Global Food Security: USAID Is Improving Coordination but Needs to Require Systematic Assessments of Country-Level Risks
Published: 2013-09-17T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: In fiscal years 2010 through 2013, the U.S. government allocated $7 billion to implement global food security programs implemented under the FTF initiative by USAID and its U.S. FTF partner agencies, which include the Departments of Agriculture, State, and the Treasury, and the Millennium Challenge Corporation. To enhance FTF efforts to increase agricultural productivity and reduce malnutrition in 19 chronically food insecure countries, USAID has outlined two approaches: an FTF whole-of-government approach, which aims to improve coordination and integrate expertise and resources of all FTF partner agencies, and a country-led approach to build country capacity to sustain U.S. efforts by including the host government and other stakeholders in planning and implementation.
GAO was asked to study the FTF initiative. GAO examined (1) the extent to which USAID has implemented a whole-of-government approach and (2) how USAID has facilitated a country-led approach. GAO analyzed FTF-related agency documents, conducted a survey of all USAID and U.S. FTF partner agency representatives implementing FTF in 19 focus countries, and interviewed FTF agency officials in Washington, D.C.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has made progress in coordinating with U.S. partner agencies through the whole-of-government approach for the Feed the Future (FTF) initiative that began in 2010. According to USAID documents, this approach involves coordination and integration of expertise and resources across U.S. partner agencies with global food security programs. In reports issued in 2008 and 2010, GAO found that U.S. agency food security efforts were fragmented and uncoordinated. Under FTF, GAO found that USAID leads the whole-of-government approach by better coordinating and integrating partner agencies' knowledge and expertise at three levels: at headquarters in Washington, D.C.; in each of the 19 FTF focus countries; and between the countries and headquarters. In headquarters, USAID and FTF partner agencies established joint strategies and new data management systems to track funding and results across the U.S. government. At the country level, in GAO's survey of U.S. FTF partner agency representatives in 19 FTF focus countries, 93 percent reported coordinating with USAID.
USAID has facilitated a country-led approach but has not systematically assessed risks associated with this approach. USAID has facilitated the approach by providing assistance to the host governments in developing country plans and coordinating on FTF with country stakeholders, including nonprofit and for-profit organizations. U.S. FTF partner agency representatives answering GAO's survey reported working with multiple country stakeholders on FTF. In its March 2010 report, GAO found that the country-led approach was vulnerable to a number of risks, including insufficient capacity of host governments to meet funding commitments for agriculture. USAID has since made some progress in monitoring these risks, including tracking the number of focus countries that increase public expenditure for agriculture. However, GAO's current study found that USAID's FTF multiyear country strategies did not systematically assess risks to the country-led approach. For example, 12 of the 19 strategies did not contain sections discussing assessments of risks such as the host government's insufficient capacity and policies that inhibit private sector investment. GAO also found that fewer than half of the risks identified had corresponding discussions of mitigation strategies. Although USAID country guidance documents indicate that country teams must assess risks associated with USAID's development objectives, the agency does not require country teams to systematically assess and mitigate risks to the country-led approach. Without requirements for FTF country staff to identify and mitigate risks associated with the country-led approach, the U.S. government's ability to achieve its goals for improving global food security could be limited.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: The USAID Administrator should require FTF country staff to conduct periodic risk assessments associated with pursuing a country-led approach and to develop plans to mitigate the risks identified. USAID concurred with the recommendations.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Nearly 870 million people, more than one-eighth of the world’s population,  suffer from chronic hunger, and more than 2.5 million children die each  year from undernutrition, according to the United Nations World Food  Program. In 2008, the World Bank reported that numerous efforts to  promote agriculture in developing countries had failed due to factors such  as inefficient agriculture tax policies and underinvestment in agriculture.  The World Bank also reported that, in response to recurring food crises,  donors had shifted their priorities toward directly providing food rather  than investing in programs to increase economic growth and food  security.
In 2009, recognizing that overcoming underinvestment in agriculture in  the world’s poorest countries would require stronger global partnerships,  leaders at the Group of Eight (G8) Summit in L’Aquila, Italy, committed to  increase food security assistance, and especially public and private  investments in developing countries’ agricultural sectors. The President  announced that the United States would invest at least $3.5 billion over 3  years through the Feed the Future (FTF) initiative aimed at increasing  agricultural productivity and reducing malnutrition among children in 19  chronically food insecure countries.
To strengthen the effectiveness of this initiative, the President’s new  development policy outlined an operational model for global food security  programs focused on among other things (1) enhancing the level of  interagency cooperation by providing incentives for the design of common  analysis, planning, and programs drawing on the perspectives and  expertise of different U.S. agencies, and (2) responding to country  priorities by ensuring that U.S. investments aligned with established  national strategies and development plans of partner countries based on  consultation with a broad range of stakeholders. In prior reports, we found  that U.S. efforts to coordinate food security programs implemented by  multiple federal agencies were fragmented and lacked integration and  data management systems. Because of this fragmented approach to food  security, the U.S. government was likely missing opportunities to leverage  each agency’s expertise and to minimize duplication. Furthermore, we  found that coordination of agricultural development programs had been  difficult at the country level due, in part, to the large number of donor  agricultural development projects that were not adequately aligned. We  also reported that the U.S. approach was vulnerable to a number of risks,  including the weak capacity of host governments and difficulties in  aligning U.S. assistance with host governments’ own strategies, and  recommended that State delineate measures to mitigate risks associated  with the country-led approach.
In fiscal years 2010 through 2013, the U.S. government, through multiple  federal agencies, allocated $7 billion for global food security programs  under FTF. Among other things, the initiative, led by the U.S. Agency for  International Development (USAID), established a framework for a whole- of-government approach that attempts to maximize the effectiveness of  interagency resources and knowledge through common goals, improved  coordination, and resource alignment. Additionally, FTF sought to build  country capacity and sustainability by obtaining input from the host  government and other stakeholders in planning and implementation  efforts. This country-led approach promotes the participation of key  stakeholders, with an emphasis on including not only the host  government but also nonstate actors, such as advocacy groups, the  private sector, and local and international nonprofit entities.
You asked us to review the FTF initiative. This report addresses (1) the  extent to which USAID has applied a whole-of-government approach and  (2) how USAID has facilitated a country-led approach. To determine the  extent to which USAID has applied FTF’s whole-of-government approach  and to assess how USAID has facilitated a country-led approach, we  reviewed agency planning and guidance documents, surveyed USAID  and U.S. FTF partner agency representatives in the 19 FTF focus  countries on coordination mechanisms and stakeholder consultation, and  interviewed USAID and FTF partner agency officials in Washington, D.C.  We also assessed whether coordination was consistent with key practices  for interagency collaboration. To identify the extent to which USAID and  U.S. FTF partner agency representatives believe that they were  implementing a whole-of-government approach and country-led approach  in planning and implementing FTF, we surveyed 499 USAID and U.S.  FTF partner agency representatives implementing FTF in the 19 focus  countries. To identify the U.S. agency representatives implementing  FTF, we obtained a list of all U.S. FTF representatives from USAID, and  then confirmed with each agency the list of representatives in their  agency who would meet our selection criteria. We administered the  survey from May through August 2012. Overall, we achieved a weighted  response rate of 72 percent, with 342 respondents to our survey. Using  information available to us for all survey recipients, such as employment  status, we conducted a nonresponse bias analysis. The nonresponse  bias analysis did not find any statistically measurable bias that would  affect our analyses. Therefore, although our survey was intended to be a  census, for the purposes of analyzing the results, we treat our survey as a  random sample. Unless otherwise noted, point estimates we report for  2012 have a margin of error of no more than plus or minus 9 percentage  points at the 95 percent level of confidence. We did not survey country  stakeholders about the U.S. government country-led approach in the  planning and implementation of FTF. To determine if USAID has  identified risks with engaging key country stakeholders and documented  efforts to mitigate them, two analysts independently reviewed,  categorized, and analyzed USAID’s 19 FTF multiyear country strategies.  Appendix I contains additional information on our scope and  methodology.
We conducted this performance audit from March 2013 to September  2013 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for  our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe  that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: FTF is the U.S. government’s global hunger and food security initiative.  The overarching goal of the initiative is to accelerate progress toward the  United Nation’s Millennium Development Goal of halving the proportion of  people living in extreme poverty and hunger by 2015. FTF pursues two  paths toward this goal: (1) address the root causes of hunger that limit the  potential of millions of people and (2) establish a lasting foundation for  change by aligning resources with country-owned processes and  sustained multistakeholder partnerships through a new country-led  approach. FTF also attempts to coordinate existing U.S. government  programs in agriculture and food security through a whole-of-government  approach and complement the related work by multilateral institutions  such as the World Bank that receive food security funds from the U.S.  government.
The U.S. government selected 19 countries as focus countries for FTF on  the basis of the level of need, opportunity for partnership, potential for  agricultural-led growth, opportunity for regional synergies, and resource  availability. In these 19 countries, the U.S. government concentrates  FTF investments in specific geographic regions called “zones of  influence” where a small number of commodities such as rice, maize, and  wheat are targeted.
In 2010, the Department of State and USAID’s Quadrennial Diplomacy  and Development Review (QDDR) designated USAID as the lead agency  for the FTF initiative. USAID established the Bureau for Food Security to  manage FTF as well as other agricultural development programs. Since  that time, the USAID Administrator has served as the de facto Global  Food Security Coordinator. In that capacity, he is responsible for  implementing the initiative, including ensuring that all relevant U.S.  government agencies and departments are consulted and engaged, as  necessary, for the purposes of aligning and coordinating FTF with other  food security-related programs and policies across the U.S. government.  In addition, FTF has two Deputy Coordinators: one for development and  one for diplomacy.
To facilitate coordination of U.S. government activities at the country  level, the U.S. ambassador in each focus country designates a U.S. FTF  Country Coordinator to lead the whole-of-government implementation of  FTF. The initiative incorporates USAID food security programs and  activities of nine FTF partner agencies, as shown in table 1. Partner  agency roles in implementing FTF include State’s efforts to reform policy;  Treasury’s support for the Global Agriculture and Food Security Program  (GAFSP); and USDA’s support for agricultural research, economic, and  market analysis.
Together, USAID and the U.S. FTF partner agencies allocated $7 billion  for global food security programs in fiscal years 2010 through 2013. As of  March 2013, USAID and U.S. FTF partner agencies had disbursed  approximately $4.5 billion, or about 63 percent (see table 2).
Of this amount, disbursements against the L’Aquila pledge accounted for  $1.5 billion or about 33 percent, while other FTF-related programs were  $3 billion or 67 percent.
Within other FTF-related programs, USAID disbursed the highest  amount of funds ($1.4 billion), followed by USDA ($879 million), MCC  ($640 million) and Treasury ($89 million).
Figure 1 shows USAID and U.S. FTF partner agency locations in the 19  FTF focus countries in 2012. USAID and State have representatives in all  19 countries, while MCC, USADF, and the Peace Corps are located in  countries where they have food security programs, and USDA  predominantly operates on a regional level. The countries with the highest  number of FTF agencies are Mali, Senegal, and Tanzania while the  countries with the lowest number of FTF agencies are Bangladesh, Haiti,  Honduras, and Tajikistan.
See app. II for a description of the other FTF-related food security programs  implemented by USAID, Treasury, and USDA.
For those countries in which the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) regional representative is  based in another country, USDA covers these countries as follows:  Bangladesh and Nepal are  covered from India; Cambodia is covered from Thailand; Ghana and Liberia are covered from Nigeria;  Haiti is covered from the Dominican Republic; Honduras is covered from Guatemala; Malawi,  Rwanda, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zambia are covered from Kenya; Mali is covered from Senegal;  Mozambique is covered from South Africa; and Tajikistan is covered from Turkey.
section_title: USAID Has Made Progress in Coordinating with U.S. FTF Partner Agencies through Its Whole-of-Government Approach
paragraphs: USAID has made progress in applying FTF’s whole-of-government  approach by coordinating and integrating U.S. FTF partner agencies’  knowledge and expertise at three levels: at headquarters in Washington,  D.C.; in each of the 19 FTF focus countries; and between the countries  and headquarters. At the headquarters level, we found USAID has made  significant progress in addressing vulnerabilities we previously reported  on by coordinating with U.S. FTF partner agencies to, among other  things, develop a global food security strategy and monitor interagency  performance. In addition, USAID and U.S. FTF partner agency  representatives reported coordinating with each other at the country level  and between the countries and headquarters. For example, our survey of  U.S. FTF representatives in 19 FTF focus countries shows that 93  percent of the U.S. FTF partner agency representatives reported  coordinating with USAID and approximately 80 percent of all U.S. FTF  representatives reported coordinating with their headquarters office.  Figure 2 illustrates USAID’s whole-of-government coordination efforts in  headquarters, at the country level, and between the country level and  headquarters.
Since 2010, USAID has made significant progress in addressing  fragmentation in global food security efforts by coordinating with FTF  partner agencies in headquarters through FTF’s whole-of-government  approach. In reports issued in 2008 and 2010, we found that  vulnerabilities in U.S. food security efforts included the lack of  government-wide efforts such as an integrated strategy for food security,  data management systems, and leveraging knowledge and expertise  through coordination efforts such as food security working groups. Most  of these vulnerabilities were related to a lack of coordination among U.S.  agencies at the headquarters level. We concluded that, given this  fragmentation in food security, the U.S. government was likely missing  opportunities to leverage each agency’s expertise and to minimize  duplication. We made several recommendations on improving  coordination efforts in food security programs. U.S. agencies agreed with  our recommendations and said they would take actions to develop an  interagency food security strategy and establish a common reporting  system to monitor progress in food security programs.
As a result, USAID has made significant progress in coordinating food  security programs at the headquarters level by (1) developing a strategic  approach to food security in collaboration with other U.S. agencies, (2)  tracking interagency food security funding, (3) tracking and monitoring  interagency food security performance data, and (4) coordinating food  security efforts through biweekly interagency meetings. These efforts are  consistent with key practices that enhance interagency collaboration.
Since 2010, U.S. agencies have made progress in outlining their joint  strategic approach for global food security programs in various  documents. The 2010 Feed the Future Guide (FTF Guide) —the strategic  document guiding FTF—states that the overarching FTF goal is  sustainably reducing poverty and hunger by tackling their root causes and  employing proven strategies for achieving large scale and lasting impact.  The FTF Guide also indentifies increasing agricultural growth and  improving nutritional status of women and children as two key objectives  to achieve progress towards the overarching goal. The outlining of a joint  strategic approach for FTF is consistent with our previous  recommendation that agencies develop a comprehensive global food  security strategy. The FTF Guide specifies that U.S. agencies involved in  food-security-related activities are to participate in planning and  implementing the initiative. FTF officials told us that the U.S. agencies  primarily involved in food security—USAID, State, USDA, MCC, and  Treasury—collaborated on the development of the FTF Guide. The 2012  Feed the Future Progress Report, issued after the FTF Guide, provides  additional information such as U.S. agency roles and responsibilities in  implementing the U.S. government strategic approach. USAID officials  told us they are updating the FTF Guide to include roles and  responsibilities. These efforts are consistent with one of our key practices  on interagency collaboration, which notes that in order for collaborating  agencies to achieve a common outcome, they need to establish  strategies that work together with their partners’ strategies or are  developed as joint strategies.
USAID also made progress in tracking interagency funding by  establishing the position of FTF Budget Director who requests and tracks  funding data on U.S. global food security programs. Consistent with our  previous recommendation that agencies periodically inventory food  security-related programs and funding, the FTF Budget Director requests  quarterly data from USAID, MCC, and Treasury on appropriations,  obligations, and disbursements toward the L’Aquila pledge. The Budget  Director also tracks appropriated funds for other food security programs  such as USDA’s Food for Progress and Food for Education programs and  Treasury’s contributions toward the International Fund for Agricultural  Development by requesting data semiannually. The funding data  collected are reported in USAID’s annual Feed the Future Progress  Report.
USAID has also made progress in establishing an FTF monitoring and  evaluation system to track interagency performance data toward common  future security goals using a shared online data input and reporting  system. We previously recommended that agencies develop improved  measures to monitor and evaluate progress. USAID and the FTF  partner agencies agreed on this centralized system and common  indicators for tracking food security programs and progress across  agencies. According to U.S. officials, USAID, State, USDA, MCC,  Treasury, OPIC, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)  collaborated on developing 56 FTF performance indicators for monitoring  and evaluation, including 8 indicators that show U.S. government  progress toward meeting FTF goals. These indicators include prevalence  of poverty and prevalence of underweight children under 5 years of age.  However, initially not all U.S. FTF partner agencies reported into the FTF  Monitoring System (FTFMS) that USAID established. In fiscal year 2011,  USAID, USDA, MCC, and Treasury reported on these indicators. The  Peace Corps began reporting into the system in 2012, and USADF began  reporting into the system in fiscal year 2013. OPIC officials told us that  they plan to report into the system in 2014.
USAID uses data from FTFMS to report on the implementation of its  whole-of-government and country-led approaches in the FTF  Scorecard—which includes, among other things, measures to track the  whole-of-government approach. According to the FTF Scorecard, USAID  is tracking five whole-of-government related measures including the  number of FTF interagency biweekly meetings and agencies presenting  their food security annual plans to FTF. This is consistent with another of  our key practices for interagency collaboration: that collaborating  agencies create the means to monitor and evaluate those efforts so that  they can identify areas for improvement and report to clients and  stakeholders. In fiscal year 2012, of the five whole-of-government  measures, results reported in the FTF Scorecard exceeded the target for one: number of partner agencies reporting partially met the target for three: number of FTF interagency working  group meetings, number of country-level working groups holding  regular interagency meetings, number of FTF agencies presenting  their food security annual plans to FTF; and did not meet the target for one: number of country portfolio reviews  with interagency participation.
Since 2010, USAID and FTF partner agencies have shared expertise and  knowledge through biweekly headquarters meetings that all the FTF  partner agencies we spoke with confirmed attending. In May 2008, we  found that agencies did not have a government-wide interagency working  group to coordinate their food security programs. On the basis of our  current review of interagency meeting agendas and notes, we found  USAID and FTF partners discussed planning documents such as the FTF  strategic plan and progress reports and coordinated USAID and FTF  partner agency feedback on the documents. FTF officials also told us that  at these interagency meetings, agencies share implementation plans,  discuss FTF plans and documents, request input, raise and discuss  issues regarding implementation, and present information on their areas  of expertise. This is consistent with our key practices for federal agencies  engaged in collaborative efforts, which state that collaborating agencies  create the means to address the compatibility of policies and procedures  and other means to facilitate working across agency boundaries such as  frequent communication among collaborating agencies.
subsections: section_title: USAID and U.S. FTF Partners Reported Coordination at the Country Level and between the Country Level and Headquarters
paragraphs: USAID and U.S. FTF partner agency representatives we surveyed in 19  FTF countries reported coordination at the country level and between the  country level and headquarters through USAID’s whole-of-government  approach.
At the country level, 93 percent of U.S. FTF partner agency  representatives reported coordinating with representatives from the lead  FTF organization, USAID, in planning and implementing FTF.  Approximately 66 percent of representatives from U.S. FTF partner  agencies also reported coordinating with country-level FTF  representatives from State, and approximately one-third or more of U.S.  FTF partner agency representatives reported coordinating with USDA, the  Peace Corps, and other FTF agency representatives (see table 3).
We undertook additional analysis of the coordination reported in the  survey and found that in nearly all cases USAID’s coordination with its  partner agencies was a two-way relationship. For example, USAID  officials reported coordinating with State, MCC, Treasury, USDA, the  Peace Corps, and Commerce in all countries where those agencies were  involved in FTF. Those same agencies also reported coordinating with  USAID in all the FTF countries where they were present. We also found  that a broad range of USAID representatives reported coordinating with  FTF partner agency staff, including mission directors, Foreign Service  Officers, personal services contractors, and Foreign Service Nationals.  The USAID staff in our survey indicated that they worked in areas such as  agricultural development, economic growth, food security, and health.
Collectively, USAID representatives reported coordinating with multiple  officials at the State, USDA, and the Peace Corps. For example USAID  coordinated with U.S. ambassadors, political and economic affairs  officers, and public affairs officers at State.
Within each FTF country, USAID coordinates and shares knowledge and  expertise with FTF partner agencies, under the leadership of the FTF  Country Coordinator, through food security working groups as well as  informal communication. Almost 80 percent of FTF partner  representatives reported coordinating with USAID in FTF meetings at  least quarterly. USAID FTF country-level representatives we interviewed  while they were in Washington, D.C., told us that the interagency  meetings in the field are their formal means of coordination. According to  USAID documents, all FTF country-level staff report meeting at least  twice a year; however, the frequency of these FTF meetings and the  topics covered vary from country to country. For example, FTF officials in  one Asian country told us that their food security working group meets  once a week and discusses topics such as FTF and other food security- related projects, document development, budgets, and stakeholder  meetings. By contrast, officials in an African country told us that FTF  partner agencies meet quarterly to discuss FTF issues and  implementation but certain agencies meet more frequently as needed and  during development of FTF documents. According to senior USAID  officials in headquarters, they have suggested to country-level staff that  they hold interagency meetings at least monthly, but USAID has no  requirement regarding the frequency of the meetings.
Most USAID and partner agency representatives responding to our  survey indicated that their coordination was generally effective in  accomplishing a number of FTF-related actions, as shown in table 4.
About three out of four FTF agency representatives (76 percent) indicated  that their coordination was generally effective in developing or  contributing to integrated FTF program documents, and our review of  agency documents identified multiple examples of such efforts. USAID  and USDA, for example, jointly prepared a roadmap to align their food  assistance programs with FTF as part of the multiyear strategy  development process in Guatemala and Haiti. Seventy-two percent of  USAID and U.S. FTF partner agency representatives also reported  generally effective coordination in integrating FTF program or project  planning with other U.S. foreign assistance programs.
Over half of U.S. FTF representatives responding to our survey indicated  that certain factors helped interagency coordination at the country level,  such as ongoing communication (65 percent), sharing FTF-related data  (64 percent), and the technical expertise of other U.S. government staff  (61 percent). Less than half of all U.S. FTF representatives indicated that  certain factors either hindered coordination or had no effect, such as  staffing levels at other agencies (34 percent), lack of compatibility of  procedures (39 percent), and flexibility of funding (41 percent).
Between the country level and headquarters, USAID and FTF partners  reported coordinating and sharing information with each other through a  variety of methods, including written communications and guidance,  review of country strategies and progress data, country visits, and  conference calls. Approximately 80 percent of USAID and U.S. FTF  partner agency representatives reported coordinating with their offices in  headquarters on FTF. About 90 percent of all USAID representatives  reported coordinating with USAID’s Bureau for Food Security on FTF. In  addition, 73 percent of USAID and U.S. FTF partner agencies reported  that they received FTF guidance from their own headquarters at least  quarterly. All FTF agencies in headquarters provided written guidance to  country-level staff on implementing FTF and requested updates on food  security issues. Headquarters and country-level staff within USAID and  FTF partner agencies also coordinated in the development and review of  a series of FTF country strategic documents and progress data reported  into the FTF monitoring and evaluation system. Moreover, headquarters  officials from USAID, USDA, and the Peace Corps also told us that they  hold regular telephone conferences with country-level staff.
section_title: USAID Facilitated a Country-Led Approach and Made Some Progress in Monitoring Risks but Has Not Systematically Assessed Risks at the Country Level
paragraphs: USAID has taken steps to facilitate a country-led approach by providing  support to the development and implementation of each country’s food  security plan and by coordinating with multiple stakeholders. We found  that USAID has a performance management tool, the FTF Scorecard,  that is monitoring some risks to the country-led approach and that USAID  has efforts to mitigate some of those risks. However, FTF’s multiyear  country strategies did not systematically assess risks to the country-led  approach and identify mitigation plans. USAID did not require a risk  assessment in its FTF strategy guidance; however, other relevant USAID  guidance states that a risk assessment informs management of the  relevant risks associated with achieving objectives.
subsections: section_title: USAID Has Taken Steps to Facilitate a Country-Led Approach
paragraphs: We found that USAID has taken steps to facilitate a country-led approach.  According to the FTF Guide, the country-led approach to FTF involves (1)  providing support to the development and implementation of each  country’s food security plan, called a country investment plan (CIP) and  (2) coordinating with multiple stakeholders, including the host  government, civil society organizations, donors, and the private sector in  the planning and implementation of FTF. The U.S. government also  planned to align its own multiyear country strategies with the priorities  identified in the CIPs.
section_title: USAID Supported Development and Implementation of Country Plans
paragraphs: We found that USAID and FTF partner agencies provided support to the  development and implementation of CIPs in several ways. According to  USAID officials, consistent with the FTF Guide, they provided support to  the CIP development and implementation process through (1) assistance  to strengthen the capacity of host governments and facilitate their  consultation with multiple stakeholders; (2) financial and technical support  to increase stakeholders’ influence in developing and implementing the  plans; and (3) participation in technical reviews of country investment  plans to ensure, among other things, that the CIP development process,  which included host government consultations with stakeholders, was  carried out.
In our survey of U.S. agency representatives in 19 FTF focus countries,  USAID representatives reported that USAID provided multiple types of  assistance to strengthen the capacity of host governments and to support  host government officials’ consultations with other stakeholders, including  technical assistance or research data (71 percent), meetings (70  percent), and directly hosting consultation events or activities (68  percent). Sixty-two percent also reported providing policy or diplomatic  support to improve host country laws, regulations, or organizational  procedures relating to stakeholder consultations. In addition, over half of  USAID representatives responding to the survey reported that, as a result  of their coordination with host government stakeholders, partnership  formation and engagement with other FTF project partners increased.
Our survey also showed that USAID representatives reported that they  provided support to increase stakeholders’ involvement in developing and  implementing the country plans. For example, more than half of USAID  representatives reported identifying potential partners and about half  reported providing technical assistance or research data to for-profit  stakeholders to facilitate the creation of public-private partnerships. In  addition, half of USAID respondents reported that, as a result of their  coordination with for-profit stakeholders, partnership formation with these  stakeholders increased. Table 5 shows the percentages of USAID  representatives who indicated that USAID provided assistance to for- profit stakeholders to facilitate FTF-related public-private partnerships.
USAID and U.S. FTF partner agency officials also participated in  technical reviews of CIPs in all FTF focus countries, but the process for  the reviews varied. For the African FTF focus countries, USAID relied on  the African Union’s Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development  Program (CAADP) to guide the development and implementation of  country investment plans. CAADP’s framework requires a technical  review of CIPs, which includes reviewing the prioritization of agriculture  investments, documentation of the scope and form of stakeholder  consultations in the planning process, incorporation of private sector  investment, and a risk assessment. For the non-African FTF focus  countries, USAID and MCC officials told us that they and State promoted  guidelines similar to CAADP and provided support for technical reviews  because such a regional-level program to guide the development and  implementation of the CIPs did not exist.
In our survey of U.S. FTF agency representatives in the 19 FTF focus  countries, USAID and partner agency representatives reported that  multiple stakeholders were included in the planning and implementation  of FTF: host governments, nonprofit organizations, donors, and for-profit  entities. U.S. government officials seek to coordinate with host  government, nonprofit, donor, and private sector stakeholders to  implement FTF as follows:
Host government: U.S. government officials are to coordinate with  host governments on implementing agriculture policy reforms and  consult with them on FTF policy priorities and investments.
Nonprofits: U.S. government officials are to coordinate with  nonprofits to build their capacity and to achieve meaningful and  effective engagement with host governments to sustain food security  investments.
Donors: USAID is to participate in agriculture donor working groups in  FTF countries to coordinate U.S. government food security  investments with those of other donors. Additionally, one of State’s  roles is to encourage other donors to, among other things, meet their  financial commitments to food security and to assist countries on  policy reforms.
For-profits: USAID is trying to increase private sector investment in  agriculture in FTF focus countries, including through public-private  partnerships.
As shown in table 6, the percentages of all U.S. FTF agency  representatives that reported working with the four kinds of stakeholders  ranged from 83 percent (working with host government officials) to 62  percent (working with for-profit enterprises).
Compared with representatives from U.S. FTF partner agencies, USAID  representatives had a higher percentage reporting that they worked with  each of the four stakeholder groups. As the lead agency for FTF, USAID  engages a broad range of stakeholders, while FTF partner agencies may  work with only certain groups of stakeholders depending on an agency’s  role in a focus country’s FTF effort. For example, MCC works directly with  host governments to design MCC compacts and support their  implementation. In contrast, USADF provides grants directly to local  organizations to fund projects that engage community groups in the  design and implementation of the projects. (See app. V for additional  information on agencies’ country-led approaches.)
USAID representatives reported that certain features of stakeholders’  participation in FTF increased as a result of coordination (see table 7).  About half or more of USAID representatives reported that the following  three features of stakeholders’ participation in FTF increased for all  stakeholders: integration of stakeholders’ key priorities, formation of  partnerships that included the stakeholders, and engagement of  stakeholders with other FTF project partners.
Since 2010, USAID has made some progress in monitoring risks related  to the country-led approach by developing a tool—the FTF Scorecard— that tracks performance goals on country ownership and includes  measures that address risks to the country-led approach. In prior work,  we have concluded that agencies may address management challenges  and program risks by setting goals and measures related to those  challenges and risks. In our May 2008 and March 2010 reports on U.S.  global food security efforts, we found deficiencies in measuring and  monitoring progress in food security and risks associated with the  country-led approach. In our current study, we found that USAID’s 2012  and 2013 FTF Scorecards outline two goals to ensure country ownership  and sustainability: focus countries lead collaborative implementation of  the CIP and local capacity is increasingly able to sustain food security.
Under these goals, USAID is monitoring five performance measures  related to the country-led approach: number of (1) focus countries with  increased public expenditure for agriculture; (2) focus countries using  outreach platforms to civil society organizations (CSOs) and private  sector companies to inform CIP development and implementation; (3)  focus countries holding joint sector reviews with donors, CSOs, and  private sector firms; (4) focus countries with improved ranking in the  World Bank’s ease-of-doing-business index; and (5) private enterprises  and CSOs that applied new technologies or management practices.
We found that each of these five performance measures on country  ownership is related to a risk to the sustainability of U.S. food security  investments. Broadly, these measures fall into four risk-related  categories: the ability of host governments to meet agriculture funding  commitments; stakeholder consultations in the development and  implementation of CIPs; host government policies that are conducive to  private sector investment; and building local capacity. In our March 2010  report, we found that the country-led approach was vulnerable to a  number of risks, including the weak capacity of host governments to meet  funding commitments for agriculture and difficulties aligning host  government and donor strategies due to differences in policy priorities.  Additionally, other FTF guidance documents outlined the necessity of  effective consultation with stakeholders, a policy environment conducive  for investment, and building local capacity to ensure FTF’s sustainability.  In fiscal year 2012, of the five country-led measures, results reported in  the FTF Scorecard exceeded two targets: number of focus countries with increased  public expenditure for agriculture and private enterprises and number  of CSOs that applied new technologies or management practices; partially met two targets: number of focus countries using outreach  platforms to engage civil society and private sector stakeholders in  CIP development and implementation and number of focus countries  with an improved Doing Business ranking; and did not meet one target: number of focus countries holding joint sector  reviews.
FTF officials who reviewed CIPs in 2010 said the host governments’  consultations with their stakeholders were initially weak because host  governments had limited time to complete their plans and that in some  cases they consulted with stakeholders primarily in capital cities rather  than rural areas.
USAID has taken some steps and is planning others to improve  stakeholder consultations with host governments and to increase private  sector investment in agriculture. The fiscal year 2013 FTF strategic plan  states that FTF intends to strengthen the engagement of civil society and  private sector stakeholders. According to USAID officials, at least four  African focus countries will hold joint sector reviews in 2013. In response  to the need to increase the participation of civil society and private sector  stakeholders in the CAADP process, USAID sponsored the Africa Lead  program to, among other things, build the capacity of civil society and  private sector stakeholders to engage more effectively in the  implementation of African countries’ CIPs. FTF has also sought to  increase private sector participation in agriculture, recognizing the  importance of these stakeholders to food security efforts. Part of this  effort was the creation of the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition  at the 2012 G8 Summit, in which global and local companies in Africa  committed more than $3 billion in investments. However, similar  programs to improve stakeholder consultations and private sector  investment do not exist in the seven Asian and Latin American focus  countries.
section_title: USAID Did Not Systematically Assess Risks Related to the Country-Led Approach in Its Multiyear Country Strategies
paragraphs: Although USAID has made some progress at the headquarters level to  monitor and address risks to the country-led approach, we found that  USAID’s FTF multiyear country strategies did not systematically assess  these risks. According to USAID’s Risk Assessment Guide, a risk  assessment informs agency management of the relevant risks associated  with achieving management objectives and is intended to help  management identify and document risks, prioritize them in terms of  susceptibility, and determine the adequacy of controls to manage those  risks. A key characteristic of a national strategy is a risk assessment,  including an analysis of the threats to, and vulnerabilities of, critical assets  and operations. The FTF multiyear strategies outline the 5-year strategic  planning for the U.S. government’s global hunger and food security  initiative at the country-level. According to these strategies, they  represent whole-of-government approaches to address food security and  were approved by interagency teams. USAID did not require a risk  assessment in its guidance on FTF multiyear strategies.
On the basis of our review of the 19 FTF multiyear country strategies, we  found that 12 of the 19 did not specifically discuss risks related to a  country-led approach. Our review showed that 7 multiyear country  strategies contained sections specifically discussing risks, and roughly  half of the identified risks related to the country-led approach, including  the weak capacity of host governments and host government policies that  inhibit private sector investment. The remaining 12 multiyear country  strategies did not contain a section specifically discussing risk, but they  each identified challenges to the strategies, at least one of which related  to the country-led approach. For example, one African country strategy  states that organizational and technical capacity remains a major  impediment to implementation of its country-owned agriculture  development strategy. Local nongovernmental organizations and the  private sector are poorly developed, and weak government institutions  and insufficient staffing prevent the government from meeting the scale  and pace of implementation required by its country investment plan,  according to the strategy.
Across the seven multiyear country strategies with sections describing  risks, USAID inconsistently identified plans to mitigate the risks identified.  We found that fewer than half of the risks identified had corresponding  discussions of mitigation strategies. For example, one African country  strategy discusses plans to develop capacity and to promote dialogue  between the government and private sector to mitigate the risks posed by  limited government capacity and intervention in markets. In contrast,  another African country strategy described risks to financial and  procurement accountability of projects, but the strategy did not identify  any mitigation plans to address these risks.
According to the FTF multiyear country strategies, the strategies may be  modified as appropriate, but the guidance on updating them indicates that  USAID has made an effort to minimize the need to formally amend these  strategies due to the comprehensive process used to develop them.  Furthermore, USAID’s country guidance documents indicate that USAID  has plans to integrate FTF multiyear strategies into broader country  strategies—Country Development Cooperation Strategies (CDCS).  USAID’s guidance for developing the CDCS indicates that country teams  must assess risks associated with USAID’s development objectives and  assess the degree to which officials can identify and control critical risks.  USAID officials told us that plans for integrating the multiyear strategies  into the CDCS will address the lack of risk assessments in the FTF  multiyear strategies. However, the guidance documents for developing  the CDCS indicate that country teams have the flexibility to determine the  level of integration of their FTF multiyear strategy; moreover, the  guidance indicates that some country teams are exempt from the  requirement to integrate FTF into their CDCS. The CDCS Supplemental  Guidance for Integrating Feed the Future states that USAID country  teams receiving FTF funding should demonstrate that they strongly  considered integrating FTF planning into the CDCS, but they are not  required to do so. Furthermore, the guidance states that the integration of  FTF multiyear strategies is not applicable to those USAID country teams  that have completed a CDCS or are far along in the CDCS process.  Because the integration of FTF multiyear strategies into the CDCS  remains an option, and not a requirement, for country teams, the extent to  which USAID plans to systematically assess and mitigate risks to the  country-led approach remains unclear. Without requirements for FTF  country staff to identify and mitigate risks associated with the country-led  approach, the U.S. government’s ability to achieve its goals for improving  global food security could be limited.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: In 2010, President Obama outlined a new operational model for  enhancing interagency cooperation and responding to country priorities  with broad consultation in global food security programs. This marked a  shift from prior policy and efforts, and results from our survey of 19 FTF  focus countries strongly suggest that the U.S. government has made  good progress in applying a whole-of-government and country-led  approach. Progress achieved in U.S. interagency coordination and  engagement with country stakeholders can enhance U.S. efforts in FTF  countries to improve agriculture productivity and reduce malnutrition  among children. In addition, by aligning and coordinating its food security  efforts with those outlined in each country’s investment plan, including  efforts of other donors, the U.S. government can ensure a more effective  contribution toward the United Nations Millennium Development Goal of  eradicating extreme poverty and hunger. However, USAID has not  systematically assessed risks to aligning U.S. investments to country  priorities and engaging multiple stakeholders. USAID’s guidance indicates  that risk assessments inform management of the relevant risks  associated with achieving objectives and help them determine the  adequacy of controls to manage those risks. Although USAID guidance  documents indicate that country teams must assess risks associated with  USAID’s development objectives, the agency does not require FTF  country teams to systematically assess and mitigate risks to the FTF’s  country-led approach.
In the absence of requirements for FTF country staff to identify and  mitigate risks in aligning resources with country priorities and engaging  multiple stakeholders, further progress in implementing the country-led  approach could be hampered and could limit the U.S. government’s ability  to achieve its goals for improving global food security.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To ensure that risks related to the country-led approach are  systematically assessed, we recommend that the USAID Administrator  take the following two actions:  require FTF country staff to conduct periodic risk assessments  associated with pursuing a country-led approach and require FTF country staff to develop plans to mitigate any risks  identified as part of its periodic risk assessments.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report for comment to USAID, State, MCC,  Treasury, USDA, the Peace Corps, USADF, OMB, and OPIC. USAID  provided written comments on a draft of our report.  We have reprinted  these comments in appendix VI. USAID concurred with both of our  recommendations and outlined steps to revise their guidance to be more  explicit about risk assessments and mitigation strategies for the country- led approach. We also received technical comments from USAID, USDA,  State, and USADF, which we have incorporated, as appropriate.
We are sending a copy of this report to interested congressional  committees and to the Administrator of USAID; the Secretaries of State,  Treasury, and Agriculture; the Directors of the OMB and the Peace  Corps; and the Chief Executive Officers of MCC, OPIC, and USADF. In  addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at  http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions regarding this report, please  contact me at (202) 512-9601 or MelitoT@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on  the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this  report are listed in appendix VII.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: This report is part of a larger of body of work we have undertaken  reviewing the U.S. government’s efforts to improve international food  security, including reports we issued in 2008 and 2010. This report  specifically examines (1) the extent to which the U.S. Agency for  International Development (USAID) has applied a whole-of-government  approach and (2) how USAID has facilitated a country-led approach for  the Feed the Future (FTF) initiative. This report is primarily based on our  survey of U.S FTF agency representatives in the 19 FTF focus countries  and on our review of FTF documents.
To determine the extent to which USAID has applied a whole-of- government approach and to assess how USAID has facilitated a  country-led approach, we collected and reviewed agency documents. We  also assessed whether coordination was consistent with key practices  that enhance and sustain interagency collaboration and key features that  benefit interagency collaboration mechanisms identified in prior GAO  reports. To identify how USAID outlined these two approaches, we  reviewed agency FTF planning documents including FTF implementation  plans, strategic reviews and multiyear strategies, and other agency  specific food security planning documents such as the U.S. Department  of Agriculture’s 2011 and 2012 food security plans. We also reviewed  FTF guidance documents such as the 2010 Feed the Future Guide, 2010  Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, focus country strategic  reviews, the 2010 Feed the Future Multiyear Strategy Guidance, Feed the  Future Indicator Handbook, and FTF-related agency cables. Furthermore,  we reviewed the 2012 and 2013 Feed the Future Progress Report and  Feed the Future Scorecard for the most recent program monitoring  information available.
To determine the extent to which USAID and FTF partner agency  representatives believe that they were implementing a whole-of- government approach and country-led approach in planning and  implementing FTF, we conducted interviews with officials in Washington,  D.C., from USAID, Department of State (State), Millennium Challenge  Corporation (MCC), Department of the Treasury (Treasury), Department  of Agriculture (USDA), the Peace Corps, U.S. African Development  Foundation (USADF), Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC),  and the Office of Management and Budget. To obtain the views of  USAID’s and FTF partner agencies’ in-country representatives on these  topics, we sent a web-based survey to all representatives identified by  their agency as key FTF personnel for the 19 FTF countries. The survey  asked their perceptions of the whole-of-government and country-led  approaches in the planning and implementation of FTF. The topics  included coordination within and between U.S. agencies, coordination  with country stakeholders, the mechanism and frequency of coordination,  the perceived effectiveness of the coordination, and factors that may have  helped or hindered coordination. The questionnaire and survey results  are available in an e-supplement (GAO-13-815SP).
To identify key personnel for each country, we asked USAID to provide a  list of all key personnel for each country, including personnel from other  agencies. We verified the non-USAID key personnel with each relevant  agency. Since each FTF focus country is different in terms of the  agencies involved, the FTF programs and activities, and the levels of  commitment from the various embassy and in-country staff, there is no  consistent definition of what constitutes a “key” person involved in FTF;  for that reason, the population was defined for us by the FTF agencies.  Key personnel included mission directors, Foreign Service Officers,  Foreign Service Nationals, and personal services contractors. The final  list of key personnel included 551 individuals, the majority of whom were  USAID employees (see table 8). We did not survey focus-country  stakeholders, such as country government representatives, about the  U.S. government country-led approach in the planning and  implementation of FTF.
We sent the web-based survey to all 551 key personnel on May 21, 2012  and administered the survey until August 31, 2012. To increase response  rates, we sent several follow-up e-mails to agency officials and made  telephone calls to nonrespondents. After sending out the survey, we  identified 52 key personnel who had left their post prior to our sending out  the survey request, who told us that they did not work on FTF, who were  U.S.-based, or who were otherwise out of scope. This reduced our list of  key personnel to 499. Overall, we achieved a weighted response rate of  72 percent, with 342 respondents to our survey. Agency response rates  are shown in table 8.
Using information available to us for all survey recipients, such as  employment status, we conducted a nonresponse bias analysis. The  nonresponse bias analysis did not find any statistically measurable bias  that would affect our analyses. Therefore, although our survey was  intended to be a census, for the purposes of analyzing the results, we  decided to treat our survey as a random sample. Unless otherwise noted,  point estimates we report for 2012 have a margin of error of no more than  plus or minus 9 percentage points at the 95 percent level of confidence.
The practical difficulties of conducting any survey may also introduce  nonsampling errors, such as difficulties interpreting a particular question,  which can introduce unwanted variability into the survey results. We took  steps to minimize nonsampling errors by pretesting the questionnaire  over the telephone with six in-country officials from USAID or FTF partner  agencies in March and April 2012, including three from USAID (one of  whom was a Foreign Service National) and one each from State, USDA,  and the Peace Corps. We conducted pretests to make sure that the  questions were clear and unbiased and that the questionnaire did not  place an undue burden on respondents. An independent reviewer within  GAO also reviewed a draft of the questionnaire prior to its administration.  We made appropriate revisions to the content and format of the  questionnaire after the pretests and independent review.
To determine the extent to which USAID has identified risks and  documented efforts to mitigate them in the FTF multiyear strategies, we  completed the following analyses. We focused on risk assessments  because in reports issued in 2004 and 2007 we identified a risk  assessment as one of several key characteristics of a national strategy.  Additionally, a risk assessment should include an analysis of the threats  to, and vulnerabilities of, critical assets and operations. First, we  reviewed and analyzed the multiyear strategies for all 19 FTF countries to  identify those strategies that had a section dedicated to listing and  describing “risks” to the FTF program. We found that 7 of the 19  strategies had specific risk sections. Second, we conducted an analysis  on the types of risks found in the 7 strategies with specific risk sections.  We found that a total of 44 risks were listed in these strategies and coded  them according to whether they pertained to the key stakeholders in  country (host governments, in-country for-profit sector, in-country  nonprofit sector, and other donors) or whether they pertained to other,  broader risks, such as natural resources or market conditions. We did this  to determine the number of risks that pertain to key stakeholders because  FTF considers these groups essential to implementing the country-led  approach. Of the 44 risks, 25 pertained to key stakeholders and 19  pertained to other, broader risks. For each of the 44 risks, we looked for a  mitigation strategy that was directly tied to the listed risk. We recognize  that, in some instances, other sections of the report described steps that  U.S. agencies could take to address the risks to some degree. However,  our purpose was not to assess the actions the U.S. government was  taking to address risks, but to determine whether it was following a  systematic risk assessment process. We found that 21 of the 44 risks had  mitigation strategies and 23 did not. Third, for the 12 strategies without  specific risk sections, we reviewed other sections in the reports listing and  examining concepts related to risk, such as “challenges,” “barriers,”  “limitations,” or “concerns.” We also reviewed the strategies to determine  whether they included a section referred to as “Development Challenges  and Opportunities,” as required by USAID’s FTF multiyear strategy  guidance. In addition, we determined whether each strategy included any  challenges related to key stakeholders (host governments, in-country for- profit sector, in-country nonprofit sector, and other donors), who are  central to FTF’s country-led approach. We found an example of these key  stakeholder issues in each of the 12 strategies. To perform these  analyses, two analysts independently reviewed all 19 multiyear strategies,  identified the risks or related issues, and coded the risks or issues  according to whether they pertained to key stakeholders. The analysts  worked iteratively, comparing notes and reconciling differences at each  stage of the analysis. In addition, the final analysis was reviewed by other  GAO staff independent of the two analysts, and modifications were made  as appropriate.
To identify the amount of funding provided to FTF, we obtained and  analyzed allocations and disbursement data for FTF and FTF-related  programs such as USAID Title II Food for Peace and USDA McGovern- Dole Food for Education for fiscal years 2010 through 2013 as of March  31, 2013, for each agency. The information reported as allocations and  disbursements was provided to us by the agencies. We use the term  “allocations” to refer to funds the agencies reported that they directed to  FTF. We did not independently assess the amounts agencies reported as  allocations and disbursements. We also did not assess the extent to  which the funds directed to FTF have been obligated. The agencies  reported some differences in the ways that they provided data on  allocations and disbursements for FTF, which we list as notes in table 2.  We interviewed the agencies about the data and determined they were  sufficient for background purposes in our report.
We conducted this performance audit from March 2013 to September  2013 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for  our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe  that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: Other U.S. Global Food Security Programs Related to Feed the Future
paragraphs: The Feed the Future (FTF) initiative incorporates other U.S. assistance  programs related to global food security that are implemented by the U.S.  Agency for International Development, the Department of the Treasury,  and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Each of these other  programs addresses global food security and other development  challenges, as described in table 9.
section_title: Appendix III: Illustrative Example of USAID Representatives’ Reported Coordination with Feed the Future Partner Agencies in One Country
paragraphs: Figure 3 presents an illustrative example of U.S. Agency for International  Development (USAID) representatives’ reported coordination with Feed  the Future (FTF) partner agencies in one country. We selected this  country because (1) the number of USAID staff working on FTF  represented the average for the 19 countries and (2) the country had a  very high response rate to the survey. In this example, the USAID staff  members are organized by the Mission Director and Deputy Director,  Foreign Service Officers, Personal Services Contractors, and Foreign  Service Nationals. For the diagram, we used generic rather than specific  job titles for the USAID staff to ensure confidentiality. In addition, to  simplify the example, we combined information we received from several  survey respondents who reported similar or miscellaneous titles.
section_title: Appendix IV: Multiple Regression Analysis of Survey Results to Identify Predictors of Perceived Effectiveness of Coordination
paragraphs: In analyzing the results of our survey of several hundred U.S.  representatives with duties related to the Feed the Future (FTF) initiative  in 19 focus countries, we explored whether certain factors could help  explain differences in how U.S. representatives perceived coordination  related to FTF. To what extent were such factors as the U.S.  representatives’ different agencies, roles, and positions predictive of  differences in their perceptions of FTF coordination? To answer that  question, we used data from a series of questions in which the U.S.  representatives assessed the effectiveness of their coordination in  accomplishing eight specific actions, such as developing or contributing to  integrated FTF program documents. Depending on how many agencies  the representatives reported coordinating with, the questions were  presented up to five times to obtain perceptions of the effectiveness of  their coordination with representatives in their own and other agencies.  We constructed a scale from responses to all coordination effectiveness  questions, allocating each representative a point for each action for which  they viewed their coordination as “very effective” or “somewhat effective.”  Thus, the maximum score was 40 points for representatives who  answered the questions five times and each time rated their coordination  as very or somewhat effective for all eight actions; on average each  respondent rated 8.5 activities as very or somewhat effective.
In analyzing the raw scores on the coordination effectiveness scale, we  found marked differences among representatives when we grouped and  compared them by different tenures in their jobs, different agencies, and  different amounts of time on FTF activities. For example, representatives  who reported spending very little of their time on FTF activities viewed  their coordination as effective in accomplishing an average of 4 actions,  compared with an average of 9 for representatives who reported  spending most of their time on FTF activities. Similarly, Department of  State (State) representatives on average viewed their coordination as  effective for about 12 actions, compared with an average of 8 for  nonregional representatives of the lead FTF agency, the U.S. Agency for  International Development (USAID).
We used regression analysis to assess whether such differences in  perceptions of effectiveness across representatives as measured by our  scale persisted after controlling for other factors, such as different roles,  positions, and opportunities to engage in the actions specified in the  coordination effectiveness questions. Regression analysis allowed us to  assess the unique association between our outcome variable and a given  predictor variable, while controlling for multiple other predictor variables.  In our ordinary least squares (OLS) regression model, we controlled for a  variety of demographic factors that might have an impact on perceptions  of effectiveness, including representatives’ agency (USAID, State, the  U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Peace Corps, and all other partner  agencies); their tenure (less than a year, a year to less than 2 years, and  2 years or more); their employment status (Foreign Service  Officers/Foreign Service Officers Limited, Foreign Service Nationals, and  all others including contractors); the amount of time spent on FTF  activities (very little, some or about half, and most or all); the number of  entities the representative reported coordinating with; and, for USAID  representatives, whether the representative was considered a regional  representative. Additionally, we also examined whether the representative  reported coordinating with USAID (or other USAID representatives) and  how many USAID staff they coordinated with. Finally, we used  information from previous GAO research to identify certain factors that  potentially affect coordination. For example, we included indicators for  whether representatives felt that specific factors helped or hindered  coordination overall, including funding, staffing levels, clarity of roles and  responsibilities, and the compatibility of performance measures.
Our regression model identified several factors that had statistically  significant associations with representatives’ perceptions of the  effectiveness of their coordination, after controlling for other factors.  Notably, State representatives, representatives with intermediate job  tenure, and representatives who reported spending some to half their  time on FTF activities had mean scores on the coordination effectiveness  scale that were significantly higher than, respectively, USAID  representatives, representatives with less job tenure, and representatives  who spent less time on FTF. Additionally, we found that on average,  representatives who felt, respectively, that staffing levels at their  agencies, clarity of roles and responsibilities, and compatibility of  performance measures and representatives helped with coordination also  had significantly higher mean scores on the coordination effectiveness  scale than those who felt these factors had no effect or had no opinion on  them. After controlling for other factors, we did not find a significant  association between representatives’ perceptions of coordination  effectiveness and their employment status (Foreign Service  Officer/Foreign Service Officer Limited, Foreign Service National or  Locally Employed Staff, and Personal Services Contractor/Others)  regional status (for USAID representatives), or views on whether the  amount of funding helped or hindered coordination activities. Table 10  presents the categorical predictor variables in the regression model  variables for which statistically significant associations were found with  the outcome variable.
In developing our final model, we tested multiple versions of our model to  evaluate the functional form of the relationships it specified and to ensure  that the results were robust across specifications. We included core  demographic variables in all models under consideration, including  tenure, time spent on FTF, employment status, agency, and the number  of entities the representative reported coordinating with. We tested  additional predictor variables that surfaced as potentially important  through our research, but decided against including in our final model all  non-significant variables tested because of the limited number of  representatives responding to our survey. Conversely, in some cases,  we included in our final model several variables that were important  controls or theoretically important but did not rise to the level of statistical  significance. Most notably, because our outcome variable is constrained  by the number of the five different agencies that each representative  reported working with, all models included a control for this factor.
We conducted a variety of other tests to check for high leverage outliers,  model fit, and other issues. We did not find evidence of consistently high  leverage points or outliers that appeared to have undue influence on our  coefficients or model variance. We also checked across a variety of  specifications, including different variables and functional forms, to ensure  that the final model results were fairly stable across specifications in  terms of the substantive and statistical significance of the coefficients (in  terms of direction, magnitude, and significance). For example, because  our outcome variable is highly skewed, we tested our model using  different functional forms (including a logged outcome variable and a  Poisson count model) to ensure that the interpretation of the results was  consistent with our final model using OLS. We decided to use an OLS  specification despite the skew in the outcome variable for several  reasons, including the consistency of interpretation with the alternative  models tested, the relative robustness of OLS to violations of functional  forms, and the ease of interpreting the regression coefficients. Our final  model had an R2 of 0.398, suggesting that the predictor variables  predicted approximately 40 percent of the variation in the outcome  variable. statistics  before and after to drop variables that were not statistically significant.
section_title: Appendix V: Feed the Future Partner Agencies’ Approaches to Country-Led Program Implementation
paragraphs: The country-led approaches to implementing food security programs by  Feed the Future (FTF) partner agencies vary according to particular  agency mandates and agency roles in FTF. The following examples  illustrate the variation in approaches by the Millennium Challenge  Corporation (MCC), the Peace Corps, the U.S. Department of State  (State), the U.S. Department of the Treasury (Treasury), the U.S. African  Development Foundation (USADF), and the U.S. Department of  Agriculture (USDA).
MCC: MCC has been using the country ownership approach to  development since its inception in 2004. MCC provides assistance to  eligible countries through multiyear compact agreements including  agriculture-related investments. Partner country governments are  responsible for the implementation of MCC compacts, including  initiating a meaningful consultative process with the country’s civil  society, nongovernmental organization, and private sector  stakeholders, as well as a broad range of government stakeholders.
Peace Corps: Peace Corps officials described their approach to  country ownership as working with partner countries from the national  level down to the community level and engaging their volunteers in  projects that are supported by host country governments. In addition,  each project has a Project Advisory Committee that contributes to the  design and evaluation of the project and includes at least one  representative from the government and local community.
State: State was the lead agency for Feed the Future from 2009 to  2010 and led the development of the FTF Guide, which described the  FTF country-led approach. State officials have promoted stakeholder  consultations around the development of country investment plans  and have also helped facilitate greater civil society and private sector  involvement in FTF.
Treasury: Treasury officials work with the World Bank’s multidonor  trust fund Global Agriculture and Food Security Program (GAFSP)  and have made efforts to align GAFSP and FTF’s country-led  approaches. Treasury assisted in the development of the selection  criteria for GAFSP funding which includes an assessment of the  country’s policy environment as well as evidence of consultations with  local stakeholders.
USADF: USADF provides grants of up to $250,000 to the most  vulnerable communities in Africa and these grants fund projects that  are led by staff of local technical partners that engage community  groups in the project’s design and implementation.
USDA: USDA seeks to align its resources with country investment  plans where it concentrates its food security investments. USDA  particularly focuses on ensuring that the private sector is included in  food security consultations and works directly with host government  officials and local universities and civil society.
section_title: Appendix VI: Comments from the U.S. Agency for International Development
section_title: Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Cheryl Goodman (Assistant  Director), Farahnaaz Khakoo-Mausel, Rachel Dunsmoor, Paige  Muegenburg, Sushmita Srikanth, Michele Wong, Martin De Alteriis,  Cynthia Grant, Jill Lacey, Justin Fisher, David Dornisch, Anna Maria  Ortiz, Catherine Hurley, Mark Dowling, Grace Lui, Sarah Veale, Mallory  Bulman, David Dayton, David Hancock, Justine Lazaro, and Etana Finkler  made key contributions to this report.