion

n/r n/r n/r 620.4 0 0

International Foundation for Education

and Self-Help

n/r n/r n/r 3,161.6 536.7 17.0

International Human Assistance

Programs

9,125.2 1,801.4 19.7 n/r n/r n/r

International Institute for Energy

Conservation

n/r n/r n/r 2,064.3 573.3 27.8

(continued)

Page 52 GAO/NSIAD-96-34 Foreign Assistance
Appendix III 

PVOs’ Federal Funding as a Share of Total

Funding, 1982 and 1992 (in Constant 1992

Dollars)

1982 1992

Dollars in thousands

PVO name

Total funding

from all

sources

Federal

funding

Federal

funding as

percent of total

funding

Total funding

from all

sources

Federal

funding

Federal

funding as

percent of total

funding

International Institute of Rural

Reconstruction

1,606.2 357.8 22.3 2,710.1 662.6 24.5

International Lifeline n/r n/r n/r 4,548.7 4,304.9 94.6

The International Media Fund n/r n/r n/r 3,564.1 3,564.0 100.0

International Medical and Research

Foundation

1,528.6 1,391.5 91.0 n/r n/r n/r

The International Medical Corps n/r n/r n/r 9,350.8 6,291.7 67.3

International Medical Services for Health n/r n/r n/r 1,226.1 43.3 3.5

International Nursing Services

Association

412.5 17.3 4.2 n/r n/r n/r

International Orthodox Christian

Charities

n/r n/r n/r 1,313.7 0 0

International Partnership for Human

Development

n/r n/r n/r 6,388.3 5,732.1 89.7

International Planned Parenthood

Federation/Western Hemisphere Region

4,585.6 0 0 14,536.8 8,911.4 61.3

International Program for Human

Resource Development

74.7 0 0 n/r n/r n/r

International Refugee Center of Oregon n/r n/r n/r 2,583.0 1,974.2 76.4

International Rescue Committee 39,863.0 28,567.7 71.7 54,409.6 21,080.7 38.7

International Service Center n/r n/r n/r 153.4 0 0

International Services of Hope/Impact

Medical Division

n/r n/r n/r 148.4 0 0

International Social Service American

Branch

306.4 0 0 n/r n/r n/r

International Society of Tropical

Forestors

n/r n/r n/r 59.2 20.7 35.0

International Union for the Conservation

of Nature and Natural Resources

n/r n/r n/r 1,271.0 157.5 12.4

International United Black Fund n/r n/r n/r 10.2 0 0

International Voluntary Services 3,284.5 1,679.7 51.1 1,701.6 765.9 45.0

International Wilderness Leadership

Foundation

n/r n/r n/r 445.3 0 0

International Youth Foundation n/r n/r n/r 3,467.0 0 0

Island Resources Foundation n/r n/r n/r 338.1 222.6 65.8

J.M. Murray Center n/r n/r n/r 8,202.3 0 0

Joint Center for Political and Economic

Studies

n/r n/r n/r 6,174.8 0 0

(continued)

Page 53 GAO/NSIAD-96-34 Foreign Assistance
Appendix III 

PVOs’ Federal Funding as a Share of Total

Funding, 1982 and 1992 (in Constant 1992

Dollars)

1982 1992

Dollars in thousands

PVO name

Total funding

from all

sources

Federal

funding

Federal

funding as

percent of total

funding

Total funding

from all

sources

Federal

funding

Federal

funding as

percent of total

funding

Junior Achievement n/r n/r n/r 9,370.2 0 0

Katalysis North/South Development

Partnership

n/r n/r n/r 717.9 211.6 29.5

Khmer Alliance Foundation n/r n/r n/r 9.3 0 0

La Leche League International 1,498.7 212.2 14.2 2,879.2 170.9 5.9

Laubach Literacy International 2,777.1 44.9 1.6 n/r n/r n/r

Lawyers Alliance for World Security n/r n/r n/r 308.0 37.2 12.1

Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights

Under Law

n/r n/r n/r 4,357.0 226.3 5.2

The Life Link n/r n/r n/r 557.5 17.1 3.1

Lighthawk n/r n/r n/r 1,654.6 0 0

Lions Club International Foundation n/r n/r n/r 30,109.8 0 0

Lithuanian Children’s Relief n/r n/r n/r 37.8 0 0

Lutheran World Relief 15,706.1 4,613.5 29.4 22,940.2 5,249.4 22.9

Maine Adoption Placement Service n/r n/r n/r 667.3 60.5 9.1

Manomet Bird Observatory n/r n/r n/r 3,479.9 0 0

MAP International 40,332.7 464.7 1.2 38,259.7 105.1 0.3

Maranatha Volunteers International n/r n/r n/r 1,579.9 0 0

The Martin Luther King, Jr. Center for

Nonviolent Social Change

n/r n/r n/r 4,042.9 1,023.4 25.3

Massachusetts Audubon Society n/r n/r n/r 21,647.4 1,035.5 4.8

Media for Development International n/r n/r n/r 265.7 5.4 2.1

Medical Benevolence Foundation n/r n/r n/r 4,479.6 122.1 2.7

Medical Care Development 3,855.8 1,725.2 44.7 6,682.6 878.3 13.1

Medical Education for South African

Blacks

n/r n/r n/r 1,187.8 0 0

Medical Outreach for Armenians n/r n/r n/r 1,566.3 0 0

Medical Teams International n/r n/r n/r 34,769.6 18,437.6 53.0

Melwood Horticultural Training Center n/r n/r n/r 10,537.7 0 0

Mennonite Central Committee 27,805.8 460.5 1.7 39,193.7 182.7 0.5

The Mennonite Economic Development

Associates

n/r n/r n/r 374.9 0 0

Mercy Corps International n/r n/r n/r 17,839.7 3,112.5 17.5

Mercy International Health Services n/r n/r n/r 3,691.8 71.7 1.9

Mercy Ships n/r n/r n/r 10,105.5 0 0

Ministry of Jesus n/r n/r n/r 108.7 0 0

(continued)

Page 54 GAO/NSIAD-96-34 Foreign Assistance
Appendix III 

PVOs’ Federal Funding as a Share of Total

Funding, 1982 and 1992 (in Constant 1992

Dollars)

1982 1992

Dollars in thousands

PVO name

Total funding

from all

sources

Federal

funding

Federal

funding as

percent of total

funding

Total funding

from all

sources

Federal

funding

Federal

funding as

percent of total

funding

Minnesota International Health

Volunteers

n/r n/r n/r 565.0 242.6 42.9

Mission Without Borders International n/r n/r n/r 17,314.1 3.2 <0.1

Missouri Botanical Garden n/r n/r n/r 26,585.2 1,776.5 6.7

Mozambique Health Committee n/r n/r n/r 455.9 393.1 86.2

National Cooperative Business

Association (formerly Cooperative

League of the U.S.A.)

3,722.0 3,091.0 83.1 10,354.6 8,170.3 78.9

National Council for International Health 621.8 527.3 84.8 1,150.1 336.6 29.3

National Council of Negro Women 4,481.3 3,825.2 85.4 5,214.1 1,554.9 29.8

National Cristina Foundation n/r n/r n/r 1,409.2 0 0

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation n/r n/r n/r 14,271.6 5,400.1 37.8

National Forum for Black Administrators n/r n/r n/r 1,310.6 148.7 11.4

National Office for Social Responsibility

in the Private Sector

754.4 723.2 95.9 n/r n/r n/r

National Parents’ Resource Institute for

Drug Education

n/r n/r n/r 819.6 0 0

National Planning Association n/r n/r n/r 1,651.8 0 0

National Rural Electric Cooperative

Association

29,634.1 2,509.8 8.5 66,359.4 10,052.7 15.2

National Rural Electric Cooperative

Association - International Foundation

n/r n/r n/r 120.0 39.3 32.8

National Telephone Cooperative

Association

n/r n/r n/r 12,819.6 630.0 4.9

National 4-H Council 14,818.5 367.2 2.5 16,123.7 699.8 4.3

The Nature Conservancy n/r n/r n/r 274,909.0 1,616.9 0.6

Nazarene Compassionate Ministries n/r n/r n/r 251.2 0 0

Near East Foundation 2,468.7 470.7 19.1 2,844.0 354.4 12.5

New Israel Fund n/r n/r n/r 8,924.3 0 0

New Transcentury Foundation 6,466.8 6,298.5 97.4 n/r n/r n/r

New York Botanical Garden n/r n/r n/r 25,309.2 2,006.2 7.9

New York Zoological Society/Wildlife

Conservation International

n/r n/r n/r 64,969.5 1,219.9 1.9

Nitrogen Fixing Tree Association n/r n/r n/r 347.5 48.3 13.9

Obermayer Foundation n/r n/r n/r 69.0 0 0

OBOR 92.3 43.4 47.0 267.6 61.8 23.1

(continued)

Page 55 GAO/NSIAD-96-34 Foreign Assistance
Appendix III 

PVOs’ Federal Funding as a Share of Total

Funding, 1982 and 1992 (in Constant 1992

Dollars)

1982 1992

Dollars in thousands

PVO name

Total funding

from all

sources

Federal

funding

Federal

funding as

percent of total

funding

Total funding

from all

sources

Federal

funding

Federal

funding as

percent of total

funding

Operation Blessing International Relief

& Development Corporation

n/r n/r n/r 2,489.3 67.5 2.7

Operation Bootstrap Africa n/r n/r n/r 247.4 0 0

Operation Bootstrap - Tanzania 133.0 9.8 7.4 n/r n/r n/r

Operation Independence n/r n/r n/r 1,454.2 525.0 36.1

Operation Smile International n/r n/r n/r 4,521.7 265.2 5.9

Operation USA n/r n/r n/r 5,204.0 31.4 0.6

Opportunities Industrialization Centers

International

5,100.8 5,076.7 99.5 8,525.9 4,689.5 55.0

Opportunity International n/r n/r n/r 3,043.8 470.9 15.5

Organization for Tropical Studies n/r n/r n/r 3,830.8 825.8 21.6

Our Little Brothers and Sisters n/r n/r n/r 6,396.1 0 0

Outreach International n/r n/r n/r 917.9 0 0

Overseas Education Fund of the

League of Women Voters

2,585.1 2,085.2 80.7 n/r n/r n/r

Pan American Association of Eye Banks n/r n/r n/r 18.6 0 0

Pan American Development Foundation 7,285.5 1,555.9 21.4 8,361.6 3,169.3 37.9

Park West Children’s Fund n/r n/r n/r 14,551.3 4.3 0

Partners in Economic Reform n/r n/r n/r 439.1 182.1 41.5

Partners in International Development n/r n/r n/r 78.6 0 0

Partners of the Americas (formerly

National Association of the Partners of

the Alliance)

2,414.8 1,658.3 68.7 8,478.1 6,586.3 77.7

Partnership for Productivity

Foundation/USA

889.5 587.1 66.0 n/r n/r n/r

Pathfinder International (formerly

Pathfinder Fund)

8,284.0 6,932.6 83.7 21,930.5 19,957.8 91.0

Paul Carlson Medical Program 610.6 309.1 50.6 n/r n/r n/r

The Pearl S. Buck Foundation 2,987.8 460.1 15.4 4,934.3 28.6 0.6

The People-to-People Health

Foundation (Project HOPE)

18,753.3 3,788.9 20.2 89,621.0 25,244.0 28.2

The Peregrine Fund n/r n/r n/r 2,136.3 539.1 25.2

Perkins School for the Blind n/r n/r n/r 32,851.6 759.3 2.3

The Phelps-Stokes Fund n/r n/r n/r 3,668.8 0 0

Philippine American Foundation n/r n/r n/r 744.7 0 0

Pioneer Women, Women’s Labor Zionist

Organization of America

3,936.0 12.7 0.3 n/r n/r n/r

(continued)

Page 56 GAO/NSIAD-96-34 Foreign Assistance
Appendix III 

PVOs’ Federal Funding as a Share of Total

Funding, 1982 and 1992 (in Constant 1992

Dollars)

1982 1992

Dollars in thousands

PVO name

Total funding

from all

sources

Federal

funding

Federal

funding as

percent of total

funding

Total funding

from all

sources

Federal

funding

Federal

funding as

percent of total

funding

Plan International USA (formerly Foster

Parents Plan)

14,633.4 166.8 1.1 30,688.6 996.9 3.3

Planned Parenthood Federation of

America

34,865.0 24,732.7 70.9 41,869.9 4,163.7 9.9

Planned Parenthood of New York City 11,967.6 1,265.3 10.6 20,303.0 0 0

Planning Assistance 732.8 457.5 62.4 2,699.3 577.2 21.4

Polish American Congress Charitable

Foundation

n/r n/r n/r 12,707.4 669.7 5.3

Polish Welfare Association n/r n/r n/r 1,394.8 0 0

The Population Council 25,483.0 7,209.2 28.3 44,129.5 17,050.9 38.6

Population Services International n/r n/r n/r 16,031.8 14,451.6 90.1

Por Cristo n/r n/r n/r 1,407.2 0 0

Private Agencies Collaborating Together 5,170.2 5,057.9 97.8 6,600.1 6,217.1 94.2

Private Sector Initiatives Foundation n/r n/r n/r 147.1 0 0

PRO Women n/r n/r n/r 352.3 215.4 61.2

Program for Appropriate Technology in

Health

n/r n/r n/r 15,617.0 4,068.4 26.1

Program for the Introduction and

Adaptation of Contraceptive Technology

1,804.3 9.8 0.5 n/r n/r n/r

Project Concern International 6,009.7 847.3 14.1 9,070.9 2,101.0 23.2

Project Dawn n/r n/r n/r 241.8 0 0

Project Mercy n/r n/r n/r 418.3 0 0

Project ORBIS International n/r n/r n/r 20,733.3 1,833.0 8.8

Quebec-Labrador Foundation/The

Atlantic Center for the Environment

n/r n/r n/r 1,407.5 69.4 4.9

RARE Center for Tropical Conservation n/r n/r n/r 454.8 39.0 8.6

Rav Tov Committee to Aid New

Immigrants

3,303.5 1,940.1 58.7 n/r n/r n/r

The Resource Foundation n/r n/r n/r 329.8 0 0

River Blindness Foundation n/r n/r n/r 9,959.5 0 0

Rizal/MacArthur Memorial Foundation 79.0 9.9 12.6 55.3 8.9 16.1

Rocky Mountain Adoption Exchange n/r n/r n/r 974.8 121.9 12.5

Rodale Institute n/r n/r n/r 4,325.2 703.2 16.3

The Rotary Foundation of Rotary

International

n/r n/r n/r 84,209.0 651.6 0.8

Sabre Foundation n/r n/r n/r 14,276.7 117.7 0.8

Safari Club International n/r n/r n/r 6,411.2 0 0

(continued)

Page 57 GAO/NSIAD-96-34 Foreign Assistance
Appendix III 

PVOs’ Federal Funding as a Share of Total

Funding, 1982 and 1992 (in Constant 1992

Dollars)

1982 1992

Dollars in thousands

PVO name

Total funding

from all

sources

Federal

funding

Federal

funding as

percent of total

funding

Total funding

from all

sources

Federal

funding

Federal

funding as

percent of total

funding

Salesian Missions n/r n/r n/r 33,321.9 1,165.1 3.5

Salvadoran American Foundation n/r n/r n/r 11,216.1 22.7 0.2

The Salvation Army World Service Office 1,112.6 888.9 79.9 16,614.0 478.6 2.9

Samaritan’s Purse n/r n/r n/r 8,921.9 0 0

San Diego State University Foundation n/r n/r n/r 87,290.5 29,267.7 33.5

Save the Children Federation 26,577.1 5,464.6 20.6 93,113.0 36,784.2 39.5

Share and Care Foundation for India n/r n/r n/r 1,153.9 0 0

Society of St. Andrew n/r n/r n/r 1,337.4 0 0

Somali Relief Federation n/r n/r n/r 4.3 0 0

Southeast Asia Resource Action Center n/r n/r n/r 330.7 152.8 46.2

Sovereign Military Order of Malta,

Federal Association, U.S.A.

n/r n/r n/r 6,629.7 28.9 0.4

Sudan-American Foundation for

Education

n/r n/r n/r 8.5 6.0 70.8

Summer Institute of Linguistics 41,434.1 945.8 2.3 76,546.0 0 0

Support Centers of America n/r n/r n/r 3,173.1 0 0

The Synergos Institute n/r n/r n/r 1,177.3 0 0

TechnoServe 3,046.7 1,775.0 58.3 7,345.3 3,453.2 47.0

Terra Institute 14.0 13.0 92.3 n/r n/r n/r

Thomas A. Dooley

Foundation/INTERMED-USA

952.9 47.5 5.0 864.1 6.5 0.8

Tissue Banks International n/r n/r n/r 6,886.7 0 0

Tom Dooley Heritage 531.3 253.1 47.6 55.0 0 0

Touch Romania n/r n/r n/r 80.4 0 0

Town Affiliation Association of the

United States (Sister Cities International)

837.4 571.5 68.3 1,870.8 635.4 34.0

Trees for Life n/r n/r n/r 338.8 0 0

Trickle-Up Program n/r n/r n/r 1,144.5 0 0

The U.S. - Baltic Foundation n/r n/r n/r 177.7 60.0 33.8

U.S. National Committee for Pacific

Economic Cooperation

n/r n/r n/r 1,224.2 278.3 22.7

Unitarian Universalist Service Committee 1,733.7 0 0 n/r n/r n/r

United Board for Christian Higher

Education in Asia

n/r n/r n/r 7,520.2 0 0

United Israel Appeal 409,520.3 40,783.8 10.0 395,983.0 97,064.0 24.5

United Methodist Committee on Relief n/r n/r n/r 24,415.2 0 0

(continued)

Page 58 GAO/NSIAD-96-34 Foreign Assistance
Appendix III 

PVOs’ Federal Funding as a Share of Total

Funding, 1982 and 1992 (in Constant 1992

Dollars)

1982 1992

Dollars in thousands

PVO name

Total funding

from all

sources

Federal

funding

Federal

funding as

percent of total

funding

Total funding

from all

sources

Federal

funding

Federal

funding as

percent of total

funding

United Palestinian Appeal n/r n/r n/r 434.7 0 0

United States Foundation for

International Scouting

1,632.0 476.1 29.2 n/r n/r n/r

United Ukrainian American Relief

Committee

n/r n/r n/r 1,132.2 0 0

United Way International n/r n/r n/r 1,262.5 0 0

Victoria and Albert Gildred Foundation

for Latin American Health and Education

532.6 57.8 10.9 n/r n/r n/r

Viet-Nam Assistance for the

Handicapped

n/r n/r n/r 20.9 0 0

Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation n/r n/r n/r 1,348.1 0 0

Volunteer Development Corps 1,353.0 763.8 56.5 n/r n/r n/r

Volunteer Optometric Services to

Humanity/California

n/r n/r n/r 80.2 0 0

Volunteers in Overseas Cooperative

Assistance

n/r n/r n/r 12,502.8 7,231.6 57.8

Volunteers in Technical Assistance 3,065.7 2,331.8 76.1 10,476.4 9,029.6 86.2

Water for People n/r n/r n/r 421.1 0 0

The Wilderness Society n/r n/r n/r 16,824.0 34.1 0.2

Winrock International Institute for

Agricultural Development (formerly

Winrock International Livestock

Research and Training Center)

4,597.8 602.3 13.1 29,263.0 14,905.9 50.9

Wisconsin-Nicaragua Partners of the

Americas

219.7 26.4 12.0 n/r n/r n/r

Woodlands Mountain Institute n/r n/r n/r 1,432.2 345.5 24.1

World Association for Children and

Parents

n/r n/r n/r 1,794.6 0 0

World Concern Development

Organization

n/r n/r n/r 14,311.0 809.8 5.7

World Education 2,220.6 933.7 42.1 4,100.0 2,791.3 68.1

World Emergency Relief n/r n/r n/r 4,924.6 0 0

World Federation for Medical Education 194.3 179.8 92.6 n/r n/r n/r

World Federation for Mental Health n/r n/r n/r 149.9 0 0

World Institute on Disability n/r n/r n/r 1,542.9 903.9 58.6

World Learning (formerly Experiment in

International Living)

12,855.5 1,714.4 13.3 51,335.5 19,304.2 37.6

World Medical Mission n/r n/r n/r 4,070.9 0 0

(continued)

Page 59 GAO/NSIAD-96-34 Foreign Assistance
Appendix III 

PVOs’ Federal Funding as a Share of Total

Funding, 1982 and 1992 (in Constant 1992

Dollars)

1982 1992

Dollars in thousands

PVO name

Total funding

from all

sources

Federal

funding

Federal

funding as

percent of total

funding

Total funding

from all

sources

Federal

funding

Federal

funding as

percent of total

funding

World Rehabilitation Fund 1,901.8 543.7 28.6 2,371.9 1,983.3 83.6

World Relief Corporation 19,794.0 7,258.6 36.7 19,097.0 10,867.0 56.9

World Resources Institute n/r n/r n/r 10,442.1 2,450.8 23.5

World SHARE n/r n/r n/r 47,962.6 7,236.3 15.1

World Vision Relief and Development 8,287.7 5,649.4 68.2 87,152.2 37,127.1 42.6

World Wildlife Fund n/r n/r n/r 59,867.2 12,201.7 20.4

Worldcare n/r n/r n/r 1,632.8 0 0

WorldTeach n/r n/r n/r 461.1 0 0

Yirawah International n/r n/r n/r 49.0 0 0

Young Men’s Christian Association of

the USA

33,229.8 4,319.0 13.0 38,582.0 2,475.8 6.4

Young Women’s Christian Association

of the U.S.A., National Board of the

9,734.2 0 0 n/r n/r n/r

Note: “n/r” means that the organization was not registered or its financial information was not

available in that year.

Source: USAID data.

Page 60 GAO/NSIAD-96-34 Foreign Assistance
Appendix IV 

Comments From the Agency for

International Development

Note: GAO comments

supplementing those in the

report text appear at the

end of this appendix.

Page 61 GAO/NSIAD-96-34 Foreign Assistance
Appendix IV 

Comments From the Agency for

International Development

Now on pp. 3 and 22.

Page 62 GAO/NSIAD-96-34 Foreign Assistance
Appendix IV 

Comments From the Agency for

International Development

See comment 1.

See comment 2.

Now on pp. 35-36.

Page 63 GAO/NSIAD-96-34 Foreign Assistance
Appendix IV 

Comments From the Agency for

International Development

See comment 3.

See comment 4.

Page 64 GAO/NSIAD-96-34 Foreign Assistance
Appendix IV 

Comments From the Agency for

International Development

The following are GAO’s comments on USAID’s letter dated September 15,

1995.

GAO Comments 1. The discussion of accountability has been modified and is now in

chapter 2. In response to USAID’s comments, we have noted recent efforts

to improve accountability systems and the contribution of Office of

Management and Budget Circulars A-110 and A-133 audit requirements.

2. We have eliminated comments on the potential impact of the policy

change on PVO behavior.

3. USAID stated that it is taking an active role in helping PVOs and INGOs

strengthen their institutional capacity as they view their own organizations

and programs in the context of each country’s development needs. USAID

also emphasized its current attempts to integrate current and future

PVO/INGO activities into country-specific strategic objectives and results

packages, and its increased priority on monitoring and evaluations

systems, to ensure that projects meet stated objectives and to measure

development impact.

In focusing our report on the PVO community and its potential for

delivering all foreign assistance, we did not report these activities in detail.

However, we noted in our fieldwork that notwithstanding the agency’s

policy since 1982 to include PVOs in planning country development

programs, PVOs were rarely brought into USAID strategic planning processes

in the countries we visited.

4. We have included a selected bibliography at the end of this report.

Page 65 GAO/NSIAD-96-34 Foreign Assistance
Appendix V 

Comments From InterAction

Note: GAO comments

supplementing those in the

report text appear at the

end of this appendix.

Page 66 GAO/NSIAD-96-34 Foreign Assistance
Appendix V 

Comments From InterAction

See comment 1.

See comment 2.

Now on p. 2.

See comment 4.

See comment 3.

See comment 5.

Page 67 GAO/NSIAD-96-34 Foreign Assistance
Appendix V 

Comments From InterAction

See comment 5.

Now on p. 22.

See comment 6.

Page 68 GAO/NSIAD-96-34 Foreign Assistance
Appendix V 

Comments From InterAction

The following are GAO’s comments to InterAction’s letter dated

September 13, 1995.

GAO Comments 1. Our report deals with the delivery of foreign assistance. It does not

address issues or raise concerns about development and the national

interest. Thus, we limited the introduction to a discussion of issues related

to PVOs.

2. Our objective was to provide information and analysis on PVOs’ role,

project management, and financial dependency. We have adjusted the text

to make this more clear.

3. The purpose of this review was to examine the role of PVOs in

development. A review of the activities of other potential delivery

mechanisms, such as universities, contractors, or governments, was

outside the scope of this report. However, during our review we

discovered that the project-type assistance generally delivered through

PVOs is very different from those activities usually undertaken by

contractors and universities. As we discussed in the body of the report, in

general, USAID turns to PVOs in projects calling for direct service delivery

and working with grassroots organizations. In contrast, USAID contracts for

technical assistance, for example in marketing or environmental

technology, from contractors or universities.

4. We have modified our discussion of accountability concerns which is

now in chapter 2.

5. We have revised the discussion in the body of the report and added

information provided by InterAction as to the standards of its membership

and other actions taken by USAID and the PVO community to enhance

accountability. Our point is not that all PVOs have major problems in

accountability, or are less accountable than other delivery mechanisms,

but that some PVOs, and especially INGOs, have had difficulty meeting

accountability standards. The report provides examples of lack of

accountability that has endangered USAID cash or commodity resources.

6. We have provided a selected bibliography at the end of this report.

InterAction also provided detailed comments and suggested specific

language it believed would strengthen the report. We have incorporated

suggested language in the body of the report as appropriate.

Page 69 GAO/NSIAD-96-34 Foreign Assistance
Appendix VI 

Comments From Catholic Relief Services

Note: GAO comments

supplementing those in the

report text appear at the

end of this appendix.

Page 70 GAO/NSIAD-96-34 Foreign Assistance
Appendix VI 

Comments From Catholic Relief Services

Now on p. 2.

Now on p. 3.

See comment 1.

Page 71 GAO/NSIAD-96-34 Foreign Assistance
Appendix VI 

Comments From Catholic Relief Services

Now on p. 33.

See comment 2.

Page 72 GAO/NSIAD-96-34 Foreign Assistance
Appendix VI 

Comments From Catholic Relief Services

The following are GAO’s comments on Catholic Relief Services letter dated

September 5, 1995.

GAO Comments 1. We have expanded our discussion of PVO efforts to improve

accountability.

2. We agree with Catholic Relief Services that it is difficult to draw

conclusions about the entire PVO community because of its diversity, and

this is stated in the Executive Summary and in chapter 1. However, we

believe that the conclusions we draw based on specific case studies are

valid and useful in the debate on the delivery of foreign assistance.

Page 73 GAO/NSIAD-96-34 Foreign Assistance
Appendix VII 

Major Contributors to This Report

National Security and

International Affairs

Division, Washington,

D.C.

Ronald A. Kushner

Margaret Gaddy Morgan

Edward J. George, Jr.

Debra R. Johnson

Kathleen M. Joyce

Minette D. Richardson

Ann L. Baker

Ethan Lowry

European Office,

Frankfurt, Germany

George A. Taylor

Jodi McDade Prosser

Far East Office,

Honolulu, Hawaii

Dennis Richardson

Mark Ulanowitz

Page 74 GAO/NSIAD-96-34 Foreign Assistance
Selected Bibliography

Advisory Committee on Voluntary Foreign Aid. 1988. “The Effectiveness of

Private Voluntary Organizations.” U.S. Agency for International

Development, Washington, D.C.

Advisory Committee on Voluntary Foreign Aid. 1990. “Responding to

Change: Private Voluntarism and International Development.” U.S. Agency

for International Development, Washington, D.C.

Advisory Committee on Voluntary Foreign Aid. 1993. “International

Development and Private Voluntarism: A Maturing Partnership.” U.S.

Agency for International Development, Washington, D.C.

Agency for International Development. 1986. “Development Effectiveness

of Private Voluntary Organizations (PVOs).” Submitted to House

Appropriations Committee. U.S. Agency for International Development,

Washington, D.C.

Carroll, Thomas F. Intermediary NGOs: The Supporting Link in Grassroots

Development. 1992. Kumarian Press. West Hartford, Connecticut.

Drabek, Anne Gordon. 1987. “Development Alternatives: The Challenge for

NGOs.” World Development, Vol. 15 Supplement. Pergamon Press, Oxford.

Fischer, Julie. 1993. The Road from Rio: Sustainable Development and the

Nongovernmental Movement in the Third World. Praeger. Westport,

Connecticut.

Fox, Thomas H. 1987. “NGOs from the United States.” World Development,

Vol. 15 Supplement. Pergamon Press. Oxford.

Gorman, Robert F., ed. 1984. Private Voluntary Organizations as Agents of

Development. Westview Press. Boulder, Colo.

Hellinger, Stephen, Douglas Hellinger, and Fred M. O’Regan. 1988. Aid for

Just Development: Report on the Future of Foreign Assistance. Lynne

Riener Publishers, Inc. Boulder, Colo.

Hunt, Robert W. July 1995. Private Voluntary Organizations and the

Promotion of Small-Scale Enterprise. A.I.D. Evaluation Special Study 

No. 27. Agency for International Development. Washington, D.C.

Page 75 GAO/NSIAD-96-34 Foreign Assistance
Selected Bibliography

Inter-American Foundation, The. 1977. they know how . . . an experiment

in development assistance.

Meyer, Carrie A. 1992. “A Step Back as Donors Shift Institution Building

from the Public to the “Private Sector.” In World Development, Vol. 20, 

No. 8. Pergamon Press. Oxford.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Centre. 1993.

Issue Paper “Changing Partners: Northern NGOs, Northern Governments.”

Paris.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 1988.

Voluntary Aid for Development: The role of Non-Governmental

Organisations. Paris.

Paul, Samuel and Arturo Israel, eds. 1991. Nongovernmental Organizations

and the World Bank: Cooperation for Development. The International

Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank. Washington,

D.C.

Poulton, Robin and Michael Harris, eds. 1988. Putting People First:

Voluntary Organisations and Third World Development. MacMillan

Publishers. Basingstoke.

Regional Inspector General for Audit, Cairo, Egypt. July 1995. Audit of

USAID West Bank/Gaza and PVO Recipients’ Capability to Implement USAID

Programs. Report No. 6-294-008.

Riddell, Roger and Mark Robinson. 1992. Working Paper 68: The Impact of

NGO Poverty Alleviation Projects: Results of the Case Study Evaluations.

Overseas Development Institute. London.

Roberts, Hibbert R. 1984. “The Domestic Environment of AID-Registered

PVOs: Characteristics and Impact,” in R.F. Gorman (ed.), Private Voluntary

Organizations as Agents of Development, pp. 99-255.

Salamon, Lester M. 1994 The Rise of the Nonprofit Sector.” Foreign

Affairs, Vol. 73, No. 4.

Sen, Biswajit. 1987. “NGO Self-evaluation: Issues of Concern” World

Development, Vol. 15 Supplement. Pergamon Press. Oxford.

Page 76 GAO/NSIAD-96-34 Foreign Assistance
Selected Bibliography

Smith, Brian. 1990. More Than Altruism: The Politics of Private Foreign

Aid. Princeton University Press. Princeton, New Jersey.

Streeten, Paul. 1987. “The Contribution of Non-governmental

Organizations to Development.” Development: Seeds of Change, Vol. 4.

Tendler, Judith. 1989. “What Ever Happened to Poverty Alleviation?”

World Development, Vol. 17, No. 7. Pergamon Press. Oxford.

Tendler, Judith. 1982. Turning Private Voluntary Organizations Into

Development Agencies: Questions for Evaluation. A.I.D. Program

Evaluation Discussion Paper No. 12. Agency for International

Development. Washington, D.C.

U.S. General Accounting Office. 1982. Changes Needed to Forge An

Effective Relationship Between AID and Voluntary Agencies. GAO/ID-82-25.

Washington, D.C.

U.S. General Accounting Office. 1993. Food Aid: Management

Improvements Needed to Achieve Program Objectives. GAO/NSIAD-93-168.

Washington, D.C.

U.S. General Accounting Office. 1995. Foreign Assistance: Private

Voluntary Organizations’ Role in Distributing Food Aid. GAO/NSIAD-95-35.

Washington, D.C.

U.S. General Accounting Office. 1995. Foreign Aid: Actions Taken to

Improve Food Aid Management. GAO/NSIAD-95-74. Washington, D.C.

U.S. General Accounting Office. 1995. Foreign Assistance: Selected

Donors’ Approaches for Managing Aid Programs. GAO/NSIAD-95-37.

Washington, D.C.

Van Sant, Jerry. 1989. “Opportunities and Risks for Private Voluntary

Organizations as Agents of LDC Policy Change.” World Development, Vol.

18, No. 11. Pergamon Press. Oxford.

Vivian, Jessica. 1994. “NGOs and Sustainable Development in Zimbabwe:

No Magic Bullet.” Development and Change, Vol. 25. Blackwell Publishers.

Oxford.

(711046) Page 77 GAO/NSIAD-96-34 Foreign Assistance
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 (202) 512-6000 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

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 Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100