USAID Farmer-To-Farmer Program: Volunteers Provide Technical Assistance, but Actions Needed to Improve Screening and Monitoring
Published: 2015-04-30T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: First authorized in the 1985 Farm Bill, the F2F program leverages U.S. agricultural expertise by sending volunteers on short-term assignments to provide technical assistance to farmers, farm groups, and agribusinesses in developing and middle-income countries. During fiscal years 2009 through -2013, F2F funded about 2,984 volunteer assignments and obligated an average of $11.5 million annually.
In the 2014 Farm Bill, Congress mandated that GAO conduct a review of the F2F program. GAO examined (1) how USAID administers the program, (2) how partners implement volunteer assignments and screen volunteers, and (3) the extent to which USAID uses monitoring and evaluation to manage the program. To address these objectives, GAO reviewed program documents and met with USAID F2F officials and current implementing partners. In addition, we conducted fieldwork in two countries that we selected based on factors, including the number of volunteers assigned.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The U.S. Agency for International Development's (USAID) Bureau for Food Security administers the Farmer-to-Farmer (F2F) program through implementing partners under 5-year cooperative agreements. USAID provides overall direction, but relies on partners to execute program activities. USAID uses the agreements to establish the partners' objectives, tasks, and responsibilities. Once selected, partners create work plans for USAID's approval that describe potential volunteer assignments, such as providing expertise on grain processing and storage or groundnut production.
Source: GAO. | GAO-15-478
USAID's partners follow consistent practices to implement volunteer assignments, but they have inconsistent practices for screening volunteer candidates against terrorist watch lists. All partners develop a scope of work for each assignment, interview candidates, and assess the volunteer's performance. However, only two partners screen candidates against the terrorist watch lists as expected by USAID. These partners and one other partner screen candidates against other watch lists. In addition, partners do not have a means to systematically report negative volunteer assessments to USAID or each other, even though 41 percent of volunteers in the last program cycle were repeat volunteers. Without conducting required checks and providing information on prior negative assessments, partners risk selecting volunteers who could undermine F2F's goals and reputation.
USAID uses its monitoring and evaluation process to adjust the program, but does not review information on a key aspect of the program's implementation. In response to a program-wide evaluation, USAID revised performance indicators, established a committee that discusses best practices, and increased training for implementing partner staff. However, USAID does not systematically review information on the extent to which volunteers meet the objectives identified in the scopes of work. Reviewing volunteer trip reports against scopes of work could improve USAID's understanding of the volunteers' performance and provide additional insight on implementation progress and whether volunteers are being effectively used.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO is recommending that USAID (1) ensure F2F partners screen volunteer candidates against terrorist watch lists, (2) develop guidance on the other types of background checks implementing partners should perform, (3) ensure that implementing partners systematically share negative volunteer assessment information, and (4) monitor the extent to which the objectives and activities in the scopes of work are accomplished. USAID concurred with GAO's recommendations.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: According to the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization, more  than 800 million people suffer from chronic undernourishment. As the  largest donor of international food assistance, the United States has  recently spent about $2 billion per year to provide food assistance to  food-insecure countries. As part of that effort, the U.S. Agency for  International Development (USAID) has implemented the John  Ogonowski and Doug Bereuter Farmer-to-Farmer (F2F) program since  1985 to provide voluntary technical assistance to farmers, farm groups,  and agribusinesses in developing and transitional countries to promote  sustainable improvements in food security and agricultural processing,  production, and marketing. USAID provides assistance through 5-year  agreements with implementing partners (usually nongovernmental  organizations) to provide short-term volunteer technical assignments,  typically lasting 2 to 4 weeks. According to USAID, volunteers have  completed more than 15,000 assignments in 103 countries since the  program’s inception.
In the 2014 Farm Bill, Congress mandated that GAO conduct a review of  the F2F program. In this study, we examine (1) how USAID administers  the F2F program, (2) how partners implement volunteer assignments and  screen volunteers for the F2F program, and (3) the extent to which  USAID uses monitoring and evaluation to manage the F2F program.
To address our objectives, we reviewed program documents and  information from the previous and current 5-year program cycles (fiscal  years 2009 through 2013 and 2014 through 2018, respectively). We also  met with officials from USAID’s Bureau of Food Security F2F program in  Washington, D.C., and with headquarters officials for the implementing  partners of the current program cycle, either in Washington, D.C., or via  teleconference. To determine how USAID administers the F2F program,  we analyzed USAID and implementing partner documents such as  requests for assistance, cooperative agreements, and country program  descriptions. To determine how partners implement volunteer  assignments and screen volunteers, we reviewed documents including  USAID guidance on managing international volunteer programs, scopes  of work for volunteer assignments, and volunteer trip reports. In addition,  we conducted fieldwork in Ghana and Uganda, which included meeting  with USAID mission officials, implementing partner field staff, F2F  volunteers, and beneficiary host organizations. In selecting these  countries for fieldwork, we considered various factors, including the  number of volunteers assigned as well as the implementing partner’s  experience with the program in the previous or current cycle. To  determine the extent to which USAID uses monitoring and evaluation to  manage the program, we reviewed documents such as semiannual and  annual reports. See appendix I for more details on our scope and  methodology.
We conducted this performance audit from May 2014 to April 2015 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: Congress first authorized the F2F program in the 1985 Farm Bill to  provide for the transfer of knowledge and expertise of U.S. agricultural  producers and businesses to middle-income countries and emerging  democracies on a voluntary basis. Most recently, Congress reauthorized  the program in the 2014 Farm Bill. Congress has authorized the F2F  program to provide a broad range of U.S. agricultural expertise using U.S  volunteers. The 2- to 4-week volunteer assignments are designed, among  other things, to improve farm and agribusiness operations and agricultural  systems, field crop cultivation, fruit and vegetable growing, livestock  operations, marketing, and the strengthening of cooperatives and other  farmer organizations (see fig. 1).
USAID promotes a secondary goal not specifically noted in the  authorizing legislation: to increase the American public’s understanding of  international development issues and programs and international  understanding of the United States and U.S. development programs. The  volunteer nature of the program’s activities provides the opportunity for  people-to-people cultural and technical exchange. USAID and its  implementing partners give volunteers guidance about their responsibility  for conducting public awareness activities about their experiences to  promote better understanding of international development issues and  objectives upon their return home.
For the program’s first 6 years, annual amounts provided to F2F were  below $2 million. However, with the dissolution of the Soviet Union,  USAID initiated F2F program activities in the newly independent  countries, including conducting a substantial number of volunteer  assignments in Russia. The additional funding for these countries  significantly increased the size of the F2F program. In the 2008 Farm Bill,  Congress required that a minimum of $10 million be used to carry out the  F2F program for each of the fiscal years 2009 through 2013. Over the  fiscal years 2009 through 2013 period, USAID obligated an average of  $11.5 million annually to the F2F program, and the program disbursed a  total of $57.7 million for that program cycle. In the 2014 Farm Bill,  Congress increased the minimum annual F2F funding requirement to $15  million.
During the fiscal years 2009 through 2013 F2F program cycle,  implementing partners under eight cooperative agreements and one  contract made 2,984 volunteer assignments, most to 28 core countries  (see fig. 2). Cooperative agreements with each partner typically include  work in 2 to 5 core countries where the majority of volunteer assignments  will occur. Beginning with the 2009 through 2013 F2F program cycle,  USAID missions also began making separate Associate Awards to F2F  partners to implement related programs (see app. II for more information  on these awards). In addition, the cooperative agreements allowed for  “flexible” volunteer assignments outside the core countries. F2F currently  limits these flexible assignments to approximately 15 percent of the  volunteer assignments for a given partner.
USAID is implementing the fiscal years 2014 through 2018 F2F program  through a total of nine cooperative agreements. In fiscal year 2014, the  program had 296 volunteer assignments in 32 countries.
section_title: USAID Administers the F2F Program through Cooperative Agreements
paragraphs: USAID’s Bureau for Food Security administers the F2F program using a  funding mechanism known as a Leader with Associate Award  Cooperative Agreement. These agreements are global in nature, with  core countries identified within defined geographical regions. USAID  awards these agreements to implementing partners, typically U.S.  nongovernmental organizations, universities, private volunteer  organizations, or contractors, for a 5-year funding cycle. USAID uses the  agreements to establish objectives, tasks, and responsibilities for the  implementing partners. In this way, USAID provides program-wide  direction and administration for F2F while relying on implementing  partners to manage on-the-ground operations and execution of program  activities. In the current program cycle, USAID awarded nine cooperative  agreements to seven implementing partners. USAID awarded one of  these cooperative agreements to a nongovernmental organization for a  F2F Special Program Support project. That partner provides program- wide technical support services for the volunteer programs and finances  specialized F2F volunteer projects to bring in smaller implementing  organizations, test new approaches, and identify new sources of  volunteers. Implementing partners are expected to collaborate with the  Special Program Support project when appropriate. F2F has two USAID  headquarters staff to handle the daily operations and oversight of the  program and the implementing partners.
At the beginning of each 5-year cycle, USAID uses a solicitation process  and corresponding request for assistance (RFA) to provide a description  of the program’s needs and how USAID will evaluate the applicants. In  response, implementing partners describe the key components of their  proposals, such as the intended country and regional focus, recruitment  strategy, and agricultural sector focus. USAID specifies in the RFAs the  areas in which USAID will have “substantial involvement” in  implementation decisions, such as approval of implementing partners’  annual work plans, key personnel, and the monitoring and evaluation  plan. In the most recent RFA, USAID determined the countries that were  eligible within prescribed geographic regions. USAID also used the RFA  to build in a minimum level of geographical overlap and coordination with  U.S. foreign assistance programs. This was accomplished most notably  with the U.S. global hunger and food security initiative, Feed the Future,  by directing partners to include at least two Feed the Future focus  countries within each region. After the competitive award process is  completed, USAID continues to inform and approve partners’ annual work  plans, which detail specific activities and objectives for each country in  which the partner operates.
USAID provides further guidance to its implementing partners through a  manual, Managing International Volunteer Programs: A Farmer-to-Farmer  Program Manual. USAID led the development of this manual in  conjunction with implementing partners to collect lessons learned and  best practices based on 20 years of F2F program experience and  published the manual in 2005. According to the manual, its purpose is to  serve as a reference for partners managing international volunteer  programs, specifically F2F. It describes best practices on program  management, volunteer assignment development and implementation,  and public outreach. According to USAID, the F2F program provides this  manual to all of its implementing partners. According to USAID officials,  the Special Program Support project will assist USAID and the current  implementing partners to update the manual later in this program cycle.
Implementing partners identify agriculture sectors to focus on, such as  horticulture, staple foods, and aquaculture, for individual countries with  USAID input. According to USAID, partners consult with the F2F program  office and the relevant missions to get their input, review, and approval on  F2F activities before the partners begin activities in that country. USAID  also said that partners consult with local stakeholders, F2F guidance, and  other USAID program documents, such as Feed the Future’s sector  analyses to develop these program activities and subsequent volunteer  assignments. As the partners implement the program, they continue to  work with the missions. However, each mission’s level of involvement can  vary, depending on its portfolio of activities and interest.
section_title: Partners Are Generally Consistent in Implementing F2F, but Most Do Not Screen Volunteers against Terrorist Watch Lists and Some Inconsistencies and Information Gaps Exist
paragraphs: Implementing partners in the current F2F program cycle generally follow  consistent practices for designing volunteer assignments, recruiting  volunteers, and managing volunteer assignments. All partners work with  hosts to develop a scope of work for each assignment, interview  candidates, and assess the volunteers’ performance. However, they have  inconsistent practices for screening volunteer candidates against terrorist  watch lists and do not have a means to systematically report negative  assessments of volunteers to USAID or each other.
subsections: section_title: Partners Generally Follow Consistent Practices to Design Volunteer Assignments, Recruit Volunteers, and Manage Volunteer Assignments
paragraphs: We found that the implementing partners that send volunteers follow  consistent practices to design volunteer assignments, recruit volunteers,  and manage volunteer assignments, which are outlined in USAID’s F2F  program manual.
Designing volunteer assignments: Implementing partners’ field staff  identify host organizations (hosts) to potentially receive technical  assistance through a variety of means, including networking with local  government officials, consulting with the USAID mission, and visiting  agricultural cooperatives and farming groups. To select hosts, field  staff conduct in-depth interviews with potential hosts and assess them  against predetermined criteria, such as the potential host’s ability to  contribute resources to a volunteer assignment. Afterwards, field staff  work with each selected host to assess its needs and identify how a  volunteer might be able to provide assistance. They then work with  the host to develop a scope of work for a single assignment that  identifies the issue to be addressed, the assignment’s objectives, the  host’s contributions, and the conditions under which the volunteer will  be living and working. If a host would benefit from more than one  assignment, field staff work with the host to develop a strategic plan  for the multiple assignments.
Recruiting for volunteer assignments: To solicit volunteers for  assignments, each implementing partner conducts networking  activities and posts information about its volunteer assignments on its  respective website. Each of the partners employs web-based  application forms to collect information about volunteer candidates  and manage the information in its database. Field staff send scopes of  work to the implementing partner recruiters in the United States as  early as 3 months before the start of a volunteer assignment.  Recruiters search their databases for candidates based on skills and  narrow down candidates based on their dates of availability. They  then interview candidates to assess whether their technical expertise  matches the assignment’s needs and whether the candidates can  adapt to the environment and culture. As part of the interview process,  partners contact professional references for all candidates who are  new to their program. Recruiters present finalist information to field  staff who discuss the candidates with the hosts, and the host then  select the volunteer.
Managing volunteer assignments: Before the volunteer’s arrival,  the field staff, the host, and the volunteer make any adjustments  needed to the scope of work and establish an assignment schedule.  Field staff provide the volunteer with an in-country orientation,  introduce the volunteer to the host, and monitor the volunteer through  regular communication during the 2- to 4-week assignment. Upon  completion of the assignment, the partners require the volunteer to  provide recommendations to the host organization, debrief field staff,  and complete a summary trip report. In addition, each implementing  partner requires its field staff and hosts to assess the volunteer’s  performance and indicate whether they would recommend the  volunteer for another assignment.
section_title: Most Partners Do Not Screen against Terrorist Watch Lists and Follow Inconsistent Practices for Conducting Other Background Checks on Volunteer Candidates
paragraphs: We found that only two of the six partners screen volunteers against  terrorist watch lists specified in a standard provision of their cooperative  agreements and that the partners follow inconsistent practices for  conducting other background checks on F2F volunteer candidates. This  standard provision of the cooperative agreements prohibits implementing  partners from engaging in transactions with, or providing resources or  support to, individuals associated with terrorism, including those  individuals or entities that appear on the Department of the Treasury’s  Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List and the United  Nations Security designation list. USAID officials stated that this  provision applies to volunteers and they expect implementing partners to  screen volunteers against these lists. However, USAID’s F2F program  manual states only that implementing partners generally check “several  references.”
We found that two of the six partners screen volunteers against the two  watch lists noted in the standard provision, in addition to screening  against several other lists and checking professional references. We also  found that a third partner conducts another form of background check on  all volunteer candidates, in addition to contacting professional references.  Specifically, that partner checks to see if candidates’ names are in the  U.S. government’s System for Award Management, a free consolidated  database of firms and individuals that are ineligible to receive contracts  (or similar types of mechanisms) from the U.S. government. If the  volunteer candidate has worked with the partner before, two of these  three partners said they do not always screen the candidate again; the  third partner said it rescreens the candidate if over a year has passed  since his or her last assignment. All three of these implementing partners  use software or web-based programs to screen candidates against the  various watch lists, a process they stated takes a minute or less to  complete.
According to these three partners, they screen candidates against watch  lists because they believe they are required to do by U.S. government  regulations and that doing so is critical to their reputations as  organizations. The three partners also said that this type of background  check is important to reduce the risk of a volunteer engaging in criminal or  any other activities that would cause the program to be seen negatively.  Specifically, these partners said the volunteer’s character and conduct  could affect the volunteer’s ability to achieve the objectives of his or her  assignment, an outcome that could undermine the program’s goals, hurt  relationships with host organizations, and undermine the program’s  reputation.
The remaining three implementing partners do not screen candidates  against watch lists. They said they believed that USAID does not require  them to do so. They also noted that they believed that professional  reference checks and Internet research provide them with enough insight  into a candidate’s character and conduct.
Various forms of background checks are important because they provide  recruiters with additional information that the candidate may not have  reported, or is not publicly available, and because these checks are a  means to verify information that the candidate provided. As a result,  partners that do not run the background checks may risk fielding  volunteers who could harm the program’s reputation and goals.
section_title: Implementing Partners Lack Systematic Information about Repeat Volunteer Candidates
paragraphs: We found that implementing partners do not have a systematic means of  reporting or obtaining information from assessments of repeat volunteer  candidates. As a result, partners can be unaware of assessments  indicating that another partner would not recommend the volunteer for  another assignment. For the fiscal years 2009 through 2013 program  cycle, USAID reported that 41 percent of the volunteers were repeat  volunteers. According to GAO’s Internal Control Management and  Evaluation Tool, internal and external information should be obtained and  provided to management as a part of reporting on operational   Specifically, information  performance relative to established objectives.critical to achieving the agency’s objectives, including information relative  to critical success factors, should be identified and regularly reported to  management and be used to inform future decisions such as selecting  volunteers.
While USAID’s F2F program manual encourages implementing partners  to share information and contacts for volunteer recruitment, the manual  could discourage implementing partners from reporting negative volunteer  performance assessments to each other or to USAID. Specifically, with  regards to volunteer program evaluation, the manual states:  “Due to the fact that volunteers by nature offer their specialized  services free of charge, a publicized negative performance  evaluation has the potential to be a public relations disaster,  damaging future recruitment efforts and perhaps work with hosts.  Thus, evaluations of individual volunteers are not performed or  reported systematically. Problems are generally identified in  regular performance monitoring and management processes, and  kept internal to the implementing organization.”
As mentioned earlier in this report, all six partners assess the volunteer’s  performance upon completion of the assignment and consult with host  organizations as part of the assessment. Four of the six use a rating scale  to assess a volunteer’s performance, including rating factors such as  technical ability, quality of deliverables, and cultural sensitivity. All of the  partners indicated that they kept information internally in their electronic  databases on whether they would field the volunteer on another  assignment. The partners also said that they contact other implementing  partners for references on candidates who were previous volunteers.  However, the partners said they do not systematically report this  information to USAID or each other, and only share the results of  assessments only when specifically requested.
Without systematic collection and sharing of information, USAID cannot  know whether the volunteers received negative assessments on their  performance. Given that the volunteers provide the program’s primary  input—technical assistance—ensuring the quality of the volunteer’s  performance is critical to the success of the program’s goals and  reputation. In addition, partners risk fielding volunteers who received  negative assessments on assignments with other implementers, which  could undermine the program’s goals and reputation. For example, in one  instance, a partner told us that it removed a volunteer because of conduct  issues and determined not to field that volunteer on another assignment.  However, another partner selected that volunteer for an assignment that  started shortly after the first assignment. During the second assignment,  that partner also had to recall the volunteer because of similar conduct  issues.
section_title: USAID Used a Program-wide Evaluation to Adjust F2F, but Does Not Obtain Information on a Key Aspect of Program Implementation
paragraphs: USAID used a program-wide evaluation to adjust the program and  conducts ongoing monitoring and evaluation, but USAID does not obtain  information on a key aspect of the program’s implementation. After a  2012 program-wide evaluation, USAID revised program indicators,  established a committee to discuss best practices, and increased training  for implementing partner staff. USAID uses semiannual and annual formal  reports and other means to conduct ongoing monitoring and evaluation  activities. However, USAID is not collecting information on the extent to  which volunteers are successfully completing the specific tasks and  objectives that are assigned to them in scopes of work.
subsections: section_title: USAID Used a Program- wide Evaluation to Adjust F2F
paragraphs: Since 2003, USAID has conducted three program-wide evaluations of  F2F. USAID’s most recent evaluation, in May 2012, found inefficiencies in  the program’s data collection and reporting processes. Among other  things, the evaluation recommended that USAID revise the list of required  program indicators and reduce those less relevant for program  management. In response, USAID revised the F2F standard program  indicators and their definitions with extensive input from implementing  partners and other stakeholders. USAID uses these indicators to track  progress and report on changes along the cause-and-effect theory of the  program’s development plan—leading from inputs and activities to  outputs, outcomes, and impacts. According to USAID, another important  use of the indicators and reporting is to maintain the implementing  partners’ focus on achieving results. The revised indicators are intended  to standardize F2F program reporting. Nevertheless, a challenge for  USAID in developing effective F2F monitoring and evaluation indicators is  the variety of volunteer assignments. While the F2F program’s primary  input for all volunteer assignments is always short-term technical  assistance, the type of the technical assistance and the outputs expected  can vary significantly among assignments. For example, volunteer  assignments range from developing a business plan for an agriculture  cooperative to training farmers on practices for soybean cultivation.
The 2012 evaluation also recommended that USAID increase support to  train implementing partner staff on the appropriate use of the indicators  so they can better track indicator data and impacts across the program. In  response, USAID formed a working committee, led by F2F’s two program  staff and made up of implementing partners, to (1) discuss issues with  data collection and data quality and (2) develop and disseminate best  monitoring and evaluation practices. Additionally, USAID held a workshop  in early 2014 for all F2F implementing partners (including headquarters  and field staff) and provided opportunities for training and discussion  sessions on all aspects of F2F implementation. Monitoring and evaluation  procedures, indicators, issues, and best practices were a particular focus.  In addition, F2F Implementing Partners’ Meetings are held each year and,  according to USAID, include additional opportunities to cover program  topics, including monitoring and evaluation issues. According to  implementing partners, the training and workshops helped field staff  better understand how to use the indicators consistently. USAID officials  told us that the training and workshops also stressed the importance of  thoroughly and accurately collecting initial, or baseline, data on host  organizations.
section_title: USAID Conducts Ongoing Performance Monitoring and Evaluation but Does Not Obtain Information on a Key Aspect of Program Implementation
paragraphs: The F2F office conducts ongoing performance monitoring and evaluation  formally through semiannual and annual reports and informally, through  ongoing communication with implementing partners. USAID tracks  implementation pace, progress, and performance through the following  indicators that implementing partners report on in semiannual and annual  reports:  inputs, such as the number of volunteer assignments, number of  volunteer scopes of work, and number of days of volunteer service; outputs, such as the number of persons trained, number of host  organizations assisted, and number of volunteer recommendations; outcomes, such as the number of volunteer recommendations  adopted and value of resources leveraged by volunteers in the United  States; and  impacts, such as the value of annual gross sales and value of rural  and agricultural lending and the area under improved environmental  and natural resource management.
USAID aggregates this information for its program-wide analyses. The  goal of these monitoring and evaluation processes is to provide F2F  management information it can use to guide program design and better  target agricultural sectors, thereby increasing the program’s  effectiveness.
We found that USAID does not systematically obtain information on a key  aspect of the program’s implementation. Specifically, USAID does not  review information on the extent to which volunteers meet the objectives  identified in the scopes of work. According to GAO’s Internal Control  Management and Evaluation Tool, information should be obtained and  provided to management as a part of reporting on operational  performance relative to established objectives.
Key to achieving F2F’s goals is the program’s primary input—the  technical assistance a volunteer provides while on assignment. F2F  guidance states that the scopes of work should translate program plans  into specific tasks for volunteers. The guidance also states clearly that  written scopes of work make it easier for the partner to recruit and guide  volunteers and assess the success of the volunteer assignment.  According to USAID officials and implementing partner staff, detailed and  focused scopes of work are part of the essential foundation for successful  volunteer assignments, and implementing partners give much time and  consideration to their development. These scopes of work include the set  of objectives and activities that the volunteer is to accomplish while on  assignment. According to the six implementing partners, achievement of  an assignment’s objectives, as described under the scope of work,  contributes to the program’s desired outputs, outcomes, and impacts.
All implementing partners require their volunteers to prepare trip reports  that summarize the extent to which they achieved the specified objectives  and completed activities listed in the scope of work. According to  implementing partners, the reasons for not achieving an objective or  completing an activity may vary and can be attributed to circumstances  outside of the implementing partner staff or volunteer’s control. While  conducting our fieldwork, we found an instance in which a volunteer’s  objectives were not achieved. Specifically, in that case, the volunteer was  unable to oversee the installation of a machine—an objective listed in the  scope of work—because required parts needed for its assembly were not  delivered by a third-party contractor to the host organization. However,  the volunteer productively used his time to improve the output of a grain- processing machine. According to the implementing partners, volunteer  trip reports and debriefings are to include information on the extent to  which activities and objectives were accomplished. However, we found  that none of the partners track the frequency of assignments when the  activities in scopes of work are changed or whether the volunteers were  unable to accomplish them during an assignment. While USAID obtains  some statements of work and volunteer trip reports, it does not review the  extent to which volunteers are able to accomplish the objectives specified  in their assignments. Reviewing selected trip reports against scopes of  work for this information throughout the program cycle could improve  USAID’s understanding of the performance of its primary input—the  volunteer technical assistance. This information could provide additional  insight on the extent to which volunteers achieve established objectives  and therefore whether volunteers are being effectively used.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: The success of the F2F program largely depends on implementing  partners that work with hosts to develop appropriate scopes of work and  then find volunteers with the technical expertise and skill sets to complete  them. Although recruitment efforts focus largely on the volunteer’s skill set  and experience, partners are inconsistently screening volunteer  candidates to verify information about them. Specifically, four partners do  not conduct any screening against terrorist watch lists as expected by  USAID. Assessment information on repeat volunteers—especially  information on negative assessments—could provide important insights  into the volunteer’s ability to execute another F2F assignment. By  implementing a consistent process to screen volunteers and by  systematically sharing negative volunteer assessments, USAID and its  partners could enhance their ability to ensure that volunteers execute  their scopes of work without undermining the program’s goals and  reputation.
USAID took important steps to improve its ability to monitor program  performance and evaluate program impact after the most recent  evaluation, in 2012. However, USAID is not reviewing information on a  key aspect of the program’s performance—the extent to which the  specified objectives and activities in scopes of work are accomplished.  Achievement of an assignment’s objectives, as described under the  scope of work, contributes to the program’s desired outputs, outcomes,  and impacts. With this information, USAID could enhance its ability to  make better, evidenced-based management decisions.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To enhance USAID’s oversight of the program, we recommend that the  Administrator of USAID take the following four actions: ensure F2F implementing partners screen volunteer candidates  against terrorist watch lists, as described in their cooperative  agreements and USAID guidance; develop guidance for the implementing partners on the types of  background checks they should perform as they screen volunteer  candidates; update the F2F program manual to ensure that implementing partners  systematically share negative volunteer assessment information with  USAID and each other; and further develop its monitoring process to review the extent to which  volunteers accomplish objectives and activities specified in the scopes  of work.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report for comment to USAID.
In its written comments, reproduced in appendix III, USAID concurred  with our recommendations. USAID expressed appreciation for F2F  volunteers, noting that they give generously of their time and expertise.  USAID also outlined the steps it plans to take in response to each  recommendation, noting that the changes should strengthen the  management of F2F.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees, the Administrator of USAID, and other interested parties. In  addition, the report is 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 IV.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: For this report, we examined (1) how the U.S. Agency for International  Development (USAID) administers the John Ogonowski and Doug  Bereuter Farmer-to-Farmer (F2F) program, (2) how partners implement  volunteer assignments and screen volunteers for the F2F program, and  (3) the extent to which USAID uses monitoring and evaluation to manage  the F2F program. To address our objectives, we reviewed program  documents and information from the previous and current program cycles  covering fiscal years 2009 through 2013 and 2014 through 2018,  respectively.
To determine how USAID administers the F2F program, we analyzed  USAID and implementing partner documents such as requests for  applications, cooperative agreements, and country program descriptions.  We also reviewed USAID’s F2F program manual. In addition, we  reviewed USAID data on the number of volunteer assignments. Our  analysis of these data found some inconsistencies, but we found the data  sufficiently reliable to generally enumerate the number of volunteer  assignments by country. We divided those countries into four roughly  even groups. We met with officials from USAID’s Bureau of Food Security  F2F program in Washington, D.C., to understand their role in  administering the program. We also met with the headquarters officials for  implementing partners of the current program cycle, either in Washington,  D.C., or via teleconference.
GAO, Internal Control Standards: Internal Control Management and Evaluation Tool,  GAO-01-1008G (Washington, D.C.: August 2001). addition, we conducted fieldwork in Ghana and Uganda, meeting with  USAID mission officials, implementing partner field staff, F2F volunteers,  and beneficiary host organizations. In selecting countries for fieldwork, we  considered various factors, including the number of volunteers assigned,  the implementing partner’s experience with the program and whether  Associate Award activities occurred in either the previous or current cycle.
To determine the extent to which USAID uses monitoring and evaluation  to manage the program, we reviewed documents such as the  implementing partner’s semiannual and annual reports, USAID’s 2012  midterm evaluation of the program, and USAID’s list of performance  indicators and their definitions. We also reviewed GAO’s Internal Control  Management and Evaluation Tool. In addition, we met with officials from  USAID’s Bureau of Food Security F2F program in Washington, D.C., and  with an implementing partner while conducting fieldwork to understand  how the program’s monitoring and evaluation process has changed and  the indicators on which the implementing partners currently report.
We conducted this performance audit from May 2014 to April 2015 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  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: USAID Missions Independently Administer Related Programs through Farmer-to-Farmer Partners
paragraphs: U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) missions can  leverage the Farmer-to-Farmer (F2F) program by making separate  awards to F2F partners to implement agricultural programs. According to  USAID guidance, a mission can make one or more of these awards,  known as Associate Awards, to the recipient of an already existing Leader  with Associate Award Cooperative Agreement (LWA) without going  through an additional competitive proposal process. Therefore, missions,  in consultation with implementing partners and the F2F office, can design  and propose programs to implement under the Associate Award  mechanism. Mission staff independently administer the Associate Award  program and are responsible for financial oversight, monitoring and  evaluation, and all other reporting requirements. Nevertheless, according  to USAD officials, Associate Award programs are required to report the  number of volunteers used in their programs to the F2F office to ensure  that volunteers are incorporated into Associate Award programming.
According to USAID guidance, F2F Associate Awards must be in  alignment with the original program’s purpose and goals. Associate  Awards may provide for (1) additional volunteer services in a F2F country  or another country, (2) complementary support for F2F projects (i.e.,  grants, training, equipment and facilities, or other inputs) that can improve  F2F program outreach and impact, or (3) volunteer services and  complementary support for agricultural projects addressing a specific F2F  development objective. Although F2F limits its activities to the provision of  volunteer technical assistance, Associate Award programs use other  funding sources and may implement other types of development activities  in addition to volunteer assistance. LWAs and Associate Awards are  considered separate obligating mechanisms; thus, funds from one award  cannot be transferred to another.
According to USAID officials, the Associate Award process is relatively  fast and streamlined because it does not require any further competition.  Mission officials noted that Associate Awards are an attractive option  when considering funding mechanisms available for agriculture-related  programs. During the fiscal years 2009 through 2013 cycle, USAID  awarded 15 Associate Awards to three implementing partners, totaling  $125 million. For example, a $32 million Associate Award was granted to  an agriculture-related program in Ghana. In the current cycle, USAID has  awarded 2 Associate Awards, 1 in Burma for $27 million and another in  Ethiopia for approximately $3 million.
section_title: Appendix III: Comments from the U.S. Agency for International Development
section_title: Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Valérie L. Nowak (Assistant  Director), Brian Tremblay (Analyst-in-Charge), Tina Cheng, Lynn Cothern,  Martin De Alteriis, Mark Dowling, and Sushmita Srikanth made key  contributions to this report.