Foreign Assistance: Enhanced Coordination and Better Methods to Assess the Results of U.S. International Basic Education Efforts Are Needed
Published: 2007-03-30T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Pub. L. No. 109-102, section 567, mandated that GAO analyze U.S. international basic education efforts overseas. In this report, GAO (1) describes U.S. agencies' basic education activities and how the agencies plan them; (2) examines U.S. coordination of basic education efforts among U.S. agencies, and with host governments and international donors; and (3) examines how U.S. agencies assess the results of their basic education programs. In conducting this work, GAO obtained and analyzed relevant agencies' documents and met with U.S. and foreign government officials and nongovernmental organizations, traveling to selected recipient countries.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Several U.S. agencies--the Departments of Agriculture (USDA), Defense (DOD), Labor (DOL), and State, as well as the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and the Peace Corps--support basic education activities overseas. State and USAID have strategic goals specific to promoting improved education. Several other U.S. agencies support basic education-related activities as part of programs that address their broader mission goals. For example, DOL supports alternative school programs as a way to remove children from exploitative work, USDA provides school meals or take-home rations to students, and DOD constructs dormitories and schools to provide better access for children who have to travel long distances to attend classes. GAO found that agencies did not always coordinate in the planning or delivery of basic education-related activities. From 2001 to 2006, there was no government-wide mechanism to facilitate interagency collaboration and, as a result, GAO identified instances where agencies missed opportunities to collaborate and maximize U.S. resources. In addition, GAO found that the level of U.S. coordination with host governments and other donors in the eight visited countries varied. Without effective coordination, donors cannot easily monitor or assess the host government's progress toward achieving international goals, such as Education for All by 2015, one of State-USAID's strategic goals. While U.S. agencies GAO reviewed conduct basic education-related programs to achieve different goals, most collect and use output measures, such as the numbers of schools built or children enrolled, to assess and report on results. USAID is the only agency with an education-specific goal of increasing access to quality basic education. However, in many instances, USAID faces challenges in collecting valid and reliable data needed to measure improvements in education quality. Without this information, agency officials cannot fully determine if the programs are achieving their strategic goals.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Education contributes to the advancement of developmental goals  worldwide as it impacts individual development, economic growth, poverty  reduction, and democratic governance. According to the United Nations  Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the  international community has made progress in expanding access to basic  education in the past 10 years in every region of the world. However, in  2004, more than 77 million children worldwide, particularly those who live  in rural areas and come from poor households, did not attend school. In  addition, almost 780 million adults—one in five worldwide—two-thirds of  whom are women, lack minimum literacy skills. In some countries,  improved access to basic education has been achieved through increasing  student to teacher ratios—a factor that can negatively impact the quality of  education. According to the United States Agency for International  Development (USAID), poor educational quality causes many children to  repeat grades and eventually drop out of school, often before gaining basic  education skills such as numeracy and literacy.
Several U.S. agencies, primarily USAID, fund and implement basic  education-related programs overseas, using nongovernmental  organizations (NGOs), private organizations, and education service  providers (such as universities) to implement the programs in country.  These efforts include programs aimed at improving primary education,  secondary education, literacy training for adults or out-of-school  adolescents, early childhood development, or training for teachers at any of  these levels. From fiscal years 2001 through 2006, USAID, the Departments  of State (State) and Defense (DOD), and the Millennium Challenge  Corporation (MCC) allocated more than $2.2 billion to support U.S.  international basic education-related efforts. During this same period, the  Departments of Agriculture (USDA) and Labor (DOL) allocated an  estimated more than $1 billion to programs that included basic education  as a component, along with support to other related aspects such as  providing food to maternal health centers and providing job training for  older children to combat child labor.
As mandated in Pub. L. No. 109-102, section 567, this report provides an  analysis of U.S.-funded international basic education programs.  Specifically, this report (1) describes U.S. agencies’ basic education  activities and how the agencies plan these activities; (2) examines U.S.  coordination of basic education efforts among U.S. agencies, and with host  governments and international donors; and (3) examines how U.S. agencies  assess the results of their basic education programs.
In conducting our work, we analyzed strategic, budget, and programmatic  documents describing U.S. international basic education programs and  activities provided by State, USAID, USDA, DOD, DOL, the MCC, and the  Peace Corps that covered fiscal years 2001 through 2006. In addition, we  conducted audit work in Washington, D.C., as well as the Dominican  Republic, Egypt, Honduras, Liberia, Mali, Morocco, Peru, South Africa,  and Zambia. We selected a nonprobability sample of foreign countries  designed to ensure geographic diversity and representation of basic  education programs from multiple U.S. agencies and international donors.  We met with representatives from State, USAID, USDA, DOD, DOL, the  MCC, and the Peace Corps; officials representing embassies and USAID  missions in the countries visited; officials administering international basic  education programs; and officials from foreign governments, NGOs, the  United Nations (UN), and other international organizations. Furthermore,  to assess U.S. mechanisms for monitoring U.S. activities, we analyzed key  project agreement documents, performance reports, and evaluations for 40  ongoing basic education projects in the eight countries visited. We  performed our work from December 2005 through March 2007 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Appendix I provides a more detailed description of our scope and  methodology.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Basic education is defined in this report as all program efforts aimed at  improving early childhood development, primary education, and secondary  education, as well as training in literacy, numeracy, and other basic skills  for adults or out-of-school youth. Basic education also includes efforts that  facilitate and support such learning activities, including building host  countries’ institutional capacity to manage basic education systems and  measure results, constructing and rehabilitating schools, training teachers,  increasing parent and community involvement in schools, providing  learning materials, and developing curricula.
Education for All is a major goal of the international donor community. At  Jomtien, Thailand, in March 1990, representatives of the global education  community held the “World Conference on Education for All” and declared  universal access to education as a fundamental right of all people. In April  2000, the “World Education Forum” met in Dakar, Senegal, where  delegates from 181 nations adopted a framework for action committing  their governments to achieve quality basic education for all—including  ensuring that by 2015, all children--especially girls, children in difficult  circumstances, and those from ethnic minorities--have access to  completely free primary education of good quality. The framework  committed these nations to the attainment of six specific goals dealing with  early childhood education, universal primary education, life-skills  programs, adult literacy, gender disparities, and quality assurance. The  United States supports this international commitment, as well as the UN’s  Millennium Development Goal—to achieve universal completion of  primary school by 2015.
subsections: section_title: U.S. Agencies Fund International Basic Education-Related Programs
paragraphs: From fiscal years 2001 through 2006, USAID, State, DOD, and MCC  allocated more than $2.2 billion to support U.S. international basic  education-related efforts. See table 1 for these agencies’ funding  allocations specifically for basic education-related programs.
During this same period, USDA and DOL allocated an estimated more than  $1 billion to programs that included a basic education component that  supported their broader mission goals. For example, funding for USDA’s  Food for Education program includes basic education activities along with  other components, such as providing maternal health centers. Similarly,  DOL’s funding for its programs to combat child labor combines basic  education-related efforts and other activities, such as job training for older  children and income generation opportunities for parents. In addition, the  Peace Corps could not identify funding levels specific to basic education  because it does not track funding by individual program sectors, rather by  overall country programs. This is because volunteers sometimes  implement projects in multiple program sectors. Furthermore, other than  USAID, U.S. agencies do not have a standard, government-wide, formal  definition of basic education or a requirement to report their funding of  international basic education activities to a central U.S. government  source. See table 2 for these agencies’ funding allocations for programs  with international basic education-related components.
See appendix II for the countries receiving basic education-related  assistance by implementing U.S. agency in fiscal year 2006.
subsections: section_title: USAID Funded the Vast Majority of International Basic Education Programs
paragraphs: From fiscal years 2001 through 2006, USAID funded the majority of U.S.  international basic education programs, allocating more than $2.1 billion to  implement programs in about 60 countries worldwide. USAID used  appropriated funds designated by Congress for basic education and other  supplemental appropriations. In addition to the congressionally  designated basic education funds, USAID used other appropriated funds,  including supplemental appropriations and funding for MEPI activities, to  fund basic education activities abroad. By region, Asia and the Near East  received the highest level of USAID’s allocated basic education funds at  approximately $1 billion, followed by Africa at almost $750 million, Latin  America and the Caribbean at around $272 million, and Europe and Eurasia  at about $51 million. See figure 1 for a map of the 60 recipient countries of  USAID’s basic education funding, ranked by total basic education  allocations from fiscal years 2001 through 2006.
section_title: Special Initiatives Related to International Basic Education
paragraphs: Since fiscal year 2001, the United States has launched several major  education initiatives that direct missions to focus on specific types of basic  education activities in certain regions, such as Africa, Latin America and  the Caribbean, and the Middle East, to address educational challenges in  those regions. Figure 2 summarizes these initiatives.
section_title: State and USAID Recently Developed Strategic Planning Goals Relating to Basic Education; Other Agencies Support Basic Education- Related Activities to Achieve Agency- Specific Mission Goals
paragraphs: The State and USAID joint strategic plan for fiscal years 2004 to 2009  includes the broad goal of improving education globally, with a particular  focus on the Muslim world, as well as support for programs to achieve the  United Nations’ Millennium Declaration Goal of universal primary  education by 2015. State and USAID have implemented basic education  activities that align with these goals. Several other U.S. agencies support  activities that directly or indirectly relate to increasing access to or  improving the quality of international basic education.
subsections: section_title: State and USAID Strategic Plan Includes Broad Education Goals
paragraphs: State and USAID have strategic goals specific to promoting improved  education. Although State and USAID have supported assistance activities  relating to education for decades, neither agency had agency-wide  strategies to guide these activities until early 2000. Moreover, State’s  September 2000 strategic plan only included references to improving  education as part of the broader goal of promoting broad-based growth in  developing and transitioning economies to raise standards of living, reduce  poverty, and lessen disparities of wealth within and among countries. The  State and USAID joint Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2004 to 2009,  includes, for the first time for these agencies, education as a strategic goal.  According to the strategic plan, State and USAID will promote improved  education globally, with a particular focus on the Muslim world, as well as  support the development goals of the UN’s Millennium Declaration call for  universal primary education by 2015. Working toward this UN goal, the plan  calls for State and USAID to support programs that do the following:  Promote equal access to quality basic education. The strategy says that  State and USAID would assist and encourage countries to improve their  education policies, institutions, and practices in the classroom; give  families and communities a stronger role in educational decision  making; and focus their efforts on reducing barriers to education for  girls.
Implement international education commitments. The strategy also  states that both agencies will work with donor partners to implement  the commitments made at the 2000 World Educational Forum in Dakar,  the G–8 Summits at Genoa and Kananaskis, and at the UN Conference  on Financing for Development in Monterrey. In addition, the agencies  are to help developing countries build their capacity to achieve the  global Education for All initiative.
section_title: State and USAID Have Implemented Basic Education Activities That Align with Their Strategic Plans
paragraphs: Consistent with the joint strategic plan’s education goals, State has  implemented programs, mainly through MEPI, to target basic education in  North Africa and the Middle East. As the largest provider of U.S. basic  education assistance, USAID also supports activities that align with the  joint strategic plan, as well as its 2005 education strategy that focuses on  improving:  (1) access to education, (2) quality of education, and (3) host  governments’ capacity to manage education efforts. In addition, USAID has  allocated resources toward strategically important countries, as noted in  both strategy documents.
subsections: section_title: State’s Programs Target the Middle East and Muslim Countries
paragraphs: State generally supports education programs that align with the agency’s  broader foreign policy objectives such as promoting democracy and reform  in the Muslim world. Primarily through MEPI, the agency supports  international basic education activities aimed at increasing access to basic  education, especially for girls and women, and improving the quality of  basic education through teacher training, curriculum development, and  community involvement in North African and Middle Eastern countries and  territories. For example, through MEPI, State’s Bureau of Near Eastern  Affairs supports a “scholarships for success” program in Morocco to  increase access to secondary schools for girls living in remote rural  communities through the creation of girls’ dormitories (see fig. 3). As an  initiative directed by the administration, MEPI allocates resources for basic  education programs in North African and Middle Eastern countries and  territories. Under MEPI, basic education funds are allocated for country-  specific and regional programs based on information from U.S. embassies  and other U.S. agencies with regional programs that can identify areas of  need, and through conversations with host governments. Between fiscal  years 2001 and 2006, the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs allocated about  $35 million in MEPI funding for 23 basic education-related projects in 11  North African and Middle Eastern countries and territories. In addition to  MEPI, during the same period, State’s Bureau of Educational and Cultural  Affairs funded one basic education project that allocated, in Indonesia, a  total of $2.4 million in fiscal years 2004 and 2005 to fund multiyear  scholarships for Indonesian teachers at the secondary and university level  to study education in the United States.
In the eight countries we visited, we found that USAID implemented  programs that targeted the agencies’ emphasized population of primary- level students and girls and aligned with its three main strategic objectives.  USAID’s resource allocations of top recipients of basic education funding  from fiscal years 2001 through 2006 show consistency with U.S. priorities  placed on strategic partner countries.
USAID Programs Support Education Strategy Prior to 2005, USAID did not have an agency-wide education strategy and  its education programming was generally guided over time by several  agency strategies, policies, and operational directives. In April 2005, USAID  issued an education strategy that prioritizes the broad education objective  of increasing equitable access to quality education, with the more specific  focuses on primary education and girls’ education. The strategy directs that  USAID focus on (1) increasing access to basic education, (2) improving the  quality of basic education, and (3) building the institutional capacity of the  host countries’ basic education systems. This strategy also supports the  broader State and USAID strategic goals of improving education globally  with a particular emphasis on the Muslim world, as it emphasizes the  importance of education in strategic countries, as well as implementing  international education commitments, such as the Education for All by  2015 initiative.
In the eight countries we visited, we found that USAID generally  implemented programs that aligned with its three main strategic objectives  and targeted the agencies’ emphasized population of primary-level students  and girls. According to USAID, as a matter of policy, USAID’s efforts focus  on increasing children’s access to quality primary education because the  quality and accessibility of primary education plays a critical role in  determining whether children gain core skills, such as literacy and  numeracy, and have a chance to gain further education. In addition,  USAID has a special focus on girls’ education. Missions engaged in basic  education are required to assess the extent of educational disadvantage  faced by girls at the primary level in the host country and take further steps  where this disadvantage is found to be significant. Seven of the eight  missions we visited implemented projects to increase access and improve  the quality of basic education for primary-school youth. However, USAID  also recognizes the need for missions to have flexibility in planning and  implementing programs, and taking into account both the conditions of the  particular host countries and the activities of other donors in the country.  For example, while the mission in Morocco continued to focus on girls’  education, its basic education assistance shifted more toward middle  schools, since the mission determined that high dropout rates among  primary-school students were often due to the lack of access to quality  secondary schools where those students would have continued with their  education and because other donors were already investing significant  resources into primary education in the country.
Following are details about USAID’s programs to support its three strategic  goals: (1) increasing access to basic education, (2) improving the quality of  basic education, and (3) building the institutional capacity of the host  countries’ basic education systems.
Access:  To increase access to basic education, USAID supports a wide  range of programs, such as distance learning, girls’ scholarships, and  school construction, that increase the number of boys and girls who  enter and remain in school, particularly underserved populations such  as girls, the poor, children in rural areas, and out-of-school youth. To  increase access, the agency often uses distance learning tools, such as  radio, television, and other information and communication  technologies, to deliver quality educational content to populations not  accommodated by the traditional school system. Agency efforts to  increase access to basic education also include, among other things,  construction and rehabilitation of school facilities, girls’ scholarships,  and adult literacy programs. In six of the eight countries we visited  (Egypt, Honduras, South Africa, Mali, Morocco, and Zambia), we found  that missions implemented programs in support of this strategic goal.  For example, in Egypt, Honduras, South Africa, and Zambia, USAID  used distance learning programs, such as prerecorded lessons, to  deliver educational content to preprimary, primary, and secondary  school youth--particularly girls, children from rural areas, and poor  children. In Egypt, Mali, Morocco, South Africa, and Zambia, USAID  implemented scholarship programs for girls, while the mission in Egypt  also supported the construction of primary schools to increase access  and enrollment of girls in underserved communities. See figure 4 for an  example of a USAID program aimed at increasing education access.
Quality:  USAID also implements a wide array of programs to improve  education quality. These programs are generally designed to improve  teachers’ subject matter knowledge and pedagogical skills, ensure the  curriculum includes specific knowledge and skills relevant to students’  lives, and provide learners with access to appropriate workbooks and  other learning materials that complement and reinforce teachers’  efforts. Typical forms of assistance include training teachers, along with  technical assistance to strengthen the capacity of local teacher training  institutions; promoting the adoption of teaching methods that involve  students in the learning process; promoting improvements in curriculum  content; helping host countries develop methods of student assessment;  and providing learning materials, such as textbooks and portable  libraries. All eight missions we visited implemented programs to  improve quality, using a variety of the approaches described above. See  figures 5 to 7 for examples of USAID projects aimed at improving  education quality.
Capacity building:  USAID implements a wide variety of basic  education programs to build host countries’ institutional capacity to  manage their basic education systems. Typical forms of assistance  include training school principals in educational leadership and  management; promoting the active participation by parents and parent  associations in supporting school improvement; developing effective  policy analysis units within education ministries; supporting the  adoption and use of appropriate data and educational management  information systems, as well as measures to enhance accountability and  transparency in the use of public education funds; and the  decentralization of educational decision making to local levels. All eight  missions we visited implemented programs that either specifically  focused on building the host countries’ educational capacity or  contained a capacity-building component. For example, in Zambia,  USAID implemented a project to decentralize administration of the  country’s education management information systems. In Egypt, USAID  implemented a project to support the country’s decentralization efforts  by rewarding schools and surrounding communities that are active in  assessing their needs and successful in planning and implementing  measures to improve education quality.
Because many USAID programs simultaneously support multiple  objectives, USAID could not provide a breakout of funding for its  international basic education efforts by strategic objective, such as access  or quality, or by program activity, such as teacher training. According to  USAID, quality and access are interlinked in important ways, as when  quality improvements lead to reduced grade repetition, accelerating  children’s progress through school and increasing access for subsequent  students. Missions decide whether to concentrate their efforts on  increasing access or improving quality and which program approaches to  use based on their assessment of how they can achieve the most valuable  results in light of country conditions. For example, in Mali, a country in  which only about 50 percent of primary school-aged children are enrolled  in school, USAID decided to focus its strategy on improving the quality of  basic education based on the rationale that the greatest impediment to  achieving universal access is the poor quality of education.
USAID Resources Directed at Strategic Partners of U.S. Foreign  Priorities  USAID’s resource allocations for basic education are consistent with  USAID and State’s efforts to more closely align foreign policy and  development goals. According to USAID’s April 2005 education strategy  and USAID officials, the agency allocates resources based on the host  country’s needs, commitment, and overall development progress, while  acknowledging the importance of geo-strategic states, such as some  predominantly Muslim countries. USAID and State’s joint strategic plan  also states that their education programs will be particularly focused on  Muslim countries following the September 11 attacks. For example, in Mali,  a predominantly Muslim country, USAID implemented a girls’ scholarship  program in which it focused on girls in traditional, religious communities  and also tried to engage local religious Muslim leaders in discussions on  how the scholarship program would be structured and invited them to  become members of the local management committee. We found that  USAID has implemented programs to target strategic states; specifically,  from fiscal years 2001 through 2006, many of the top 10 recipient countries  of USAID basic education assistance were strategic partners in achieving  U.S. foreign policy objectives, including fighting the war against terrorism  and promoting regional stability and democracy. Among these top 10  recipients were many predominantly Islamic countries, such as  Afghanistan, Indonesia, Iraq, Jordan, and Pakistan, which did not receive  any USAID basic education funding in fiscal year 2001, but received  significant funding beginning in fiscal year 2002. These countries, along  with Egypt and Ethiopia, all ranked among the top 10 recipients of basic  education funding from fiscal years 2001 through 2006 and were all  considered strategically important allies in the global war on terror,  according to USAID officials and USAID and State operational plans. See  appendix III for a list of recipient countries of USAID basic education  funding from fiscal years 2001 through 2006 and selected educational  indicators from the World Bank.
USAID began basic education programs in the war-affected countries of  Iraq and Afghanistan to support efforts to facilitate their transition to more  stable, democratic, and productive states. In 2002, following the defeat of  the Taliban, USAID started a basic education program in Afghanistan,  which originally focused on four areas: textbook production and  distribution, radio-based teacher training, accelerated learning for over-age  and out-of-school students, and school construction and rehabilitation.  USAID’s current efforts in Afghanistan focus on improving the quality of  the country’s basic education system through teacher training. In May 2003,  in the immediate aftermath of initial combat operations in Iraq, USAID  program efforts supported the resumption of school through the  rehabilitation of classrooms and the provision of educational materials.  However, according to USAID officials, the mission’s efforts faced many  challenges due to attacks on teachers and schools. While the USAID  mission in Iraq has rehabilitated 2,962 primary and secondary schools since  the conflict began in 2003, the mission does not know whether these  schools are currently operating due to the hostile security environment.  USAID’s basic education efforts in Iraq have also focused on improving the  quality of Iraq’s basic education system through training primary and  secondary school teachers, building the education ministry’s capacity to  manage and reform its education system, and increasing access to basic  education for out-of-school youth through an accelerated learning  program. These basic education activities were funded through  supplemental appropriations specifically for Iraq. USAID ended its basic  education program in Iraq in 2005 due to a change in mission priorities.
According to a USAID official, the mission’s current priorities are focused  on community stabilization, local governance, economic governance,  national capacity development, and private sector development.
section_title: Other Agencies Conduct Basic Education-Related Activities in Support of Their Missions
paragraphs: In addition to State and USAID, several other agencies implement activities  that directly and indirectly support increasing access to and improving the  quality of basic education in support of programs that address their  broader mission goals. These agencies include USDA, DOD, and DOL, as  well as the Peace Corps and MCC.
subsections: section_title: Department of Agriculture
paragraphs: USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service funds and administers basic  education-related activities through the provision of food assistance as part  of the agency’s broader mission to create economic opportunity for  American agriculture by expanding global markets and to support food  security worldwide. The agency supports basic education by providing  school meals or take-home rations to students overseas and by facilitating  the sale of food commodities to support basic education programs in  communities. USDA’s efforts, which target low-income, food-deficit  countries, particularly focus on girls since they tend to have much lower  school attendance rates than boys in many of USDA’s recipient countries.  In fiscal year 2001, USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service administered the  Global Food for Education Initiative (GFEI), a pilot program with the  overall goal of contributing to universal education by using school meals to  attract primary-school children to school, keep them attending once  enrolled, and improve learning. Through the program, USDA donated U.S.  agricultural commodities and associated technical and financial assistance  to the World Food Program, 13 private voluntary organizations, and one  national government (the Dominican Republic, see fig. 8). The  organizations then used the commodities in 48 school feeding projects in 38  developing countries. For example, in the Dominican Republic, USDA  donated wheat and crude soybean oil, which were sold locally, with  proceeds used to carry out community-based school feeding and  educational improvement programs managed by local NGOs. In fiscal year  2003, the GFEI was continued under USDA’s McGovern-Dole International  Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program (Food for Education).  The Food for Education (FFE) program also provides nutrition programs  for pregnant women, nursing mothers, infants, and preschool children to  sustain and improve the health and learning capacity of children before  they enter school. USDA allocates basic education resources to low- income, food-deficit countries that are committed to universal education.  From fiscal years 2001 through 2006, USDA allocated $599.3 million to  implement the GFEI and the FFE program in 42 countries worldwide.
DOD funds basic education activities through its Overseas Humanitarian,  Disaster, and Civic Aid (OHDACA) program, as part of the program’s  broader goal to achieve U.S. security objectives, improve DOD’s access to  areas not otherwise available to U.S. forces, build local capabilities and  cooperative relationships with a host country’s civil society, and provide  basic humanitarian aid and services to populations in need. DOD supports  increased access to basic education through its construction of primary  and secondary school buildings and refurbishment of existing school  facilities (see fig. 9) in all of the Combatant Commanders’ areas of  responsibility. According to one DOD command, it often uses the  constructed school facilities as centers to manage and coordinate the  Department’s natural disaster response activities. Recipient countries of  DOD humanitarian assistance are identified through DOD guidance and  with input from in-country U.S. agencies on host countries’ need. From  fiscal years 2001 through 2006, DOD allocated $16.2 million to fund 232  basic education projects in 50 countries worldwide.
DOL’s Bureau of International Labor Affairs (ILAB) funds and administers  international child labor projects with basic education components as part  of its broader strategic goal to remove or prevent children from  exploitative child labor and provide affected children with education,  training, or both. Through its international child labor projects, DOL  supports basic education by developing formal and transitional education  systems that encourage working children and those at risk to attend  school; raising awareness on the importance of education for all children  and mobilizing support for improved and expanded educational  infrastructures; and strengthening national institutions and policies on  education and child labor (see fig. 10). The ILAB uses two mechanisms to  implement these projects: (1) the International Labor Organization’s  International Program on the Elimination of Child Labor (ILO-IPEC), which  removes or prevents exploitative child labor and provides affected children  with education or training or both, strengthens the ability of host countries  to address child labor, and raises awareness on the hazards of child labor  and the benefits of education; and (2) Child Labor Education Initiative (EI),  which funds projects that promote access to quality basic education for  children at risk or engaging in exploitative child labor. The Bureau  allocates basic education resources to countries based on its assessment of  where there are child labor needs going unaddressed, and where the  agency will have the greatest impact. During fiscal years 2001 through 2006,  the Bureau allocated $440.4 million to implement basic education activities  in 77 countries worldwide.
The Peace Corps supports basic education through the activities of its  volunteers who work at the local level with host country governments,  NGOs, and communities on projects aimed at promoting sustainable  development at the grassroots level and enhancing cross-cultural  understanding. The Peace Corps provides volunteers to work in developing  countries where they have been invited and determines which programs  best address a host country’s need by consulting with host country  officials. Education is the Peace Corps’ largest sector. The volunteers’  basic education projects include training and mentoring teachers in K-12  schools, using radios to deliver educational content to HIV/AIDS orphans  and vulnerable children, and strengthening preschool programs through  teacher training and mentoring. For example, in Zambia, Peace Corps  volunteers assist the country’s Ministry of Education in implementing a  primary school interactive curriculum, which is broadcast over the national  radio to increase access to basic education in rural settings (see fig. 11).  During fiscal year 2006, 2,674 Peace Corps volunteers provided educational  assistance in 52 countries worldwide.
In addition, the Peace Corps supports basic education activities through its  Small Project Assistance (SPA) program, which provides hundreds of small  grants to volunteers’ communities to increase the capabilities of local  communities to conduct low-cost, grassroots, sustainable development  projects. For example, in Morocco, Peace Corps volunteers used SPA  funding to construct latrines to increase children’s attendance, particularly  girls. This program operates under the terms of an inter-agency agreement  between USAID and the Peace Corps. In fiscal year 2005, 57 Peace Corps  posts approved about $766,000 to support 354 different SPA education  projects.
section_title: Millennium Challenge Corporation
paragraphs: MCC supports international basic education as part of its larger mission to  reduce poverty through economic growth in developing countries that  create and maintain sound policy environments. The MCC provides  developing countries with monetary assistance—through compact  agreements and threshold agreements—to support a variety of  development projects, including basic education. For a country to be  selected as eligible for an MCC assistance program, it must demonstrate a  commitment to policies that promote political and economic freedom,  investments in education and health, control of corruption, and respect for  civil liberties and the rule of law by performing well on 16 different policy  indicators. For example, in fiscal year 2005, the MCC allocated $12.9  million to Burkina Faso, through a threshold agreement to fund a USAID- implemented pilot project with the objective to improve access to, and  improve the quality of, primary education for girls in 10 provinces that have  historically achieved the lowest levels of girls' primary education  completion rates. The project entailed the construction of “girl-friendly”  schools with canteens and community-managed child care centers;  provision of textbooks, supplies, and take-home rations; teacher training;  mentoring; literacy training for women; merit awards for teachers; and a  societal awareness campaign on the benefits of educating girls. MCC also  plans to provide funding for the implementation of basic education  activities in Mali, Ghana, and El Salvador.
section_title: Agencies Did Not Always Coordinate International Basic Education-Related Activities, Which Resulted in Some Missed Opportunities to Collaborate and Maximize Resources
paragraphs: We found that agencies did not always coordinate in the planning or  delivery of international basic education-related activities. From fiscal  years 2001 to 2006, there was no government-wide mechanism to facilitate  interagency collaboration and, as a result, at the headquarters level we  identified instances where agencies missed opportunities to collaborate  and maximize U.S. resources. Further, in the eight countries that we  visited, we noted several instances where agencies did not collaborate or  take advantage of opportunities to maximize U.S. resources in areas in  which they had similar objectives of improving the quality of education. In  addition, we found that the level of U.S. coordination with host  governments and other donors in the eight countries we visited also varied.  Without effective coordination, donors cannot easily monitor or assess the  host government’s progress toward achieving international goals, such as  Education for All by 2015, one of State-USAID’s strategic goals.
subsections: section_title: The United States Lacked a Government-Wide Mechanism to Coordinate International Basic Education Activities
paragraphs: We found that, for international basic education-related activities that we  reviewed, between 2001 and 2006 there was no government-wide  coordination mechanism to facilitate interagency planning and delivery of  U.S. basic education assistance. While some agencies met periodically to  discuss and plan specific basic education activities—usually those  involving joint- or multiagency agreements—these activities often did not  include all cognizant officials or agencies responsible for planning or  delivering basic education assistance. As a result, at the headquarters level,  interagency coordination was mixed and resulted in some missed  opportunities to collaborate on the planning of U.S. basic education  assistance. The following are some examples:   DOD guidance calls for Combatant Commands to coordinate  Humanitarian Assistance Program projects with other agencies at the  country level before they are submitted to the Defense Security  Cooperation Agency (DSCA), which then forwards the program  descriptions to State for review and concurrence. However, staff we  spoke to within USAID’s Economic Growth, Agriculture, and Trade  Bureau (EGAT), which manages USAID’s basic education activities,  were not aware of DOD humanitarian assistance projects.
USDA calls annual meetings with USAID’s Food for Peace Office, State,  and Office of Management and Budget officials to discuss and  coordinate upcoming projects for its McGovern-Dole International Food  for Education Program. However, staff from USAID EGAT do not attend  these meetings, even though some of USDA’s school feeding activities  coincide with USAID’s basic education activities.
DOL officials provided several examples of efforts to coordinate  programs with other agencies, including USAID and State. For example,  DOL’s Office of Child Labor, Forced Labor, and Human Trafficking  (OCFT) convenes annual meetings with State and USAID to discuss its  upcoming programs, including those related to DOL’s Child Labor  Education Initiative. Until 2004, USAID had an informal focal point who  attended these meetings. After this focal point retired in early 2004, DOL  sent a letter to USAID in April 2004 requesting a formal point of contact.  According to DOL officials, USAID never replied to this letter. Since  then, although DOL has regularly requested the attendance of USAID  desk officers and technical staff to brief them on its upcoming projects,  those USAID staff did not always attend, and those that attended may  not have been the most knowledgeable about existing basic education  programs. Although one member of USAID EGAT attended the February  2007 coordination meeting, there is still no formal USAID focal point for  these meetings. In addition, DOL copies State on letters to foreign  governments regarding DOL programming in their countries.
Peace Corps officials stated that the agency does not coordinate  programming priorities with USAID in Washington because  programming is determined by host governments, in collaboration with  the Peace Corps, once the agency is invited to serve in country.
Beyond USAID’s implementation of the single MCC basic education  program in Burkina Faso, coordination between MCC and USAID was  characterized by USAID and MCC officials as minimal, namely because  MCC is not organized around technical sectors. However, MCC officials  said that they share proposals and lessons learned with other U.S.  agencies.
State’s coordination of basic education activities with USAID at the  headquarters level occurred primarily through the MEPI program, in  which USAID serves as an administrative partner and manages over  one-third of MEPI’s basic education programs. This coordination  included formal and informal meetings to discuss the results of joint  State and USAID strategic reviews of existing bilateral development  assistance in the Middle East and North Africa and the identification of  reform areas that were not being addressed by other U.S. agencies.
We have previously reported on the importance of collaboration among  executive agencies in maximizing performance. Officials at all of the  agencies that we reviewed agreed that coordination of basic education- related activities could be enhanced. USAID officials believe that annual  meetings involving all of the U.S. agencies involved in international basic  education would produce better U.S. policy coherence. However, USAID  does not have the authority to formally convene such a meeting. In June  2004, in response to a fiscal year 2005 congressional directive, USAID  informed State it would develop an agenda for such a meeting if State, as a  cabinet-level agency, would convene it, but according to USAID, State has  not yet convened an interagency meeting on international basic education.  Although State’s DFA has begun to address the issue of better coordinating  all U.S. foreign assistance by bringing together core teams to discuss U.S.  development priorities in each recipient country, it is unclear to what  extent these efforts will be accepted and implemented by agencies whose  foreign assistance programs are not under DFA’s direct authority.
section_title: Interagency Coordination in the Eight Countries We Visited Varied
paragraphs: During our fieldwork, we found several examples of good coordination  among U.S. agencies implementing basic education projects. Among these  examples were the following:   In South Africa, the Peace Corps provided USAID with a volunteer to  support the implementation of a USAID distance learning project. The  volunteer assisted in improving teacher training models and in utilizing  program content, in addition to providing ongoing technical feedback to  the project implementer on the function and efficiency of the project’s  media delivery system. Additionally, DOD and USAID cooperated to  provide signs bearing the U.S. and South African flags for display at  project sites, including schools.
In Mali, USAID allocated SPA funding for the implementation of  community-based projects in communities where Peace Corps  volunteers were working. In addition, the Peace Corps provided USAID  with one volunteer to assist in USAID’s implementation of a girls’  scholarship program in the northern region of the country. Also, the U.S.  embassy purchased 750 radios for listening groups in the northern  region, and 200 of the radios were distributed directly to a USAID  distance-training program for teachers.
In Morocco, the Peace Corps has used SPA funding to construct a  library, school latrines, and residential student housing.
In Honduras, a regional DOL program seeking to provide educational  opportunities to children engaged in, or at risk of, exploitative labor  incorporated an existing USAID distance-learning program into its set of  14 pilot projects. In the municipality of this particular pilot project,  children, aged 13 to 16, were quitting school after the sixth grade in  favor of working on the local coffee farms. The objectives of the local  DOL implementer were to reduce the working hours of these children  and provide them with an opportunity to complete their primary-level  education. The USAID distance-learning program was particularly  suited to these objectives, as it was capable of targeting children in  seventh through ninth grade, was aligned with the national curriculum  and certified by the Ministry of Education, came with predesigned  materials, and could be tailored to fit participants’ scheduling needs.
In the Dominican Republic, USAID and USDA, along with the local host  government, coordinated to provide school lunches in order to increase  primary school student enrollment. Originally begun under the GFEI in  2001, the program continued under USDA’s FFE program in 2004. In  addition to the school lunches, activities under this program included  repairs to existing schools, renovation of buildings and water systems,  health and nutrition workshops, deworming, vitamin distribution to  supplement nutrition, and animal husbandry activities to supplement  incomes.
In Zambia, the Peace Corps supplied over 20 volunteers to work with the  USAID-funded implementer of a radio-based, primary-level, distance  learning program. The volunteers focused on mentoring and training  school committees in leadership and school management, with the hope  that communities will become better equipped to support and maintain  their own learning institutions. The volunteers also assisted the  implementer in piloting new educational initiatives.
Despite these examples of good coordination, we also observed several  instances where agencies, particularly USAID and DOL, missed  opportunities to collaborate and maximize their program efforts. In some  of the countries we visited, we found that USAID and DOL implementers of  projects to increase children’s access to basic education did not take  advantage of opportunities to collaborate and leverage resources when  coordination of activities would have been of mutual benefit. In several of  these countries, DOL could have joined USAID’s efforts to affect policy  reforms directed at rural youth by using USAID’s delivery mechanisms of  radio and television programming as well as printed materials to raise  public awareness of child labor issues. Likewise, USAID could have utilized  the Student Tracking System developed by DOL to monitor enrollment and  retention rates in its sponsored schools. Additional examples of  coordination between USAID and other agencies follow.
subsections: section_title: USAID and DOL Country Coordination
paragraphs: Unlike USAID, which had education teams in the countries we visited to  coordinate and manage implementation of its education-related activities,  DOL does not have a physical presence in-country and attempts to  coordinate through other means. Specifically, DOL coordinates as follows:   After holding their annual coordination meeting with USAID and State  staff, DOL planners in Washington, D.C., communicate by cable  activities planned for the fiscal year to State staff at overseas embassies.  These cables list DOL’s planned projects, their prospective countries,  estimated funding amounts, and a deadline for when the project  Requests for Proposal will be made public. Although DOL’s fiscal years  2004 and 2005 cables do not mention coordination with USAID in- country, the fiscal year 2006 cable lists one USAID/EGAT staff member  as an addressee and requests that the information be passed to the local  USAID mission “where applicable.”
DOL is represented in country by selected State embassy staff that it  informs of its upcoming projects through cables. State representatives  serving in these positions that we interviewed appeared to have general  knowledge of DOL’s basic education activities in-country but did not  appear to have detailed project knowledge that would be required to  coordinate effectively with USAID. This means that DOL must rely on  either these State embassy staff or its project implementers to  coordinate with the local USAID mission.
In its Solicitation for Grant Applications for basic education projects,  DOL informs potential applicants of ongoing USAID efforts and expects  applicants to implement programs that complement, and do not  duplicate, existing efforts.
Despite these efforts, coordination between local USAID missions and DOL  project implementers varied across the countries we visited. For example,  in Honduras, DOL’s implementer was collaborating with the USAID mission  in country to adapt the mission’s distance-learning program to a child labor  project. However, in Peru, the USAID mission lost its institutional  knowledge of an existing DOL program upon the departure of its education  team leader. The remaining USAID education team remained unaware of  this project until the DOL implementer briefed the new USAID education  contact 3 years into the project’s implementation. Additionally, in Peru, the  USAID mission was not aware of a public DOL Request for Proposal to  conduct new basic education activities in country. In Morocco, USAID and  the local DOL implementers were aware of each other’s programs but did  not directly coordinate beyond minimal information exchanges. By  contrast, in South Africa, a DOL implementer was unaware that USAID was  also conducting basic education activities in-country. Similarly, in Zambia,  the local USAID mission knew of a DOL EI program in country, but was  unaware that the ILO-IPEC program also operating in country was DOL- funded. The turnover of agency and implementer staff in overseas locations  may lead to challenges in coordination efforts.
section_title: USAID and Peace Corps
paragraphs: In Morocco, the USAID mission’s strategy stated that projects to create  rural dormitories for girls may be implemented in partnership with Peace  Corps volunteers who would assist with the community’s management of  the dormitories and development of after school programs. However, the  Peace Corps and USAID senior staff we spoke with in country had not  considered such an idea during the actual planning and implementation of  the girls’ scholarship program.
USAID and DOD almost missed an opportunity to coordinate their  construction of school dormitories in Morocco. Prior to 1999, the local  USAID mission did not know that DOD was implementing humanitarian  assistance projects in Morocco. At the time, USAID’s basic education  program in country had concluded that one reason rural girls were  dropping out of school before sixth grade was that the middle schools were  too far away from their homes. According to USAID officials, parents had  safety concerns about sending their daughters to attend school so far away  and were reluctant to make the financial sacrifice of having their daughter  finish primary school if she could not also attend secondary school.  Subsequently, USAID and DOD coordinated with local communities to  build school dormitories for middle school girls in three towns. According  to the USAID officer responsible for coordinating this initiative, the  coordination between USAID and DOD resulted in DOD building five  dormitories.
section_title: The Level of U.S. Coordination with Host Governments and Other Donors Varied
paragraphs: Coordination between the United States, host governments, and donors  varied in the countries we visited. Coordination was stronger in countries,  such as Egypt, Mali, Zambia, and Honduras, that possessed a combination  of strong host government commitment to education reform, formal donor- led working groups specifically for education, and systems of mutual  accountability, such as the World Bank’s Education for All-Fast Track  Initiative. For example, in Egypt, the host government was working closely  with international donors to develop a new National Strategic Plan for  Education. Under the leadership of USAID, each donor had assumed  responsibility for developing a portion of this plan. Additionally, the major  education donors in Egypt met monthly to discuss division of  responsibilities and upcoming efforts. We observed a similar situation in  Mali, where the host government had allocated 30 percent of its budget  toward education—60 percent of which went to basic education—and  worked with donors to establish a framework through which the donors  could invest in specific education sectors. These education donors in Mali  held monthly meetings among themselves, as well as separate meetings  with the host government, and collaborated on strategic planning, action  plans, and common progress indicators, among other issues.
At the time of our review, Mali, Zambia, and Honduras had also  implemented, or were in the process of implementing, systems of mutual  accountability associated with the World Bank’s Education for All-Fast  Track Initiative. The Initiative provides for mutual accountability, where  international donors provide coordinated and increased financial and  technical support in a transparent and predictable manner, while host  governments commit to primary education reform through the  development of national education strategies in concert with the donors.  Donors in Honduras met monthly and pooled their funding to provide  direct budget support to the education sector to accelerate progress.  According to donors, the pooled funding gave donors a means to ensure  that the host government continued to implement the national education  strategy. They stated that this is very important in countries where there is  frequent political turnover. Although USAID usually does not give funds  directly to government institutions, in Zambia, the USAID mission provides  some funds to the Ministry of Education to support policy reform. The  USAID mission also participates in high-level meetings and contributes to  the decision-making process.
Coordination between the United States, host governments, and donors  was weaker in countries lacking a lead donor or host government  committed to coordinating donor assistance. This included the Dominican  Republic, Morocco, South Africa, and Peru. For example, in recent years  donors have sought to strengthen local ownership of the education reform  process by assigning host governments a key role in the donor coordination  process, according to USAID. However, governments in several countries  we visited lacked the capacity or will to hold such meetings. In Peru, for  example, officials from bilateral donors and the host government stated  that the concentration of donor efforts in rural areas working with regional  administrators had isolated those projects from the national government,  which tended to view project schools as “donor schools” unconnected to  the larger education system. According to these officials, the disconnect  between the central government and the bilateral programs inhibited the  expansion of these programs to other areas and threatened their long-term  sustainability. Similarly, in South Africa, the host government Ministry of  Education had not called a donor meeting in almost a year and was not  aware of all ongoing donor activities in basic education. In Morocco, one  donor was unaware of the details of USAID’s basic education activities, and  both agencies had independently developed their own matrices of other  donors’ basic education projects, neither of which were updated or  complete. By contrast, the host government in the Dominican Republic did  call high-level donor meetings but discouraged the donors from meeting on  their own. None of these countries had strong, donor-led coordination  groups, with the exception of Peru, where donors had formed a formal  coordination group, as well as an informal group of three donors, including  the United States, focusing on decentralizing the host government’s  education system.
According to USAID, host government commitment, the development of  sound education strategies, and effective donor coordination are essential  to reforming basic education. Most donors we spoke to acknowledged that  further improvements in coordination could result in more efficient  delivery of assistance. Without good coordination, donors, including the  United States, cannot easily monitor or assess host governments’ progress  toward achieving Education For All by 2015—which is a strategic goal  shared by State and USAID.
section_title: Assessing Basic Education Programs’ Quality Results Is Difficult
paragraphs: While U.S. agencies we reviewed conduct basic education-related activities  to achieve different goals, most assess and report on the results of their  activities by collecting and using output measures–-or the direct products  and services delivered by a program, such as numbers of schools built or  children enrolled. While USAID can measure education access through  outputs such as the numbers of students enrolled in primary school  programs, it does not, in many instances, measure education quality, a key  program outcome measure–-or result of products and services provided,  such as increased literacy rates. Our analysis showed that USAID can  report on some outcomes such as primary school retention rates but faces  challenges in collecting valid and reliable data on student learning in areas  such as math and reading, which, according to USAID, provides the most  direct outcome measure of increased educational quality. Furthermore,  USAID cannot compare its program results between countries. To better  assess its goal of improving education quality, USAID is developing a  standardized test that could provide data on primary-level reading ability  and would be comparable across countries. Other agencies measure  progress in relation to their respective missions. In addition, State’s Office  of the Director of Foreign Assistance plans to work toward developing  methods to assess outcomes of all foreign assistance; however, these  efforts are only in the early discussion phase. Without this information,  agency officials cannot determine if programs are achieving their strategic  goals.
subsections: section_title: Most Agencies Use Output Measures to Assess Results
paragraphs: We have previously reported that both output and outcome measures are  extremely valuable for determining success of federally funded programs.  Table 3 shows the measures reported by U.S. agencies in their fiscal year  2006 Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) performance and  accountability reports.
USAID works with its project implementers to establish project  performance measures before an activity is approved. These measures vary  according to the objectives of the specific activities. The implementers  then collect information on the required measures and submit quarterly or  annual reports detailing progress against those measures to technical  officers at the local USAID mission. Missions are then required to submit  annual reports summarizing the progress of their activities, which often  contain both specific output and outcome measures. Some of these  measures are input to the Annual Report Application (AR) system, which  currently serves as the repository of USAID performance data from all  USAID missions. Information in the AR system is used in USAID  headquarters to support strategic planning, budget preparation, and  performance reporting requirements. To report on its agency-wide  progress, USAID reports on students enrolled in primary school, students  completing primary school, and adult learners completing basic education.  These output measures have also been used to determine which education  programs have not met, met, or exceeded their output objectives. Some of  the programs that have exceeded these output objectives have been  terminated. For example, the joint State-USAID Congressional Budget  Justification for the 2007 budget request showed that India and South  Africa had exceeded their program goals for basic education. These  countries were eliminated from the list of countries proposed to receive  basic education allocations in the 2008 budget request.
section_title: USAID Faces Challenges Assessing Quality-Related Outcomes
paragraphs: USAID, the primary provider of U.S. basic education assistance, is the only  agency to track progress toward an agency-wide, education-specific goal— promoting increased access to quality basic education. However, USAID  faces challenges collecting data on student learning, such as levels of  reading comprehension, and cannot compare the results between  countries. As a consequence, USAID is unable to report on the overall  results of its basic education activities on the quality of education, which  can deny planners valuable information needed to prioritize and fund  future programs. Prior GAO work on assessing performance measures for  federally funded programs shows that both output and outcome measures  are extremely valuable for determining program success. USAID has begun  to address this issue by developing systematic methods to compare  education quality across countries and working with donors to identify  common indicators for assessing student learning. In addition, USAID is  considering the development and administration of new tests to assess  learning outcomes in a select number of countries.
subsections: section_title: Collecting Country-Level Data on Quality Remains a Challenge for USAID
paragraphs: According to USAID and UNESCO, testing of student achievement is a  good measure of educational quality—particularly tests that assess  learning in core subjects such as reading and basic mathematics. However,  obtaining this type of data remains a challenge for various reasons.  According to USAID, designing tools to assess student learning and,  particularly, deciding on which methodology or standards to apply, can be  time-consuming and expensive when done independently by USAID  implementers and may also not be cost-effective given the objectives of a  program. For example, a USAID official at one mission stated that a change  in teacher practices resulting from a teacher training program would be  significant in itself and that not all basic education interventions should be  expected to result in improved student achievement. Poor host-country  infrastructure, unfriendly geography, or both can also make systematic  nationwide testing expensive and difficult. In countries where the USAID  mission has the benefit of working with an existing national student  examination, those exams may not test to existing international standards,  and any changes to the national examination and its underlying curriculum  can be politically sensitive. However, in some countries such as the  Dominican Republic, teachers’ unions can be resistant to the use of tests to  evaluate student learning for fear that they will be held accountable for the  results. Even if a national exam is successfully administered, the host  government may not have the methodological expertise necessary to  reliably compile and analyze the resulting statistics.
We examined 40 basic education programs in the eight countries we  visited—including both USAID basic education programs and DOL  programs to combat child labor through the provision of quality primary  education—and found that about half of the 40 programs utilized outcome  performance measures, or the results of products and services. These  included, among other things, increased student performance, improved  instructional methods, and increased community participation. Not all of  these outcome measures were related to education quality. For example,  DOL projects contained outcome measures specific to child labor, such as  media coverage and local awareness of child labor issues. Most of the  programs that utilized outcome measures set baselines and targets for  these measures. All 12 of the Department of Labor programs we examined  reported outcome measures compared with approximately one-third of the  28 USAID programs that did so. The remaining 19 USAID programs did not  use outcome measures. See appendix V for more details on our analysis.
According to USAID and UNESCO, testing of student achievement is a  good measure of educational quality. USAID programs aimed at improving  educational quality varied in their measurement of student achievement.  Several lacked means to fully gauge student performance. For example,  In South Africa, one teacher training program could not monitor student  achievement in its preservice training component due to insufficient  funds, although the program’s in-service component did contain student  testing. In addition, a distance-learning program in one country province  contained no means to assess teacher performance or student  achievement, yet was planned to be expanded to a second province.
In Zambia, a teacher training program contained output indicators  mandated by the Africa Education Initiative and the President’s  Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, such as the number of teachers  trained, but these initiatives did not require an evaluation of teacher or  student performance. The program independently added an additional  measure to evaluate teachers on their implementation of the program  materials and used student pass rates on the host-country’s seventh  grade graduation test as a substitute, or proxy, measure of student  achievement. Such graduation tests are designed to identify students  who will advance to the next phase of schooling but are not necessarily  designed to provide data on trends in student learning.
In Peru, Honduras, and the Dominican Republic, a regional Latin  American teacher training program begun in 2002 did not require  implementers to begin measuring impact on student performance until  2005.
Other programs we examined, however, did have or were developing  student assessment components, as follows:     In Egypt, we observed perhaps the most extensive evaluation  component for a program that was working closely with the host- government’s Ministry of Education to develop tools for assessing  student learning, teacher performance, and school management  capacity nationwide. The student learning assessment tool specifically  measured critical thinking capacity, problem solving skills, and subject  matter knowledge in Arabic, science, and math.
In Honduras, one program was developing primary school learning  standards to strengthen the host government’s national student testing  process. Additionally, according to USAID, one distance learning  program is developing standardized testing to monitor variations in  student achievement.
In the Dominican Republic, a similar program was developing test  instruments and analytical techniques to build the evaluation capacity of  the host government’s educational system.
In Peru, one pilot program conducted student testing solely in its  sponsored schools specifically to demonstrate the effectiveness of the  program to the host government’s Ministry of Education.
section_title: USAID Is Developing Methods to Better Measure Improved Educational Quality
paragraphs: In the absence of an indicator to illustrate improved quality across  countries, USAID uses primary school completion rates as a proxy measure  in its agency-wide reporting. However, USAID acknowledges that  completion rates do not directly correlate to educational quality. As  described earlier, according to USAID and UNESCO, testing of student  achievement is a good measure of educational quality. However, while  national examinations may exist in certain countries, the curricula these  tests are based on vary widely in their subject matter and academic  standards. Additionally, very few developing countries incorporate existing  international standards for student learning in their testing. These factors  prevent meaningful comparisons of educational quality between countries,  which could inform funding and programmatic decisions at the  headquarters level.
For fiscal year 2005, USAID’s Bureau for Policy and Program Coordination  (PPC) began collecting data to better allow USAID to find an appropriate  indicator to measure quality outcomes of its basic education programs. The  information that USAID began collecting in its annual reporting system  database included, to the extent available, results of host country national- level testing systems and USAID attempts to measure learning  achievement. However, this information was never fully analyzed, and  USAID’s database for the information will be terminated in fiscal year 2007,  and replaced by a new joint State-USAID performance measures database  called the Foreign Assistance Coordination and Tracking (FACT) system,  which will be managed by the DFA. According to DFA officials, the FACT  system is meant to primarily contain numerical output indicators common  across State and USAID missions and not include the mission-specific  outcome indicators contained in USAID’s former annual reporting system.  These indicators contained in the FACT system will be used to develop  policy priorities, assess performance, and inform resource decisions.
USAID, independent of the DFA process, began a new initiative in  September 2006 to develop a better measure of educational quality across  countries through the development of new testing instruments. These  instruments are designed to provide data on primary-level reading  comprehension comparable across countries. This project grew out of a  World Bank Initiative in Peru that developed a Spanish-language reading  comprehension test. USAID is attempting to build on the World Bank’s  success by developing a simple screening instrument, which can provide  general information on literacy within a given community, and an in-depth  assessment instrument intended to provide cross-country comparisons of  the degree of reading skill acquisition, determination of the grade at which  a country’s education system is able to impart the capacity to read, and  identification of the specific areas of weakness. According to the contract  for the instruments, performance data provided by the new tests should  permit comparison across countries and the tracking of changes in  performance over time and should also be adaptable across languages and  cultures to the degree possible. USAID plans to field test the instruments in  English, Spanish, or French and is in negotiations with two host  governments to begin pilot testing. USAID plans for the contract  implementer to submit a report on the pilot tests’ results and their  implications by September 30, 2007. According to one USAID official, it is  expected that these new instruments, if successful, will allow USAID to  better measure and compare educational quality across countries where it  conducts basic education activities. USAID has also initiated discussion  with other Education for All-Fast Track Initiative donors on how donors  can assess the collective impact of their basic education assistance on  learning outcomes.
Additionally, in an effort to collect better data on education quality,  USAID’s Education Office is considering the development and  administration of new tests to assess learning outcomes in 10 countries  over 12 months. The goal is to produce an assessment that will better  demonstrate the impact of projects to improve educational quality, but that  can be adapted by different missions facing different educational  circumstances. The proposal recommends identifying two or three  countries from each of the new foreign assistance categories, with  representatives from Africa, Asia, and Latin America. The tests would  cover literacy and mathematics and target fourth and eighth grade  students, but would be adjustable for different grades and ages. The 12- month activity would cover initial development, and country applications  would occur through mission buy-in into the activity. Although the primary  purpose of this assessment would not be to directly compare different  programs or countries with respect to what students know, the proposal  estimates that, for cost-effectiveness, likely two-thirds of the test materials  would be portable across countries, with the remaining items unique to  local circumstances.
section_title: Other Agencies Measure Progress Related to Their Respective Missions
paragraphs: While USAID, as noted earlier, is the only agency to track progress toward  an education-specific goal, other agencies track progress related to their  agency-specific missions or do not address their basic education activities  in their agency-wide performance reporting because these activities are not  directly related to their overall agency objectives. For example, agencies  track progress as follows:   DOL and USDA report performance measures related to their particular  agency objectives. For example, DOL primarily uses education activities  as a mechanism for alleviating child labor and reports on children  removed or prevented from exploitive work. USDA reports on the  number of beneficiaries of its school lunch program. Both of these  measures are tied to enrollment and attendance rates collected at the  project-level and are, therefore, related to educational access. DOL  programs include project-level quality indicators, such as primary  school completion rates.
The MCC initially reported a single “rate of reform” measure based on  multiple outcome-based health and education-related indicators,  including total public expenditure on primary education and girls’  primary education completion rates. MCC now breaks these individual  indicators to compare performance among countries with threshold  programs and compacts, as well as to determine the eligibility of  countries for MCC assistance.
DOD provides basic humanitarian aid and services to avert political and  humanitarian crises, as well as promote democratic development and  regional stability. It collects information on how many projects it has  funded and their costs, but does not address the educational impact of  these projects. A DOD official stated that he would like to see the  Humanitarian Assistance Program begin to measure its impact on  countering terrorism, promoting goodwill, stabilizing the country, and  increasing economic growth.
Although the Peace Corps tracks the number and location of its  volunteers, it does not assess the impact of its basic education activities  because, according to Peace Corps officials, these activities are too  small in scale to be suitable for such monitoring.
section_title: State’s Office of the DFA Is Planning to Address Improving Interagency Coordination and Performance Measures for All Foreign Assistance
paragraphs: In January 2006, the Secretary of State appointed a DFA and charged him  with directing the transformation of the U.S. government’s approach to  foreign assistance and ensuring that foreign assistance is used as  effectively as possible to meet broad foreign policy objectives.  Specifically, the DFA:  has authority over all State and USAID foreign assistance funding and  programs, with continued participation in program planning,  implementation, and oversight from the various bureaus and offices  within State and USAID, as part of the integrated interagency planning,  coordination, and implementation mechanisms;   has created and directed, through a foreign assistance framework,  consolidated policy, planning, budget, and implementation mechanisms  and staff functions required to provide umbrella leadership to foreign  assistance;   plans to develop a coordinated U.S. government foreign assistance  strategy, including multiyear, country-specific assistance strategies and  annual country-specific assistance operational plans; and  plans to provide guidance to foreign assistance delivered through other  agencies and entities of the U.S. government, including MCC and the  Office of the Global AIDS Coordinator.
According to a DFA official, the DFA’s office spent its first year developing  the foreign assistance framework, preparing the proposed 2008  consolidated State and USAID budget, and providing guidance for country  teams to develop operational plans. The foreign assistance framework  includes five objectives: (1) peace and security, (2) governing justly and  democratically, (3) investing in people, (4) economic growth, and (5)  humanitarian assistance. Basic education falls under the objective of  investing in people. According to a State official, the new budget and  planning process is intended to give the Secretary of State the ability to  evaluate the effectiveness of foreign assistance to improve effectiveness,  impact, and efficiency through better coordination, at every level. Looking  forward, the DFA is examining ways to improve (1) coordination of foreign  assistance, including basic education and (2) measurement of program  outcomes.
subsections: section_title: DFA Plans to Improve Coordination of Foreign Assistance, Including Basic Education
paragraphs: While the DFA has begun to address the issue of better coordinating all U.S.  foreign assistance by bringing together core teams to discuss U.S.  development priorities in each recipient country, it is unclear to what  extent these efforts will be accepted and implemented by agencies whose  foreign assistance programs are not under DFA’s direct authority.  According to DFA officials, during the first phase of coordination efforts,  USAID, State, and DOD (as an implementing partner of certain USAID and  State programs) have been meeting to discuss coordination of assistance.  The DFA plans to engage other agencies such as USDA and DOL in the  coordination discussions. However, DFA officials stated that there is no  requirement for other agencies to participate in these dialogues.
section_title: DFA Is Considering Methods for Measuring Program Outcomes
paragraphs: DFA acknowledges the need for outcome measures to better describe the  impact of basic education, as well as other foreign assistance areas.
According to a DFA official, developing outcome indicators for all  assistance programs is difficult because of the differing program objectives  those programs may possess. For example, some programs may meet the  political objectives of the United States, while others may meet purely  development objectives. DFA plans to use as many outcome measures as  possible generated by third parties, such as World Bank statistics and  UNESCO literacy rates. Also, DFA plans for missions to submit “Foreign  Assistance Reports” back to Washington, which would combine their FACT  data with locally generated outcome measures to demonstrate the  cumulative effects of their programs. However, this process and the  outcome measures it might contain have not been developed, and DFA  does not currently have a timetable for implementing these initiatives.  Although an agency can use outputs, outcomes, or some combination of  the two to reflect the agency’s intended performance, the GPRA is clearly  outcome-oriented and thus an agency’s performance plan should include  outcome goals whenever possible. DFA officials acknowledged that the  new performance reporting system as it currently stands will not report the  outcome results of basic education programs to managers in headquarters.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Without a government-wide mechanism to systematically coordinate all  agency efforts in basic education at the headquarters level, agencies’  programs may not maximize the effectiveness of U.S. assistance. The new  State DFA efforts to implement a country-wide program planning and  budgeting process, which is designed to better manage the delivery of  foreign assistance, may improve coordination of basic education programs  at the country level, but this process is still evolving, and it is yet to be  determined what impact these efforts will have on future strategic planning  of education-related assistance. Moreover, having reliable and systematic  methods to determine if basic education programs are meeting their goals  could help better inform U.S. agencies’ decisions regarding the planning  and execution of basic education-related assistance. Although the DFA  plans to work toward developing methods to assess outcomes of all foreign  assistance, these efforts are only in the early discussion phase.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To enhance efforts to coordinate and better assess the results of U.S.  international basic education-related activities, we are making three  recommendations:  to improve interagency coordination of basic education efforts at  headquarters in Washington, we recommend that the Secretary of State  work with the heads of executive branch agencies responsible for  international basic education-related assistance to convene formal,  periodic meetings at the headquarters level amongst cognizant officials;  to improve interagency coordination in recipient countries, we  recommend that the Secretary of State direct the relevant countries’  Ambassadors to establish a mechanism to formally coordinate U.S.  agencies’ implementation of international basic education-related  activities in the relevant country; and  to better assess the results of U.S. basic education assistance, we  recommend that the Secretary of State, through the DFA, work with  USAID and to the extent practicable, with other U.S. agencies providing  basic education related-assistance to develop a plan to identify  indicators that would help agencies track improvements in access to  quality education. Indicators could include:  output measures, such as the numbers of U.S. programs designed to  improve curriculum and teacher training, and to develop and validate  student tests; and   outcome measures, such as literacy and numeracy assessments of  student achievement.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to State, USAID, USDA, DOD, DOL, MCC,  and the Peace Corps. We obtained written comments on the draft of this  report from State, USAID, and USDA (see apps. VI, VII, and VIII). State  generally concurred with our recommendations and noted that its Office of  the Director of U.S. Foreign Assistance is in the process of developing  mechanisms to ensure coordination of U.S. assistance programs with other  federal agencies, implementers, and stakeholders. In addition, State’s  Office of the Director of U.S. Foreign Assistance is working with USAID,  State, and others in the international community to develop appropriate  measures for learning outcomes. We agree that these are positive steps  toward improving the coordination of U.S. supported basic education  programs and the ability to measure whether basic education programs  abroad are achieving their goals, and we encourage State to continue to  work with the heads of executive agencies to this end. USAID concurred  with our recommendations and agreed with the need for greater U.S.  government coordination and that more needs to be done in the areas to  improve education outcomes in country and to better understand the  impact of U.S. support to basic education. USDA concurred with our  recommendations and indicated that it will work with the Department of  State in the manner which the report recommends. We also received  technical comments on this draft from State, USAID, DOL, MCC, and the  Peace Corps, which we incorporated where appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to appropriate Members of Congress,  the Secretaries of the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Labor, and  State, as well as the Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International  Development, the Director of the Peace Corps, and the Chief Executive  Officer of the Millennium Challenge Corporation. We also will make copies  available to others upon request. In addition, this report will be available at  no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff has any questions concerning this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-4128 or fordj@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 major contributions to this report are  listed in appendix IX.
section_title: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: To describe U.S. agencies’ basic education activities and how the activities  are planned, we obtained and analyzed strategic, budget, and  programmatic documents for fiscal years 2001 through 2006 from the  Departments of Agriculture (USDA), Defense (DOD), Labor (DOL), and  State (State), as well as the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), the  United States Agency for International Development (USAID), and the  Peace Corps. The documentation included, when available, strategic plans  at the mission, country, regional, and global levels. We also interviewed  program officials and requested data from these agencies in Washington,  D.C., to identify the types of basic education-related activities, the recipient  countries of these activities, and the estimated funding levels of the  programs. These included educational activities that corresponded to  USAID’s definition of basic education, such as primary education,  secondary education, early childhood development, and adult literacy.  These activities also included those implemented under special or  administration-directed initiatives related to basic education. We assessed  the reliability of the funding data by reviewing existing information about  the data and the system that produced them and interviewing agency  officials knowledgeable about the data. USDA and DOL did not  disaggregate funds specifically allocated to the basic education  components of their larger programs. We found all agencies’ data  sufficiently reliable for representing the nature and extent of their program  funding and activities. We did not assess the reliability of the World Bank’s  selected indicator data because they were used for background purposes  only.
To learn about the implementation of international basic education  assistance overseas, we observed ongoing program activity in the following  eight countries: Dominican Republic, Egypt, Honduras, Mali, Morocco,  Peru, South Africa, and Zambia. We selected a nonprobability sample of  foreign countries designed to ensure geographic diversity and  representation of basic education programs from multiple U.S. agencies  and international donors. In addition to geographic diversity and  representation of multiple agencies and international donors, our sample  was designed to include countries that implement special or  administration-directed initiatives related to basic education. In the  countries, we met with representatives from State, USAID, USDA, DOD,  DOL, the MCC, and the Peace Corps; officials representing embassies and  USAID missions in the countries visited; officials administering  international basic education programs; and officials from foreign  governments, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), the United Nations  (UN), and other international organizations. Within each country, we  examined all U.S. agency basic education activities ongoing at the time of  our visit and discussed these activities with relevant agency officials.
To determine the mechanisms the United States uses to coordinate national  and international basic education assistance, we analyzed agency  coordination documents and interviewed relevant U.S. agency, host  government, and international donor officials in our eight sample  countries. Documentation we examined included e-mails, meeting minutes,  memoranda of understanding, policy agendas, host government education  sector strategies, and other supplemental documentation. We met with  officials from State, USAID, USDA, DOL, DOD, the Peace Corps, and the  MCC in Washington, D.C., to discuss interagency coordination at the  headquarters level. In each of our eight sample countries, we discussed  coordination of international basic education assistance with relevant  officials from U.S. agencies, U.S. program implementers, host countries’  Ministries of Education, and international donors with basic education  programs in-country.
To evaluate how U.S. agencies monitor and assess the results of their  international basic education programs, we obtained and examined  contractual and monitoring and evaluation documents for each of the basic  education projects we visited. For each ongoing project, we interviewed  officials from the implementing organizations, as well as any U.S. agency  official(s) monitoring the implementer’s progress. In our interviews, we  discussed project monitoring, data baselines, and progress indicators. We  supplemented these interviews with a review of reporting documentation  associated with 40 of the basic education projects we discussed with  program implementers. This sample included all ongoing projects that we  visited in our eight sample countries. The documentation that we reviewed  included the contracts, cooperative agreements, statements of work  (program descriptions), performance monitoring plans, and monitoring  reports for the 40 projects. Furthermore, to describe USAID’s process for  collecting and using performance measures, we interviewed USAID  officials and analyzed agency documents. To describe the new planning  process for foreign assistance and its impact on collecting indicator data,  we interviewed State and USAID officials and analyzed relevant  documentation.
To determine the extent to which the projects had outcome measures, used  baselines, and set targets, we identified and analyzed the performance  measures in the programs’ documentation. We coded performance  measures as outcomes if they were linked to program objectives and had  clearly reported results. We also assessed whether the outcome measures  we identified established clear baselines and set targets. To ensure  accuracy in our coding, two coders independently reviewed the program  documentation and met to reconcile any initial differences in their coding.  In addition, another staff member independently reviewed the coding  decisions.
Although the findings from our site visits in each country and our review of  ongoing basic education projects are not generalizable to the population of  basic education programs, we determined that the selection of the  countries and programs reviewed was appropriate for our design and  objectives.
We conducted our fieldwork in Washington, D.C., and in the Dominican  Republic, Egypt, Honduras, Liberia, Mali, Morocco, Peru, South Africa, and  Zambia from December 2005 to March 2007 in accordance with generally  accepted government auditing standards.
section_title: Recipient Countries of Activities Related to International Basic Education During Fiscal Year 2006
paragraphs: N/A=Countries that are not eligible for MCC funding Fast Track Initiative countries.
section_title: Recipient Countries of USAID Basic Education Assistance, Funding Levels, and Selected World Bank’s Indicators
section_title: List of International Basic Education Projects Reviewed
paragraphs: International  Labor  Organization’s  International  Program on the  Elimination of  Child Labor  (ILO/IPEC)
Combating Child Labor Through Education in  Central America and the Dominican Republic,  “Primero Aprendo”
Advancing Learning and Employability for a Better  Future ADROS: Combating Child Labor Through  Education in Morocco Combating Child Labour in Morocco by Creating  an Enabling National Environment and  Developing Direct Action against Worst Forms of  Child Labour in Rural Areas Andean Centers of Excellence for Teacher  Training Innovations in Decentralization and Active  Schools (AprenDes)
Communities Supporting Health, HIV/AIDS,  Nutrition, Gender and Equity Education in  Schools 2  Quality Education Services Through Technology  Educational  Combating and Preventing HIV/AIDS-induced  Child Labour in Sub-Saharan Africa: Pilot Action  in Uganda and Zambia  Combating Child Labour Through Education - An  Education Initiative (Child and Community  Participatory Approach for Impact and  Sustainability)
section_title: Analysis of the Performance Measures in Documentation for Selected International Basic Education Programs
paragraphs: We studied 40 programs from the eight countries visited during fieldwork.  The programs had multiple performance measures and often included a  mix of outcome and output measures. We identified measures using criteria  that required them to be clearly identified as performance measures, have  clearly reported results, and be clearly linked to program objectives. See  appendix I for more details about how the programs were selected for  study and about the methodology we used to analyze their measures. Table  4 below shows the type of measures contained in the programs we  examined. Table 5 shows the characteristics of the outcome measures  being used by the programs, and Table 6 shows how these outcome  measures were used.
section_title: Comments from the Department of State
paragraphs: The following are our comments on the Department of State’s letter dated  March 26, 2007.
subsections: section_title: GAO Comments
paragraphs: 1. State said that its Office of the Director of U.S. Foreign Assistance over  the past year has undertaken a process to ensure the kind of  coordination necessary for coherent U.S. government assistance  programs in all areas, including basic education. Also, State said that its  experience to date has demonstrated willingness by other federal  agencies such as the Department of Defense, U.S. Trade  Representatives, and the Millennium Challenge Corporation to work  with us within the Foreign Assistance framework. In addition, the fiscal  year 2008 operational planning process is expected to be the first year  wherein there is full participation by other agency implementers and  stakeholders. At the time of our review, some of the other agency  officials that we met with in Washington said that their respective  agencies have not yet been invited to participate in such coordination  efforts. Therefore, we believe that State should continue towards this  end to improve coordination, both at the headquarters and in recipient  countries, among all agencies involved in international basic education- related activities. 2. State said that USAID, State, and others in the international community  are working together to try to develop appropriate measures for  learning outcomes that would address the question of whether a quality  education is being provided.  Also, State noted that its Office of the  Director of U.S. Foreign Assistance is building on the long history and  best practices that USAID and other agencies have accumulated from  many years of performance management and thorough evaluation. Our  report notes the efforts of State, USAID, and the international  community in this regard and that these efforts have just begun.  However, we maintain that a plan should be developed to better guide  these efforts to help agencies track improvements in the access to  quality education.
section_title: Comments from the U.S. Agency for International Development
section_title: Comments from the U.S. Department of Agriculture
paragraphs: The following are our comments on the Department of Agriculture’s letter  dated March 22, 2007.
subsections: section_title: GAO Comments
paragraphs: 1. We deleted the statement that “USDA. . . can not disaggregate the  amount of funds allocated specifically for basic education related  activities.” from the report. Also, in the report we explain that USDA  funding allocations include basic education components that support  its broader mission goals and provide examples accordingly. 2. We acknowledge USDA’s coordination efforts with State, USAID, and  the Office of Management and Budget as a good example of interagency  coordination.
section_title: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the individual named above, Zina Merritt, Assistant Director;  Virginia Chanley; Martin de Alteriis; Harriet Ganson; Emily Gupta; David  Hancock; Victoria Lin; Grace Lui; Grant Mallie; Patricia Martin; Deborah  Owolabi; and Anne Welch made key contributions to this report.  The team  benefited from the expert advice and assistance of Joseph Carney,  Elizabeth Curda, Joyce Evans, Etana Finkler, Bruce Kutnick, Jena  Sinkfield, and Cynthia Taylor.