FOREIGN AID

USAID Has Increased 

Funding to PartnerCountry Organizations 

but Could Better 

Track Progress

Report to the Committee on Foreign 

Relations, U.S. Senate

April 2014

GAO-14-355

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-14-355, a report to the 

Committee on Foreign Relations, U. S. Senate

April 2014

FOREIGN AID

USAID Has Increased Funding to Partner-Country 

Organizations but Could Better Track Progress

Why GAO Did This Study

Since 2010, USAID has undertaken a 

series of reforms, collectively called 

USAID Forward. One key reform, the 

Local Solutions initiative, aims to shift 

program implementation from U.S.-

based and international organizations 

to partner-country organizations, 

including governments and for-profit 

and nonprofit organizations. The three 

overarching goals of the initiative are to 

strengthen the capacity of partner 

countries, to enhance and promote 

country ownership, and to increase the 

sustainability of development efforts.

GAO was asked to review the 

implementation of this initiative. GAO 

assessed the extent to which USAID 

(1) has demonstrated progress toward 

achieving its fiscal year 2015 target for 

the principal Local Solutions indicator,

and (2) is tracking progress in 

achieving the initiative’s goals related 

to local partners’ capacity, country 

ownership, and program sustainability.

To address these objectives, GAO 

reviewed funding data and documents 

and interviewed USAID officials.

What GAO Recommends

USAID should (1) clarify in future 

reporting the types of funding included 

in the percentage of USAID funds 

obligated to partner-country local 

organizations, (2) identify additional 

indicators to better capture progress

toward the initiative’s goals, and (3) 

provide a means to identify evaluations 

of programs that used the initiative’s

approach. USAID neither agreed nor 

disagreed with the recommendations

but identified actions it has ongoing to 

address these issues, and just prior to 

publication of this report released fiscal 

year 2013 data on its website that 

includes some clarifying information.

What GAO Found

The U.S. Agency for International Development’s (USAID) reporting on its 

principal Local Solutions indicator—the percentage of mission program funds 

obligated to local organizations in partner countries—lacks clarity, complicating 

the assessment of the agency’s progress toward its fiscal year 2015 target of 30 

percent. The March 2013 USAID Forward progress report states that these 

obligations increased from about 10 percent of mission program funds in fiscal 

year 2010 to about 14 percent in fiscal year 2012—a $465 million increase. 

However, the agency also has reported progress on the principal Local Solutions

indicator in three other ways, depending on whether two key types of funding—

cash transfers and certain qualifying trust funds—are included (see figure). 

These reporting differences make it difficult to compare the indicator from year to 

year and to quantify the progress needed to achieve the 30 percent target by 

fiscal year 2015. Moreover, USAID’s approach to tracking the Local Solutions 

indicator has evolved since the launch of the initiative. For example, USAID 

included funds in Afghanistan and Pakistan, missions the agency previously had 

planned to exclude. If these missions are excluded, the percentage of mission 

program funds obligated to local organizations in fiscal year 2012, including 

qualifying trust funds and cash transfers, decreases by 10 percentage points.

Reported USAID Mission Program Funds Obligated to Partner-Country Local Organizations, 

by Type of Funding Included, Fiscal Year 2012

USAID’s principal Local Solutions indicator does not fully reflect activities the 

agency has undertaken to implement the initiative, and USAID does not have a 

means to track relevant mission-led evaluations of programs implemented by 

partner-country organizations. USAID relied primarily on its principal Local 

Solutions indicator to demonstrate progress. While this principal indicator 

reflects, to some degree, the steps missions are required to take before 

obligating funds to local organizations, it provides no information about the status 

of activities both prior to and following obligation of funds, such as assessing risk 

and monitoring programs. Furthermore, although USAID has laid some 

groundwork for evaluating the Local Solutions initiative, the agency does not 

currently have the means to determine the extent to which missions are 

conducting performance evaluations to assess the effectiveness of programs

implemented through local organizations. Such evaluations can provide evidence 

needed to demonstrate progress toward the initiative’s goals related to local 

partners’ capacity, country ownership, and program sustainability.

View GAO-14-355. For more information, 

contact David Gootnick at (202) 512-3149 or 

gootnickd@gao.gov.
Page i GAO-14-355 USAID Local Solutions

Letter 1

Background 3

USAID Increased Local Funding, but Extent of Progress toward Its 

30 Percent Target Is Not Clear 4

USAID Cannot Demonstrate Progress toward Local Solutions 

Goals Based on Its Principal Indicator Alone and Without 

Tracking Relevant Evaluations 11

Conclusions 17

Recommendations for Executive Action 17

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 17

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 20

Appendix II GAO Analysis of USAID Local Solutions Data for Fiscal Years 2010 

through 2012 22

Appendix III Comments from the U.S. Agency for International Development 25

Appendix IV GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 28

Figures

Figure 1: USAID Mission Program Funds Obligated to Local 

Organizations, by Type of Funding Included, with 

Corresponding Percentages of Total Mission Program 

Funds, Fiscal Years 2010-2012 7

Figure 2: Distributions of USAID Mission Program Funds, Local 

versus Nonlocal, and of Local Mission Program Funds by 

Mission Groups, Including Cash Transfers and All 

Qualifying Trust Funds, Fiscal Year 2012 11

Figure 3: Distribution of USAID Mission Program Funds Obligated 

to Local Organizations, Fiscal Year 2012 22

Figure 4: USAID Mission Program Funds Obligated to Local 

Organizations, by Local Organization Category, Fiscal 

Year 2012 23

Contents
Page ii GAO-14-355 USAID Local Solutions

Figure 5: USAID Mission Program Funds Obligated to Local 

Organizations, Including Cash Transfers, Fiscal Years 

2010 and 2011 24

Abbreviations 

ADS Automated Directives System

OIG Office of Inspector General

USAID U.S. Agency for International Development

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

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-14-355 USAID Local Solutions

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

April 16, 2014

The Honorable Robert Menendez

Chairman

The Honorable Bob Corker

Ranking Member

Committee on Foreign Relations

United States Senate

Since 2010, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has 

undertaken a series of reforms, collectively called USAID Forward. A key 

element of this reform agenda is an important shift in how the agency 

administers its assistance—from implementing programs through U.S.-

based and international organizations to increasing emphasis on 

providing funding directly to local organizations, which USAID defines as 

partner-country government entities and local for-profit and nonprofit 

organizations.1 Initially called Implementation and Procurement Reform 

and now referred to as Local Solutions, this initiative reflects international 

consensus and U.S. policy regarding aid effectiveness2

• strengthen local capacity,

and aims to 

achieve the following three goals:

• enhance and promote country ownership, and

• increase sustainability.

USAID’s principal indicator for the Local Solutions initiative is the 

percentage of mission program funds implemented through local 

 1

For the purposes of this report, we refer to partner-country government entities and local 

nongovernmental for-profit and nonprofit organizations collectively as local organizations.

2

The 2011 Busan Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation—which is endorsed 

by 160 countries, including the United States—calls on donor and partner countries to 

help promote country ownership, program results, and accountability, among other things. 

See http://effectivecooperation.org/files/OUTCOME_DOCUMENT_-_FINAL_EN.pdf, 

accessed March 19, 2014. In addition, both the 2010 U.S. Global Development Policy and 

2011-2015 USAID Policy Framework stress the need to build partner-country capacity to 

implement development goals. See http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pressoffice/2010/09/22/fact-sheet-us-global-development-policy, accessed July 19, 2013, and 

http://www.usaid.gov/documents/1870/usaid-policy-framework-2011-2015, accessed 

March 19, 2014.
Page 2 GAO-14-355 USAID Local Solutions

organizations, which the agency tracks at the time of obligation.3 The 

agency established an agency-wide target of obligating 30 percent of 

mission program funds to local organizations by fiscal year 2015 (referred 

to hereafter as the agency’s “30 percent target”).4

You asked us to review USAID’s Local Solutions initiative. For this report, 

which is the first of two reports responding to your request, we assessed 

the extent to which USAID (1) has demonstrated progress toward 

achieving its 30 percent target, and (2) is tracking progress in achieving 

the Local Solutions goals of strengthening partner-country capacity to 

implement programs, enhancing and promoting country ownership, and 

increasing sustainability. To address these objectives, we reviewed 

USAID policies and guidance as well as Local Solutions reports, data, 

and documents provided by USAID, and interviewed USAID officials in 

Washington, D.C. We also consulted our prior work on performance 

indicators, targets, and evaluations. See appendix I for further details 

about our scope and methodology.

We conducted this performance audit from June 2013 to April 2014 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

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

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

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

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

 3

USAID defines “mission program funds” as those for which the mission director has 

authority. Similarly, we refer to USAID headquarters program funds as those for which 

USAID headquarters bureaus and offices have authority.

4

According to USAID, the 30 percent target is a management tool for tracking progress in 

implementing the Local Solutions initiative, which cuts across the agency’s activities. The 

target is also intended to focus USAID managers on considering partner-country 

governments and organizations as implementers when such partnerships would further 

the achievement of development goals and when partner-country governments and 

organizations can be held accountable for results.
Page 3 GAO-14-355 USAID Local Solutions

Since announcing the USAID Forward initiative in 2010, USAID has 

updated policies and procedures to guide the initiative, notably the 

following:5

• In 2011, USAID established procedures for determining the suitability 

of using partner-country government systems to implement USAIDfunded programs.6

• In 2011 and 2012, USAID also updated its guidance and procedures 

for program planning and design, monitoring and evaluation plans, 

and evaluation standards for all new programs, including those 

implemented through local organizations.7

In March 2013, USAID issued a progress report on USAID Forward that 

provided information on the status of the Local Solutions initiative, among 

other things. The report included agency-wide percentages of funding 

obligated to local organizations for fiscal years 2010 through 2012, as 

well as disaggregated 2012 figures by region, with a break-out for 

Afghanistan and Pakistan together, and by sector—for example, health, 

agriculture, and democracy and governance. Subsequently, in October 

2013, USAID released fiscal year 2012 funding data used to report on the 

principal indicator for tracking and reporting on implementation of the 

Local Solutions initiative. Just prior to publication of this report, USAID 

published fiscal year 2013 data for this indicator on its website. USAID 

 5

To promote sustainable development, USAID’s Local Solutions initiative has focused on 

providing resources to partner-country governments, civil society organizations, private 

sector entities, and academic institutions, while strengthening them and holding them 

accountable. USAID Forward includes efforts in support of U.S. small businesses, 

procurement reform, and donor engagement, which, according to USAID, will help achieve 

the objectives that were part of the initial Implementation and Procurement Reform and 

now are part of the Local Solutions initiative.

6

See USAID, Automated Directives System (ADS), Chapter 220, “Use of Reliable Partner 

Country Systems for Direct Management and Implementation of Assistance.” In June 

2013, the USAID Office of Inspector General (OIG) published its assessment of the first 

two of five stages of this process, focusing on the agency’s risk assessment procedures. 

In response to OIG’s recommendations, USAID plans to revise and reissue the guidance 

in early 2014. See USAID Office of Inspector General, Review of USAID’s PartnerCountry and Local Organization Assessments Under Implementation and Procurement 

Reform, Report No. 9-000-13-003-S (Washington, D.C.: June 2013), available at 

http://oig.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/audit-reports/9-000-13-003-s_0.pdf, accessed June 

11, 2013.

7

See USAID, ADS Chapter 201, “Planning” and ADS Chapter 203, “Assessing and 

Learning.”

Background
Page 4 GAO-14-355 USAID Local Solutions

also provides updated information on the status of the Local Solutions 

initiative through its annual performance plans and reports issued jointly 

with the Department of State, as well as through quarterly and annual 

reporting to the Office of Management and Budget on agency priority 

goals.

In 2013, USAID filled the newly created position of Local Solutions 

Coordinator in the agency’s Counselors office. According to USAID, the 

Local Solutions Coordinator is responsible for coordinating the activities—

such as policy, program, legal, financial, and procurement—of the various 

headquarters offices and missions involved in carrying out the Local 

Solutions initiative.

USAID has reported the funds tracked toward its 30 percent target in 

different ways, and this inconsistent reporting complicates the 

assessment of the degree to which USAID is making progress. On the 

basis of information provided in its 2013 progress report and other data 

provided by USAID, agency funds obligated to local organizations 

increased from about 10 to 14 percent of mission program funds in fiscal 

years 2010 through 2012—a $465 million increase. However, depending 

on which funds are counted toward the principal Local Solutions indicator, 

USAID’s progress toward its 30 percent target ranged from the 14 percent 

reported in its 2013 progress report to as high as 24 percent of mission 

program funds obligated to local organizations, as noted in data published 

on the agency’s website. In addition, in fiscal year 2012, including all cash 

transfers and trust funds, 5 missions, including those in Afghanistan and 

Pakistan, obligated about 79 percent of all USAID funding to local 

organizations, while 72 missions obligated the remaining 21 percent.

USAID Increased 

Local Funding, but 

Extent of Progress 

toward Its 30 Percent 

Target Is Not Clear
Page 5 GAO-14-355 USAID Local Solutions

USAID has reported on its principal Local Solutions indicator with and 

without cash transfers8 and before and after the addition of qualifying trust 

funds in two missions.9 According to USAID, funds included in the 

calculation of this indicator include all mission program funds to local 

organizations that directly implement programs and include loan 

guarantees to local banks, cash transfers, and contributions to trust funds 

that are managed by a government department or ministry. USAID’s 

reporting of the indicator, however, varied in the inclusion of some of 

these funds. In its 2013 progress report, USAID reported an increase in 

obligations to local organizations during fiscal years 2010 through 2012—

from about 10 to 14 percent of mission program funds. According to data 

provided by USAID, this represents a $465 million increase, excluding 

cash transfers and additional qualifying trust funds to two missions that 

USAID later determined qualify as investments in local organizations.10

Including cash transfers, the percentage of mission program funds 

obligated to local organizations increased from about 14 percent to 17 

percent from fiscal year 2010 to 2012. Subsequently, in October 2013, 

USAID published on its website updates showing fiscal year 2012 dollar 

amounts and percentages of mission program funds obligated to local 

organizations both including and excluding cash transfers.11

 8

Also referred to as cash disbursements, cash transfers are disbursements of resources 

to a partner-country government program or for general purposes, such as balance of 

payments support and sector program assistance.

In this 

9

Trust funds are established when funding from multiple sources are pooled and made 

available to support development activities. USAID considers contributions made to trust 

funds managed by a government department or ministry an investment in local 

organizations. According to USAID officials, “qualifying trust funds” refers to trust funds 

that USAID has determined meet the agency’s definition of local funding.

10Total mission program funds for fiscal years 2010, 2011, and 2012 were approximately 

$9.6 billion, $9.0 billion, and $9.8 billion, respectively. At the time of our review, fiscal year 

2013 data had not yet been completely validated and thus were not available for our 

analysis.

11In fiscal year 2012, USAID developed a process that involves collaboration with USAID 

missions and regional bureaus to determine which organizations are considered local 

according to USAID definitions. This process also allows missions to validate the 

organization category—nonprofit, for-profit, or educational institution—for each local 

organization to which funds have been obligated. During this process, missions are asked 

to validate the information as it appears in the USAID financial system. Fiscal year 2012 

was the first year for which USAID carried out this process. According to USAID officials, 

the process involved extensive deliberations among USAID headquarters, regional 

bureaus, and missions about the implementing mechanisms that met the definition of local 

organizations.

USAID Funding to Local 

Organizations Increased in 

Fiscal Years 2010 through 

2012, but Indicator 

Reporting Lacks Clarity
Page 6 GAO-14-355 USAID Local Solutions

update, USAID noted contributions to certain trust funds that USAID had 

determined met the agency’s definition of local funding after the release 

of the 2013 progress report. As shown in figure 1, depending on whether 

cash transfers and these qualifying trust funds are counted toward the 

indicator, USAID achieved fiscal year 2012 levels of funds obligated to 

local organizations that are between 14 percent and 24 percent. 

However, USAID has not determined which indicator definition it intends 

to use. Differences in USAID’s reporting on cash transfers and qualifying 

trust funds make it difficult to compare the indicator from year to year and 

quantify the progress needed to achieve its 30 percent target.12

 12Past GAO work identified nine attributes of successful performance measures; one 

attribute is that a measure should be clearly stated and that its name and definition should 

be consistent with the method used for calculating it. See GAO, Tax Administration: IRS

Needs to Further Refine Its Tax Filing Season Performance Measures, GAO-03-143

(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 22, 2002).
Page 7 GAO-14-355 USAID Local Solutions

Figure 1: USAID Mission Program Funds Obligated to Local Organizations, by Type 

of Funding Included, with Corresponding Percentages of Total Mission Program 

Funds, Fiscal Years 2010-2012

Note: Fiscal year 2012 was the first year for which USAID had completed a process for validating its 

data to identify funds obligated to local organizations. During the process, the agency identified 

additional trust fund contributions by two missions that qualified as obligations to local organizations. 

Because USAID has not conducted this exercise for fiscal year 2010 and 2011 data, the agency does 

not have comparable data for these years. Total mission program funds for fiscal years 2010, 2011, 

and 2012 were approximately $9.6 billion, $9.0 billion, and $9.8 billion, respectively.
Page 8 GAO-14-355 USAID Local Solutions

• Cash transfers. In its March 2013 progress report and data released 

in October 2013,13 USAID reported fiscal year 2012 dollar amounts 

and percentages of mission program funds obligated to local 

organizations, both including and excluding cash transfers. For all 3 

fiscal years for which data are available, if cash transfers are included 

in the indicator definition, the overall percentage of funds obligated to 

local organizations increases. As of fiscal year 2012, according to 

USAID data, the agency obligated about 14 percent of mission 

program funds, or about $1.4 billion, to local organizations, excluding 

cash transfers.14

• Qualifying trust funds. According to USAID officials, after publication 

of the March 2013 progress report, USAID determined that 

contributions to certain trust funds made by two missions met the 

agency’s definition of local funding.

With cash transfers included, the agency obligated 

more than 17 percent, or about $1.7 billion in fiscal year 2012.

15

• Cash transfers and qualifying trust funds. When both cash 

transfers and all qualifying trust funds are included in the indicator 

definition, the agency-wide percentage of local funding rises to about 

24 percent in fiscal year 2012.

The addition of these qualifying 

trust funds increases the agency-wide percentage of local funding for 

fiscal year 2012 from about 14 percent to about 21 percent. According 

to USAID officials, the agency plans to include these qualifying trust 

fund contributions in its future tracking and reporting of local mission 

program funding because they meet the agency’s definition of local 

funding.

USAID officials stated that while USAID’s definition of local organizations 

has not changed, the agency has refined its approach to measuring 

progress with its principal Local Solutions indicator. These officials told us 

that the agency will continue to review any additional funding that may 

 13The October 2013 data included a number of updates and adjustments to the fiscal year 

2012 data. The agency determined that about $18 million in Tanzania did not qualify as 

local funding. This correction and other minor adjustments brought the agency-wide 

percentage of local funding from 14.3 percent to 14.2 percent in fiscal year 2012, 

excluding cash transfers.

14About half of these funds were awarded to partner-country governments. 

15The October 2013 data published by USAID on its website reflect the agency’s 

determination that about $29 million and $671 million in trust fund contributions made by 

USAID missions in Bangladesh and Afghanistan, respectively, met the definition of local 

funding.
Page 9 GAO-14-355 USAID Local Solutions

meet the Local Solutions definition of local funding and determine 

whether to include it.

USAID’s approach to tracking the Local Solutions initiative has evolved in 

other ways since the launch of the initiative in 2010. In reviewing 

information initially published on USAID’s website and the March 2013 

progress report, we observed the following changes.16

• Headquarters funding. Early definitions of the Local Solutions 

indicator did not distinguish between headquarters and mission 

program funds. However, the 2013 progress report states that only 

mission program funds are included in the indicator.17

• Number of USAID missions. When USAID first launched the Local 

Solutions initiative, it indicated that the agency would focus its Local 

Solutions efforts in 25 partner countries. The agency subsequently 

determined that the Local Solutions initiative would cover the 77 

partner countries or regions where USAID has a full mission. The 

indicator data for fiscal year 2012 that USAID reported in its 2013 

progress report cover these 77 missions.

According to 

USAID, the agency always intended to include only funds over which 

missions have authority. The 2013 progress report notes that USAID 

aims to identify ways to ensure that headquarters-funded programs 

also empower partner-country actors.

• Afghanistan and Pakistan. Initially, USAID planned to exclude 

Afghanistan and Pakistan when tracking its principal Local Solutions 

indicator. At the time, the agency noted that its work with these 

partner-country governments was strategic in nature and including 

them could significantly distort overall agency results. However, the 

2013 progress report includes these countries in the agency-wide 

indicator. USAID officials told us that the agency decided to include 

 16After launching the USAID Forward initiative, USAID published on its website 

information regarding the agency’s initial objectives and measures for tracking progress 

under the initiative, including Local Solutions goals, indicators, and targets.

17USAID also uses this indicator to report on the agency’s priority goals related to 

procurement reform that it established in response to requirements under the Government 

Performance and Results Act Modernization Act of 2010. USAID’s report on its priority 

goals related to procurement reform defines the indicator as the percentage of program 

funds implemented through local systems. See http://www.performance.gov for additional 

information.

Other Changes in Local 

Solutions Initiative

Tracking
Page 10 GAO-14-355 USAID Local Solutions

Afghanistan and Pakistan because these missions represent key 

efforts to implement programs through local organizations. If 

Afghanistan and Pakistan are excluded from the agency-wide 

indicator, the percentage of mission program funds obligated to local 

organizations in fiscal year 2012, including qualifying trust funds and 

cash transfers, drops from about 24 percent to about 14 percent.18

On the basis of our analysis of the fiscal year 2012 data provided by 

USAID, we found that funds obligated to local organizations are heavily 

concentrated in a small number of countries—including Afghanistan and 

Pakistan. With cash transfers and all qualifying trust funds, five USAID 

missions—Afghanistan, Pakistan, Jordan, South Africa, and Uganda—

accounted for 79 percent of all funding obligated to local organizations in 

fiscal year 2012.19 The remaining 21 percent of all fiscal year 2012 

funding obligated to local organizations was attributed to USAID’s other 

72 missions (see fig. 2).20

 18The USAID Forward progress report provides a percentage (26 percent, not including 

cash transfers or qualifying trust funds) for Afghanistan and Pakistan together but does 

not provide information on the percentage of mission program funds implemented through 

local organizations excluding these two countries. On the basis of our analysis of fiscal 

year 2012 data, we calculated that USAID missions, excluding those in Afghanistan and 

Pakistan, provided about $1 billion, including cash transfers and qualifying trust funds, to 

local organizations, out of a total of about $7.1 billion in funding to local organizations.

19When cash transfers and additional qualifying trust funds are excluded, the five missions 

that obligated the most funds to local organizations in fiscal year 2012—Pakistan, South 

Africa, Afghanistan, Uganda, and Georgia—accounted for 68 percent of all USAID local 

mission program funds. 

20Total mission program funds varied by country. Including cash transfers and all 

qualifying trust funds, 38 missions provided at least 10 percent of their program funds 

through local organizations in fiscal year 2012.

USAID’s Local Funding

Is Concentrated in a

Few Countries
Page 11 GAO-14-355 USAID Local Solutions

Figure 2: Distributions of USAID Mission Program Funds, Local versus Nonlocal, and of Local Mission Program Funds by 

Mission Groups, Including Cash Transfers and All Qualifying Trust Funds, Fiscal Year 2012

a

Not including cash transfers or qualifying trust funds identified after the publication of the 2013 

progress report, the five missions obligating the most mission program funds to local organizations 

were Pakistan, South Africa, Afghanistan, Uganda, and Georgia. These five missions accounted for 

68 percent of a total of about $1.4 billion in mission program funds obligated to local organizations.

USAID’s principal Local Solutions indicator does not fully reflect activities 

the agency carries out to achieve the initiative’s goals of strengthening 

partner-country capacity, enhancing and promoting country ownership, 

and increasing program sustainability. Moreover, USAID does not have a 

means for determining the extent to which missions are carrying out 

evaluations that can provide evidence about the long-term effectiveness 

of the initiative.

USAID Cannot 

Demonstrate 

Progress toward 

Local Solutions Goals 

Based on Its Principal 

Indicator Alone and 

Without Tracking 

Relevant Evaluations
Page 12 GAO-14-355 USAID Local Solutions

USAID’s principal indicator of progress under the Local Solutions 

initiative—the percentage of mission program funds obligated to local 

organizations—does not fully capture the activities the agency undertakes 

to achieve the goals of the initiative.21

• assessing partner-country government and nongovernmental 

organizations’ strengths and weaknesses,

For example, to achieve USAID’s 

stated goals under the initiative, according to USAID, the agency has put 

in place frameworks for all of the following activities, among others:

• developing implementing mechanisms to mitigate risks and ensure 

accountability,

• providing technical assistance, and

• carrying out monitoring and evaluation plans.

In its 2013 progress report, the agency provides information related to the 

status of some of these various activities, such as numbers of 

assessments completed and awards made to partner-country government 

and nongovernmental organizations.22

 21Past GAO work identified nine attributes of successful performance measures. One 

attribute is that there should be enough performance measures to ensure that managers 

have the information they need about performance in all the core program activities. 

Furthermore, performance measures should provide balance, which exists when 

measures ensure that an organization’s various priorities are covered. See 

However, in the 2013 progress 

report and other reports, the agency emphasizes increases in its Local 

Solutions funding indicator to demonstrate progress. According to USAID 

officials, that indicator is likely to remain the primary indicator used for 

reporting progress on the Local Solutions initiative.

GAO-03-143. 

22In reporting on the agency’s priority goals related to procurement reform that it 

established in response to requirements under the Government Performance and Results 

Act Modernization Act of 2010, USAID also identified as an additional indicator the 

number of awards made directly to local organizations. However, as of January 2014, the 

agency’s performance report did not include data for this indicator. The USAID Forward 

progress report includes information about the value (but not number) of awards to local 

organizations, disaggregated by nonprofits, for-profits, and academia. In addition, the 

progress report identifies three other indicators used to assess progress toward the broad 

USAID Forward goal of partnering for sustainable development, but these indicators are 

not directly related to the Local Solutions initiative: (1) USAID staff work plans with at least 

one direct engagement performance measure, (2) value of public-private partnerships with 

a minimum of one-to-one leverage, and (3) program funds dedicated to leveraging 

commercial private capital through USAID’s Development Credit Authority.

Principal Indicator Does 

Not Fully Capture Efforts 

to Implement the Local 

Solutions Initiative
Page 13 GAO-14-355 USAID Local Solutions

By tracking obligated funds, the indicator indirectly measures—but to a 

limited degree—the success with which USAID missions have proceeded 

through required risk assessment and project design steps. First, in the 

case of funding to partner-country governments, obligation of funds 

occurs at the time of agreement—stage 4 under USAID’s five-stage 

process for using country systems to implement programs.23 However, 

according to USAID, because missions move carefully through the project 

design phase, some missions have not yet obligated funds to partner 

governments. As a result, the Local Solutions indicator does not capture 

these missions’ efforts to assess and mitigate risk, including through 

selection of implementing mechanism, as well as build capacity prior to 

obligation of funds. Second, the indicator does not reflect the status of 

reassessment activities in countries where USAID obligated funding to 

local organizations prior to 2011, particularly in Afghanistan and 

Pakistan.24

Given these limitations, an emphasis on the funding indicator hampers 

the ability of USAID program managers and external stakeholders to fully

understand whether and to what extent progress is being made toward 

the initiative’s overarching goals. The 2013 progress report states that 

USAID will revisit its indicators to ensure that they fully reflect USAID’s 

Finally, the indicator provides no information about the status 

of mission activities occurring after the obligation of funds, including 

monitoring and evaluation of program implementation. According to 

USAID officials, agency headquarters does not require missions to report 

this information.

 23USAID’s ADS Chapter 220, “Use of Reliable Partner Country Systems for Direct 

Management and Implementation of Assistance,” outlines policy directives and required 

procedures for determining the suitability of using partner-country systems for 

implementation of USAID-funded assistance. The five stages under this process are (1) 

rapid appraisal; (2) risk assessment; (3) project design; (4) agreement; and (5) 

implementation, monitoring, and evaluation.

24USAID provides direct assistance to Afghanistan, Pakistan, and other countries subject 

to the agency’s ADS Chapter 220, which states that the obligation of funds to pay down 

commitments under existing bilateral agreements using partner country systems for 

project implementation is permitted, subject to reassessment requirements in a number of 

circumstances, including certain funding increases and updated assessments at least 

every 3 years. The March 26, 2012, revision of ADS Chapter 220 added the following 

circumstances that trigger a reassessment: (1) full reassessment every 10 years, and (2) 

material and significant change in democratic governance, budget processes, and 

transparency; other legal requirements concerning government-to-government assistance; 

and change in macroeconomic conditions.
Page 14 GAO-14-355 USAID Local Solutions

efforts to achieve the goal of sustainable development.25 In addition, 

USAID officials have characterized the indicator as a proxy for measuring 

progress in using the Local Solutions approach to achieve sustainable 

development goals; officials further stated that the indicator is just one of 

several approaches to measuring progress toward strengthening partnercountry systems and promoting sustainable development. For example, 

according to USAID, program managers in the field track specific 

indicator data against outcomes specified in award agreements; in 

addition, evaluation data provide information on progress toward 

outcomes. Nevertheless, according to USAID officials, its funding 

indicator is likely to remain the primary indicator used for reporting 

progress on the Local Solutions initiative.

USAID has laid some groundwork for evaluating the Local Solutions 

initiative but cannot currently determine the extent to which missions are 

planning or conducting evaluations the agency deems appropriate for 

understanding the long-term effectiveness of the initiative. USAID has 

taken the following steps to be able to evaluate the Local Solutions 

initiative:

• Assistance to missions. According to USAID, headquarters staff 

provide assistance to missions in designing projects and identifying 

indicators for measuring capacity development and other outcomes, 

among other things. The missions are responsible for designing 

projects and carrying out monitoring and evaluation plans.26

• Evaluations and studies. USAID compiled evaluations of completed 

capacity-building projects and commissioned studies and background 

papers. For example, one study commissioned by USAID noted that 

emphasis on using country systems stems from an experience-based 

consensus that project-centered approaches have undermined efforts 

to support partner-government capacity. Furthermore, the study 

 25The March 2013 progress report characterizes the principal Local Solutions funding 

indicator as “aspirational.”

26According to USAID, ADS Chapter 201, “Planning,” requires that appropriate monitoring 

and evaluation procedures are included in new project designs, including projects 

implemented through local organizations. Furthermore, according to ADS Chapter 203, 

“Assessing and Learning,” project managers are responsible for ensuring that all projects 

and activities, including those implemented through local organizations, have monitoring 

and evaluation plans that include indicators to measure progress toward objectives.

Steps Taken by USAID

to Evaluate the Local 

Solutions Initiative Do

Not Include the Means

to Track Relevant 

Evaluations
Page 15 GAO-14-355 USAID Local Solutions

concluded that increasing funding to local organizations is associated 

with improved capacity of partner governments in some countries, but 

the study also noted that evidence demonstrating impacts relative to 

other approaches is limited.27

• Stakeholder meeting. In November 2012, USAID organized a 

meeting of international development stakeholders to gather lessons 

learned from past USAID and other donors’ efforts to build partnercountry capacity and ensure sustainability.28

• Draft framework. The studies and the stakeholder meeting led to 

publication, in October 2013, of USAID’s draft framework for 

supporting sustainability; the agency solicited feedback on this draft 

and plans to issue a final version in the spring of 2014.29

According to USAID, the agency has determined that impact 

evaluations30

 27The study, which focused mainly on donor-funded health and agriculture programs in 

developing countries, concluded that implementing programs through local organizations 

is one important tool, among others, for strengthening partner-country systems. See 

Overseas Development Institute, Localising Aid: Sustaining Change in the Public, Private 

and Civil Society Sectors (London: March 2013), accessed December 11, 2013,

of the Local Solutions initiative are not feasible because of 

(1) the lack of a valid counterfactual, or control group for the purposes of 

comparison, and (2) the need for flexibility and adaptability in 

implementing multiyear programs in complex environments. Senior 

USAID officials also cited the level of difficulty involved and challenges 

http://www.odi.org.uk/publications/7320-localising-aid-public-private-civil-society.

28See USAID, Strengthening Country Systems: An Experience Summit, accessed 

December 11, 2013, http://kdid.org/events/experience-summit. 

29See USAID, Local Systems: A Framework for Supporting Sustained Development 

(Washington, D.C.: October 2013), accessed December 11, 2013, 

http://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1868/local-systems-draft.pdf. 

30USAID’s Evaluation Policy requires missions to conduct impact evaluations, if feasible, 

of any project activity involving “untested hypotheses or demonstrating new approaches 

that are anticipated to be expanded in scale or scope.” Furthermore, the policy states that 

missions may undertake performance evaluations if impact evaluations are deemed not 

feasible; in these cases, the mission must include a statement about why an impact 

evaluation was not conducted in its final evaluation report. USAID’s evaluation policy 

defines impact evaluations as those that “measure the change in a development outcome 

that is attributable to a defined intervention.” The policy further states that “impact 

evaluations are based on models of cause and effect and require a credible and rigorously 

defined counterfactual to control for factors other than the intervention that might account 

for the observed change.”
Page 16 GAO-14-355 USAID Local Solutions

associated with involving partner-country governments in program and 

project planning cycles, among other things, as reasons why impact 

evaluations are not appropriate. Furthermore, these officials told us that 

performance evaluations of programs or projects using a Local Solutions 

approach—those involving local organizations as implementers—are both 

feasible and appropriate.31

USAID’s Evaluation Policy requires missions to provide information about 

planned and completed evaluations on USAID’s public website.

However, headquarters officials were not able 

to determine the extent to which missions have undertaken performance 

evaluations of programs or projects using a Local Solutions approach 

since the launch of the initiative.

32 As an 

example of evaluations that are relevant for the Local Solutions initiative, 

USAID officials stated that headquarters will undertake at least one 

multicountry evaluation of long-term effects of basic education programs 

in fiscal year 2014, and some of those programs may have used local 

partners for implementation.33

 31USAID’s Evaluation Policy defines performance evaluations as those that “focus on 

descriptive and normative questions” such as what a particular project or program has 

achieved, how it is being implemented, and whether expected results are occurring. 

Furthermore, according to the policy, performance evaluations “often incorporate beforeafter comparisons, but generally lack a rigorously defined counterfactual.”

As of April 2014, the agency’s website 

allows users to search for evaluations by document type (e.g., evaluation 

summary or program evaluation guide), by sector (e.g., health, education, 

democracy and governance), and by year, among other things. However, 

the online registry of evaluations does not provide users with a means to 

search for evaluations of programs or projects implemented by local 

organizations. Without a means to track evaluations of programs or 

projects that use a Local Solutions approach, USAID headquarters 

officials and stakeholders are not able to easily obtain evidence needed 

to demonstrate Local Solutions’ progress in achieving USAID’s Local 

Solutions goals related to country capacity, country ownership, and 

program sustainability.

32According to USAID, the agency’s 2013 progress report constitutes a Local Solutions 

evaluation plan; however, the report does not include plans for evaluating programs or 

projects implemented through local organizations.

33USAID’s Evaluation Policy states that USAID headquarters may conduct postimplementation evaluations to examine long-term effects of projects. See USAID, 

Evaluation: Learning from Experience, USAID Evaluation Policy (Washington, D.C.: 

January 2011), accessed February 25, 2014, 

http://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1868/USAIDEvaluationPolicy.pdf.
Page 17 GAO-14-355 USAID Local Solutions

With its Local Solutions initiative, USAID has undertaken an ambitious 

change in how it administers development assistance, a fundamental shift 

that is consistent with an international consensus on how best to improve 

global development effectiveness and accountability. By issuing a 

progress report on its reform efforts, publishing data on Local Solutions 

funding, and presenting research on best practices, among other things, 

USAID has demonstrated a commitment to transparency and public 

dialogue regarding the initiative. Nevertheless, as USAID expands the 

Local Solutions initiative, it relies on a single funding indicator to measure 

progress. The agency has had difficulty deciding how best to define this 

indicator and report on it consistently; as a consequence, comparing 

annual results for this indicator and accurately measuring progress is 

unnecessarily complex. In addition, in relying on this funding indicator to 

such an extent, USAID does not capture important progress taking place 

as the agency adopts the Local Solutions funding approach, such as 

missions’ efforts to assess and mitigate risk and carry out monitoring and 

evaluation plans, among other things. Finally, though USAID policy states 

that evaluation is a crucial tool for informing its development efforts, 

USAID lacks a means to identify evaluations of Local Solutions efforts 

from among the evaluations that USAID collects and makes available on 

its website. Without such evaluations, agency officials and stakeholders 

are prevented from bringing to bear rigorous evidence of the initiative’s 

long-term effects on local capacity, country ownership, and program 

sustainability.

We recommend that the USAID Administrator take the following three 

actions to improve the agency’s tracking and reporting on progress of its 

Local Solutions initiative:

• Clarify in future reporting the types of funding included in the 

percentage of USAID funds obligated to partner-country local 

organizations.

• Identify additional indicators to better capture Local Solutions 

progress toward the initiative’s goals.

• Provide a means to identify evaluations of programs that are 

implemented by partner-country local organizations.

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

USAID provided technical comments on the draft, which we incorporated 

as appropriate. USAID also provided written comments, which are 

reprinted in appendix III. In its written comments, USAID did not explicitly 

Conclusions

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
Page 18 GAO-14-355 USAID Local Solutions

agree or disagree with our recommendations but described efforts 

underway to consistently report on the Local Solutions initiative, improve 

project-level monitoring, and track relevant evaluations.

With regard to our first recommendation to clarify the types of funding 

included in the percentage of USAID funds obligated to partner-country 

organizations, USAID stated that it has always been its intention to 

include, in calculating the indicator, every award that meets the definition 

of “local.” It noted that over time USAID has learned from its experience 

and has broadened the types of implementing mechanisms that qualify in 

meeting the definition of “local” used in the indicator. USAID’s explanation 

is consistent with our finding. While we understand USAID’s position on 

the circumstances that led to its reporting on the primary Local Solutions 

indicator in different ways, we believe that further actions are needed. In 

this context, we note that the fiscal year 2013 dataset USAID published 

on its website just prior to publication of this report represents a step 

toward the clarity we recommended the agency provide in its reporting on 

its primary Local Solutions indicator. 

With regard to our second recommendation that USAID identify additional 

indicators to better capture Local Solutions progress, USAID stated that it 

does not plan to develop additional agency-wide indicators for Local 

Solutions. USAID noted that each project involving local development 

partners varies greatly depending on project objectives, country context, 

and local partner strengths and challenges; hence, indicators in one 

country, region, or sector could be irrelevant in another. USAID stated 

that while it is not pursuing development of common indicators beyond 

the current agency-wide Local Solutions indicator, it has efforts under way 

to train USAID staff in effective project design and performance 

monitoring, including the identification of meaningful and useful indicators 

to measure project objectives. In addition, it cited a USAID Forward 

reform that mandates that each mission thoughtfully consider indicators to 

measure progress toward mission objectives and noted that it is working 

on providing more guidance to USAID staff on Local Solutions-focused 

performance monitoring approaches (including indicators) and evaluation 

questions. We continue to believe that further steps to implement our 

recommendation are needed. For example, the procedures USAID 

missions are required to follow to implement programs using a Local 

Solutions approach—such as those noted in USAID’s response, among 

others—are examples of concrete activities that could be tracked to 

reflect agency-wide progress. We maintain that even a relatively modest 

expansion beyond the one principal Local Solutions indicator would 
Page 19 GAO-14-355 USAID Local Solutions

supplement USAID’s reporting on progress in achieving the initiative’s 

goals.

With regard to our third recommendation that USAID provide a means to 

identify evaluations of programs implemented by partner-country local 

organizations, USAID stated that it is introducing a tag in its evaluation 

registry to track the evaluation of projects that are directly implemented 

through local partners. In its response to this recommendation, USAID 

also described plans to start conducting, in the current fiscal year, priority 

evaluations addressing questions of local systems change, and to 

commission a multicountry program evaluation in fiscal year 2016 on the 

effectiveness and efficiency of Local Solutions interventions that use 

direct funding. We believe that these actions, when implemented, will 

address the intent of our recommendation.

We are sending copies of this report to appropriate congressional 

committees and the USAID Administrator. In addition, the report will be 

available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.

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

me at (202) 512-3149 or gootnickd@gao.gov. Contact points for our 

Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on 

the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this 

report are listed in appendix IV.

David Gootnick

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

Methodology

Page 20 GAO-14-355 USAID Local Solutions

The U.S. Agency for International Development’s (USAID) principal 

indicator for its Local Solutions initiative is the percentage of mission 

program funds implemented through local organizations, which the 

agency tracks at the time of obligation.1

To address these objectives, we reviewed USAID Local Solutions 

initiative documents, including the March 2013 USAID Forward progress 

report and agency documents published at the launch of the initiative that 

explain the rationale, baseline figures, and targets for the initiative. We 

also analyzed fiscal years 2010, 2011, and 2012 data on USAID mission 

program funds obligated to local organizations, which agency officials had 

extracted from USAID’s financial system. On the basis of our review of 

the data and interviews with agency officials, we determined that the data 

were sufficiently reliable for our reporting purposes. In this report, we note 

that USAID has reported on the Local Solutions indicator with and without 

the inclusion of cash transfers and additional qualifying trust funds USAID 

identified after the release of the 2013 progress report. We chose to 

present our analyses of the USAID data with the inclusion of cash 

transfers and qualifying trust funds in our calculations—representing the 

maximum amounts USAID obligated to local organizations. We note, 

where appropriate, how these figures change when we exclude these 

funds—representing the minimum amounts. At the time of our review, 

fiscal year 2013 data had not yet been completely validated and thus 

were not available for our analysis. We interviewed USAID officials in 

Washington, D.C., about the Local Solutions initiative and the supporting 

data, and in some cases, received written responses to our questions. In 

assessing the Local Solutions indicator to identify relative strengths and 

weaknesses, we reviewed a prior GAO report that identified nine 

USAID established an agencywide target of obligating 30 percent of mission program funds to local 

organizations by fiscal year 2015 (referred to hereafter as the agency’s 

“30 percent target”). The objectives of this report were to assess the 

extent to which USAID (1) has demonstrated progress toward achieving 

its 30 percent target, and (2) is tracking progress in achieving the Local 

Solutions goals of strengthening partner-country capacity to implement 

programs, enhancing and promoting country ownership, and increasing 

sustainability.

 1

USAID defines “mission program funds” as those for which the mission director has 

authority. Similarly, we refer to USAID headquarters program funds as those for which 

USAID headquarters bureaus and offices have authority.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 21 GAO-14-355 USAID Local Solutions

attributes of performance goals and measures based on previously 

established GAO criteria.2

In addition, we reviewed aid effectiveness literature on providing 

assistance directly through local organizations, including studies and 

other publications collected, commissioned, or conducted by USAID. We 

reviewed international donor commitments, such as the Paris Declaration 

and Accra Agenda for Action, which were intended, in part, to promote 

donor consensus on principles related to recipient country ownership. We 

reviewed USAID policy and guidance, including the agency’s evaluation 

policy and relevant sections of the Automated Directives System. We sent 

USAID officials in Washington, D.C., several sets of questions and either 

interviewed them in person or received written responses.

We conducted this performance audit from June 2013 to April 2014 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

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

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

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

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

 2

These attributes were based on previously established GAO criteria and key legislation 

on performance management. GAO developed these attributes as criteria to determine 

whether performance measures (1) demonstrate results, (2) are limited to the vital few, (3) 

cover multiple program priorities, and (4) are useful in decision making—qualities of 

performance measures that organizations need to track how their programs and activities 

can contribute to attaining the organization’s goals and mission. These four characteristics 

are important to accurately reveal the strengths and weaknesses of a program because 

measures are often the key motivators of performance and goal achievement. See GAO, 

Tax Administration: IRS Needs to Further Refine Its Tax Filing Season Performance 

Measures, GAO-03-143 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 22, 2002).
Appendix II: GAO Analysis of USAID

Local Solutions Data for Fiscal Years

2010 through 2012

Page 22 GAO-14-355 USAID Local Solutions

In fiscal year 2012, USAID obligated about $2.4 billion, including cash 

transfers and all qualifying trust funds, to local organizations. Of this $2.4 

billion, USAID obligated $10 million or less through 56 missions, $10 to 

$20 million through 10 missions, and over $50 million through 5 missions. 

See figure 3 for the complete distribution of the funding amounts USAID 

missions obligated to local organizations in fiscal year 2012.

Figure 3: Distribution of USAID Mission Program Funds Obligated to Local 

Organizations, Fiscal Year 2012

Note: USAID missions that obligated over $50 million to local organizations ranged from $53.5 million 

to $805.0 million.

a

Not including cash transfers and additional qualifying trust funds, the distribution of the missions 

changes to the following: under $10 – 57; $10-$20 – 11; $20-$30 – 2; $30-$40 – 2; $40-$50 – 1; Over 

$50 – 4.

Of the funds that USAID missions obligated to local organizations in fiscal 

year 2012, the majority—about 71 percent—were obligated to partnercountry governments. The remaining funds were obligated to various 

local organizations as follows: 20 percent to local nonprofit organizations, 

6 percent to local for-profit organizations, and 2 percent to local 

educational institutions. See figure 4 for a breakdown of USAID funds 

obligated to local organizations by organization category. For each 

Appendix II: GAO Analysis of USAID

Local Solutions Data for Fiscal Years

2010 through 2012
Appendix II: GAO Analysis of USAID

Local Solutions Data for Fiscal Years

2010 through 2012

Page 23 GAO-14-355 USAID Local Solutions

category, we also list the amount of funds obligated by the five missions 

obligating the greatest amounts of funds in each local organization 

category.

Figure 4: USAID Mission Program Funds Obligated to Local Organizations, by Local Organization Category, Fiscal Year 2012

a

Not including cash transfers and additional qualifying trust funds, USAID obligated 58 percent of 

mission program funds to partner-country governments, 32 percent to local nonprofit organizations, 8 
Appendix II: GAO Analysis of USAID

Local Solutions Data for Fiscal Years

2010 through 2012

Page 24 GAO-14-355 USAID Local Solutions

percent to local for-profit organizations, and 2 percent to educational institutions. When these cash 

transfers and additional qualifying trust funds are excluded, the five missions obligating the most 

funds to partner-country governments changes to the following, in millions of dollars: Pakistan 

($461.0); Afghanistan ($95.3); Georgia ($30.6), Uganda ($16.4); and Zambia ($6.8).

b

The pie chart breakdown does not include about $17.6 million in obligations.

c

Does not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.

In fiscal year 2010, USAID missions obligated 71 percent of local mission 

program funds to partner-country governments and 29 percent to local 

nonprofit and for-profit organizations and educational institutions. In fiscal 

year 2011, USAID mission obligations to these organizations were 63 

percent and 37 percent, respectively (see fig. 5). USAID has not fully 

validated their fiscal year 2010 and 2011 data for accuracy regarding the 

breakdown of the mission program funds obligated to local nonprofit and 

for-profit organizations and educational institutions; hence, we did not 

calculate further breakdowns for these years.

Figure 5: USAID Mission Program Funds Obligated to Local Organizations, 

Including Cash Transfers, Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011

a

Not including cash transfers, USAID obligations to local organizations were as follows: 58 percent to 

governments and 42 percent to nongovernmental organizations in fiscal year 2010, and 50 percent to 

governments and 50 percent to nongovernmental organizations in fiscal year 2011.
Appendix III: Comments from the U.S. Agency

for International Development

Page 25 GAO-14-355 USAID Local Solutions

Appendix III: Comments from the U.S. 

Agency for International Development

Note: GAO received 

USAID’s letter on 

March 28, 2014.
Appendix III: Comments from the U.S. Agency 

for International Development

Page 26 GAO-14-355 USAID Local Solutions
Appendix III: Comments from the U.S. Agency 

for International Development

Page 27 GAO-14-355 USAID Local Solutions
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 28 GAO-14-355 USAID Local Solutions

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

In addition to the contact named above, Jim Michels (Assistant Director), 

Todd M. Anderson, David Dayton, Martin De Alteriis, Etana Finkler, Grace 

Lui, Shirley Min, Kathleen Monahan, and John O’Trakoun made key 

contributions to this report. In addition, Heather Latta provided technical 

assistance and other support.

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(320977)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

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

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

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

cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TDD (202) 512-2537.

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

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

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

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.

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

Contact:

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

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

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

7125, Washington, DC 20548

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

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

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.