International Food Assistance: USAID Should Systematically Assess the Effectiveness of Key Conditional Food Aid Activities
Published: 2015-09-10T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: In fiscal year 2014, USAID awarded about $1.3 billion for emergency and development food aid under Title II of the Food for Peace Act. USAID's implementing partners may provide what is known as conditional food aid—that is, food in exchange for beneficiaries' participation in activities intended to support development. For example, food-for-assets activities are intended to address beneficiaries' immediate food needs while building assets to improve longer-term food security. Questions have arisen about whether the dual goals of addressing both immediate and long-term needs may compromise the ability to achieve either goal, underscoring the need to understand conditional food aid.
This report examines, among other things, (1) USAID's use of conditional food aid through Title II development and emergency awards in fiscal years 2013 and 2014 and (2) the extent to which USAID has assessed the effectiveness of food-for-assets activities in development projects. GAO analyzed agency and partner documents and interviewed agency and partner officials in Washington, D.C., and in three countries selected on the basis of project type and representing a variety of partners.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) does not track the use of conditional food aid in projects funded under Title II of the Food for Peace Act. However, GAO's comprehensive review of USAID data found that most Title II projects included conditional food aid in fiscal years 2013 and 2014. Despite the prevalence of conditional food aid activities, USAID does not regularly collect data on conditional food aid provided through Title II projects and, as a result, could not readily provide data on the use of these activities in USAID's projects. Without the ability to identify all conditional food aid activities, USAID cannot systematically oversee the projects that include them. According to USAID's operational policy, USAID operating units must strive to continuously learn and improve their approach to achieving results in order to meet development goals. GAO's review of available USAID data for fiscal years 2013 and 2014 found that 111 of 119 Title II development and emergency projects included conditional food aid activities and that funding for these projects totaled $2.1 billion—87 percent of all USAID funding for Title II projects during this period. USAID and its implementing partners implemented various conditional food aid activities, most commonly a type known as food for assets, through these projects (see fig.). Beneficiaries of food-for-assets activities typically must work at constructing community assets, such as roads or irrigation systems, in exchange for food.
USAID cannot systematically measure the performance of food-for-assets activities across all Title II development projects and therefore cannot determine the effectiveness of food-for-assets activities in achieving short-term or longer-term development goals. According to USAID's operational policy, measures of program effectiveness should be matched to meaningful outputs under the agency's control. While USAID uses indicators to assess the effectiveness of Title II projects, USAID cannot use these indicators to systematically assess the specific effectiveness of food for assets across its Title II projects. However, during GAO's interviews with 10 implementing partners that implemented 14 projects, partners identified several benefits specific to food-for-assets activities, such as developing needed infrastructure, teaching skills to beneficiaries, and achieving short-term increases in food security. Partners also cited challenges in implementing these activities, such as difficulty in ensuring the sustainability of created assets as well as interruptions resulting from weather and civil conflict.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends that USAID (1) establish a mechanism to readily identify all Title II programs that include conditional food aid activities and (2) systematically assess the effectiveness of food-for-assets activities in development projects. USAID concurred with the recommendations but disagreed with some aspects of GAO's findings. GAO continues to believe its findings are valid, as discussed in the report.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Under Title II of the Food for Peace Act, the United States supplied more  than 6 million metric tons of food aid to help 151 million beneficiaries  around the world in fiscal years 2010 through 2013. The U.S. Agency for  International Development (USAID) provided about a quarter of this food  aid through development assistance projects meant to address long-term  chronic hunger. USAID provided the remainder of the food aid through  emergency projects intended to address the food needs of vulnerable  populations affected by conflicts or natural disasters, such as droughts  and floods. To implement Title II projects, USAID enters into cooperative  agreements with implementing partners that design and implement food  aid activities and distribute the food aid. Title II development projects are  implemented by nongovernmental organizations (NGO) such as Catholic  Relief Services, Mercy Corps, Save the Children, and World Vision. Most  Title II emergency projects are implemented by the World Food Program  (WFP), a United Nations agency and the largest humanitarian  organization combating hunger.
Beneficiaries of certain development and emergency projects may  receive food aid on the condition that they participate in activities  designed to address underlying causes of their food insecurity—a type of  assistance known as conditional food aid. Conditional food aid activities  can include a range of projects, such as agricultural or nutritional  education or—in one of the most common types of conditional food aid,  called food for assets—the building or rehabilitating of community assets  such as irrigation canals, bridges, schools, and rural roads. According to  USAID, its partners, and others, conditional food aid meets immediate  needs for food assistance while also contributing to local economies by,  for instance, teaching skills or constructing assets that may help reduce  food insecurity in the longer term. However, some experts have  expressed concern that attempting to meet beneficiaries’ immediate food  needs in the short term, while also trying to construct assets to help  communities build resilience in the longer term, could make it more  difficult to accomplish either goal. While conditional food aid activities  have been part of food aid programs for decades, USAID’s annual reports  to Congress do not specifically address conditional food aid in Title II  emergency and development projects.
You asked us to review the amount and use of conditional food aid  provided under Title II. This report examines (1) USAID’s use of  conditional food aid through Title II development and emergency projects  in fiscal years 2013 and 2014, (2) the factors that implementing partners  considered and the challenges they faced when designing food-for-assets  activities in development projects, and (3) the extent to which USAID  assessed the effectiveness of food-for-assets activities in development  projects.
To address these objectives, we reviewed USAID documents, such as  project design and implementation guidance and requests for  applications, and partner award documentation, including annual reports  and monitoring indicators from fiscal years 2013 and 2014, and  correspondence with USAID. To examine USAID’s use of conditional food  aid in fiscal years 2013 and 2014, we reviewed USAID and implementing  partner documents, such as annual results reports and WFP standard  project reports. We analyzed these documents to determine the number  of projects that included conditional food aid activities and the types of  conditional food aid activities that were implemented and to estimate the  award amounts, beneficiaries, and metric tons of commodities associated  with these projects. To examine conditional food aid activities in greater  detail, we focused our review on development projects and food-for- assets activities. To determine the factors that implementing partners  considered when designing development food-for-assets activities and  the extent to which USAID assessed the effectiveness of food-for-assets  activities in development projects, we selected 14 of the 22 Title II  development projects implemented in fiscal years 2013 and 2014. We  selected these projects on the basis of whether they (1) contained food  for assets, (2) were active in fiscal year 2014, and (3) were in at least the  second year of implementation. We conducted semistructured interviews  with the 10 implementing partners that implemented these 14 projects,  each of which implemented at least 1 project that met these criteria. To  address all three objectives, we interviewed officials from USAID and  implementing partners. We interviewed USAID officials, as well as  implementing partner officials from NGOs that received USAID Title II  awards to carry out U.S. food assistance programs overseas, in  Washington, D.C. In addition, we interviewed WFP headquarters officials  in Italy and spoke with WFP country officials by telephone. We conducted  fieldwork in three countries—Djibouti, Guatemala, and Ethiopia—where  we observed development and emergency project implementation and  met with officials from the U.S. missions, host governments, and  implementing partners as well as with beneficiaries, among others. We  selected these three countries for our fieldwork on the basis of the range  of projects’ size and type (i.e., development or emergency), the types of  conditional food aid activities implemented in the countries, and the  partners that implemented the activities.
We conducted this performance audit from March 2014 to September  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. Appendix II provides a  detailed discussion of our objectives, scope, and methodology.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: USAID and its partners implement a variety of conditional food aid  activities through development and emergency projects, including  maternal and child health care and nutrition, food-for-training, and food- for-assets activities, among others. Such activities are intended to  achieve a variety of objectives. For example, maternal and child health  care and nutrition activities associated with conditional food aid seek to  address major health risks faced by mothers and children by providing  special rations in exchange for their attendance at health-related sessions  focusing on topics such as infant development. Food-for-training activities  provide food in exchange for participation in, for example, agricultural  training sessions intended to help recipients learn the skills necessary to  increase food productivity. Food-for-assets activities provide food in  exchange for participation in activities focused on constructing community  assets, such as roads or irrigation systems. Table 1 lists and describes  the types of conditional food aid activities implemented through Title II  projects.
Food for assets was one of the most prevalently used types of conditional  food aid in Title II development and emergency projects in fiscal years  2013 and 2014. According to WFP, implementing partners, and subject  matter experts in the field of international food aid, food-for-assets  activities have both advantages and disadvantages. For example,  according to some experts, a major advantage of these activities is that,  by design, the individuals who can benefit the most are those most likely  to participate, for instance, because they may lack other employment  opportunities—that is, those who most need the food are generally the  most willing to perform the required work, while those who do not need  the food are less motivated. According to implementing partners,  including WFP, food-for-assets activities also create community  infrastructure, such as rural roads and irrigation canals, that provides  benefits to the wider community. For instance, irrigation canals can help  increase farm productivity, and rural roads can provide access to markets  where farmers can sell produced goods. According to implementing  partners, including WFP, beneficiaries participating in such activities can  learn building and maintenance skills that can also be used to help their  communities become more resilient when food shortages occur.
At the same time, some experts have expressed concern that food-for- assets activities can benefit those who are not among the neediest or can  fail to include the neediest, such as the elderly and those who are not  able-bodied. In addition, a critique by WFP questions whether the dual  goal of providing food to help meet beneficiaries’ nutritional needs in the  short term, while also building assets to help communities increase their  resilience in the longer term, could make it difficult to accomplish either  goal. According to experts and WFP officials, conditional food aid  activities come with additional costs, such as the cost of purchasing  concrete and other materials to build irrigation canals. These costs can  reduce the partner’s ability to supply food aid. Finally, expert,  implementing partner, and WFP stakeholders expressed the concern that  the assets created through these activities are not easily sustained over  the long term. For example, in a 2014 synthesis of evaluations of food-for- assets activities in 2002 through 2011, WFP reported that ongoing  operations and maintenance are required to ensure that assets remain  functional and useful. Additionally, the WFP evaluators found that  assets might not be properly constructed or maintained if the technical  expertise and specialized equipment needed for the assets were too  complicated for the community.
section_title: USAID Does Not Track Use of Conditional Food Aid, although Most Title II Projects Included It in Fiscal Years 2013-2014
paragraphs: USAID does not track the use of conditional food aid in Title II projects,  although our comprehensive review of USAID data found that most Title II  projects included conditional food aid in fiscal years 2013 and 2014.  Despite the prevalence of conditional food aid activities, USAID does not  systematically collect or use data on conditional food aid provided through  Title II projects and, as a result, could not readily provide data on the use  of these activities in USAID’s projects. Our review of available USAID  data for fiscal years 2013 and 2014 found that 111 of 119 Title II  development and emergency projects included conditional, as well as  unconditional, food aid activities and that funding for these projects  totaled $2.1 billion—87 percent of all USAID funding for Title II projects  during this period. USAID and its implementing partners implemented  various conditional food aid activities through these projects, including  food for assets, food for training, and maternal and child health care and  nutrition. However, without the ability to identify all conditional food aid  activities, USAID cannot reliably oversee the projects that use it.
subsections: section_title: USAID Does Not Systematically Collect or Use Data on Conditional Food Aid to Manage Title II Projects
paragraphs: USAID does not systematically collect data specific to conditional food aid  activities in Title II development and emergency projects. As a result, it  took USAID several months to identify, and provide information about, the  projects that included conditional food aid activities. For example, USAID  could not readily identify the types of activities that the projects included  and could not provide data on the resources used for these activities.  USAID lacks data specific to these activities because it does not require  development projects partners to report them and does not track  information about these activities that WFP submits.
Development projects. USAID does not require implementing  partners to report on activities, beneficiaries, or financial resources  applied to conditional food aid activities. Instead, partners are required  to report data based on program elements—common categories used  throughout foreign assistance projects to aggregate information for  reporting purposes—such as civic participation, maternal and child  health, natural resources and biodiversity, and agricultural activity.  According to USAID officials, these program elements often include  multiple conditional food aid activities in addition to general food  distribution, training, and other activities unrelated to conditional  transfers.
Emergency projects. USAID does not systematically track data  about the types of conditional food aid activities that WFP implements  through USAID-funded Title II emergency projects, although WFP’s  annual standard project reports contain this information. However,  the WFP reports do not provide, and USAID does not have access to,  data specific to WFP’s conditional food aid activities supported by  U.S. contributions. Since the United States may be one of multiple  donors for WFP’s emergency projects, USAID cannot determine the  percentages of its contributions that support particular aspects of  these projects.
Because information about conditional food aid in Title II projects was not  readily available, USAID officials spent several months gathering and  revising the data we requested to determine (1) which Title II  development and emergency projects contained conditional food aid  activities in fiscal years 2013 and 2014, (2) how much money USAID  contributed to these projects, (3) how many beneficiaries participated in  each project, and (4) what quantities of commodities USAID provided for  these projects. Despite these limitations, we were able to estimate the  beneficiaries and metric tonnage associated with Title II development  awards that included conditional food aid. We gathered project-level data  on beneficiaries since USAID lacked data on the beneficiaries of U.S.  conditional food aid activities. In addition, we collected data on food used  for general emergency food distribution, as USAID did not have data  about the number of metric tons of food donated by the United States that  was distributed specifically through conditional food aid activities. Finally,  we gathered data on food that was shipped from the United States,  purchased locally, or otherwise purchased, since USAID lacked  information about the metric tons of food distributed by emergency  programs for conditional food aid.
According to chapter 203 of USAID’s Automated Directives System  (ADS), USAID operating units must strive to continuously learn and  improve their approach to achieving results in order to meet development  goals. The ADS states that evaluation is the systematic collection and  analysis of information as a basis for judgments to improve programs’  effectiveness, to inform decisions about current and future programming,  or both. The ADS also states that the purpose of strong evaluation and  performance monitoring practices is to apply learning gained from  evidence and analysis.
Without tracking the use of conditional food aid, USAID cannot identify  the scope of conditional food aid activities implemented under Title II.  Moreover, USAID cannot readily identify Title II projects that include  conditional food aid activities or report the dollars awarded for these  activities, the number of beneficiaries served, or the metric tons of  commodities used. Additionally, without the ability to collect information  about the resources being used to implement conditional food aid  activities, USAID cannot reliably monitor or evaluate these activities to  learn systematically from their use.
section_title: Almost All Title II Projects Included Conditional Food Aid Activities, Predominantly Food for Assets
paragraphs: Although USAID was unable to provide data about the amounts of Title II  funding that were used for conditional food aid activities, our  comprehensive review of available USAID data found that in fiscal years  2013 and 2014, 98 percent of USAID-funded Title II development projects  and 88 percent of Title II emergency projects included these activities.  USAID awarded a total of $2.4 billion in Title II funds, including $2.1 billion  for projects that included conditional food aid activities. Table 2 shows the  countries where USAID-funded development and emergency projects  included conditional food aid activities in fiscal years 2013 and 2014.
Our analysis showed that the conditional food aid activities implemented  in fiscal years 2013 and 2014 included six types of activities—food for  assets, maternal and child health care and nutrition, school feeding, food  for training, take-home rations, and food for education. Of these activity  types, food for assets was the most prevalent for development and  emergency projects in aggregate, implemented in 87 of 119 (73.1  percent) of projects (see fig. 1). In development projects, food for assets  and maternal and child health care and nutrition activities were equally  prevalent, followed by food for training. In emergency projects, food-for- assets activities were most prevalent, followed by school feeding and  food for training, respectively. Moreover, partners implemented some  food-for-assets activities in conjunction with other conditional food aid  activity types, such as maternal and child health care and nutrition  activities, to improve a community’s food security. For example, during  our fieldwork in Guatemala, we observed the implementation of a  Preventing Malnutrition in Children under 2 Years of Age activity that  provided fortified rations to participants and assisted the community in  developing gardens and learning animal husbandry techniques to  promote egg production. The implementing partner also provided cooking  demonstrations to teach mothers how to prepare food for their young  children using the fortified rations, vegetables from the garden, and eggs.  In the same community, another partner was implementing a food-for- assets activity that provided food in exchange for beneficiaries’  participation in community councils and other community-building  activities.
Implementing partners used food-for-assets activities to construct a  variety of communal assets. During our fieldwork in Ethiopia and Djibouti,  we observed examples of such assets, including small-scale dams and  irrigation canals, rural access roads, and a school facility, constructed  through food-for-assets activities (see fig. 2). For more information about  award amounts, beneficiaries, and metric tonnage, see app. III.
section_title: Implementing Partners Cited Multiple Factors and Challenges Affecting Design of Food-for- Assets Activities
paragraphs: Implementing partners of Title II development projects reported  considering a number of factors, as well as experiencing challenges, in  designing food-for-assets activities. For example, partners reported  considering stakeholder input and the availability of technical expertise in  designing their food-for-assets activities. Partners also identified a  number of challenges to designing these activities, such as an inability to  serve all of the most food-insecure people in a region and determining a  plan for community maintenance and use of the assets after the project  has ended.
subsections: section_title: Implementing Partners Cited Stakeholder Input, Food Security Assessment, and Availability of Technical Expertise as Important Design Factors
paragraphs: Implementing partners reported considering multiple factors when  designing food-for-assets activities for Title II development projects. To  identify these factors, we asked 10 partners that implemented 14 projects  with food-for-assets activities in fiscal year 2014 to respond to a checklist  of potential factors; we also asked the partners to identify during  interviews the factors they considered most important (see fig. 3).
All of the implementing partners indicated that they had considered some  form of stakeholder input. As shown in figure 3, all of the partners also  identified the availability of technical expertise as a factor that they  considered when designing food-for-assets activities for the 14 projects  we reviewed. Two of these partners explained that the availability of  expertise in the local market and in their organizations to oversee the  technical design and implementation of assets are among the most  important factors that they consider when designing food-for-assets  activities. Specifically, in Ethiopia, a partner and its subawardee told us  that they had developed a construction plan to secure cement, sand, and  stone for a dam and irrigation canal to be constructed through a food-for- assets activity. The partner spent 4 months training beneficiaries in  construction, irrigation maintenance, and water management and  employed a full-time foreman at the construction site to oversee  construction. As a result, according to the partner, an engineer estimated  that the structure would last 15 to 25 years. In contrast, a partner  implementing a project in Zimbabwe told us that it had tried to recruit  skilled laborers for food-for-assets activities by providing double food  rations but, when this effort proved unsuccessful, had to adjust its budget  and project design to reflect skilled labor as an additional cost.
In 12 of the 14 development projects we reviewed, partners reported  working with the local community by incorporating beneficiary and  community leader input when designing food-for-assets activities. While  the type of stakeholder input varied across the projects we reviewed, 7  partners noted that community buy-in is one of the most important factors  in the success of food-for-assets activities; some also noted that  communities selected the communal assets that they viewed as high  priority. For example, partner officials implementing a project in Ethiopia  stated that community needs are one of the factors that they consider  most important when selecting food-for-assets activities. According to  partner officials, after their project was approved, they began working  directly with villages to identify potential food-for-assets activities. Officials  from another implementing partner explained that seeking community  input when designing food-for-assets activities is important, because  community members are more likely to maintain assets that the  community sees as priorities.
section_title: Implementing Partners Reported Many Challenges Affecting Design of Food-for- Assets Activities
paragraphs: Implementing partners reported that various challenges affected the  design of food-for-assets activities in their Title II development projects.  We asked 10 partners that implemented 14 development projects to  respond to a checklist of potential challenges, as well as to identify the  challenges they considered most important during interviews. Figure 4  shows the challenges that partners identified as affecting food-for-assets  activity design.
The challenge that the partners most frequently cited as affecting the  design of food-for-assets activities was the inability to serve all of the  most food-insecure people in a region because of a lack of capacity to  operate in the region, government restrictions, or insecurity. Partners  citing this challenge reported varying effects on their projects. For  example, according to a partner implementing a project in the Democratic  Republic of the Congo, ongoing armed conflict affected the design of  food-for-assets activities in that, because of security concerns,  beneficiaries could not travel away from their homes or at night to work on  assets. Officials of this implementing partner cited this as one of the most  challenging factors they experienced in designing food-for-assets  activities. According to officials implementing a program in Ethiopia, the  inability to serve all of the region’s most food-insecure population  because of government restrictions was one of the most challenging  factors they experienced. These officials noted that the Ethiopian  government had determined the number of beneficiaries in each district  almost 10 years ago, resulting in the exclusion of many people who are  newly eligible to participate and also limiting ration size, because there  was no mechanism to increase rations when children were born and  family size increased.
Ensuring the quality of the assets created through food-for-assets  activities, including determining a plan for community maintenance and  use was cited as a challenge affecting design for 7 of the projects we  reviewed. According to implementing partner officials in Zimbabwe,  community preference and capacity to manage the maintenance of the  asset are essential to achieving the goals of their activities, and the  community must identify and prioritize the assets if they are to be  maintained. Additionally, according to USAID officials, if the community is  engaged in the design process, it is more likely to maintain assets after  the implementing partners’ projects end and the partners leave the area.  One partner also noted that a lack of host country involvement was a  barrier to determining a plan for community maintenance and use of  roads constructed with food-for-assets labor after the project was over.  This partner reported that there were no entities to fund the maintenance  of these roads in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, even though the  partner was seeking to transfer the roads’ maintenance to the local  government.
section_title: USAID Cannot Systematically Assess Food-for- Assets Activities, but Implementing Partners Highlighted Both Benefits and Challenges
paragraphs: USAID cannot systematically measure the performance of food-for-assets  activities across all Title II development projects and therefore cannot  determine the effectiveness of food-for-assets activities in achieving  short-term or longer-term development goals. While USAID uses  indicators to assess the overall effectiveness of these development  projects, the agency cannot use these indicators to systematically assess  the specific effectiveness of food-for-assets activities across all Title II  development projects. During our interviews with 10 implementing  partners that implemented 14 projects, partners identified several benefits  specific to food-for-assets activities, such as developing needed  infrastructure, teaching skills to beneficiaries, and achieving short-term  increases in food security. They also cited challenges in implementing  these activities, such as difficulty in ensuring the sustainability of the  assets created as well as weak technical capacity and inadequate  resources in host governments and communities.
subsections: section_title: USAID Cannot Systematically Assess the Effectiveness of Food for Assets across Title II Development Projects
paragraphs: USAID requires implementing partners to report indicators about food-for- assets activities as part of their monitoring process, but USAID cannot  systematically use this information to assess the effectiveness of food-for- assets activities separately from that of other activities across Title II  development projects. USAID requires partners to monitor project  performance and track progress in achieving project results through its  standard performance indicators, such as the number of beneficiaries  who have participated in a project, as well as project-specific custom  performance indicators, such as the number of hectares of land a farmer  was able to irrigate as a result of a food-for-assets activity. USAID  requires partners to share this information by submitting annual results  and other reports. As part of this monitoring, USAID requires partners to  collect data through standard indicators, which provide project-wide  results and are common across multiple projects. Partners implementing  food-for-assets activities report annually, through a standard indicator, on  the number of project-wide beneficiaries who have participated in such  activities. However, this indicator and USAID’s other standard indicators  do not measure the performance of food-for-assets activities, or the effect  of these activities on the community, separately from other project  activities in a way that allows USAID to compare results for and across  projects. For instance, the standard indicators do not address immediate  outcomes, such as whether targets for assets constructed were met or  the extent to which food-for-assets activities have improved assets in the  communities served.
According to USAID officials, USAID also requires partners to collect data  through custom indicators, which measure results of specific activities  within projects. USAID officials stated that USAID works with each  implementing partner to identify appropriate custom indicators to measure  the effects of specific activities, including food-for-assets activities, on  achieving project goals. USAID officials noted that implementing  partners’ activity-level reporting on custom indicators, as well as partners’  narrative reports and implementation plans, provide information that  allows for oversight of individual projects but make compilation of some  data across the Title II portfolio challenging. Since these indicators,  narratives, and plans vary among projects, USAID cannot use them to  systematically assess the effectiveness of food-for-assets activities  across its Title II projects.
In contrast to the standard indicators used for food-for-assets activities,  standard indicators specific to other types of conditional food aid activities  are used to measure the performance of these activities. For example, for  interventions to promote maternal and child health and nutrition, USAID  uses a set of standard indicators to assess the extent to which various  interventions, such as increasing access to improved drinking water and  providing antenatal care, are effective in achieving project goals. In  addition, WFP uses a community asset score, at the beginning and end of  a project, to measure the number of functioning assets created in a  community through a food-for-assets activity. Moreover, documents for 10  of 13 WFP projects we reviewed noted performance indicators specific to  food-for-assets activities, such as the number of assets completed.
According to USAID’s operational policy documented in the Automated  Directives System (ADS) chapter 203, performance monitoring should be  an ongoing process that indicates whether desired results are occurring  and whether development objectives and project outcomes are on track.  Additionally, chapter 203 of the ADS states that to ensure accountability,  metrics should be matched to meaningful outputs and outcomes that are  under the control of the agency.
USAID officials told us that a lack of data demonstrating the effectiveness  of food-for-assets activities in improving long-term food security  represents a significant challenge in development projects involving food  for assets. Because USAID has not developed standard performance  indicators specific to food for assets, and cannot use its custom indicators  to aggregate performance data for food-for-assets activities across  projects, the agency cannot systematically assess the results of these  activities for all Title II projects that include them. Lacking this information,  USAID is unable to determine whether food-for-assets activities are an  effective mechanism for decreasing dependence on food aid and  increasing food security.
section_title: Implementing Partners Reported Food-for-Assets Benefits Such as Building Infrastructure and Teaching Skills
paragraphs: Although USAID does not have standardized performance indicators to  collect and report performance data specific to food-for-assets activities,  implementing partners for the 14 Title II development projects we  reviewed cited benefits from these activities. During our interviews with  the 10 partners that implemented these 14 projects, partners most  frequently cited building infrastructure, teaching skills to beneficiaries, and  improving social cohesion among community members as benefits of  food-for-assets activities (see fig. 5).
As figure 5 shows, implementing partners generally reported that food-for- assets activities led to the creation of infrastructure or physical assets that  benefited target communities. During fieldwork in Ethiopia, we also  observed benefits of infrastructure created with food for assets. Of the 6  partners that cited increased self-sufficiency of beneficiaries for more than  a year as a benefit of food for assets, all reported that their projects also  developed needed infrastructure, which may contribute to greater food  security. For example, according to a partner implementing a project in  Bangladesh, roads constructed through food-for-assets activities help  people reach markets to buy and sell food but also allow for increased  access to health clinics.
Benefits of  Infrastructure Constructed  through Food-for-Assets Activities in  Ethiopia  During fieldwork in Ethiopia, we observed  small-scale farms that were irrigated with  water supplied by dams and irrigation canals  constructed through food-for-assets activities.  Implementing partner officials highlighted the  importance of sequencing the projects to  ensure that assets constructed early in the  project help support assets planned for the  future. For example, in 2005, under a previous  U.S. Agency for International Development  (USAID) project, this partner began a food-for- assets activity that terraced the upper slopes  of the watershed to reduce runoff and  recharge the water table. In 2013 and 2014,  the partner constructed small-scale dams and  irrigation canals to irrigate farmland and  increase the variety and production of crops.  According to implementing partner officials,  when the original project began in 2005, all  2,500 people living in the community were  dependent on food aid; as of December 2014,  partner officials stated that 75 percent of the  community members had graduated out of the  program and were no longer dependent on  food aid.
Teaching beneficiaries skills was commonly cited as a benefit of food-for- assets activities. For example, according to a partner implementing a  project in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, working on food-for- assets activities taught beneficiaries the skills needed to maintain the  rural access roads that had been constructed after the partner’s project  ends. Specifically, the beneficiaries learned how to develop a plan to  maintain the roads as well as community-organizing skills needed to keep  the community engaged in communal projects.
section_title: Implementing Partners Cited Numerous Challenges to Implementing Food- for-Assets Activities
paragraphs: While implementing partners identified benefits of food-for-assets  activities, they also noted challenges to implementing these activities.  These challenges include weather or other unforeseen events interrupting  activities, as well as difficulties in ensuring that assets are maintained and  used after projects end. USAID officials noted that achieving long-term  benefits of food-for-assets activities often requires maintenance to ensure  that the assets remain functional and useful. While ensuring quality  control of assets and determining a plan for maintenance were cited as  design challenges for 7 projects we reviewed, these challenges may  affect implementing partners’ ability to ensure that the assets will function  as planned after the food-for-assets activities end. For example, officials  implementing a project in the Democratic Republic of the Congo noted  that, although the project is using food-for-assets activities to construct  feeder roads to improve market access, no local authorities or other  entities are available to take responsibility for maintaining the roads after  the project ends.
As figure 6 shows, partners most frequently cited interruption of food-for- assets activities by weather or other unforeseen events, such as civil  conflict, as negatively affecting implementation. For example, because  inclement weather can delay or interrupt the construction of assets,  partners must take into consideration the seasonal timing of food-for- assets activities. As one implementing partner official explained,  conducting such activities in the dry season mitigates the challenge of  inclement weather; however, beneficiaries may not need as much food  assistance during this season. In areas with armed conflict, partners  reported experiencing disruptions because of security concerns. For  example, a partner implementing a project in the Democratic Republic of  the Congo stated that it had to stop working in certain areas because of  the presence of rebel forces.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Conditional food aid activities confer benefits, such as creating communal  infrastructure, that serve the wider community, and they have the  potential to make significant contributions to meeting long-term food  security goals. Given that we found most Title II development and  emergency projects include conditional food aid activities, an  understanding of whether and under what circumstances the use of  conditional food aid activities has been effective and appropriate is  essential to USAID’s oversight of Title II projects. However, without the  ability to identify, and systematically collect information about, the  conditional food aid activities being implemented in its Title II program— particularly food-for-assets activities, which our analysis found to be most  prevalent—USAID is unable to make effective management decisions  about conditional food aid. For example, USAID is not able to determine  whether conditional food aid’s effect on food insecurity warrants the  additional costs of, for instance, providing building materials for asset  construction projects, nor is it able to effectively assess the benefits of  these activities separately from other project activities. Moreover, without  the ability to systematically assess the effectiveness of these activities  across Title II projects, USAID is unable to benefit from lessons learned to  improve these activities in the future and to further reduce dependence on  food aid and increase food security.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To strengthen USAID’s ability to monitor Title II conditional food aid and  evaluate food-for-assets activities’ impact on reducing food insecurity, we  recommend that the USAID Administrator take the following two actions: establish a mechanism to readily identify all Title II projects that  include conditional food aid activities and systematically collect  information about the type of conditional activity included in each  project and  systematically assess the effectiveness of food-for-assets activities in  development projects in achieving project goals and objectives.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to USAID and WFP for their review.  Both provided written comments, which we have reprinted in appendixes  IV and V, respectively. USAID also provided technical comments, which  we incorporated as appropriate throughout our report.
In its written comments, USAID concurred with our recommendations.  USAID signaled its intention to establish a mechanism to readily identify  all Title II projects that include conditional food aid activities and to collect  information about the type of conditional activity in each project. USAID  stated that it is already collecting such information for another food  assistance program. In addition, USAID agreed that it should assess the  effectiveness of food-for-assets activities in development projects in  achieving project goals and objectives. USAID added that it has  undertaken relevant reviews of the effectiveness and sustainability of Title  II development projects and that it is considering expanding evaluations  of completed Title II development projects to assess sustainability of  results over time. USAID disagreed with statements in our draft report  that, because it has not collected data on conditional food aid activities  systematically, the agency has limited ability to reliably oversee or  monitor programs that use these activities and is not following operation  policy that calls for systematic collection of data for monitoring and  evaluating program performance. USAID noted that its operational policy  also states that collecting more information increases the management  burden and cost to collect and analyze this information. Chapter 203 of  USAID’s Automated Directives System lists efficiency as a key principle  for effective performance monitoring and does not prescribe a specific  level of data collection. We revised our draft accordingly. However, our  observations and analysis do not support USAID’s position that it is able  to reliably oversee or monitor conditional food aid programs. For example,  USAID was unable to provide data on the numbers of beneficiaries,  funds, or commodities associated with conditional food activities.  Moreover, by agreeing to systematically collect data about, and assess  the effectiveness of, conditional food aid activities in Title II development  projects, USAID acknowledges the importance of this information as well  as the feasibility of the recommended actions.
In its written comments, WFP noted, among other things, that it found  encouraging our findings regarding its capacity to design and implement  food for assets, monitor and report results, and achieve both short- and  longer-term goals. WFP also commented that food-for-assets activities  serve distinct purposes in the two types of emergency operations where  WFP uses these activities; we added language to our report to address  this comment. WFP did not comment on our recommendations, since  they were not directed to WFP.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees; the Secretary of State; 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 about 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 VI.
section_title: Appendix I: WFP’s Use of Food for Assets in Emergency Projects
subsections: section_title: Factors WFP Considers in Designing and Implementing Food-for- Assets Activities for Emergency Projects
paragraphs: The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) makes most of  its Title II emergency awards to the World Food Program (WFP) and  bases these awards on WFP funding appeal documents as well as  USAID’s analysis of current and emerging crises worldwide. When  designing its emergency projects, WFP considers projects addressing  long-term crises, chronic poverty, or recurring national disasters to be well  suited for food-for-assets activities, according to WFP officials. If food-for- assets activities are to be part of the project, WFP also meets with  stakeholders at the village level to identify the assets that are most  needed in the community as well as limitations to constructing and  maintaining these assets. At the end of this process, WFP country offices  develop project proposals—either a protracted relief and recovery  operation or an emergency operations project document—outlining the  action that is required and also serving as a funding appeal. After WFP  releases an appeal, donors, including the United States, determine  whether they will provide funding, in-kind commodities, or other resources  for the project. According to WFP officials, once WFP has commitments  from the donors, it further refines the design of the project to reflect the  resources that the donors committed to provide and begins  implementation.
WFP considers several factors in the design and implementation of food- for-assets activities for emergency projects. WFP officials cited the  importance of considering stakeholder and community input and the  availability and level of technical expertise, and reported factoring gender  considerations into the design and implementation of their food-for-assets  activities. In addition, WFP considers input from a variety of stakeholders  at the national, regional, and local levels to help it assess food security,  and appropriately plan and implement food-for-assets activities. Our  review of documents for 13 WFP emergency operations and protracted  relief and recovery operations projects with food-for-assets activities  found that documents for 10 of the projects noted partnerships with host  governments. Documents for 7 of the projects noted partnerships with  other implementing partners, such as the Food and Agriculture  Organization of the United Nations. During our fieldwork in Djibouti, we  visited a newly constructed water catchment where WFP worked with an  international development agency that provided technical expertise and  machinery and where WFP food-for-assets beneficiaries collected the  rocks that were used to build the dam (see fig. 7). In addition, WFP  beneficiaries later planted a garden close to the catchment to make use  of the collected water, with the Food and Agriculture Organization  providing seeds and WFP providing tools and food rations.
In addition to considering stakeholder input, WFP considers the  availability and level of technical expertise and capacity when designing  and implementing food-for-assets activities. In 2014, WFP evaluators  found that assets might not be properly constructed or maintained if the  needed technical expertise and specialized equipment for the asset  exceeded the technical capacity of the community. According to WFP  officials, when neither the host government nor the community has the  technical expertise or resources to maintain high-technology assets, WFP  will either recommend against building the assets or recommend a focus  on low-technology assets.
Further, WFP integrates gender considerations throughout the planning  process for food-for-assets activities, according to WFP officials.  According to WFP, this includes acknowledging the different roles,  community status, and hardships that men and women have experienced  and assessing the potential for exacerbating or addressing these  differences through food-for-assets activities. In WFP’s evaluation of  projects from 2002 to 2011 in six countries, evaluators found that  strategic targeting of assets to women’s needs, creation of gender- sensitive worksites, and consideration for women’s competing demands  all affected women’s participation in, and the benefits they derived from,  food-for-assets’ activities. Our review of documents for 13 WFP  emergency operations projects from fiscal years 2013 and 2014 found  that 11 of these projects included targets for women’s participation and  that 6 of the 11 projects had targets giving special consideration to  gender issues, such as targets for women in leadership roles.
section_title: WFP-Identified Benefits of Food-for-Assets Activities as Well as Risks and Challenges in Designing and Implementing Its Activities
paragraphs: WFP identified many benefits to its food-for-assets activities implemented  in emergency projects, including benefits similar to those observed by  development implementing partners. Additionally, WFP reported a  number of risks affecting the design of projects containing food for assets,  such as a lack of adequate and timely funding and insecure and  unpredictable environments. WFP also reported challenges in  implementing food-for-assets activities, including challenges similar to  those facing development implementing partners, such as limited  technical capacity within communities. WFP found that its food-for-assets  activities had helped to develop infrastructure and that food-for-assets  activities had built useful assets with both short- and long-term benefits,  which in turn improved the beneficiaries’ food security. In its 2014  synthesis of evaluations, WFP evaluators noted that its projects had  created assets that helped protect communities from floods and also  provided longer term benefits. For example, in Bangladesh, dikes that  provided protection from floods were built, and, building these dikes  increased the productivity of the land. In addition, WFP evaluators found  that in the medium term, assets built in Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Nepal,  Senegal, and Uganda had increased land productivity and agricultural  production, which in turn enhanced communities’ ability to generate  income. Additionally, WFP reported that food-for-assets activities had had  a long-term positive impact in creating cohesion among varying  populations in Bangladesh, Guatemala, Nepal, and Uganda, some of  which had experienced prolonged conflict.
WFP reported in its operational documents and Impact Evaluation  Synthesis that a number of risks could affect projects containing food for  assets, such as a lack of adequate and timely funding, insecure and  unpredictable environments, and limited technical expertise. WFP  reported for all but 1 of the 13 projects we reviewed that reduced,  inadequate, and delayed funding was a key risk to designing and  implementing the projects’ activities. For its projects in the Democratic  Republic of the Congo, Somalia, and Sudan, WFP noted that life-saving  emergency assistance would be prioritized over food for assets when  funding was insufficient. In addition, WFP officials in Djibouti told us that  in 2014 only 15 percent of planned food-for-assets activities were  completed because of a lack of funding.
WFP also identified numerous challenges when implementing its food-for- work activities in emergency projects. Some of these challenges were  similar to those identified by implementing partners, such as finding  humanitarian workers with appropriate technical skills, maintaining assets  in the long term, and determining appropriate target populations. WFP  evaluators reported on the importance of community and government  technical capacity for the proper maintenance of assets, and WFP cited a  lack of institutional capacity among host country governments,  communities, and other institutions as a risk for 8 of the projects we  reviewed. Additionally, WFP evaluators found that limited technical  capacity can affect whether an asset functions as intended, because  assets are more likely to be maintained when communities and  governments have the capacity to appropriately maintain them than when  they lack the capacity.
WFP evaluators noted that achieving long-term benefits for food-for- assets activities often requires ongoing operations and maintenance to  ensure that the asset remains functional and useful. WFP’s 2014  synthesis of evaluations of food-for-assets activities in 2002 through 2011  reported that there was confusion about who would be responsible for   maintaining the assets and that plans for maintaining the assets were in  place for only a few of the activities. WFP reported that without clarity  about maintenance responsibilities, there is a risk that assets will fall into  disrepair.
section_title: Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: Our objectives were to examine (1) the U.S. Agency for International  Development’s (USAID) use of conditional food aid through Title II  development and emergency projects in fiscal years 2013 and 2014, (2)  the factors that implementing partners considered and the challenges  they faced when designing food-for-assets activities in development  projects, and (3) the extent to which USAID assessed the effectiveness of  food-for-assets activities in development projects.
To address all three of our objectives, we reviewed Title II project  documents and information from fiscal years 2013 and 2014. We focused  our review of conditional food aid in Title II emergency projects on the  World Food Program (WFP), because it is the largest recipient of  USAID’s emergency Title II funding. We met with officials of USAID’s  Food for Peace program in Washington, D.C.; officials at the WFP  headquarters in Italy and via teleconference; officials at U.S.-based  implementing partners’ headquarters in Washington, D.C., or via  teleconference; and WFP officials in Chad, Sudan, and Pakistan via  teleconference. In addition, we conducted fieldwork in Djibouti,  Guatemala, and Ethiopia, meeting with USAID and WFP officials,  implementing partner country program staff, and host country government  officials, among others. In selecting countries for fieldwork, we considered  various factors, including the range of project sizes and types of project  (i.e., development or emergency) implemented in the country, the nature  of food-for-assets activities in the country, and coverage of multiple  implementing partners.
For background and context, we obtained information on the advantages  and disadvantages of food for assets. We obtained this information by  conducting interviews with three subject matter experts in the field of  international food aid, selected based on their extensive field research  and firsthand knowledge of the topic, as well as a literature review of  academic articles related to the design and implementation of food for  assets that we selected based on recommendations from the experts we  interviewed, searches for articles covering food-for-assets design and  implementation, and searches of the bibliographies for those articles we  reviewed.
In addition, to examine USAID’s use of conditional food aid through Title II  development and emergency projects in fiscal years 2013 and 2014—our  first objective—we took the following steps. For development projects, we  reviewed data from USAID’s Food for Peace Management and  Information System (FFPMIS)—USAID’s official program, proposal, and  financial management system—from implementing partners’ annual  results reports for the 2 fiscal years. We used these data to determine  the number of beneficiaries and metric tons of commodities associated  with Title II development projects with conditional food aid activities. To  assess the reliability of these data, we interviewed Food for Peace and  contractor officials who are responsible for maintaining and using the  FFPMIS system. To identify any obvious inconsistencies or gaps in the  data, we performed basic checks of the data’s reasonableness, checking  the FFPMIS data against data provided by agency officials. When we  found discrepancies or missing data fields, we brought them to the  attention of relevant agency officials and worked with the officials to  correct the discrepancies and missing fields. In conducting our reliability  assessment, we found two limitations associated with the annual results  reports data.
The reports do not contain beneficiary or metric tonnage data specific  to conditional food aid activities; the most specific data available are  by program element. For example, the data we reviewed did not  include information about food-for-assets activities but included data  for activities that were completed under the agricultural sector  capacity program element. USAID officials could not provide data  specific to food-for-assets activities through other means.
USAID officials do not thoroughly check all of the data reported by  implementing partners to ensure accuracy, although they conduct a  quality check to assess whether the data are reasonable.
These limitations affected our ability to identify the award amounts,  beneficiaries, and metric tonnage associated with conditional food aid  activities implemented within Title II projects. Instead of gathering  beneficiary and metric tonnage information specific to conditional food aid  activities, we gathered higher-level data for program elements. On the  basis of our interviews with relevant Food for Peace and contractor  officials, our review of FFPMIS documentation, and our review and testing  of the annual results report data that we received, we determined that the  beneficiary and metric tonnage data at the program element level were  sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our review.
For emergency projects, we used WFP’s standard project report (SPR)  data for each Title II emergency project that contained conditional food  aid activities in fiscal years 2013 and 2014. These data showed (1) total  numbers of beneficiaries for each project, (2) numbers of beneficiaries for  each type of conditional food aid activities (i.e., food for assets, school  feeding, food for training, and take-home rations), (3) metric tons of  commodities and quantities donated in-kind and purchased by WFP with  cash donations, and (4) metric tons of U.S. in-kind donations shipped or  purchased. We used these data to determine the numbers of  beneficiaries and metric tons of U.S. commodities associated with Title II  emergency projects with conditional food aid activities. To assess the  reliability of the SPR data, we interviewed the WFP officials who gathered  the award data for us as well as WFP officials who oversee country  program offices’ programmatic and financial reporting. To identify any  obvious inconsistencies and gaps in the Title II award data and SPR data,  we also performed basic checks of the data’s reasonableness, checking  the Title II award data against data provided by USAID officials. When we  found discrepancies or missing data fields, we brought them to the  attention of relevant agency officials and worked with the officials to  correct them. In conducting our reliability assessment, we found three  limitations with the SPR data.
The SPRs do not contain beneficiary data specific to U.S. donations.
For example, the data we reviewed show total numbers of  beneficiaries served by WFP—which obtains donations from multiple  countries and other entities—rather than by individual country  donations. Neither WFP nor USAID officials could provide data  specific to WFP’s conditional food aid activities through other means.  Additionally, we cannot determine how much of this funding went to  the conditional food aid activities as opposed to unconditional food  distribution, supplemental distributions, or food or support for the  elderly, disabled, or seriously ill.
While SPRs contain in-kind metric tonnage data provided by the  United States, these data are not specific to conditional food aid  activities; they also include general food distribution. Similarly, the  project totals for commodities shipped or purchased include general  food distribution, locally procured food, and food obtained with cash  from the United States and other donors by other means. Additionally,  WFP data on U.S. donations of commodities may include  commodities for conditional or unconditional assistance. Accordingly,  it is not possible to distinguish, on the basis of these data, the metric  tonnage of commodities that were distributed strictly for conditional  food aid activities.
Because WFP beneficiary data may be collected both at the individual  level and through estimates based on household rations, the SPR  data on beneficiaries may not have been collected consistently.
Despite these limitations, we were able to estimate the beneficiaries and  metric tonnage associated with Title II emergency projects that included  conditional food aid. Lacking data about beneficiaries of U.S. conditional  food aid activities, we gathered project-level data. In addition, lacking  data about the number of metric tons of food donated by the United  States specific to conditional food aid activities, we collected data on food  used for general emergency food distribution. Finally, lacking information  about the metric tons of food distributed by emergency projects for  conditional food aid, we gathered data on food that was shipped from the  United States, purchased locally, or otherwise purchased. On the basis of  our interviews with relevant Food for Peace and WFP officials, and our  review and testing of the award and SPR report data that we received, we  determined that the beneficiary and metric tonnage data were sufficiently  reliable for the purposes of this report.
To examine the factors that partners considered and the challenges they  faced when designing food-for-assets activities in Title II development  projects, and to determine the extent to which USAID assessed the  effectiveness of these food-for-assets activities—our second and third  objectives, respectively—we focused on food-for-assets activities as the  most prevalent type of conditional food aid activity for both development  and emergency projects.
For our analysis of development projects, we analyzed USAID data for  the 22 Title II projects that were active between fiscal years 2013 and  2014, and that included conditional food aid activities. We analyzed these  projects to select the 14 that fit the following criteria: (1) contained food- for-assets activities, (2) were active in fiscal year 2014, and (3) were at  least in their second year of implementation. We selected a subset of  these 22 projects in the following manner: (1) 2 projects for each of the 4  partners that had multiple active projects, and (2)1 project each for the  remaining 6 partners that had only 1 active project. We conducted  semistructured interviews with officials of the 10 partners that  implemented these 14 projects  (see table 3). For partners implementing  multiple projects captured in our analysis, we conducted separate  interviews with implementing partner staff to discuss each project. The  information we obtained through these interviews is not generalizable to  all Title II development projects or all USAID development awards. To  encourage open and honest discussion, we offered these implementing  partners confidentiality and therefore are not naming the partners whose  staff we interviewed.
During our semistructured interviews covering these 14 projects, we  asked the officials from each partner a similar set of questions that  focused on the design, implementation, and evaluation of each project.  We also provided each partner with four checklists to facilitate collection  of uniform information about, respectively, (1) the factors they considered  when designing food-for-assets activities in their Title II projects, (2) the  challenges they experienced in designing these activities, (3) the benefits  of implementing food-for-assets activities as opposed to unconditional  food aid, and (4) the challenges they faced in implementing food-for- assets activities in their Title II projects. We asked the partners to  complete these checklists prior to being interviewed. In interviews with  partner officials, we discussed their responses to the checklists and  elicited information about the benefits, factors, and challenges they  considered most important to their projects. We analyzed the  implementing partners’ responses to both the checklists and the  semistructured interviews to determine the prevalence of various factors  in designing food-for-assets activities as well as the benefits and  challenges that the partners experienced in designing and implementing  these activities. We then conducted a content analysis of the  semistructured interview responses to determine which factors,  challenges, and benefits the partners considered most valuable or  important. In addition, we conducted interviews with officials of USAID’s  Office of Food for Peace and reviewed USAID documents, including  project design and implementation guidance; requests for applications;  and partner award documentation, such as annual reports, monitoring  indicators, and correspondence with USAID. We compared these data  and documents with criteria for data collection and monitoring from  USAID’s operational policy, to assess the extent to which USAID can  report on the benefits of its food-for-assets activities.
To examine the factors that WFP considered when designing and  implementing Title II emergency activities, as well as the reported benefits  of such activities (see app. I), we reviewed WFP’s emergency operations  and protracted relief and recovery operations documents and interviewed  WFP country program officials. We selected a judgmental sample of 13 of  60 emergency projects on the basis of the fiscal year of implementation,  the presence of a food-for-assets activity, the existence of a reported  dollar amount, the availability of project documentation, the project type,  and variety in the projects’ geographical location. Table 4 shows the  countries and source documents for the 13 Title II emergency projects  that we selected for our review.
In addition to analyzing operational documents for WFP protracted relief  and recovery operations and emergency operations, we conducted  telephone interviews with project officials in four WFP field offices: (1)  Chad, (2) Djibouti, (3) Pakistan, and (4) Sudan. We selected these  projects on the basis of size, the availability of WFP in-country officials,  whether active food-for-assets projects were being implemented, and  whether we had conducted fieldwork in the country, among other factors.
To further analyze what is known about the results of food-for-assets  activities, we reviewed WFP’s May 2014 Impact Evaluation Synthesis—a  synthesis report of six individual impact evaluations of food-for-assets  activities implemented in Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Nepal,  Senegal, and Uganda from 2002 to 2011, which we determined was  reliable for the purposes of our review. We considered the research  design, scope, and methodology of these evaluations and determined  that they were reasonable for the purposes of these studies. For example,  we considered whether the high-level findings in the summary report  represented a fair summary of the individual studies and determined that  they did. For example, we found that key challenges and problems with  the programs were reported in the evaluation synthesis. We also found  that that the benefits in the studies were not overstated in the final  evaluation synthesis. However, we noted that a table on the functionality  of assets did not appear reliable on the basis of the individual evaluations,  and we therefore we did not report on that table. We defined benefits as  the positive outcomes resulting from food-for-assets activities, such as  improved agricultural production. We defined challenges as difficulties or  deficiencies—within or outside WFP’s control—that hindered optimum  project implementation and food-for-assets outcomes.
We conducted this performance audit from March 2014 to September  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.
section_title: Appendix III: Award Amounts for Projects Including Conditional Food Aid in Fiscal Years 2013 and 2014
paragraphs: For this report, we focused on the amounts awarded, numbers of  beneficiaries served, and amounts of food aid commodities provided for  development and emergency projects that included conditional food aid  activities rather than for the conditional food aid activities themselves.  Almost all development projects, and most emergency projects, that the  U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) funded under Title II  of the Food for Peace Act in fiscal years 2013 and 2014 included  conditional food aid activities.
subsections: section_title: Development Projects
paragraphs: Of the 60 Title II development projects that USAID funded and  implemented through its partners in fiscal years 2013 and 2014, 59  projects included conditional food aid activities. Food for assets was the  most prevalent activity in 2013, and maternal and child health care and  nutrition was the most prevalent activity in 2014. Figure 8 shows the types  and prevalence of conditional food aid activities implemented through  Title II development projects during these 2 years.
USAID awarded $609.3 million to its implementing partners under Title II  in fiscal years 2013 and 2014, most of which supported development  projects with conditional food aid activities (see table 5). Awards per  project ranged from $60,500 (Niger) to $40.4 million (Ethiopia) in fiscal  year 2013 and from $2.0 million (Malawi) to $36.5 million (Ethiopia) in  fiscal year 2014. Because most Title II development projects in fiscal  years 2013 and 2014 included conditional food aid during this timeframe,  the amounts awarded, beneficiaries served, and commodities provided  through projects with conditional food aid activities were generally very  similar to those for all Title II development projects. According to USAID  officials, in fiscal year 2013, implementing partners monetized, or sold,  food aid commodities in developing countries to fund development  projects in 5 projects: 3 in Bangladesh, 1 in Madagascar, and 1 in Malawi.
section_title: Emergency Projects
paragraphs: Of the 59 Title II emergency projects that USAID funded and implemented  through the World Food Program (WFP) in fiscal years 2013 and 2014,  52 projects included conditional food aid activities. Food for assets was  the most prevalent type of conditional food aid activity in emergency  projects, followed by school feeding and food for training. Figure 9 shows  the types and prevalence of conditional food aid activities implemented  through emergency projects during these 2 years.
Of the 52 emergency projects that included conditional food aid activities,  40 were protracted relief and recovery operations—emergency projects  that include long-term relief efforts—and 12 were emergency  operations—emergency projects that focus on short-term recovery efforts  (see table 6).
In fiscal years 2013 and 2014, USAID awarded $1.8 billion to WFP  emergency projects under Title II, including $1.5 billion to WFP  emergency projects with conditional food aid activities (see table 7).  Awards per emergency project ranged from $2.5 million (Philippines) to  $92.8 million (Ethiopia) in fiscal year 2013 and from $428,700 (Liberia) to  $209.8 million (South Sudan) in fiscal year 2014. USAID provided 1.2  million metric tons (50.3 percent) of 2.3 million metric tons of commodities  for general food distribution and conditional food aid activities that WFP  received directly from donors for its emergency projects during this time  frame, including in-kind donations and WFP purchases with cash  donations.
WFP emergency projects, including those with conditional food aid  activities, served the majority of beneficiaries through general food  distribution—that is, unconditional food aid that is traditionally provided in  emergency projects. As table 8 shows, WFP served 40 percent of  beneficiaries in fiscal year 2013 and almost 60 percent of beneficiaries in  fiscal year 2014 through general food distribution in these projects. WFP  served a smaller percentage of beneficiaries through conditional food aid  activities, primarily through school feeding projects, although food for  assets was the most frequently used conditional food aid activity. WFP  served more beneficiaries through school feeding in Afghanistan, the  Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Sudan than in any other countries  where it implemented this activity in fiscal year 2013, and in Pakistan, the  Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Sudan in fiscal year 2014. After  school feeding, WFP served the most beneficiaries through food-for- assets activities. WFP served more beneficiaries through food-for-assets  activities in Ethiopia, Kenya, and the Philippines in fiscal year 2013, and  in Ethiopia, Kenya, and Burkina Faso in fiscal year 2014, than in any  other countries where it implemented this activity. In addition, some  beneficiaries participated in multiple conditional and unconditional  activities and may be counted in more than one category. For this reason,  the sum of the percentages shown in table 8 is greater than 100.
section_title: Appendix IV: Comments from the U.S. Agency for International Development
subsections: section_title: GAO’s Comments
paragraphs: 1.  Page numbers cited in USAID’s letter refer to a draft version of our  report and may not correspond to page numbers in the published  report.  2.  USAID notes that data on conditional food aid activities currently  collected through implementing partners’ narrative reporting, from  implementation plans, and for custom indicators allow for robust  oversight of individual projects. USAID also notes that its operational  policy states that “more information is not necessarily better because  it markedly increases the management burden and cost to collect and  analyze.” It further notes that the manual compilation of conditional  activities across all food assistance programming does not equate to  a lack of monitoring, assessment or understanding of conditional food  transfers. USAID’s Automated Directives System (ADS) 203.3.2.2 lists  efficiency as a key principle for effective performance monitoring and  does not prescribe a specific level of data collection.
We have revised our draft to ensure that we do not state that the  agency has failed to adhere to its operational policy. However, our  observations and analysis do not support USAID’s position that its  current data collection practices allow for robust oversight of  conditional food aid activities. In particular, we found a lack of  systematic data that could be used to oversee and learn about these  projects across Title II programs. First, although we were ultimately  able to determine that almost all of USAID’s Title II projects  implemented conditional food aid activities, USAID could not readily  identify these projects or the types of activities they included and  could not provide data on the resources used for these activities. As a  result, USAID officials spent several months manually gathering and  revising the data we requested and did not provide finalized data until  8 weeks before our report’s publication. Second, our initial analysis of  these data, when they became available, showed them to be  incomplete and flawed (for example, including projects that did not  have conditional food aid and excluding projects that did) and  therefore not useful for systematically monitoring conditional food aid  activities in Title II development projects. We were eventually able to  estimate these data for projects that included conditional food aid  activities. However, USAID was not able to provide us with any data  on the numbers of beneficiaries, funds, or commodities associated  with conditional food activities. Finally, in its letter, USAID concurs  with—and indicates its intent to implement—our recommendation to  establish a mechanism to readily identify all Title II development  projects that include conditional food aid activities and to collect  information about the types of conditional activity included. In addition,  USAID notes in its response to this recommendation that it already  systematically collects data on conditional activities in food assistance  projects funded through the Emergency Food Security Program,  suggesting that the agency considers this information important and  that taking these actions does not substantially increase management  burden or cost. By agreeing to systematically collect data on, and  assess the effectiveness of, conditional food aid activities in Title II  development projects, USAID acknowledges both the importance and  the feasibility of taking these actions to enhance its monitoring and  oversight of conditional food aid in its Title II programs. We have  added information to clarify USAID’s position on project oversight,  such as information that is available in implementing partners’  narrative reporting.  3. We agree that the $2.1 billion in Title II awards in fiscal years 2013  and 2014 funded both conditional and unconditional food aid  activities. However, we were not able to identify the amount of funding  that went toward conditional activities, because USAID lacks data that  would allow us to distinguish these activities from unconditional  activities. We agree that the number of beneficiaries served through  U.S.-funded Title II emergency projects, including food-for-assets  activities, represents a small percentage of these projects’ total  beneficiaries. However, this percentage represents emergency  projects and does not reflect beneficiary numbers for development  projects. We were unable to report similar data on the beneficiaries  served through conditional food aid activities in Title II development  projects, because USAID did not provide these data. Therefore we  reported, as the closest reliable proxy, that 87 percent of USAID Title  II funding went toward projects that included conditional food aid  activities and that 111 of 119 USAID-funded Title II development and   emergency projects included these activities. 4. We acknowledge that general food distributions are often provided to those not able to work in communities and have modified our report accordingly. However, to make effective management decisions about food-for-assets activities, including targeting the appropriate beneficiaries, it is necessary to systematically track these activities’ use and assess their effectiveness across Title II projects.
section_title: Appendix V: Comments from the World Food Program
subsections: section_title: GAO’s Comments
paragraphs: 1.  The focus of our performance audit was USAID’s oversight of  conditional food aid, and our highlights page (i.e., executive summary)  reflects our findings in this regard. Nevertheless, we found both  benefits and challenges associated with conditional food aid activities,  which we note in our report.  2.  To encourage open and honest discussions, we offered to treat as  confidential the responses of USAID implementing partner  representatives for Title II development projects to our interview  questions, and our report therefore does not name these partners.  Appendix II lists the criteria we used to select these implementing  partners as well as the countries in which the projects we discuss  were implemented.   3.  We determined that WFP’s 2014 Synthesis of the Evaluation of the  Impact of Food for Assets 2002-2011, Lessons for Building  Livelihoods Resilience, was sufficiently reliable for our purpose—that  is, to analyze benefits and challenges of food-for-assets activities that  the document cites. Additionally, throughout our report, we discuss  the role of community participation in the design and implementation  of food-for-assets activities.   4.  We have modified our report to clarify the distinction between the  respective roles of food-for-assets activities in WFP’s protracted relief  and recovery operations and in its emergency operations.   5.  We have added a note to the table to clarify WFP’s definition of school  feeding.
section_title: Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Valérie Nowak (Assistant  Director), Jaime Allentuck, (Analyst-in-Charge), Ming Chen, Teresa  Abruzzo Heger, Nicholas Jepson, Kalinda Glenn-Haley, Martin de Alteriis,  Mark Dowling, Kirsten Lauber, Reid Lowe, Katya Rodriguez, Rachel  Dunsmoor, and Tina Cheng made key contributions to this report.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: International Cash-Based Food Assistance: USAID Has Processes for  Initial Project Approval but Needs to Strengthen Award Modification and  Financial Oversight. GAO-15-760T. Washington, D.C.: July 9, 2015.
USAID Farmer-to-Farmer Program: Volunteers Provide Technical  Assistance, but Actions Needed to Improve Screening and Monitoring.  GAO-15-478. Washington, D.C.: April 30, 2015.
International Cash-Based Food Assistance: USAID Has Developed  Processes for Initial Project Approval but Should Strengthen Financial  Oversight. GAO-15-328. Washington, D.C.: March 26, 2015.
International Food Aid: Better Agency Collaboration Needed to Assess  and Improve Emergency Food Aid Procurement System. GAO-14-22.  Washington, D.C.: March 26, 2014.
International Food Aid: Prepositioning Speeds Delivery of Emergency Aid,  but Additional Monitoring of Time Frames and Costs Is Needed.  GAO-14-277. Washington, D.C.: March 5, 2014.
Global Food Security: USAID Is Improving Coordination but Needs to  Require Systematic Assessments of Country-Level Risks. GAO-13-809.  Washington, D.C.: September 17, 2013. E-supplement GAO-13-815SP.
International Food Assistance: Improved Targeting Would Help Enable  USAID to Reach Vulnerable Groups. GAO-12-862. Washington, D.C.:  September 24, 2012.
World Food Program: Stronger Controls Needed in High-Risk Areas.  GAO-12-790. Washington, D.C.: September 13, 2012.
Farm Bill: Issues to Consider for Reauthorization. GAO-12-338SP.  Washington, D.C.: April 24, 2012.
International Food Assistance: Funding Development Projects through  the Purchase, Shipment, and Sale of U.S. Commodities Is Inefficient and  Can Cause Adverse Market Impacts. GAO-11-636. Washington, D.C.:  June 23, 2011.
International School Feeding: USDA’s Oversight of the McGovern-Dole  Food for Education Program Needs Improvement. GAO-11-544.  Washington, D.C.: May 19, 2011.
International Food Assistance: Better Nutrition and Quality Control Can  Further Improve U.S. Food Aid. GAO-11-491. Washington, D.C.: May 12,  2011.
International Food Assistance: A U.S. Governmentwide Strategy Could  Accelerate Progress toward Global Food Security. GAO-10-212T.  Washington, D.C.: October 29, 2009.
International Food Assistance: Key Issues for Congressional Oversight.  GAO-09-977SP. Washington, D.C.: September 30, 2009.
International Food Assistance: USAID Is Taking Actions to Improve  Monitoring and Evaluation of Nonemergency Food Aid, but Weaknesses  in Planning Could Impede Efforts. GAO-09-980. Washington, D.C.:  September 28, 2009.
International Food Assistance: Local and Regional Procurement Provides  Opportunities to Enhance U.S. Food Aid, but Challenges May Constrain  Its Implementation. GAO-09-757T. Washington, D.C.: June 4, 2009.
International Food Assistance: Local and Regional Procurement Can  Enhance the Efficiency of U.S. Food Aid, but Challenges May Constrain  Its Implementation. GAO-09-570. Washington, D.C.: May 29, 2009.
International Food Security: Insufficient Efforts by Host Governments and  Donors Threaten Progress to Halve Hunger in Sub-Saharan Africa by  2015. GAO-08-680. Washington, D.C.: May 29, 2008.
Somalia: Several Challenges Limit U.S. International Stabilization,  Humanitarian, and Development Efforts. GAO-08-351. Washington, D.C.:  February 19, 2008.
Foreign Assistance: Various Challenges Limit the Efficiency and  Effectiveness of U.S. Food Aid. GAO-07-905T. Washington, D.C.: May  24, 2007.
Foreign Assistance: Various Challenges Impede the Efficiency and  Effectiveness of U.S. Food Aid. GAO-07-560. Washington, D.C.: April 13,  2007.