GLOBAL FOOD 

SECURITY

USAID Is Improving 

Coordination but 

Needs to Require 

Systematic 

Assessments of 

Country-Level Risks

Report to Congressional Requesters

September 2013

GAO-13-809

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-13-809, a report to 

congressional requesters

September 2013

GLOBAL FOOD SECURITY

USAID Is Improving Coordination but Needs to 

Require Systematic Assessments of Country-Level 

Risks

Why GAO Did This Study

In fiscal years 2010 through 2013, the 

U.S. government allocated $7 billion to 

implement global food security 

programs implemented under the FTF 

initiative by USAID and its U.S. FTF 

partner agencies, which include the 

Departments of Agriculture, State, and 

the Treasury, and the Millennium 

Challenge Corporation. To enhance 

FTF efforts to increase agricultural 

productivity and reduce malnutrition in 

19 chronically food insecure countries,

USAID has outlined two approaches: 

an FTF whole-of-government 

approach, which aims to improve 

coordination and integrate expertise 

and resources of all FTF partner 

agencies, and a country-led approach 

to build country capacity to sustain 

U.S. efforts by including the host 

government and other stakeholders in 

planning and implementation. 

GAO was asked to study the FTF 

initiative. GAO examined (1) the extent 

to which USAID has implemented a

whole-of-government approach and (2) 

how USAID has facilitated a countryled approach. GAO analyzed FTFrelated agency documents, conducted 

a survey of all USAID and U.S. FTF 

partner agency representatives

implementing FTF in 19 focus 

countries, and interviewed FTF agency 

officials in Washington, D.C.

What GAO Recommends

The USAID Administrator should

require FTF country staff to conduct 

periodic risk assessments associated 

with pursuing a country-led approach 

and to develop plans to mitigate the

risks identified. USAID concurred with 

the recommendations.

What GAO Found

The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has made progress in 

coordinating with U.S. partner agencies through the whole-of-government 

approach for the Feed the Future (FTF) initiative that began in 2010. According 

to USAID documents, this approach involves coordination and integration of 

expertise and resources across U.S. partner agencies with global food security

programs. In reports issued in 2008 and 2010, GAO found that U.S. agency food 

security efforts were fragmented and uncoordinated. Under FTF, GAO found that 

USAID leads the whole-of-government approach by better coordinating and 

integrating partner agencies’ knowledge and expertise at three levels: at 

headquarters in Washington, D.C.; in each of the 19 FTF focus countries; and 

between the countries and headquarters. In headquarters, USAID and FTF 

partner agencies established joint strategies and new data management systems 

to track funding and results across the U.S. government. At the country level, in 

GAO’s survey of U.S. FTF partner agency representatives in 19 FTF focus 

countries, 93 percent reported coordinating with USAID.

Reported Coordination with U.S. and Country Stakeholders in the 19 FTF Countries

USAID has facilitated a country-led approach but has not systematically 

assessed risks associated with this approach. USAID has facilitated the 

approach by providing assistance to the host governments in developing country 

plans and coordinating on FTF with country stakeholders, including nonprofit and 

for-profit organizations. U.S. FTF partner agency representatives answering 

GAO’s survey reported working with multiple country stakeholders on FTF. In its 

March 2010 report, GAO found that the country-led approach was vulnerable to a 

number of risks, including insufficient capacity of host governments to meet 

funding commitments for agriculture. USAID has since made some progress in 

monitoring these risks, including tracking the number of focus countries that 

increase public expenditure for agriculture. However, GAO’s current study found 

that USAID’s FTF multiyear country strategies did not systematically assess risks

to the country-led approach. For example, 12 of the 19 strategies did not contain

sections discussing assessments of risks such as the host government’s 

insufficient capacity and policies that inhibit private sector investment. GAO also 

found that fewer than half of the risks identified had corresponding discussions of 

mitigation strategies. Although USAID country guidance documents indicate that 

country teams must assess risks associated with USAID’s development 

objectives, the agency does not require country teams to systematically assess 

and mitigate risks to the country-led approach. Without requirements for FTF 

country staff to identify and mitigate risks associated with the country-led 

approach, the U.S. government’s ability to achieve its goals for improving global 

food security could be limited.

View GAO-13-809. To view an e-supplement

with more data, see GAO-13-815SP. For more 

information, contact Thomas Melito at (202) 

512-9601 or MelitoT@gao.gov.
Page i GAO-13-809 Global Food Security

Letter 1

Background 5

USAID Has Made Progress in Coordinating with U.S. FTF Partner 

Agencies through Its Whole-of-Government Approach 13

USAID Facilitated a Country-Led Approach and Made Some 

Progress in Monitoring Risks but Has Not Systematically 

Assessed Risks at the Country Level 23

Conclusions 33

Recommendations for Executive Action 34

Agency Comments 34

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 36

Appendix II Other U.S. Global Food Security Programs Related to Feed the 

Future 42

Appendix III Illustrative Example of USAID Representatives’ Reported 

Coordination with Feed the Future Partner Agencies in One 

Country 44

Appendix IV Multiple Regression Analysis of Survey Results to Identify 

Predictors of Perceived Effectiveness of Coordination 46

Appendix V Feed the Future Partner Agencies’ Approaches to Country-Led 

Program Implementation 51

Appendix VI Comments from the U.S. Agency for International Development 53

Appendix VII GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 56

Contents
Page ii GAO-13-809 Global Food Security

Tables

Table 1: U.S. Agency Roles in Implementing Feed the Future 7

Table 2: Reported Annual Allocations and Disbursements for Feed 

the Future from Fiscal Year 2010 through March 31, 2013 9

Table 3: Percentage of U.S. Agency Representatives in 19 Feed the 

Future (FTF) Countries Who Reported Coordination with 

Country-Level Representatives from Other Agencies in 

Planning and Implementing FTF 19

Table 4: Percentage of USAID and Feed the Future (FTF) Partner 

Agency Representatives Who Reported Their Coordination 

with All Other Partners Was Generally Effective in 

Accomplishing Certain Actions 21

Table 5: Percentage of USAID Representatives Who Reported Feed 

the Future (FTF) Assistance USAID Provided to For-Profit 

Stakeholders to Facilitate Public-Private Partnerships, by 

Type of Assistance 25

Table 6: Percentage of U.S. Agency Feed the Future (FTF) 

Representatives Who Reported Working with Stakeholders 

on FTF Planning and Implementation, by Stakeholder 

Type 27

Table 7: Percentage of USAID Representatives Who Reported That 

Certain Features of Feed the Future (FTF) Planning and 

Implementation Increased as a Result of Coordination 28

Table 8: Feed the Future (FTF) Survey Response Rates, by Agency 38

Table 9: Other U.S. Global Food Security Programs Related to the 

Feed the Future (FTF) Initiative 42

Table 10: Categorical Variables in the Regression Model for Which 

at Least One Respondent Group Had a Significantly Higher 

Mean Number of Actions for Which Coordination Was 

Effective 49

Figures

Figure 1: Map of USAID and Feed the Future (FTF) Partner Agency 

Representatives in the 19 FTF Countries, in 2012 12

Figure 2: USAID-Led Whole-of-Government Approach to the Feed 

the Future (FTF) Initiative 14

Figure 3: Illustrative Example of USAID’s Reported Coordination 

with Feed the Future (FTF) Partner Agencies in One 

Mission 45
Page iii GAO-13-809 Global Food Security

List of Abbreviations

CAADP Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development 

Program

CDCS Country Development Cooperation Strategies 

CIP country investment plan 

CSO civil society organization

FANEP Food Aid Nutrition Enhancement Program 

FTF Feed the Future 

FTF Guide Feed the Future Guide 

FTFMS Feed the Future Monitoring System 

FTF Scorecard Feed the Future Scorecard

G8 Group of Eight

G20 Group of Twenty

GAFSP Global Agriculture and Food Security Program 

LRP Local and Regional Procurement Pilot Project 

MCC Millennium Challenge Corporation 

NGO nongovernmental organization 

OLS ordinary least squares

OMB Office of Management and Budget

OPIC Overseas Private Investment Corporation 

QDDR Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review 

State Department of State 

Treasury Department of the Treasury 

USADF United States African Development Foundation 

USAID United States Agency for International Development 

USDA United States Department of Agriculture 

USTR Office of the United States Trade Representative 

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-13-809 Global Food Security

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

September 17, 2013

The Honorable Eliot Engel

Ranking Member

Committee on Foreign Relations

House of Representatives

The Honorable Ileana Ros-Lehtinen

House of Representatives

The Honorable James P. McGovern

House of Representatives

Nearly 870 million people, more than one-eighth of the world’s population, 

suffer from chronic hunger, and more than 2.5 million children die each 

year from undernutrition, according to the United Nations World Food 

Program. In 2008, the World Bank reported that numerous efforts to 

promote agriculture in developing countries had failed due to factors such 

as inefficient agriculture tax policies and underinvestment in agriculture.1

The World Bank also reported that, in response to recurring food crises, 

donors had shifted their priorities toward directly providing food rather 

than investing in programs to increase economic growth and food 

security.

In 2009, recognizing that overcoming underinvestment in agriculture in 

the world’s poorest countries would require stronger global partnerships, 

leaders at the Group of Eight (G8) Summit in L’Aquila, Italy, committed to 

increase food security assistance, and especially public and private 

investments in developing countries’ agricultural sectors.2 The President 

announced that the United States would invest at least $3.5 billion over 3 

 1

World Bank, World Development Report 2008: Agriculture for Development (Washington, 

D.C.: 2007). 

2

The G8 is an assembly of world leaders who meet annually to discuss global issues. The 

leaders represent the United States, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, and 

the United Kingdom. The European Union is also represented by the Presidents of the 

European Commission and the Council. At the G8 Summit in L’Aquila, Italy, in July 2009, 

and the subsequent Group of Twenty (G20) Summit in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, in 

September 2009, major donor countries and the European Commission pledged to 

significantly increase aid to agriculture and food security.
Page 2 GAO-13-809 Global Food Security

years through the Feed the Future (FTF) initiative aimed at increasing 

agricultural productivity and reducing malnutrition among children in 19 

chronically food insecure countries.3

To strengthen the effectiveness of this initiative, the President’s new 

development policy outlined an operational model for global food security 

programs focused on among other things (1) enhancing the level of 

interagency cooperation by providing incentives for the design of common 

analysis, planning, and programs drawing on the perspectives and 

expertise of different U.S. agencies, and (2) responding to country 

priorities by ensuring that U.S. investments aligned with established 

national strategies and development plans of partner countries based on 

consultation with a broad range of stakeholders. In prior reports, we found 

that U.S. efforts to coordinate food security programs implemented by 

multiple federal agencies were fragmented and lacked integration and 

data management systems. Because of this fragmented approach to food 

security, the U.S. government was likely missing opportunities to leverage 

each agency’s expertise and to minimize duplication. Furthermore, we 

found that coordination of agricultural development programs had been 

difficult at the country level due, in part, to the large number of donor 

agricultural development projects that were not adequately aligned. We 

also reported that the U.S. approach was vulnerable to a number of risks, 

including the weak capacity of host governments and difficulties in 

aligning U.S. assistance with host governments’ own strategies, and 

recommended that State delineate measures to mitigate risks associated 

with the country-led approach.4

In fiscal years 2010 through 2013, the U.S. government, through multiple 

federal agencies, allocated $7 billion for global food security programs 

 3

The U.S. global commitment was initially referred to as the Global Hunger and Food 

Security Initiative but came to be known as Feed the Future in May 2010 with the 

publication of the Feed the Future Guide (FTF Guide). 

4

See GAO, International Food Security: Insufficient Efforts by Host Governments and 

Donors Threaten Progress to Halve Hunger in Sub-Saharan Africa by 2015, GAO-08-680

(Washington, D.C.: May 29, 2008), and Global Food Security: U.S. Agencies Progressing 

on Governmentwide Strategy, but Approach Faces Several Vulnerabilities, GAO-10-352

(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 11, 2010). To address some of these risks, State has begun to 

implement this recommendation by providing support to countries in the development of 

their food security plans and by reviewing these plans before committing a higher level of 

U.S. funding. 
Page 3 GAO-13-809 Global Food Security

under FTF.5 Among other things, the initiative, led by the U.S. Agency for 

International Development (USAID), established a framework for a wholeof-government approach that attempts to maximize the effectiveness of 

interagency resources and knowledge through common goals, improved 

coordination, and resource alignment.6 Additionally, FTF sought to build 

country capacity and sustainability by obtaining input from the host 

government and other stakeholders in planning and implementation 

efforts. This country-led approach promotes the participation of key 

stakeholders, with an emphasis on including not only the host 

government but also nonstate actors, such as advocacy groups, the 

private sector, and local and international nonprofit entities.7

You asked us to review the FTF initiative. This report addresses (1) the 

extent to which USAID has applied a whole-of-government approach and 

(2) how USAID has facilitated a country-led approach. To determine the 

extent to which USAID has applied FTF’s whole-of-government approach 

and to assess how USAID has facilitated a country-led approach, we 

reviewed agency planning and guidance documents, surveyed USAID 

and U.S. FTF partner agency representatives in the 19 FTF focus 

countries on coordination mechanisms and stakeholder consultation, and 

 5

Funding data are reported as of March 31, 2013.

6

In this report, “whole-of-government” refers to FTF’s approach for enhancing coordinated 

and comprehensive action within the U.S. government. While the May 2010 FTF Guide

mentions the term “whole-of-government” once, subsequent FTF program documents use 

the term more frequently.

7

Several international agreements, including the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness, 

the Accra Agenda for Action, and the Five Rome Principles for Sustainable Global Food 

Security, highlight the need for country ownership as a means to coordinate development 

efforts and achieve sustainability. At the country level, partners can engage in meaningful 

dialogue on a common framework for action, identify how resources align with strategic 

priorities, and determine how to address gaps and make adjustments. According to the 

FTF Guide, through FTF, the U.S. government is expanding its commitment to align 

investments with partner country priorities while also increasing its own transparency and 

accountability.
Page 4 GAO-13-809 Global Food Security

interviewed USAID and FTF partner agency officials in Washington, D.C.8

We also assessed whether coordination was consistent with key practices 

for interagency collaboration.9 To identify the extent to which USAID and 

U.S. FTF partner agency representatives believe that they were 

implementing a whole-of-government approach and country-led approach 

in planning and implementing FTF, we surveyed 499 USAID and U.S. 

FTF partner agency representatives implementing FTF in the 19 focus 

countries.10 To identify the U.S. agency representatives implementing 

FTF, we obtained a list of all U.S. FTF representatives from USAID, and 

then confirmed with each agency the list of representatives in their 

agency who would meet our selection criteria. We administered the 

survey from May through August 2012. Overall, we achieved a weighted 

response rate of 72 percent, with 342 respondents to our survey.11 Using 

information available to us for all survey recipients, such as employment 

 8

In this report, FTF partner agencies include the Department of State, Millennium 

Challenge Corporation (MCC), Department of the Treasury (Treasury), Department of 

Agriculture (USDA), the Peace Corps, U.S. African Development Foundation (USADF) 

and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC). We did not include the 

Department of Commerce and Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) because 

they have few representatives overseas who focus on FTF. However, some officials from 

the Departments of Commerce, Defense (DOD), and Health and Human Services 

(Centers for Disease Control, CDC) responded to our survey because USAID said they 

provided some support to FTF.

9

GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance and Sustain 

Collaboration among Federal Agencies, GAO-06-15 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 2005) 

and Managing Results: Key Considerations for Implementing Interagency Collaborative 

Mechanisms, GAO-12-1022 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 27, 2012). To identify key practices, 

GAO reviewed academic literature and prior GAO and Congressional Research Service 

reports. In addition, GAO interviewed experts in coordination, collaboration, partnerships, 

and networks such as the National Academy of Public Administration. See GAO-06-15

and GAO-12-1022 for additional details.

10We sent a web-based survey to 551 USAID and FTF partner-country representatives 

but later determined 52 to be out of scope. After sending out the survey, we identified 52 

key personnel who had left their post prior to our sending out the survey request, who told 

us that they did not work on FTF, who were U.S.-based, or who were otherwise out of 

scope. See app. I for additional information on the scope and methodology. See the esupplement (GAO-13-815SP) for more information on the FTF survey questionnaire. 

11We used Response Rate 3 (RR3) as defined by the American Association for Public 

Opinion Research in Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome 

Rates for Surveys, 7th ed., 2011. Weighting accounts for the unequal agency sizes and 

response rates across agencies.
Page 5 GAO-13-809 Global Food Security

status, we conducted a nonresponse bias analysis.12 The nonresponse 

bias analysis did not find any statistically measurable bias that would 

affect our analyses. Therefore, although our survey was intended to be a 

census, for the purposes of analyzing the results, we treat our survey as a 

random sample. Unless otherwise noted, point estimates we report for 

2012 have a margin of error of no more than plus or minus 9 percentage 

points at the 95 percent level of confidence. We did not survey country 

stakeholders about the U.S. government country-led approach in the 

planning and implementation of FTF. To determine if USAID has 

identified risks with engaging key country stakeholders and documented 

efforts to mitigate them, two analysts independently reviewed, 

categorized, and analyzed USAID’s 19 FTF multiyear country strategies. 

Appendix I contains additional information on our scope and 

methodology.

We conducted this performance audit from March 2013 to September 

2013 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.

FTF is the U.S. government’s global hunger and food security initiative. 

The overarching goal of the initiative is to accelerate progress toward the 

United Nation’s Millennium Development Goal of halving the proportion of 

people living in extreme poverty and hunger by 2015. FTF pursues two 

paths toward this goal: (1) address the root causes of hunger that limit the 

potential of millions of people and (2) establish a lasting foundation for 

change by aligning resources with country-owned processes and 

sustained multistakeholder partnerships through a new country-led 

approach.

13 FTF also attempts to coordinate existing U.S. government 

programs in agriculture and food security through a whole-of-government 

 12A nonresponse bias analysis is used to verify that nonrespondents to the survey are not 

likely to answer differently from those who did respond and that the respondents are 

representative of the target population, thus ensuring that the results can be generalized 

to the population from which the sample was chosen.

13FTF also has a goal to reduce the prevalence of poverty and stunted children less than 

5 years of age by 20 percent in the areas in which it works.

Background
Page 6 GAO-13-809 Global Food Security

approach and complement the related work by multilateral institutions 

such as the World Bank that receive food security funds from the U.S. 

government.

The U.S. government selected 19 countries as focus countries for FTF on 

the basis of the level of need, opportunity for partnership, potential for 

agricultural-led growth, opportunity for regional synergies, and resource 

availability.14 In these 19 countries, the U.S. government concentrates 

FTF investments in specific geographic regions called “zones of 

influence” where a small number of commodities such as rice, maize, and 

wheat are targeted.

In 2010, the Department of State and USAID’s Quadrennial Diplomacy 

and Development Review (QDDR) designated USAID as the lead agency 

for the FTF initiative. USAID established the Bureau for Food Security to 

manage FTF as well as other agricultural development programs. Since 

that time, the USAID Administrator has served as the de facto Global 

Food Security Coordinator. In that capacity, he is responsible for 

implementing the initiative, including ensuring that all relevant U.S. 

government agencies and departments are consulted and engaged, as 

necessary, for the purposes of aligning and coordinating FTF with other 

food security-related programs and policies across the U.S. government. 

In addition, FTF has two Deputy Coordinators: one for development and 

one for diplomacy.15

To facilitate coordination of U.S. government activities at the country 

level, the U.S. ambassador in each focus country designates a U.S. FTF 

Country Coordinator to lead the whole-of-government implementation of 

FTF. The initiative incorporates USAID food security programs and 

activities of nine FTF partner agencies, as shown in table 1. Partner 

agency roles in implementing FTF include State’s efforts to reform policy; 

 14The 19 FTF countries are Bangladesh, Cambodia, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Ghana, Haiti, 

Honduras, Kenya, Liberia, Malawi, Mali, Mozambique, Nepal, Rwanda, Senegal, 

Tajikistan, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zambia. In 2011, according to the FTF progress report, 

the U.S. government removed Nicaragua as a FTF country because the government of 

Nicaragua had not developed an effective country implementation plan that could guide 

U.S. investments, nor were its policies as conducive to success as other FTF focus 

countries.

15The Deputy Coordinator for Development is a position at USAID, and the Deputy 

Coordinator for Diplomacy is a position at State. The USAID Assistant to the Administrator 

for the Bureau for Food Security is also part of the leadership.
Page 7 GAO-13-809 Global Food Security

Treasury’s support for the Global Agriculture and Food Security Program 

(GAFSP); and USDA’s support for agricultural research, economic, and 

market analysis.16

Table 1: U.S. Agency Roles in Implementing Feed the Future

Feed the Future (FTF) agency FTF role

U.S. Agency for International 

Development (USAID)

is the lead agency that coordinates, implements, and assesses FTF programming at 

country and regional levels; directly programs agriculture, nutrition, and development food 

aid funding; and contributes to GAFSP.

Department of State (State) is to use diplomatic means to improve coordination and increase global resources from 

other donors for agricultural investment, advance policy reforms that strengthen the 

effectiveness of agricultural investment, strengthen national frameworks for adoption of 

agricultural biotechnology, and partner with relevant UN agencies and other international 

organizations in pursuing the FTF agenda.

Millennium Challenge Corporation

(MCC)

is to support country-led requests for agriculture and food security-related investments 

through MCC compacts including irrigation, roads, ports and post-harvest infrastructure, 

farmer training, agriculture finance, property rights, and land policy and nutrition.

Department of the Treasury

(Treasury) 

is to coordinate multilateral support for food security including contributions to the GAFSP, 

promote monitoring and evaluation of projects, leverage funding through a GAFSP private 

sector lending window, use influence to align multilateral development bank efforts with 

U.S. food security priorities, and oversee other multilateral development bank funding for 

agriculture.

Department of Agriculture

(USDA)

is to support agricultural research and extension, data and economic analysis, market 

information and statistics, and in country capacity building.

Peace Corps is responsible for community economic development, agriculture, environment, and 

nutrition.

U.S. African Development Foundation 

(USADF)

is to build the capacity of local farmers’ associations and food processors in some African 

FTF countries.

Overseas Private Investment Corporation

(OPIC)

is to support U.S. private sector investments in some FTF countries through insurance, 

debt financing, and support to private equity funds.

Department of Commerce is to provide climate forecasting and guidance to some FTF countries on climate change 

mitigation and sustainable fisheries through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration.

 16GAFSP is a multilateral donor trust fund to assist in the implementation of pledges made 

by the G20 countries, who asked the World Bank to establish such a fund to support the 

L’Aquila initiative to boost support for agriculture and food security. The objective of this 

trust fund is to address the underfunding of country and regional agriculture and food 

security strategic investment plans already being developed by countries in consultation 

with donors and other stakeholders at the country level. The United States has committed 

funds through GAFSP and coordinated the design and development of the new 

multilateral fund. As of March 2013, Treasury had disbursed $326 of the $475 million U.S. 

commitment. For specific information on agency food security programs and initiatives, 

see GAO-10-352.
Page 8 GAO-13-809 Global Food Security

Feed the Future (FTF) agency FTF role

U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) is to advance work on trade and investment policy, including trade facilitation and other 

efforts to reduce barriers to efficient markets through Trade and Investment Framework 

Agreements. 

Source: USAID Feed the Future Progress Report, October 2012.

Together, USAID and the U.S. FTF partner agencies allocated $7 billion 

for global food security programs in fiscal years 2010 through 2013. As of 

March 2013, USAID and U.S. FTF partner agencies had disbursed 

approximately $4.5 billion, or about 63 percent (see table 2).17

 17In 2012, USAID and State worked with a coalition of U.S.-based international relief and 

development organizations called InterAction to attract non-U.S.-government resources 

for FTF. InterAction has pledged more than $1 billion for food security and nutrition over 3 

years.
Page 9 GAO-13-809 Global Food Security

Table 2: Reported Annual Allocations and Disbursements for Feed the Future from Fiscal Year 2010 through March 31, 2013

Dollars in millions

FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012

FY 2013 

(as of March 31, 2013)

Total 

(2010-2013)

Allocated Disbursed Allocated Disbursed Allocated Disbursed Allocated Disbursed Allocated Disbursed

L’Aquila commitment 4,027.6 1,456.8

USAID/State Feed the Future (FTF) 808.6 595.9 943.4 379.2 953.6 100.5 - - 2,705.5 1,075.5

MCC: Agriculture and Food Security 

investmentsa 739.4 0.0 241.5 12.0 0.01 32.4 0.1 10.5 981.1 54.8

Treasury: GAFSPb 66.6 66.6 124.8 99.8 149.6 160.0 - - 341.0 326.4

Other FTF-related programs 3,016.3 3,015.6

USAID

Nutrition (Global Health Programs) 71.1 57.9 89.8 47.6 95.0 10.4 - - 255.9 115.9

Food for Peace Title II Development 

Food Aid 385.5 385.5 422.6 422.6 426.8 426.8 331.0 56.6 1,566.0 1,291.6

MCC

Food Security Investmentsc 1.9 92.8 6.1 203.7 23.6 255.2 6.2 88.3 37.8 640.0

Treasury

Treasury: International Fund for 

Agricultural Development 30.0 30.0 29.4 29.4 30.0 30.0 - - 89.4 89.4

USDAd

Food for Progress 106.7 81.8 183.7 74.2 239.9 128.2 - 147.1 530.3 431.4

Local and Regional Procurement 

Pilot Project 10.0 0.0 3.0 14.8 1.3 3.0 - 0.8 14.3 18.7

McGovern-Dole Food for Education 145.0 96.4 195.5 109.6 173.3 141.1 - 78.7 513.8 425.8

Food Aid Nutrition Enhancement 

Program Competitive Grants 

Program 2.7 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - - 2.7 1.5

Cochran Fellowship Program 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.5 0.3 1.8 0.3 3.8 0.6
Page 10 GAO-13-809 Global Food Security

Dollars in millions

FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012

FY 2013 

(as of March 31, 2013)

Total 

(2010-2013)

Allocated Disbursed Allocated Disbursed Allocated Disbursed Allocated Disbursed Allocated Disbursed

Norman E. Borlaug International 

Agricultural Science and

Technology Fellowship Program 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.1 1.7 0.2 - 0.4 2.2 0.7

Totals 7,043.9 4,472.3

Legend: FY = fiscal year; State = Department of State; USAID = U.S. Agency for International Development; MCC = Millennium Challenge Corporation; Treasury= Department of 

the Treasury; GAFSP = Global Agriculture and Food Security Program; USDA = U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Source: GAO analysis of agency data.

Notes: Columns may not sum to totals due to rounding. The information reported as allocations and disbursements was provided to us by the agencies. We use the term 

“allocations” to refer to funds the agencies reported that they directed to FTF. We did not independently assess the amounts agencies reported as allocations and disbursements.

USAID/State includes funding for the 19 FTF focus countries, nine regional bureaus, 33 aligned countries, three strategic partner countries, the Bureau for Food Security, and 

other USAID departments such as the Economic Growth Agriculture and Trade Office. USAID/State, Treasury, and USDA annual disbursements for fiscal years 2010, 2011, and 

2012 reflect disbursements to date (as of March 31, 2013) against funds allocated for each year. As of March 31, 2013, fiscal year 2013 funding for State and Foreign Operations 

had not been appropriated. MCC disbursements reflect disbursements made in that given year. MCC data include new agreements that entered into force in fiscal years 2010 

through 2012. Funding for the Peace Corps, the U.S. African Development Foundation (USADF), the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), the Department of Commerce 

(Commerce), and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) are not tracked or reported for FTF purposes. USAID officials noted, however, that the Peace Corps and 

USADF plan to provide FTF funding data to USAID in fiscal year 2013. According to USAID, Commerce and USTR do not receive specific food security funding; they provide 

support and technical expertise to FTF. OPIC did not receive FTF funding during this period. For a description of the other FTF-related programs, see appendix II.

a

MCC funding is no-year funding. MCC’s allocations and disbursements are tracked against the fiscal year in which the transaction is recorded. MCC’s compacts are active for 5 

years. Allocations take place upon compact signing and program reallocation of the budget within that compact can take place during the 5- year life of the compact. 

Disbursements take place anytime during the 5-year window of the compact lifecycle.

b

According to USAID and State, State and USAID funding was transferred to Treasury for the U.S. contribution to the GAFSP: $66.6 million in fiscal year 2010, $25 million in fiscal 

year 2011, and $14.6 million in fiscal year 2012. According to USAID officials, all transfers in fiscal year 2011 and fiscal year 2012 were to the GAFSP’s Private Sector Window.

c

MCC funding data shown are for the following agricultural components of these compacts that entered into force prior to fiscal year 2010: Burkina Faso, Mongolia, Morocco, 

Mozambique, Namibia, and Tanzania. According to MCC, the majority of food security allocations were made at the point of entry into force of each compact, which was prior to 

the fiscal years shown in table 2.

d

The agency reported that food assistance programs are multi-year programs and the funds are drawdown gradually. According to USDA, due to the March 31st 2013 cutoff, 

funds were yet to be allocated for the fiscal year 2013 food assistance programs.

 
Page 11 GAO-13-809 Global Food Security

Of this amount, disbursements against the L’Aquila pledge accounted for 

$1.5 billion or about 33 percent, while other FTF-related programs were 

$3 billion or 67 percent.

18 Within other FTF-related programs, USAID disbursed the highest 

amount of funds ($1.4 billion), followed by USDA ($879 million), MCC 

($640 million) and Treasury ($89 million).

Figure 1 shows USAID and U.S. FTF partner agency locations in the 19 

FTF focus countries in 2012. USAID and State have representatives in all 

19 countries, while MCC, USADF, and the Peace Corps are located in 

countries where they have food security programs, and USDA 

predominantly operates on a regional level. The countries with the highest 

number of FTF agencies are Mali, Senegal, and Tanzania while the 

countries with the lowest number of FTF agencies are Bangladesh, Haiti, 

Honduras, and Tajikistan.

 18See app. II for a description of the other FTF-related food security programs 

implemented by USAID, Treasury, and USDA.
Page 12 GAO-13-809 Global Food Security

Figure 1: Map of USAID and Feed the Future (FTF) Partner Agency Representatives in the 19 FTF Countries, in 2012

Note: The FTF partners listed had specific FTF programmatic activity in the focus countries in 2012.

a For those countries in which the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) regional representative is 

based in another country, USDA covers these countries as follows: Bangladesh and Nepal are 

covered from India; Cambodia is covered from Thailand; Ghana and Liberia are covered from Nigeria; 

Haiti is covered from the Dominican Republic; Honduras is covered from Guatemala; Malawi, 
Page 13 GAO-13-809 Global Food Security

Rwanda, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zambia are covered from Kenya; Mali is covered from Senegal; 

Mozambique is covered from South Africa; and Tajikistan is covered from Turkey. 

USAID has made progress in applying FTF’s whole-of-government 

approach by coordinating and integrating U.S. FTF partner agencies’ 

knowledge and expertise at three levels: at headquarters in Washington, 

D.C.; in each of the 19 FTF focus countries; and between the countries 

and headquarters. At the headquarters level, we found USAID has made 

significant progress in addressing vulnerabilities we previously reported 

on by coordinating with U.S. FTF partner agencies to, among other 

things, develop a global food security strategy and monitor interagency 

performance. In addition, USAID and U.S. FTF partner agency 

representatives reported coordinating with each other at the country level 

and between the countries and headquarters. For example, our survey of 

U.S. FTF representatives in 19 FTF focus countries shows that 93 

percent of the U.S. FTF partner agency representatives reported 

coordinating with USAID and approximately 80 percent of all U.S. FTF 

representatives reported coordinating with their headquarters office. 

Figure 2 illustrates USAID’s whole-of-government coordination efforts in 

headquarters, at the country level, and between the country level and 

headquarters.

USAID Has Made 

Progress in 

Coordinating with 

U.S. FTF Partner 

Agencies through Its 

Whole-of-Government 

Approach
Page 14 GAO-13-809 Global Food Security

Figure 2: USAID-Led Whole-of-Government Approach to the Feed the Future (FTF) Initiative

Note: Country-level activities occur within each of the 19 FTF countries.

Since 2010, USAID has made significant progress in addressing 

fragmentation in global food security efforts by coordinating with FTF 

partner agencies in headquarters through FTF’s whole-of-government 

approach. In reports issued in 2008 and 2010, we found that 

vulnerabilities in U.S. food security efforts included the lack of 

government-wide efforts such as an integrated strategy for food security, 

data management systems, and leveraging knowledge and expertise 

USAID Has Made 

Significant Progress in 

Coordinating with FTF 

Partners in Headquarters
Page 15 GAO-13-809 Global Food Security

through coordination efforts such as food security working groups.19 Most 

of these vulnerabilities were related to a lack of coordination among U.S. 

agencies at the headquarters level. We concluded that, given this 

fragmentation in food security, the U.S. government was likely missing 

opportunities to leverage each agency’s expertise and to minimize 

duplication. We made several recommendations on improving 

coordination efforts in food security programs. U.S. agencies agreed with 

our recommendations and said they would take actions to develop an 

interagency food security strategy and establish a common reporting 

system to monitor progress in food security programs.

As a result, USAID has made significant progress in coordinating food 

security programs at the headquarters level by (1) developing a strategic 

approach to food security in collaboration with other U.S. agencies, (2) 

tracking interagency food security funding, (3) tracking and monitoring 

interagency food security performance data, and (4) coordinating food 

security efforts through biweekly interagency meetings. These efforts are 

consistent with key practices that enhance interagency collaboration.20

Since 2010, U.S. agencies have made progress in outlining their joint 

strategic approach for global food security programs in various 

documents. The 2010 Feed the Future Guide (FTF Guide) —the strategic 

document guiding FTF—states that the overarching FTF goal is 

sustainably reducing poverty and hunger by tackling their root causes and 

employing proven strategies for achieving large scale and lasting impact. 

The FTF Guide also indentifies increasing agricultural growth and 

improving nutritional status of women and children as two key objectives 

to achieve progress towards the overarching goal. The outlining of a joint 

 19See GAO, International Food Security: Insufficient Efforts by Host Governments and 

Donors Threaten Progress to Halve Hunger in Sub-Saharan Africa by 2015, GAO-08-680

(Washington, D.C.: May 29, 2008); and Global Food Security: U.S. Agencies Progressing 

on Governmentwide Strategy, but Approach Faces Several Vulnerabilities, GAO-10-352

(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 11, 2010).

20GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance and Sustain 

Collaboration among Federal Agencies, GAO-06-15 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 2005). 

For the purpose of this report, we use the term “collaboration” broadly to include 

interagency activities that others have variously defined as “cooperation,” “coordination,”

“integration,” or “networking.” We have done so because there are no commonly accepted 

definitions for these terms, and we are unable to make definitive distinctions between 

these different types of interagency activities. We define collaboration as any joint activity 

by two or more organizations that is intended to produce more public value than could be 

produced when the organizations act alone (see GAO-06-15).

FTF Strategy Documents 

Represent Progress toward a 

Government-wide Global Food 

Security Strategy
Page 16 GAO-13-809 Global Food Security

strategic approach for FTF is consistent with our previous 

recommendation that agencies develop a comprehensive global food 

security strategy. The FTF Guide specifies that U.S. agencies involved in 

food-security-related activities are to participate in planning and 

implementing the initiative. FTF officials told us that the U.S. agencies 

primarily involved in food security—USAID, State, USDA, MCC, and 

Treasury—collaborated on the development of the FTF Guide. The 2012 

Feed the Future Progress Report, issued after the FTF Guide, provides 

additional information such as U.S. agency roles and responsibilities in 

implementing the U.S. government strategic approach. USAID officials 

told us they are updating the FTF Guide to include roles and 

responsibilities. These efforts are consistent with one of our key practices 

on interagency collaboration, which notes that in order for collaborating 

agencies to achieve a common outcome, they need to establish 

strategies that work together with their partners’ strategies or are 

developed as joint strategies.21

USAID also made progress in tracking interagency funding by 

establishing the position of FTF Budget Director who requests and tracks 

funding data on U.S. global food security programs. Consistent with our 

previous recommendation that agencies periodically inventory food 

security-related programs and funding, the FTF Budget Director requests 

quarterly data from USAID, MCC, and Treasury on appropriations, 

obligations, and disbursements toward the L’Aquila pledge. The Budget 

Director also tracks appropriated funds for other food security programs 

such as USDA’s Food for Progress and Food for Education programs and 

Treasury’s contributions toward the International Fund for Agricultural 

Development by requesting data semiannually. The funding data 

collected are reported in USAID’s annual Feed the Future Progress 

Report.

USAID has also made progress in establishing an FTF monitoring and 

evaluation system to track interagency performance data toward common 

future security goals using a shared online data input and reporting 

system. We previously recommended that agencies develop improved 

measures to monitor and evaluate progress.22 USAID and the FTF 

 21GAO-06-15.

22GAO, International Food Security: Insufficient Efforts by Host Governments and Donors 

Threaten Progress to Halve Hunger in Sub-Saharan Africa by 2015, GAO-08-680

(Washington, D.C.: May 29, 2008).

USAID Created Budget 

Director Position to Track 

Interagency FTF Funding

USAID Has Begun to Track 

Interagency Performance Data 

Using an FTF Monitoring and 

Evaluation System
Page 17 GAO-13-809 Global Food Security

partner agencies agreed on this centralized system and common 

indicators for tracking food security programs and progress across 

agencies. According to U.S. officials, USAID, State, USDA, MCC, 

Treasury, OPIC, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 

collaborated on developing 56 FTF performance indicators for monitoring 

and evaluation, including 8 indicators that show U.S. government 

progress toward meeting FTF goals. These indicators include prevalence 

of poverty and prevalence of underweight children under 5 years of age. 

However, initially not all U.S. FTF partner agencies reported into the FTF 

Monitoring System (FTFMS) that USAID established. In fiscal year 2011, 

USAID, USDA, MCC, and Treasury reported on these indicators. The 

Peace Corps began reporting into the system in 2012, and USADF began 

reporting into the system in fiscal year 2013. OPIC officials told us that 

they plan to report into the system in 2014.23

USAID uses data from FTFMS to report on the implementation of its 

whole-of-government and country-led approaches in the FTF 

Scorecard—which includes, among other things, measures to track the 

whole-of-government approach. According to the FTF Scorecard, USAID 

is tracking five whole-of-government related measures including the 

number of FTF interagency biweekly meetings and agencies presenting 

their food security annual plans to FTF. This is consistent with another of 

our key practices for interagency collaboration: that collaborating 

agencies create the means to monitor and evaluate those efforts so that 

they can identify areas for improvement and report to clients and 

stakeholders.24 In fiscal year 2012, of the five whole-of-government 

measures, results reported in the FTF Scorecard

• exceeded the target for one: number of partner agencies reporting 

into FTFMS;

• partially met the target for three: number of FTF interagency working 

group meetings, number of country-level working groups holding 

regular interagency meetings, number of FTF agencies presenting 

their food security annual plans to FTF; and

 23According to USAID officials, State, Commerce, and USTR do not have in country food 

security programs, and thus do not report into the FTFMS.

24GAO-06-15.
Page 18 GAO-13-809 Global Food Security

• did not meet the target for one: number of country portfolio reviews 

with interagency participation.25

Since 2010, USAID and FTF partner agencies have shared expertise and 

knowledge through biweekly headquarters meetings that all the FTF 

partner agencies we spoke with confirmed attending. In May 2008, we 

found that agencies did not have a government-wide interagency working 

group to coordinate their food security programs.26 On the basis of our 

current review of interagency meeting agendas and notes, we found 

USAID and FTF partners discussed planning documents such as the FTF 

strategic plan and progress reports and coordinated USAID and FTF 

partner agency feedback on the documents. FTF officials also told us that 

at these interagency meetings, agencies share implementation plans, 

discuss FTF plans and documents, request input, raise and discuss 

issues regarding implementation, and present information on their areas 

of expertise. This is consistent with our key practices for federal agencies 

engaged in collaborative efforts, which state that collaborating agencies 

create the means to address the compatibility of policies and procedures 

and other means to facilitate working across agency boundaries such as 

frequent communication among collaborating agencies.27

USAID and U.S. FTF partner agency representatives we surveyed in 19 

FTF countries reported coordination at the country level and between the 

country level and headquarters through USAID’s whole-of-government 

approach.

 25In fiscal year 2012, the results and targets for each of the five measures were reported 

as: number of partner agencies reporting into FTFMS (5 of 4), number of FTF interagency 

working group meetings (19 of 24), country-level working groups holding regular 

interagency meetings (15 of 19), agencies presenting their food security annual plans to 

FTF (3 of 4), and country portfolio reviews with interagency participation (0 of 6). 

26GAO-08-680.

27GAO-06-15 and see GAO, Key Considerations for Implementing Interagency 

Collaborative Mechanisms, GAO-12-1022 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 27, 2012).

USAID and FTF Partner 

Agencies Hold Biweekly 

Meetings to Coordinate at 

Headquarters

USAID and U.S. FTF 

Partners Reported 

Coordination at the 

Country Level and 

between the Country Level 

and Headquarters
Page 19 GAO-13-809 Global Food Security

At the country level, 93 percent of U.S. FTF partner agency 

representatives reported coordinating with representatives from the lead 

FTF organization, USAID, in planning and implementing FTF. 

Approximately 66 percent of representatives from U.S. FTF partner 

agencies also reported coordinating with country-level FTF 

representatives from State, and approximately one-third or more of U.S. 

FTF partner agency representatives reported coordinating with USDA, the 

Peace Corps, and other FTF agency representatives (see table 3).28

Table 3: Percentage of U.S. Agency Representatives in 19 Feed the Future (FTF) Countries Who Reported Coordination with 

Country-Level Representatives from Other Agencies in Planning and Implementing FTF

Respondent group Percentage reporting coordination with

USAID State USDA Peace Corps Othera

FTF partner agencies 93 66 35 39 41

U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) - 60 52 40 40

Legend: State = Department of State; USDA = U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Source: GAO survey.

Notes: All point estimates have a margin of error of no more than plus or minus 9 percentage points.

a

The “Other” category includes the Departments of Commerce and the Treasury, the Millennium 

Challenge Corporation, and the U.S. African Development Foundation. 

We undertook additional analysis of the coordination reported in the 

survey and found that in nearly all cases USAID’s coordination with its 

partner agencies was a two-way relationship.29 For example, USAID 

officials reported coordinating with State, MCC, Treasury, USDA, the 

Peace Corps, and Commerce in all countries where those agencies were 

involved in FTF. Those same agencies also reported coordinating with 

USAID in all the FTF countries where they were present. We also found 

that a broad range of USAID representatives reported coordinating with 

FTF partner agency staff, including mission directors, Foreign Service 

Officers, personal services contractors, and Foreign Service Nationals. 

The USAID staff in our survey indicated that they worked in areas such as 

agricultural development, economic growth, food security, and health.30

 28U.S. agencies have not established criteria for an optimal level of coordination. 

29We looked at USAID’s coordination with its partner agencies in all of the 19 FTF 

countries where the partner agencies had at least one representative that responded to 

the survey.

30See the e-supplement (GAO-13-815SP) for more information on the FTF survey 

questionnaire. 

Coordination at the Country 

Level
Page 20 GAO-13-809 Global Food Security

Collectively, USAID representatives reported coordinating with multiple 

officials at the State, USDA, and the Peace Corps. For example USAID 

coordinated with U.S. ambassadors, political and economic affairs 

officers, and public affairs officers at State.31

Within each FTF country, USAID coordinates and shares knowledge and 

expertise with FTF partner agencies, under the leadership of the FTF 

Country Coordinator, through food security working groups as well as 

informal communication.32 Almost 80 percent of FTF partner 

representatives reported coordinating with USAID in FTF meetings at 

least quarterly. USAID FTF country-level representatives we interviewed 

while they were in Washington, D.C., told us that the interagency 

meetings in the field are their formal means of coordination. According to 

USAID documents, all FTF country-level staff report meeting at least 

twice a year; however, the frequency of these FTF meetings and the 

topics covered vary from country to country. For example, FTF officials in 

one Asian country told us that their food security working group meets 

once a week and discusses topics such as FTF and other food securityrelated projects, document development, budgets, and stakeholder 

meetings. By contrast, officials in an African country told us that FTF 

partner agencies meet quarterly to discuss FTF issues and 

implementation but certain agencies meet more frequently as needed and 

during development of FTF documents. According to senior USAID 

officials in headquarters, they have suggested to country-level staff that 

they hold interagency meetings at least monthly, but USAID has no 

requirement regarding the frequency of the meetings.

Most USAID and partner agency representatives responding to our 

survey indicated that their coordination was generally effective in 

accomplishing a number of FTF-related actions,33 as shown in table 4.

 31See app. III for an illustrative example of U.S. representatives’ reported coordination 

with FTF partner agencies in one country.

32The FTF Country Coordinator is typically the USAID Mission Director. 

33We also used these survey results to examine the impact of various factors on the U.S. 

representatives’ perceptions of whether their coordination had been effective in 

accomplishing the actions listed in table 4. For details on that multiple regression analysis, 

see app. IV.
Page 21 GAO-13-809 Global Food Security

Table 4: Percentage of USAID and Feed the Future (FTF) Partner Agency Representatives Who Reported Their Coordination 

with All Other Partners Was Generally Effective in Accomplishing Certain Actions

Type of FTF action

Percentage reporting generally effectivea

All USAID

FTF partner 

agencies 

Developing/contributing to integrated FTF program documents 76 77 74

Integrating FTF program/project planning with other US foreign 

assistance programs 72 73 70

Sharing observations/information obtained through meetings with other 

stakeholders 69 73 59

Sharing observations/information obtained through meetings with host 

government officials 68 71 59

Identifying donors/partners 62 63 58

Developing joint/compatible procedures/processes for FTF activities 60 60 60

Developing joint communication plans, reports and/or cables 56 57 53

Source: GAO survey.

Notes: For “All” and “USAID” responses, the point estimates have a margin of error of no 

more than plus or minus 3 percentage points. For “FTF partner agencies” responses, the

point estimates have a margin of error of no more than plus or minus 7 percentage points. 

There were other responses that included “no opinion” and “not effective.” The “not 

effective” responses, not shown in this table, were all under 8 percent for these actions. 

We presented those actions that focused on interagency coordination. For the full list of 

actions, see the Q33 series in the e-supplement (GAO-13-815SP). a

We grouped responses for “very” and “somewhat effective.”

About three out of four FTF agency representatives (76 percent) indicated 

that their coordination was generally effective in developing or 

contributing to integrated FTF program documents, and our review of 

agency documents identified multiple examples of such efforts. USAID 

and USDA, for example, jointly prepared a roadmap to align their food 

assistance programs with FTF as part of the multiyear strategy 

development process in Guatemala and Haiti. Seventy-two percent of

USAID and U.S. FTF partner agency representatives also reported 

generally effective coordination in integrating FTF program or project 

planning with other U.S. foreign assistance programs.

Over half of U.S. FTF representatives responding to our survey indicated 

that certain factors helped interagency coordination at the country level, 

such as ongoing communication (65 percent), sharing FTF-related data 

(64 percent), and the technical expertise of other U.S. government staff 

(61 percent). Less than half of all U.S. FTF representatives indicated that 

certain factors either hindered coordination or had no effect, such as 
Page 22 GAO-13-809 Global Food Security

staffing levels at other agencies (34 percent), lack of compatibility of 

procedures (39 percent), and flexibility of funding (41 percent).34

Between the country level and headquarters, USAID and FTF partners 

reported coordinating and sharing information with each other through a 

variety of methods, including written communications and guidance,

review of country strategies and progress data, country visits, and 

conference calls. Approximately 80 percent of USAID and U.S. FTF 

partner agency representatives reported coordinating with their offices in 

headquarters on FTF. About 90 percent of all USAID representatives 

reported coordinating with USAID’s Bureau for Food Security on FTF. In 

addition, 73 percent of USAID and U.S. FTF partner agencies reported 

that they received FTF guidance from their own headquarters at least 

quarterly. All FTF agencies in headquarters provided written guidance to 

country-level staff on implementing FTF and requested updates on food 

security issues. Headquarters and country-level staff within USAID and 

FTF partner agencies also coordinated in the development and review of 

a series of FTF country strategic documents and progress data reported 

into the FTF monitoring and evaluation system.35 Moreover, headquarters 

officials from USAID, USDA, and the Peace Corps also told us that they 

hold regular telephone conferences with country-level staff.

 34This question in the GAO survey asked about factors that helped, hindered, or had no 

effect on respondents’ coordination with all in-country U.S. government representatives to 

plan or implement FTF-related activities.

35In 2010, country-level staff in each FTF country developed a plan outlining the U.S. 

government approach for the first year of FTF implementation as well as a new multiyear 

strategy for implementing FTF. Headquarters staff reviewed the plans and strategies. 

Reviewers included the de facto Global Food Security Coordinator, deputy coordinators, 

Bureau of Food Security, and representatives from State, Commerce, MCC, USDA, OPIC, 

and the Peace Corps. These reviewers provided their evaluation and feedback to the 

country-level staff, drawing from each reviewer’s agency expertise. For example, officials 

recommended to USAID staff in one Latin American country that their strategy elaborate 

on the alignment of FTF with interagency partners by clearly delineating partner roles in 

achieving FTF objectives. In 2011 and 2012, staff in each country revised their drafts of 

the implementation plan and multiyear strategy to incorporate the interagency input from 

the reviews and finalize their multiyear strategy. The final FTF multiyear strategies outline 

the 5-year strategic planning for FTF within each country and include agriculture and 

nutrition objectives, monitoring and evaluation plans, and interagency financial planning.

Coordination between Country 

Level and Headquarters
Page 23 GAO-13-809 Global Food Security

USAID has taken steps to facilitate a country-led approach by providing 

support to the development and implementation of each country’s food 

security plan and by coordinating with multiple stakeholders. We found 

that USAID has a performance management tool, the FTF Scorecard, 

that is monitoring some risks to the country-led approach and that USAID 

has efforts to mitigate some of those risks. However, FTF’s multiyear 

country strategies did not systematically assess risks to the country-led 

approach and identify mitigation plans. USAID did not require a risk 

assessment in its FTF strategy guidance; however, other relevant USAID 

guidance states that a risk assessment informs management of the 

relevant risks associated with achieving objectives.

We found that USAID has taken steps to facilitate a country-led approach. 

According to the FTF Guide, the country-led approach to FTF involves (1) 

providing support to the development and implementation of each 

country’s food security plan, called a country investment plan (CIP) and 

(2) coordinating with multiple stakeholders, including the host 

government, civil society organizations, donors, and the private sector in 

the planning and implementation of FTF.36 The U.S. government also 

planned to align its own multiyear country strategies with the priorities 

identified in the CIPs.

 36The U.S. government’s country-led approach to implementing global food security is 

outlined in the FTF Guide, the Presidential Policy Directive on Global Development, and 

the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review. The FTF Guide states that the U.S. 

government will be guided by the Five Rome Principles for Sustainable Global Food 

Security, which the United States and 192 other countries unanimously endorsed in 2009. 

These principles reflect a concerted global effort to accelerate progress toward the UN 

Millennium Development Goal of halving the proportion of people living in extreme poverty 

and hunger by 2015. Two principles relate to country ownership in support of food security 

programs. These principles call on governments to, among other things, consult with a 

broad group of stakeholders in planning and implementing food security programs.

USAID Facilitated a 

Country-Led 

Approach and Made 

Some Progress in 

Monitoring Risks but 

Has Not 

Systematically 

Assessed Risks at the 

Country Level

USAID Has Taken Steps to 

Facilitate a Country-Led 

Approach
Page 24 GAO-13-809 Global Food Security

We found that USAID and FTF partner agencies provided support to the 

development and implementation of CIPs in several ways. According to 

USAID officials, consistent with the FTF Guide, they provided support to 

the CIP development and implementation process through (1) assistance 

to strengthen the capacity of host governments and facilitate their 

consultation with multiple stakeholders; (2) financial and technical support 

to increase stakeholders’ influence in developing and implementing the 

plans; and (3) participation in technical reviews of country investment 

plans to ensure, among other things, that the CIP development process, 

which included host government consultations with stakeholders, was 

carried out.37

In our survey of U.S. agency representatives in 19 FTF focus countries, 

USAID representatives reported that USAID provided multiple types of 

assistance to strengthen the capacity of host governments and to support 

host government officials’ consultations with other stakeholders, including 

technical assistance or research data (71 percent), meetings (70 

percent), and directly hosting consultation events or activities (68 

percent). Sixty-two percent also reported providing policy or diplomatic 

support to improve host country laws, regulations, or organizational 

procedures relating to stakeholder consultations. In addition, over half of 

USAID representatives responding to the survey reported that, as a result 

of their coordination with host government stakeholders, partnership 

formation and engagement with other FTF project partners increased.

Our survey also showed that USAID representatives reported that they 

provided support to increase stakeholders’ involvement in developing and 

implementing the country plans. For example, more than half of USAID 

representatives reported identifying potential partners and about half 

reported providing technical assistance or research data to for-profit 

stakeholders to facilitate the creation of public-private partnerships. In

addition, half of USAID respondents reported that, as a result of their 

coordination with for-profit stakeholders, partnership formation with these 

stakeholders increased. Table 5 shows the percentages of USAID 

 37Other support included studies or modeling to improve the evidence informing decisions 

on food security priorities and financial expertise to develop estimates on the costs of 

financing the priorities outlined in the CIP.

USAID Supported 

Development and 

Implementation of Country 

Plans
Page 25 GAO-13-809 Global Food Security

representatives who indicated that USAID provided assistance to forprofit stakeholders to facilitate FTF-related public-private partnerships.38

Table 5: Percentage of USAID Representatives Who Reported Feed the Future (FTF) Assistance USAID Provided to For-Profit 

Stakeholders to Facilitate Public-Private Partnerships, by Type of Assistance

Type of assistance Percentage reporting USAID provided

Identified potential partners 59

Technical assistance or research data to facilitate the creation of public-private 

partnerships

52

Directly hosted an event or activity to facilitate partnership creation 49

Funded partnerships for this type of stakeholder 44

Funding to build capacity of this stakeholder to enter into a public-private partnership 37

Source: GAO survey

Note: All point estimates have a margin of error of no more than plus or minus 4 percentage points.

USAID and U.S. FTF partner agency officials also participated in 

technical reviews of CIPs in all FTF focus countries, but the process for 

the reviews varied. For the African FTF focus countries, USAID relied on 

the African Union’s Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development 

Program (CAADP) to guide the development and implementation of 

country investment plans.39 CAADP’s framework requires a technical 

review of CIPs, which includes reviewing the prioritization of agriculture 

investments, documentation of the scope and form of stakeholder 

consultations in the planning process, incorporation of private sector 

investment, and a risk assessment.40 For the non-African FTF focus 

countries, USAID and MCC officials told us that they and State promoted 

guidelines similar to CAADP and provided support for technical reviews 

 38Public-private partnerships are those between government agencies and either for-profit 

or nonprofit organizations.

39CAADP is an Africa-wide framework for developing, implementing, and measuring 

agriculture development investments at national, regional, and continent levels.

40The CAADP regional process requires, among other things, that the host government 

develop its CIP with the participation of civil society and private sector stakeholders; that 

the CIPs undergo a technical review; and that donors, the host government, and 

representatives of the private sector and civil society convene a business meeting to 

endorse the CIP and commit to its implementation. During implementation of its CIP, 

CAADP requires a country to conduct a multistakeholder review, called a joint sector 

review, to assess the performance and results of the agriculture sector.
Page 26 GAO-13-809 Global Food Security

because such a regional-level program to guide the development and 

implementation of the CIPs did not exist.

In our survey of U.S. FTF agency representatives in the 19 FTF focus 

countries, USAID and partner agency representatives reported that 

multiple stakeholders were included in the planning and implementation 

of FTF: host governments, nonprofit organizations, donors, and for-profit 

entities.41 U.S. government officials seek to coordinate with host 

government, nonprofit, donor, and private sector stakeholders to 

implement FTF as follows:

• Host government: U.S. government officials are to coordinate with 

host governments on implementing agriculture policy reforms and 

consult with them on FTF policy priorities and investments.

• Nonprofits: U.S. government officials are to coordinate with 

nonprofits to build their capacity and to achieve meaningful and 

effective engagement with host governments to sustain food security 

investments.

• Donors: USAID is to participate in agriculture donor working groups in 

FTF countries to coordinate U.S. government food security 

investments with those of other donors. Additionally, one of State’s 

roles is to encourage other donors to, among other things, meet their 

financial commitments to food security and to assist countries on 

policy reforms.

• For-profits: USAID is trying to increase private sector investment in 

agriculture in FTF focus countries, including through public-private 

partnerships.

As shown in table 6, the percentages of all U.S. FTF agency 

representatives that reported working with the four kinds of stakeholders 

ranged from 83 percent (working with host government officials) to 62 

percent (working with for-profit enterprises).

 41In our survey, stakeholders are those who are affected by a development outcome or 

have an interest in a development outcome.

U.S. FTF Agency 

Representatives Reported 

Coordination with Multiple 

Stakeholders
Page 27 GAO-13-809 Global Food Security

Table 6: Percentage of U.S. Agency Feed the Future (FTF) Representatives Who Reported Working with Stakeholders on FTF 

Planning and Implementation, by Stakeholder Type

Respondent group

Percentage reporting working with

Host government officials Nonprofits Donors For-profits

All 83 74 63 62

USAID 86 79 73 68

U.S. FTF partner agencies 76 58 37 45

Legend: USAID = U.S. Agency for International Development.

Source: GAO survey.

Notes: For “All” and “USAID” responses, the point estimates have a margin of error of no 

more than plus or minus 4 percentage points. For “U.S. FTF partner agencies” responses, 

the point estimates have a margin of error of no more than plus or minus 7 percentage 

points.

Compared with representatives from U.S. FTF partner agencies, USAID 

representatives had a higher percentage reporting that they worked with 

each of the four stakeholder groups. As the lead agency for FTF, USAID 

engages a broad range of stakeholders, while FTF partner agencies may 

work with only certain groups of stakeholders depending on an agency’s 

role in a focus country’s FTF effort. For example, MCC works directly with 

host governments to design MCC compacts and support their 

implementation. In contrast, USADF provides grants directly to local 

organizations to fund projects that engage community groups in the 

design and implementation of the projects. (See app. V for additional 

information on agencies’ country-led approaches.)

USAID representatives reported that certain features of stakeholders’ 

participation in FTF increased as a result of coordination (see table 7). 

About half or more of USAID representatives reported that the following 

three features of stakeholders’ participation in FTF increased for all 

stakeholders: integration of stakeholders’ key priorities, formation of 

partnerships that included the stakeholders, and engagement of 

stakeholders with other FTF project partners.
Page 28 GAO-13-809 Global Food Security

Table 7: Percentage of USAID Representatives Who Reported That Certain Features of Feed the Future (FTF) Planning and 

Implementation Increased as a Result of Coordination

Feature of stakeholders’ participation in FTF

Stakeholder type

Host government Nonprofits Donors For-profits

Integration of stakeholders’ key priorities 74 58 64 59

Formation of partnerships that included the stakeholders 68 54 61 57

Engagement of stakeholders with other FTF project partners 58 59 50 51

Involvement of stakeholders in FTF project implementation 58 53 48 52

Stakeholders’ commitment to FTF project objectives 55 51 46 53

Stakeholders’ capacity to participate in FTF planning or 

implementation 54 52 41 50

Source: GAO survey.

Notes: All point estimates had a margin of error of no more than plus or minus 4 

percentage points. This table presents the features for which the largest percentages of 

USAID representatives reported that the features increased across all the stakeholder 

groups. These features were generally reported to have increased by about half or more 

of the USAID respondents. The features are rank ordered by the reported increases for 

host government stakeholders. For the full list of features, see Q49, Q56, Q63, and Q70 in 

the e-supplement (GAO-13-815SP).

Since 2010, USAID has made some progress in monitoring risks related 

to the country-led approach by developing a tool—the FTF Scorecard—

that tracks performance goals on country ownership and includes 

measures that address risks to the country-led approach. In prior work, 

we have concluded that agencies may address management challenges 

and program risks by setting goals and measures related to those 

challenges and risks.42 In our May 2008 and March 2010 reports on U.S. 

global food security efforts, we found deficiencies in measuring and 

monitoring progress in food security and risks associated with the 

country-led approach.43 In our current study, we found that USAID’s 2012 

and 2013 FTF Scorecards outline two goals to ensure country ownership 

and sustainability: focus countries lead collaborative implementation of 

the CIP and local capacity is increasingly able to sustain food security. 

 42See GAO, Managing for Results: Opportunities for Continued Improvements in 

Agencies’ Performance Plans, GAO-99-215 (Washington, DC: July 20, 1999).This is 

consistent with the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010, which states that agencies’

performance planning should discuss plans to address major management challenges, 

including through relevant performance goals, indicators, and milestones.

43GAO-08-680 and GAO-10-352.

USAID Has Made Some 

Progress in Monitoring 

Risks to the Country-Led 

Approach
Page 29 GAO-13-809 Global Food Security

Under these goals, USAID is monitoring five performance measures 

related to the country-led approach: number of (1) focus countries with 

increased public expenditure for agriculture; (2) focus countries using 

outreach platforms to civil society organizations (CSOs) and private 

sector companies to inform CIP development and implementation; (3) 

focus countries holding joint sector reviews with donors, CSOs, and 

private sector firms; (4) focus countries with improved ranking in the 

World Bank’s ease-of-doing-business index;44 and (5) private enterprises 

and CSOs that applied new technologies or management practices.45

We found that each of these five performance measures on country 

ownership is related to a risk to the sustainability of U.S. food security 

investments. Broadly, these measures fall into four risk-related 

categories: the ability of host governments to meet agriculture funding 

commitments; stakeholder consultations in the development and 

implementation of CIPs; host government policies that are conducive to 

private sector investment; and building local capacity. In our March 2010 

report, we found that the country-led approach was vulnerable to a 

number of risks, including the weak capacity of host governments to meet 

funding commitments for agriculture and difficulties aligning host 

government and donor strategies due to differences in policy priorities.46

Additionally, other FTF guidance documents outlined the necessity of 

effective consultation with stakeholders, a policy environment conducive 

for investment, and building local capacity to ensure FTF’s sustainability. 

In fiscal year 2012, of the five country-led measures, results reported in 

the FTF Scorecard

 44The World Bank Doing Business project ranks countries on areas of business 

regulation. A high ranking on the ease-of-doing-business index means the regulatory 

environment is more conducive to starting and operating a local firm. See 

http://www.doingbusiness.org/.

45In October 2012, USAID published the FTF Scorecard with fiscal year 2012 targets, as 

well as cumulative targets for fiscal years 2010-2014. In June 2013, USAID published the 

FTF Scorecard with fiscal year 2012 targets and actual results achieved.

46GAO-10-352. In 2010, we recommended that State delineate measures to mitigate risks 

associated with the country-led approach. To address some of these risks, State has 

begun to implement this recommendation by providing support to countries in the 

development of their food security plans and by reviewing these plans before committing a 

higher level of U.S. funding.
Page 30 GAO-13-809 Global Food Security

• exceeded two targets: number of focus countries with increased 

public expenditure for agriculture and private enterprises and number 

of CSOs that applied new technologies or management practices;

• partially met two targets: number of focus countries using outreach 

platforms to engage civil society and private sector stakeholders in 

CIP development and implementation and number of focus countries 

with an improved Doing Business ranking; and

• did not meet one target: number of focus countries holding joint sector 

reviews.47

FTF officials who reviewed CIPs in 2010 said the host governments’ 

consultations with their stakeholders were initially weak because host 

governments had limited time to complete their plans and that in some 

cases they consulted with stakeholders primarily in capital cities rather 

than rural areas.

USAID has taken some steps and is planning others to improve 

stakeholder consultations with host governments and to increase private 

sector investment in agriculture. The fiscal year 2013 FTF strategic plan 

states that FTF intends to strengthen the engagement of civil society and 

private sector stakeholders. According to USAID officials, at least four 

African focus countries will hold joint sector reviews in 2013. In response 

to the need to increase the participation of civil society and private sector 

stakeholders in the CAADP process, USAID sponsored the Africa Lead 

program to, among other things, build the capacity of civil society and 

private sector stakeholders to engage more effectively in the 

implementation of African countries’ CIPs.48 FTF has also sought to 

increase private sector participation in agriculture, recognizing the 

importance of these stakeholders to food security efforts. Part of this 

effort was the creation of the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition 

at the 2012 G8 Summit, in which global and local companies in Africa 

 47In fiscal year 2012, the results and targets for each of the five measures were reported 

as: focus countries with increased public expenditure for agriculture (12 of 10), private 

enterprises and CSOs that applied new technologies or management practices (44,100 of 

26,000), focus countries using outreach platforms to CSOs and private sector companies 

to inform CIP development and implementation (8 of 10), focus countries with an improved 

“Doing Business” ranking (6 of 8), and focus countries holding joint sector reviews with 

donors, CSOs, and private sector firms (0 of 5). The Doing Business report ranks 

countries on 11 areas of business regulation.

48Africa Lead is a capacity-building program that provides leadership training, among 

other things, to public, civil society, and private sector institutions to support the CAADP.
Page 31 GAO-13-809 Global Food Security

committed more than $3 billion in investments.49 However, similar 

programs to improve stakeholder consultations and private sector 

investment do not exist in the seven Asian and Latin American focus 

countries.

Although USAID has made some progress at the headquarters level to 

monitor and address risks to the country-led approach, we found that 

USAID’s FTF multiyear country strategies did not systematically assess 

these risks.50 According to USAID’s Risk Assessment Guide, a risk 

assessment informs agency management of the relevant risks associated 

with achieving management objectives and is intended to help 

management identify and document risks, prioritize them in terms of 

susceptibility, and determine the adequacy of controls to manage those 

risks.51 A key characteristic of a national strategy is a risk assessment, 

including an analysis of the threats to, and vulnerabilities of, critical assets 

and operations.52 The FTF multiyear strategies outline the 5-year strategic 

planning for the U.S. government’s global hunger and food security 

 49The New Alliance builds upon the progress and commitments made at the 2009 L’Aquila 

summit and includes specific commitments from African leaders to enhance opportunities 

for private sector investment in their countries, as well as commitments from local and 

international private sector partners, who have collectively committed more than $3 billion 

in investments. In September 2012, the New Alliance expanded from the initial countries 

of Ethiopia, Ghana, and Tanzania to include Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire, and 

Mozambique. In June 2013, the New Alliance annouced that it was adding three more 

countries—Nigeria, Malawi, and Benin. 

50We defined risks to a country-led approach as those related to host governments, 

stakeholders, and other donors.

51This definition is consistent with GAO’s risk management framework based on best 

practices. See GAO, Homeland Security: Applying Risk Management Principles to Guide 

Federal Investments, GAO-07-386T (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 7, 2007). As we stated 

above, the FTF Scorecard is a monitoring tool that tracks data on some of the risks; 

however, it is not clear how these risks were prioritized, and the tool does not determine 

the adequacy of controls to manage risks.

52See GAO, Combating Terrorism: Evaluation of Selected Characteristics in National 

Strategies Related to Terrorism, GAO-04-408T (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 3, 2004); and 

Influenza Pandemic: Further Efforts Are Needed to Ensure Clearer Federal Leadership 

Roles and an Effective National Strategy, GAO-07-781 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 14, 

2007). We identified risk assessments as a key characteristic of a national strategy by 

reviewing the Homeland Security Act of 2002, as well as other legislation, presidential 

directives, and GAO and policy research organization publications. See GAO-04-408T for 

additional details.

USAID Did Not 

Systematically Assess 

Risks Related to the 

Country-Led Approach in 

Its Multiyear Country 

Strategies
Page 32 GAO-13-809 Global Food Security

initiative at the country-level.53 According to these strategies, they 

represent whole-of-government approaches to address food security and 

were approved by interagency teams. USAID did not require a risk 

assessment in its guidance on FTF multiyear strategies.

On the basis of our review of the 19 FTF multiyear country strategies, we 

found that 12 of the 19 did not specifically discuss risks related to a 

country-led approach. Our review showed that 7 multiyear country 

strategies contained sections specifically discussing risks, and roughly 

half of the identified risks related to the country-led approach, including 

the weak capacity of host governments and host government policies that 

inhibit private sector investment. The remaining 12 multiyear country 

strategies did not contain a section specifically discussing risk, but they 

each identified challenges to the strategies, at least one of which related 

to the country-led approach. For example, one African country strategy 

states that organizational and technical capacity remains a major 

impediment to implementation of its country-owned agriculture 

development strategy. Local nongovernmental organizations and the 

private sector are poorly developed, and weak government institutions 

and insufficient staffing prevent the government from meeting the scale 

and pace of implementation required by its country investment plan, 

according to the strategy.

Across the seven multiyear country strategies with sections describing 

risks, USAID inconsistently identified plans to mitigate the risks identified. 

We found that fewer than half of the risks identified had corresponding 

discussions of mitigation strategies. For example, one African country 

strategy discusses plans to develop capacity and to promote dialogue 

between the government and private sector to mitigate the risks posed by 

limited government capacity and intervention in markets. In contrast, 

another African country strategy described risks to financial and 

procurement accountability of projects, but the strategy did not identify 

any mitigation plans to address these risks.

According to the FTF multiyear country strategies, the strategies may be 

modified as appropriate, but the guidance on updating them indicates that 

USAID has made an effort to minimize the need to formally amend these 

 53According to USAID, these strategies are to align with the CIPs.
Page 33 GAO-13-809 Global Food Security

strategies due to the comprehensive process used to develop them.54

Furthermore, USAID’s country guidance documents indicate that USAID 

has plans to integrate FTF multiyear strategies into broader country 

strategies—Country Development Cooperation Strategies (CDCS).55

USAID’s guidance for developing the CDCS indicates that country teams 

must assess risks associated with USAID’s development objectives and 

assess the degree to which officials can identify and control critical risks. 

USAID officials told us that plans for integrating the multiyear strategies 

into the CDCS will address the lack of risk assessments in the FTF 

multiyear strategies. However, the guidance documents for developing 

the CDCS indicate that country teams have the flexibility to determine the 

level of integration of their FTF multiyear strategy; moreover, the 

guidance indicates that some country teams are exempt from the 

requirement to integrate FTF into their CDCS. The CDCS Supplemental 

Guidance for Integrating Feed the Future states that USAID country 

teams receiving FTF funding should demonstrate that they strongly 

considered integrating FTF planning into the CDCS, but they are not 

required to do so. Furthermore, the guidance states that the integration of 

FTF multiyear strategies is not applicable to those USAID country teams 

that have completed a CDCS or are far along in the CDCS process. 

Because the integration of FTF multiyear strategies into the CDCS 

remains an option, and not a requirement, for country teams, the extent to 

which USAID plans to systematically assess and mitigate risks to the 

country-led approach remains unclear. Without requirements for FTF 

country staff to identify and mitigate risks associated with the country-led 

approach, the U.S. government’s ability to achieve its goals for improving 

global food security could be limited.

In 2010, President Obama outlined a new operational model for 

enhancing interagency cooperation and responding to country priorities 

with broad consultation in global food security programs. This marked a 

shift from prior policy and efforts, and results from our survey of 19 FTF 

focus countries strongly suggest that the U.S. government has made 

good progress in applying a whole-of-government and country-led 

 54The FTF multiyear strategy change guidance indicates that possible strategy changes 

may be deemed necessary due to budgetary, programmatic, interagency policy, hostcountry, or other considerations.

55The CDCS are 5-year development strategies that include discussions of how USAID 

assistance will be synchronized with other agencies’ efforts.

Conclusions
Page 34 GAO-13-809 Global Food Security

approach. Progress achieved in U.S. interagency coordination and 

engagement with country stakeholders can enhance U.S. efforts in FTF 

countries to improve agriculture productivity and reduce malnutrition 

among children. In addition, by aligning and coordinating its food security 

efforts with those outlined in each country’s investment plan, including 

efforts of other donors, the U.S. government can ensure a more effective 

contribution toward the United Nations Millennium Development Goal of 

eradicating extreme poverty and hunger. However, USAID has not 

systematically assessed risks to aligning U.S. investments to country 

priorities and engaging multiple stakeholders. USAID’s guidance indicates 

that risk assessments inform management of the relevant risks 

associated with achieving objectives and help them determine the 

adequacy of controls to manage those risks. Although USAID guidance 

documents indicate that country teams must assess risks associated with 

USAID’s development objectives, the agency does not require FTF 

country teams to systematically assess and mitigate risks to the FTF’s 

country-led approach.

In the absence of requirements for FTF country staff to identify and 

mitigate risks in aligning resources with country priorities and engaging 

multiple stakeholders, further progress in implementing the country-led 

approach could be hampered and could limit the U.S. government’s ability 

to achieve its goals for improving global food security.

To ensure that risks related to the country-led approach are 

systematically assessed, we recommend that the USAID Administrator 

take the following two actions:

• require FTF country staff to conduct periodic risk assessments 

associated with pursuing a country-led approach and

• require FTF country staff to develop plans to mitigate any risks 

identified as part of its periodic risk assessments.

We provided a draft of this report for comment to USAID, State, MCC, 

Treasury, USDA, the Peace Corps, USADF, OMB, and OPIC. USAID 

provided written comments on a draft of our report. We have reprinted 

these comments in appendix VI. USAID concurred with both of our 

recommendations and outlined steps to revise their guidance to be more 

explicit about risk assessments and mitigation strategies for the countryled approach. We also received technical comments from USAID, USDA, 

State, and USADF, which we have incorporated, as appropriate.

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

Agency Comments
Page 35 GAO-13-809 Global Food Security

We are sending a copy of this report to interested congressional 

committees and to the Administrator of USAID; the Secretaries of State, 

Treasury, and Agriculture; the Directors of the OMB and the Peace 

Corps; and the Chief Executive Officers of MCC, OPIC, and USADF. 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 regarding this report, please 

contact me at (202) 512-9601 or MelitoT@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 VII.

Thomas Melito

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

Methodology

Page 36 GAO-13-809 Global Food Security

This report is part of a larger of body of work we have undertaken 

reviewing the U.S. government’s efforts to improve international food 

security, including reports we issued in 2008 and 2010.56 This report 

specifically examines (1) the extent to which the U.S. Agency for 

International Development (USAID) has applied a whole-of-government 

approach and (2) how USAID has facilitated a country-led approach for 

the Feed the Future (FTF) initiative. This report is primarily based on our 

survey of U.S FTF agency representatives in the 19 FTF focus countries 

and on our review of FTF documents.

To determine the extent to which USAID has applied a whole-ofgovernment approach and to assess how USAID has facilitated a 

country-led approach, we collected and reviewed agency documents. We 

also assessed whether coordination was consistent with key practices 

that enhance and sustain interagency collaboration and key features that 

benefit interagency collaboration mechanisms identified in prior GAO 

reports.57 To identify how USAID outlined these two approaches, we 

reviewed agency FTF planning documents including FTF implementation 

plans, strategic reviews and multiyear strategies, and other agency 

specific food security planning documents such as the U.S. Department 

of Agriculture’s 2011 and 2012 food security plans. We also reviewed 

FTF guidance documents such as the 2010 Feed the Future Guide, 2010 

Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, focus country strategic 

reviews, the 2010 Feed the Future Multiyear Strategy Guidance, Feed the 

Future Indicator Handbook, and FTF-related agency cables. Furthermore, 

we reviewed the 2012 and 2013 Feed the Future Progress Report and 

 56See GAO, International Food Security: Insufficient Efforts by Host Governments and 

Donors Threaten Progress to Halve Hunger in Sub-Saharan Africa by 2015, GAO-08-680

(Washington, D.C.: May 29, 2008), and Global Food Security: U.S. Agencies Progressing 

on Governmentwide Strategy, but Approach Faces Several Vulnerabilities, GAO-10-352

(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 11, 2010).

57GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance and Sustain 

Collaboration among Federal Agencies, GAO-06-15 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 2005) 

and Key Considerations for Implementing Interagency Collaborative Mechanisms, 

GAO-12-1022 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 27, 2012). To identify key practices, we reviewed 

academic literature and prior GAO and Congressional Research Service reports. In 

addition, we interviewed experts in coordination, collaboration, partnerships, and networks 

such as the National Academy of Public Administration. See GAO-06-15 and 

GAO-12-1022 for additional details.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 37 GAO-13-809 Global Food Security

Feed the Future Scorecard for the most recent program monitoring 

information available.58

To determine the extent to which USAID and FTF partner agency 

representatives believe that they were implementing a whole-ofgovernment approach and country-led approach in planning and 

implementing FTF, we conducted interviews with officials in Washington, 

D.C., from USAID, Department of State (State), Millennium Challenge 

Corporation (MCC), Department of the Treasury (Treasury), Department 

of Agriculture (USDA), the Peace Corps, U.S. African Development 

Foundation (USADF), Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC), 

and the Office of Management and Budget. To obtain the views of 

USAID’s and FTF partner agencies’ in-country representatives on these 

topics, we sent a web-based survey to all representatives identified by 

their agency as key FTF personnel for the 19 FTF countries. The survey 

asked their perceptions of the whole-of-government and country-led 

approaches in the planning and implementation of FTF. The topics 

included coordination within and between U.S. agencies, coordination 

with country stakeholders, the mechanism and frequency of coordination, 

the perceived effectiveness of the coordination, and factors that may have 

helped or hindered coordination. The questionnaire and survey results 

are available in an e-supplement (GAO-13-815SP).

To identify key personnel for each country, we asked USAID to provide a 

list of all key personnel for each country, including personnel from other 

agencies. We verified the non-USAID key personnel with each relevant 

agency. Since each FTF focus country is different in terms of the 

agencies involved, the FTF programs and activities, and the levels of 

commitment from the various embassy and in-country staff, there is no 

consistent definition of what constitutes a “key” person involved in FTF; 

for that reason, the population was defined for us by the FTF agencies. 

Key personnel included mission directors, Foreign Service Officers, 

Foreign Service Nationals, and personal services contractors. The final 

list of key personnel included 551 individuals, the majority of whom were 

USAID employees (see table 8). We did not survey focus-country 

stakeholders, such as country government representatives, about the 

 58We presented 2012 performance data as reported by USAID for contextual purposes, 

and did not independently verify the data.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 38 GAO-13-809 Global Food Security

U.S. government country-led approach in the planning and 

implementation of FTF.

Table 8: Feed the Future (FTF) Survey Response Rates, by Agency

Legend: USAID = U.S. Agency for International Development; State = Department of State; USDA = U.S. 

Department of Agriculture.

Source. GAO survey.

Notes: After sending out the survey, we identified 52 key personnel who had left their post 

prior to our sending out the survey request, who told us that they did not work on FTF, 

who were U.S.-based, or who were otherwise out of scope. a

We used Response Rate 3 (RR3) as defined by the American Association for Public 

Opinion Research in Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome 

Rates for Surveys, 7th ed., 2011. Weighting accounts for the unequal agency sizes and 

response rates across agencies.

We sent the web-based survey to all 551 key personnel on May 21, 2012 

and administered the survey until August 31, 2012. To increase response 

rates, we sent several follow-up e-mails to agency officials and made 

telephone calls to nonrespondents. After sending out the survey, we 

identified 52 key personnel who had left their post prior to our sending out 

the survey request, who told us that they did not work on FTF, who were 

U.S.-based, or who were otherwise out of scope. This reduced our list of 

key personnel to 499. Overall, we achieved a weighted response rate of 

72 percent, with 342 respondents to our survey.59 Agency response rates 

are shown in table 8.

 59We used Response Rate 3 (RR3) as defined by the American Association for Public 

Opinion Research in Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome 

Rates for Surveys, 7th ed., 2011. Weighting accounts for the unequal agency sizes and 

response rates across agencies.

Total number 

identified as key 

personnel

Total number determined 

to be out of scope

Total number of 

responses

Response rate 

(percentage)a

USAID 376 28 252 74

FTF partners 175 24 90 65

State 91 13 36 54

USDA 18 3 15 100

Peace Corps 21 1 17 86

Other partners 45 7 22 64

Total 551 52 342 72
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 39 GAO-13-809 Global Food Security

Using information available to us for all survey recipients, such as 

employment status, we conducted a nonresponse bias analysis.60 The 

nonresponse bias analysis did not find any statistically measurable bias 

that would affect our analyses. Therefore, although our survey was 

intended to be a census, for the purposes of analyzing the results, we 

decided to treat our survey as a random sample. Unless otherwise noted, 

point estimates we report for 2012 have a margin of error of no more than 

plus or minus 9 percentage points at the 95 percent level of confidence.

The practical difficulties of conducting any survey may also introduce 

nonsampling errors, such as difficulties interpreting a particular question, 

which can introduce unwanted variability into the survey results. We took 

steps to minimize nonsampling errors by pretesting the questionnaire 

over the telephone with six in-country officials from USAID or FTF partner 

agencies in March and April 2012, including three from USAID (one of 

whom was a Foreign Service National) and one each from State, USDA, 

and the Peace Corps. We conducted pretests to make sure that the 

questions were clear and unbiased and that the questionnaire did not 

place an undue burden on respondents. An independent reviewer within 

GAO also reviewed a draft of the questionnaire prior to its administration. 

We made appropriate revisions to the content and format of the 

questionnaire after the pretests and independent review.

To determine the extent to which USAID has identified risks and 

documented efforts to mitigate them in the FTF multiyear strategies, we 

completed the following analyses. We focused on risk assessments 

because in reports issued in 2004 and 2007 we identified a risk

assessment as one of several key characteristics of a national strategy. 

Additionally, a risk assessment should include an analysis of the threats 

to, and vulnerabilities of, critical assets and operations.61 First, we 

 60A nonresponse bias analysis is used to verify that nonrespondents to the survey would 

not answer differently from those who did respond and that the respondents are 

representative of the target population, thus ensuring that the results can be generalized 

to the population from which the sample was chosen.

61See GAO, Combating Terrorism: Evaluation of Selected Characteristics in National 

Strategies Related to Terrorism, GAO-04-408T (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 3, 2004); 

Influenza Pandemic: Further Efforts Are Needed to Ensure Clearer Federal Leadership 

Roles and an Effective National Strategy, GAO-07-781 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 14, 

2007). Risk assessment as a key characteristic of a national strategy was identified by 

reviewing the Homeland Security Act of 2002, as well as other legislation, presidential 

directives, and GAO and policy research organization publications.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 40 GAO-13-809 Global Food Security

reviewed and analyzed the multiyear strategies for all 19 FTF countries to 

identify those strategies that had a section dedicated to listing and 

describing “risks” to the FTF program. We found that 7 of the 19 

strategies had specific risk sections. Second, we conducted an analysis 

on the types of risks found in the 7 strategies with specific risk sections. 

We found that a total of 44 risks were listed in these strategies and coded 

them according to whether they pertained to the key stakeholders in 

country (host governments, in-country for-profit sector, in-country 

nonprofit sector, and other donors) or whether they pertained to other, 

broader risks, such as natural resources or market conditions. We did this 

to determine the number of risks that pertain to key stakeholders because 

FTF considers these groups essential to implementing the country-led 

approach. Of the 44 risks, 25 pertained to key stakeholders and 19 

pertained to other, broader risks. For each of the 44 risks, we looked for a 

mitigation strategy that was directly tied to the listed risk. We recognize 

that, in some instances, other sections of the report described steps that 

U.S. agencies could take to address the risks to some degree. However, 

our purpose was not to assess the actions the U.S. government was 

taking to address risks, but to determine whether it was following a 

systematic risk assessment process. We found that 21 of the 44 risks had 

mitigation strategies and 23 did not. Third, for the 12 strategies without 

specific risk sections, we reviewed other sections in the reports listing and 

examining concepts related to risk, such as “challenges,” “barriers,” 

“limitations,” or “concerns.” We also reviewed the strategies to determine 

whether they included a section referred to as “Development Challenges 

and Opportunities,” as required by USAID’s FTF multiyear strategy 

guidance. In addition, we determined whether each strategy included any 

challenges related to key stakeholders (host governments, in-country forprofit sector, in-country nonprofit sector, and other donors), who are

central to FTF’s country-led approach. We found an example of these key 

stakeholder issues in each of the 12 strategies. To perform these 

analyses, two analysts independently reviewed all 19 multiyear strategies, 

identified the risks or related issues, and coded the risks or issues 

according to whether they pertained to key stakeholders. The analysts 

worked iteratively, comparing notes and reconciling differences at each 

stage of the analysis. In addition, the final analysis was reviewed by other 

GAO staff independent of the two analysts, and modifications were made 

as appropriate.

To identify the amount of funding provided to FTF, we obtained and 

analyzed allocations and disbursement data for FTF and FTF-related 

programs such as USAID Title II Food for Peace and USDA McGovernDole Food for Education for fiscal years 2010 through 2013 as of March 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 41 GAO-13-809 Global Food Security

31, 2013, for each agency. The information reported as allocations and 

disbursements was provided to us by the agencies. We use the term 

“allocations” to refer to funds the agencies reported that they directed to 

FTF. We did not independently assess the amounts agencies reported as 

allocations and disbursements. We also did not assess the extent to 

which the funds directed to FTF have been obligated. The agencies 

reported some differences in the ways that they provided data on 

allocations and disbursements for FTF, which we list as notes in table 2. 

We interviewed the agencies about the data and determined they were 

sufficient for background purposes in our report.

We conducted this performance audit from March 2013 to September 

2013 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.
Appendix II: Other U.S. Global Food Security 

Programs Related to Feed the Future

Page 42 GAO-13-809 Global Food Security

The Feed the Future (FTF) initiative incorporates other U.S. assistance 

programs related to global food security that are implemented by the U.S. 

Agency for International Development, the Department of the Treasury, 

and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Each of these other 

programs addresses global food security and other development 

challenges, as described in table 9.

Table 9: Other U.S. Global Food Security Programs Related to the Feed the Future (FTF) Initiative

FTF-related program Description

U.S. Agency for International Development

Food for Peace Title II Development Food 

Assistance

The Title II development assistance includes the donation of commodities to meet 

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

development purposes, including food security goals.

Nutrition (Global Health Programs) These programs provide technical leadership and direction in nutrition and food security 

with a focus on infant and young child nutrition, micronutrient supplementation, food 

fortification, and developing innovative products to improve diet quality for sustainable 

nutrition.

Millennium Challenge Corporation

Food Security Investments These programs include the development of irrigation systems in Burkina Faso, livestock 

and land and water resource management in Mongolia, fruit tree and fisheries sector 

development in Morocco, Coconut sector development in Mozambique, rangeland and 

livestock management and indigenous natural product sector development in Namibia, 

and feed and market roads rehabilitation and construction in Tanzania.

Department of the Treasury

International Fund for Agricultural 

Development

Through this specialized agency of the United Nations, the Department of the Treasury, 

along with other international donors, invests in agricultural development, including rural 

development and policy reform.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)

McGovern-Dole Food for Education This program donates U.S. agricultural commodities and financial and technical 

assistance for school feeding and maternal and child nutrition projects in low-income, 

food-insecure countries committed to universal education.

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

countries and emerging democracies committed to introducing and expanding free 

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

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

Local and Regional Procurement Pilot 

Project

This pilot program purchased local and regional food products to help meet 

nonemergency food needs in developing countries during fiscal years 2008 through 

2012. One program objective was to provide a basis for determining the efficacy and 

impact of local and regional procurement of food aid.

Food Aid Nutrition Enhancement 

Competitive Grants 

This program provides grants for improving the nutritional content, product composition, 

packaging, and other components of food products delivered through humanitarian 

assistance program to enhance the short- and long-term health of individuals, especially 

infants and young children.

Cochran Fellowship This program provides participants from middle-income countries, emerging markets, and 

emerging democracies with high-quality training to improve their local agricultural 

systems and strengthen and enhance trade links.

Appendix II: Other U.S. Global Food Security 

Programs Related to Feed the Future
Appendix II: Other U.S. Global Food Security 

Programs Related to Feed the Future

Page 43 GAO-13-809 Global Food Security

FTF-related program Description

Norman E. Borlaug International 

Agricultural Science and Technology 

Fellowship

This program promotes food security and economic growth by providing research and 

training opportunities for scientists and policymakers from developing and middle-income 

countries. USDA partners with U.S. land grant universities, international research 

centers, and other institutions to provide up to 12 weeks of U.S.-based training for 

Borlaug Fellows each year.

Source: GAO analysis of agency documents.
Appendix III: Illustrative Example of USAID 

Representatives’ Reported Coordination with 

Feed the Future Partner Agencies in One 

Country

Page 44 GAO-13-809 Global Food Security

Figure 3 presents an illustrative example of U.S. Agency for International 

Development (USAID) representatives’ reported coordination with Feed 

the Future (FTF) partner agencies in one country. We selected this 

country because (1) the number of USAID staff working on FTF 

represented the average for the 19 countries and (2) the country had a 

very high response rate to the survey. In this example, the USAID staff 

members are organized by the Mission Director and Deputy Director, 

Foreign Service Officers, Personal Services Contractors, and Foreign 

Service Nationals. For the diagram, we used generic rather than specific 

job titles for the USAID staff to ensure confidentiality. In addition, to 

simplify the example, we combined information we received from several 

survey respondents who reported similar or miscellaneous titles.

Appendix III: Illustrative Example of USAID 

Representatives’ Reported Coordination with 

Feed the Future Partner Agencies in One 

Country
Appendix III: Illustrative Example of USAID 

Representatives’ Reported Coordination with 

Feed the Future Partner Agencies in One 

Country

Page 45 GAO-13-809 Global Food Security

Figure 3: Illustrative Example of USAID’s Reported Coordination with Feed the 

Future (FTF) Partner Agencies in One Mission

Notes: USAID staff reporting similar positions were combined in this chart. Staff reporting 

miscellaneous positions were listed as “Other staff.” Regional USAID staff were not included in this 

chart. The “Partner Agencies” are ordered by the number of USAID staff that reported coordinating 

with them. The named staff positions within each partner agency are ordered by the number of 

USAID staff that reported coordinating with them, except for “Other staff,” who are always placed at 

the bottom of every category.
Appendix IV: Multiple Regression Analysis of 

Survey Results to Identify Predictors of 

Perceived Effectiveness of Coordination

Page 46 GAO-13-809 Global Food Security

In analyzing the results of our survey of several hundred U.S. 

representatives with duties related to the Feed the Future (FTF) initiative 

in 19 focus countries, we explored whether certain factors could help 

explain differences in how U.S. representatives perceived coordination 

related to FTF. To what extent were such factors as the U.S. 

representatives’ different agencies, roles, and positions predictive of 

differences in their perceptions of FTF coordination? To answer that 

question, we used data from a series of questions in which the U.S. 

representatives assessed the effectiveness of their coordination in 

accomplishing eight specific actions, such as developing or contributing to 

integrated FTF program documents.62 Depending on how many agencies 

the representatives reported coordinating with, the questions were 

presented up to five times to obtain perceptions of the effectiveness of 

their coordination with representatives in their own and other agencies.63

We constructed a scale from responses to all coordination effectiveness 

questions, allocating each representative a point for each action for which 

they viewed their coordination as “very effective” or “somewhat effective.” 

Thus, the maximum score was 40 points for representatives who 

answered the questions five times and each time rated their coordination 

as very or somewhat effective for all eight actions; on average each 

respondent rated 8.5 activities as very or somewhat effective.64

In analyzing the raw scores on the coordination effectiveness scale, we 

found marked differences among representatives when we grouped and 

compared them by different tenures in their jobs, different agencies, and 

 62The other seven actions were integrating FTF program or project planning with other 

U.S. foreign assistance programs; sharing observations or information obtained through 

meetings with host government officials; sharing observations or information obtained 

through meetings with other stakeholders; making progress on needed policy reforms in 

host country; identifying donors and partners; developing joint or compatible procedures or 

processes for FTF activities (e.g., action plans, donor coordination procedures, etc); and 

developing joint communication plans, reports and/or cables. Additionally, the survey 

asked about “other actions” that were affected by coordination, but these were not 

included in our measure.

63Representatives were presented with the same series of questions about effectiveness 

of coordination for each of four agencies—the USAID, State, USDA, and the Peace 

Corps. The series of questions was also presented to elicit responses regarding 

coordination with FTF staff from all other agencies at the representative’s post.

64To test the reliability of the scale, we examined Cronbach’s alpha, a measure of whether 

the variation in the scale captures the majority of the variation in the underlying items. Our 

scale had a Cronbach’s alpha of .95, which meets professionally accepted standards for 

the reliability of a scale.

Appendix IV: Multiple Regression Analysis of 

Survey Results to Identify Predictors of 

Perceived Effectiveness of Coordination
Appendix IV: Multiple Regression Analysis of 

Survey Results to Identify Predictors of 

Perceived Effectiveness of Coordination

Page 47 GAO-13-809 Global Food Security

different amounts of time on FTF activities. For example, representatives 

who reported spending very little of their time on FTF activities viewed 

their coordination as effective in accomplishing an average of 4 actions, 

compared with an average of 9 for representatives who reported 

spending most of their time on FTF activities. Similarly, Department of 

State (State) representatives on average viewed their coordination as 

effective for about 12 actions, compared with an average of 8 for 

nonregional representatives of the lead FTF agency, the U.S. Agency for 

International Development (USAID).

We used regression analysis to assess whether such differences in 

perceptions of effectiveness across representatives as measured by our 

scale persisted after controlling for other factors, such as different roles, 

positions, and opportunities to engage in the actions specified in the 

coordination effectiveness questions. Regression analysis allowed us to 

assess the unique association between our outcome variable and a given 

predictor variable,65 while controlling for multiple other predictor variables. 

In our ordinary least squares (OLS) regression model, we controlled for a 

variety of demographic factors that might have an impact on perceptions 

of effectiveness, including representatives’ agency (USAID, State, the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Peace Corps, and all other partner 

agencies); their tenure (less than a year, a year to less than 2 years, and 

2 years or more); their employment status (Foreign Service 

Officers/Foreign Service Officers Limited, Foreign Service Nationals, and 

all others including contractors); the amount of time spent on FTF 

activities (very little, some or about half, and most or all); the number of 

entities the representative reported coordinating with; and, for USAID 

representatives, whether the representative was considered a regional 

representative. Additionally, we also examined whether the representative 

reported coordinating with USAID (or other USAID representatives) and 

how many USAID staff they coordinated with. Finally, we used 

information from previous GAO research to identify certain factors that 

potentially affect coordination. For example, we included indicators for 

whether representatives felt that specific factors helped or hindered 

 65The outcome variable is also referred to as the dependent variable, and predictor 

variables are also referred to as independent variables.
Appendix IV: Multiple Regression Analysis of 

Survey Results to Identify Predictors of 

Perceived Effectiveness of Coordination

Page 48 GAO-13-809 Global Food Security

coordination overall, including funding, staffing levels, clarity of roles and 

responsibilities, and the compatibility of performance measures.66

Our regression model identified several factors that had statistically 

significant associations with representatives’ perceptions of the 

effectiveness of their coordination, after controlling for other factors.67

Notably, State representatives, representatives with intermediate job 

tenure, and representatives who reported spending some to half their 

time on FTF activities had mean scores on the coordination effectiveness 

scale that were significantly higher than, respectively, USAID 

representatives, representatives with less job tenure, and representatives 

who spent less time on FTF. Additionally, we found that on average, 

representatives who felt, respectively, that staffing levels at their 

agencies, clarity of roles and responsibilities, and compatibility of 

performance measures and representatives helped with coordination also 

had significantly higher mean scores on the coordination effectiveness 

scale than those who felt these factors had no effect or had no opinion on 

them. After controlling for other factors, we did not find a significant 

association between representatives’ perceptions of coordination 

effectiveness and their employment status (Foreign Service 

Officer/Foreign Service Officer Limited, Foreign Service National or 

Locally Employed Staff, and Personal Services Contractor/Others) 

regional status (for USAID representatives), or views on whether the 

amount of funding helped or hindered coordination activities. Table 10 

presents the categorical predictor variables in the regression model 

 66These indicators were derived from the Q32 question series, which asks representatives 

to rate field-based coordination among all US government representatives, and 

specifically whether certain factors such as communication, funding or staffing have 

helped or hindered coordination. 

67The associations are identified by regression coefficients, which are considered to be 

statistically significant at the p ≤.05 level. This indicates that there is a 5 percent or lower 

chance that a coefficient would be as large as it is if there were no relationship between 

the variable and the outcome variable. Because it is possible that the failure to identify 

significant coefficients is partly a function of the relatively small sample size (327 

observations with full data in the regression), we also examined several variables that 

were consistently significant across models at the p ≤.10 level, and note that these 

variables are not significant at traditional levels.
Appendix IV: Multiple Regression Analysis of 

Survey Results to Identify Predictors of 

Perceived Effectiveness of Coordination

Page 49 GAO-13-809 Global Food Security

variables for which statistically significant associations were found with 

the outcome variable.68

Table 10: Categorical Variables in the Regression Model for Which at Least One Respondent Group Had a Significantly Higher 

Mean Number of Actions for Which Coordination Was Effective

Factor

Respondent group for which 

regression coefficient was 

statistically significanta Reference respondent group 

for comparison

Other respondent groups for 

which regression coefficient 

was not statistically 

significant

Agency State USAID nonregional USAID regional, USDA, and all 

other agencies

Tenure More than 1 year to 2 years 1 year or less More than 2 years

Time spent on Feed the Future 

(FTF) activities

Combined: Some of my time / 

About half of my time

Very little of my time Most of my time / All of my timeb

Clarity on roles and 

responsibilities

Clarity helped No effect / No opinion Clarity hindered

Staffing levels in the field at own 

agency

Staffing levels helped No effect / No opinion Staffing levels hindered

Compatibility of performance 

goals and measures

Compatibility helped No effect / No opinion Compatibility hindered

Legend: State = Department of State; USAID = U.S. Agency for International Development; USDA = 

U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Source: GAO survey.

Notes:

a

Coefficients for these response groups were considered to be statistically significant at the p ≤ .05 

level. This indicates that there is a 5 percent or lower chance that a coefficient would be as large as it 

is if there were no relationship between the variable and the outcome variable.

b

This variable was positively associated with the number of activities seen as effective at the p ≤ .10 

level.

In developing our final model, we tested multiple versions of our model to 

evaluate the functional form of the relationships it specified and to ensure 

that the results were robust across specifications. We included core 

demographic variables in all models under consideration, including 

tenure, time spent on FTF, employment status, agency, and the number 

of entities the representative reported coordinating with. We tested 

additional predictor variables that surfaced as potentially important 

through our research, but decided against including in our final model all 

 68The one continuous predictor variable in the model also showed a statistically significant 

association with the outcome variable: the number of USAID representatives that each 

survey respondent reported coordinating with.
Appendix IV: Multiple Regression Analysis of 

Survey Results to Identify Predictors of 

Perceived Effectiveness of Coordination

Page 50 GAO-13-809 Global Food Security

non-significant variables tested because of the limited number of 

representatives responding to our survey.69 Conversely, in some cases, 

we included in our final model several variables that were important 

controls or theoretically important but did not rise to the level of statistical 

significance. Most notably, because our outcome variable is constrained 

by the number of the five different agencies that each representative 

reported working with, all models included a control for this factor.70

We conducted a variety of other tests to check for high leverage outliers, 

model fit, and other issues. We did not find evidence of consistently high 

leverage points or outliers that appeared to have undue influence on our 

coefficients or model variance. We also checked across a variety of 

specifications, including different variables and functional forms, to ensure 

that the final model results were fairly stable across specifications in 

terms of the substantive and statistical significance of the coefficients (in 

terms of direction, magnitude, and significance). For example, because 

our outcome variable is highly skewed, we tested our model using 

different functional forms (including a logged outcome variable and a 

Poisson count model) to ensure that the interpretation of the results was 

consistent with our final model using OLS. We decided to use an OLS 

specification despite the skew in the outcome variable for several 

reasons, including the consistency of interpretation with the alternative 

models tested, the relative robustness of OLS to violations of functional 

forms, and the ease of interpreting the regression coefficients. Our final 

model had an R2 of 0.398, suggesting that the predictor variables 

predicted approximately 40 percent of the variation in the outcome 

variable.

 69This included, for example, additional questions from the q32 question series. We 

checked for stability of coefficients and degradation of fit by comparing model R2 statistics 

before and after to drop variables that were not statistically significant. 

70Our final model treats the variable as categorical, to allow for different effects at different 

levels of coordination with other agencies. No individual category in our model was 

statistically significant compared with those who did not report coordinating with any other 

entities. Results from the final model were also generally consistent with a version of the 

model that included a categorical variable of the number of activities (out of the 40 

possible in the dependent variable) for which each respondent reported a positive or 

negative opinion. 
Appendix V: Feed the Future Partner Agencies’ 

Approaches to Country-Led Program 

Implementation

Page 51 GAO-13-809 Global Food Security

The country-led approaches to implementing food security programs by 

Feed the Future (FTF) partner agencies vary according to particular 

agency mandates and agency roles in FTF. The following examples 

illustrate the variation in approaches by the Millennium Challenge 

Corporation (MCC), the Peace Corps, the U.S. Department of State

(State), the U.S. Department of the Treasury (Treasury), the U.S. African 

Development Foundation (USADF), and the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (USDA).

• MCC: MCC has been using the country ownership approach to 

development since its inception in 2004. MCC provides assistance to 

eligible countries through multiyear compact agreements including 

agriculture-related investments. Partner country governments are 

responsible for the implementation of MCC compacts, including 

initiating a meaningful consultative process with the country’s civil 

society, nongovernmental organization, and private sector 

stakeholders, as well as a broad range of government stakeholders.

• Peace Corps: Peace Corps officials described their approach to 

country ownership as working with partner countries from the national 

level down to the community level and engaging their volunteers in 

projects that are supported by host country governments. In addition, 

each project has a Project Advisory Committee that contributes to the 

design and evaluation of the project and includes at least one 

representative from the government and local community.

• State: State was the lead agency for Feed the Future from 2009 to 

2010 and led the development of the FTF Guide, which described the 

FTF country-led approach. State officials have promoted stakeholder 

consultations around the development of country investment plans 

and have also helped facilitate greater civil society and private sector 

involvement in FTF.

• Treasury: Treasury officials work with the World Bank’s multidonor 

trust fund Global Agriculture and Food Security Program (GAFSP) 

and have made efforts to align GAFSP and FTF’s country-led 

approaches. Treasury assisted in the development of the selection 

criteria for GAFSP funding which includes an assessment of the 

country’s policy environment as well as evidence of consultations with 

local stakeholders.

• USADF: USADF provides grants of up to $250,000 to the most 

vulnerable communities in Africa and these grants fund projects that 

are led by staff of local technical partners that engage community 

groups in the project’s design and implementation.

• USDA: USDA seeks to align its resources with country investment 

plans where it concentrates its food security investments. USDA 

particularly focuses on ensuring that the private sector is included in 

Appendix V: Feed the Future Partner 

Agencies’ Approaches to Country-Led 

Program Implementation
Appendix V: Feed the Future Partner Agencies’ 

Approaches to Country-Led Program 

Implementation

Page 52 GAO-13-809 Global Food Security

food security consultations and works directly with host government 

officials and local universities and civil society.
Appendix VI: Comments from the U.S. Agency 

for International Development

Page 53 GAO-13-809 Global Food Security

Appendix VI: Comments from the U.S. 

Agency for International Development

GAO received USAID 

letter on September 5, 

2013.
Appendix VI: Comments from the U.S. Agency 

for International Development

Page 54 GAO-13-809 Global Food Security
Appendix VI: Comments from the U.S. Agency 

for International Development

Page 55 GAO-13-809 Global Food Security
Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 56 GAO-13-809 Global Food Security

Thomas Melito, (202) 512-9601 or melitot@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Cheryl Goodman (Assistant 

Director), Farahnaaz Khakoo-Mausel, Rachel Dunsmoor, Paige 

Muegenburg, Sushmita Srikanth, Michele Wong, Martin De Alteriis, 

Cynthia Grant, Jill Lacey, Justin Fisher, David Dornisch, Anna Maria 

Ortiz, Catherine Hurley, Mark Dowling, Grace Lui, Sarah Veale, Mallory 

Bulman, David Dayton, David Hancock, Justine Lazaro, and Etana Finkler 

made key contributions to this report. 

Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(320969)
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.