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

Letter

Background

FTF is the U.S. government’s global hunger and food security initiative. The overarching goal of the initiative is to accelerate progress toward the United Nation’s Millennium Development Goal of halving the proportion of people living in extreme poverty and hunger by 2015. FTF pursues two paths toward this goal: (1) address the root causes of hunger that limit the potential of millions of people and (2) establish a lasting foundation for change by aligning resources with country-owned processes and sustained multistakeholder partnerships through a new country-led approach. FTF also attempts to coordinate existing U.S. government programs in agriculture and food security through a whole-of-government approach and complement the related work by multilateral institutions such as the World Bank that receive food security funds from the U.S. government.

The U.S. government selected 19 countries as focus countries for FTF on the basis of the level of need, opportunity for partnership, potential for agricultural-led growth, opportunity for regional synergies, and resource availability. In these 19 countries, the U.S. government concentrates FTF investments in specific geographic regions called “zones of influence” where a small number of commodities such as rice, maize, and wheat are targeted.

In 2010, the Department of State and USAID’s Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR) designated USAID as the lead agency for the FTF initiative. USAID established the Bureau for Food Security to manage FTF as well as other agricultural development programs. Since that time, the USAID Administrator has served as the de facto Global Food Security Coordinator. In that capacity, he is responsible for implementing the initiative, including ensuring that all relevant U.S. government agencies and departments are consulted and engaged, as necessary, for the purposes of aligning and coordinating FTF with other food security-related programs and policies across the U.S. government. In addition, FTF has two Deputy Coordinators: one for development and one for diplomacy.

To facilitate coordination of U.S. government activities at the country level, the U.S. ambassador in each focus country designates a U.S. FTF Country Coordinator to lead the whole-of-government implementation of FTF. The initiative incorporates USAID food security programs and activities of nine FTF partner agencies, as shown in table 1. Partner agency roles in implementing FTF include State’s efforts to reform policy; Treasury’s support for the Global Agriculture and Food Security Program (GAFSP); and USDA’s support for agricultural research, economic, and market analysis.

Together, USAID and the U.S. FTF partner agencies allocated $7 billion for global food security programs in fiscal years 2010 through 2013. As of March 2013, USAID and U.S. FTF partner agencies had disbursed approximately $4.5 billion, or about 63 percent (see table 2).

Of this amount, disbursements against the L’Aquila pledge accounted for $1.5 billion or about 33 percent, while other FTF-related programs were $3 billion or 67 percent.

Within other FTF-related programs, USAID disbursed the highest amount of funds ($1.4 billion), followed by USDA ($879 million), MCC ($640 million) and Treasury ($89 million).

Figure 1 shows USAID and U.S. FTF partner agency locations in the 19 FTF focus countries in 2012. USAID and State have representatives in all 19 countries, while MCC, USADF, and the Peace Corps are located in countries where they have food security programs, and USDA predominantly operates on a regional level. The countries with the highest number of FTF agencies are Mali, Senegal, and Tanzania while the countries with the lowest number of FTF agencies are Bangladesh, Haiti, Honduras, and Tajikistan.

See app. II for a description of the other FTF-related food security programs implemented by USAID, Treasury, and USDA.

For those countries in which the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) regional representative is based in another country, USDA covers these countries as follows: Bangladesh and Nepal are covered from India; Cambodia is covered from Thailand; Ghana and Liberia are covered from Nigeria; Haiti is covered from the Dominican Republic; Honduras is covered from Guatemala; Malawi, Rwanda, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zambia are covered from Kenya; Mali is covered from Senegal; Mozambique is covered from South Africa; and Tajikistan is covered from Turkey.

USAID Has Made Progress in Coordinating with U.S. FTF Partner Agencies through Its Whole-of-Government Approach

USAID has made progress in applying FTF’s whole-of-government approach by coordinating and integrating U.S. FTF partner agencies’ knowledge and expertise at three levels: at headquarters in Washington, D.C.; in each of the 19 FTF focus countries; and between the countries and headquarters. At the headquarters level, we found USAID has made significant progress in addressing vulnerabilities we previously reported on by coordinating with U.S. FTF partner agencies to, among other things, develop a global food security strategy and monitor interagency performance. In addition, USAID and U.S. FTF partner agency representatives reported coordinating with each other at the country level and between the countries and headquarters. For example, our survey of U.S. FTF representatives in 19 FTF focus countries shows that 93 percent of the U.S. FTF partner agency representatives reported coordinating with USAID and approximately 80 percent of all U.S. FTF representatives reported coordinating with their headquarters office. Figure 2 illustrates USAID’s whole-of-government coordination efforts in headquarters, at the country level, and between the country level and headquarters.

Since 2010, USAID has made significant progress in addressing fragmentation in global food security efforts by coordinating with FTF partner agencies in headquarters through FTF’s whole-of-government approach. In reports issued in 2008 and 2010, we found that vulnerabilities in U.S. food security efforts included the lack of government-wide efforts such as an integrated strategy for food security, data management systems, and leveraging knowledge and expertise through coordination efforts such as food security working groups. Most of these vulnerabilities were related to a lack of coordination among U.S. agencies at the headquarters level. We concluded that, given this fragmentation in food security, the U.S. government was likely missing opportunities to leverage each agency’s expertise and to minimize duplication. We made several recommendations on improving coordination efforts in food security programs. U.S. agencies agreed with our recommendations and said they would take actions to develop an interagency food security strategy and establish a common reporting system to monitor progress in food security programs.

As a result, USAID has made significant progress in coordinating food security programs at the headquarters level by (1) developing a strategic approach to food security in collaboration with other U.S. agencies, (2) tracking interagency food security funding, (3) tracking and monitoring interagency food security performance data, and (4) coordinating food security efforts through biweekly interagency meetings. These efforts are consistent with key practices that enhance interagency collaboration.

Since 2010, U.S. agencies have made progress in outlining their joint strategic approach for global food security programs in various documents. The 2010 Feed the Future Guide (FTF Guide) —the strategic document guiding FTF—states that the overarching FTF goal is sustainably reducing poverty and hunger by tackling their root causes and employing proven strategies for achieving large scale and lasting impact. The FTF Guide also indentifies increasing agricultural growth and improving nutritional status of women and children as two key objectives to achieve progress towards the overarching goal. The outlining of a joint strategic approach for FTF is consistent with our previous recommendation that agencies develop a comprehensive global food security strategy. The FTF Guide specifies that U.S. agencies involved in food-security-related activities are to participate in planning and implementing the initiative. FTF officials told us that the U.S. agencies primarily involved in food security—USAID, State, USDA, MCC, and Treasury—collaborated on the development of the FTF Guide. The 2012 Feed the Future Progress Report, issued after the FTF Guide, provides additional information such as U.S. agency roles and responsibilities in implementing the U.S. government strategic approach. USAID officials told us they are updating the FTF Guide to include roles and responsibilities. These efforts are consistent with one of our key practices on interagency collaboration, which notes that in order for collaborating agencies to achieve a common outcome, they need to establish strategies that work together with their partners’ strategies or are developed as joint strategies.

USAID also made progress in tracking interagency funding by establishing the position of FTF Budget Director who requests and tracks funding data on U.S. global food security programs. Consistent with our previous recommendation that agencies periodically inventory food security-related programs and funding, the FTF Budget Director requests quarterly data from USAID, MCC, and Treasury on appropriations, obligations, and disbursements toward the L’Aquila pledge. The Budget Director also tracks appropriated funds for other food security programs such as USDA’s Food for Progress and Food for Education programs and Treasury’s contributions toward the International Fund for Agricultural Development by requesting data semiannually. The funding data collected are reported in USAID’s annual Feed the Future Progress Report.

USAID has also made progress in establishing an FTF monitoring and evaluation system to track interagency performance data toward common future security goals using a shared online data input and reporting system. We previously recommended that agencies develop improved measures to monitor and evaluate progress. USAID and the FTF partner agencies agreed on this centralized system and common indicators for tracking food security programs and progress across agencies. According to U.S. officials, USAID, State, USDA, MCC, Treasury, OPIC, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) collaborated on developing 56 FTF performance indicators for monitoring and evaluation, including 8 indicators that show U.S. government progress toward meeting FTF goals. These indicators include prevalence of poverty and prevalence of underweight children under 5 years of age. However, initially not all U.S. FTF partner agencies reported into the FTF Monitoring System (FTFMS) that USAID established. In fiscal year 2011, USAID, USDA, MCC, and Treasury reported on these indicators. The Peace Corps began reporting into the system in 2012, and USADF began reporting into the system in fiscal year 2013. OPIC officials told us that they plan to report into the system in 2014.

USAID uses data from FTFMS to report on the implementation of its whole-of-government and country-led approaches in the FTF Scorecard—which includes, among other things, measures to track the whole-of-government approach. According to the FTF Scorecard, USAID is tracking five whole-of-government related measures including the number of FTF interagency biweekly meetings and agencies presenting their food security annual plans to FTF. This is consistent with another of our key practices for interagency collaboration: that collaborating agencies create the means to monitor and evaluate those efforts so that they can identify areas for improvement and report to clients and stakeholders. In fiscal year 2012, of the five whole-of-government measures, results reported in the FTF Scorecard exceeded the target for one: number of partner agencies reporting partially met the target for three: number of FTF interagency working group meetings, number of country-level working groups holding regular interagency meetings, number of FTF agencies presenting their food security annual plans to FTF; and did not meet the target for one: number of country portfolio reviews with interagency participation.

Since 2010, USAID and FTF partner agencies have shared expertise and knowledge through biweekly headquarters meetings that all the FTF partner agencies we spoke with confirmed attending. In May 2008, we found that agencies did not have a government-wide interagency working group to coordinate their food security programs. On the basis of our current review of interagency meeting agendas and notes, we found USAID and FTF partners discussed planning documents such as the FTF strategic plan and progress reports and coordinated USAID and FTF partner agency feedback on the documents. FTF officials also told us that at these interagency meetings, agencies share implementation plans, discuss FTF plans and documents, request input, raise and discuss issues regarding implementation, and present information on their areas of expertise. This is consistent with our key practices for federal agencies engaged in collaborative efforts, which state that collaborating agencies create the means to address the compatibility of policies and procedures and other means to facilitate working across agency boundaries such as frequent communication among collaborating agencies.

USAID and U.S. FTF Partners Reported Coordination at the Country Level and between the Country Level and Headquarters

USAID and U.S. FTF partner agency representatives we surveyed in 19 FTF countries reported coordination at the country level and between the country level and headquarters through USAID’s whole-of-government approach.

At the country level, 93 percent of U.S. FTF partner agency representatives reported coordinating with representatives from the lead FTF organization, USAID, in planning and implementing FTF. Approximately 66 percent of representatives from U.S. FTF partner agencies also reported coordinating with country-level FTF representatives from State, and approximately one-third or more of U.S. FTF partner agency representatives reported coordinating with USDA, the Peace Corps, and other FTF agency representatives (see table 3).

We undertook additional analysis of the coordination reported in the survey and found that in nearly all cases USAID’s coordination with its partner agencies was a two-way relationship. For example, USAID officials reported coordinating with State, MCC, Treasury, USDA, the Peace Corps, and Commerce in all countries where those agencies were involved in FTF. Those same agencies also reported coordinating with USAID in all the FTF countries where they were present. We also found that a broad range of USAID representatives reported coordinating with FTF partner agency staff, including mission directors, Foreign Service Officers, personal services contractors, and Foreign Service Nationals. The USAID staff in our survey indicated that they worked in areas such as agricultural development, economic growth, food security, and health.

Collectively, USAID representatives reported coordinating with multiple officials at the State, USDA, and the Peace Corps. For example USAID coordinated with U.S. ambassadors, political and economic affairs officers, and public affairs officers at State.

Within each FTF country, USAID coordinates and shares knowledge and expertise with FTF partner agencies, under the leadership of the FTF Country Coordinator, through food security working groups as well as informal communication. Almost 80 percent of FTF partner representatives reported coordinating with USAID in FTF meetings at least quarterly. USAID FTF country-level representatives we interviewed while they were in Washington, D.C., told us that the interagency meetings in the field are their formal means of coordination. According to USAID documents, all FTF country-level staff report meeting at least twice a year; however, the frequency of these FTF meetings and the topics covered vary from country to country. For example, FTF officials in one Asian country told us that their food security working group meets once a week and discusses topics such as FTF and other food security- related projects, document development, budgets, and stakeholder meetings. By contrast, officials in an African country told us that FTF partner agencies meet quarterly to discuss FTF issues and implementation but certain agencies meet more frequently as needed and during development of FTF documents. According to senior USAID officials in headquarters, they have suggested to country-level staff that they hold interagency meetings at least monthly, but USAID has no requirement regarding the frequency of the meetings.

Most USAID and partner agency representatives responding to our survey indicated that their coordination was generally effective in accomplishing a number of FTF-related actions, as shown in table 4.

About three out of four FTF agency representatives (76 percent) indicated that their coordination was generally effective in developing or contributing to integrated FTF program documents, and our review of agency documents identified multiple examples of such efforts. USAID and USDA, for example, jointly prepared a roadmap to align their food assistance programs with FTF as part of the multiyear strategy development process in Guatemala and Haiti. Seventy-two percent of USAID and U.S. FTF partner agency representatives also reported generally effective coordination in integrating FTF program or project planning with other U.S. foreign assistance programs.

Over half of U.S. FTF representatives responding to our survey indicated that certain factors helped interagency coordination at the country level, such as ongoing communication (65 percent), sharing FTF-related data (64 percent), and the technical expertise of other U.S. government staff (61 percent). Less than half of all U.S. FTF representatives indicated that certain factors either hindered coordination or had no effect, such as staffing levels at other agencies (34 percent), lack of compatibility of procedures (39 percent), and flexibility of funding (41 percent).

Between the country level and headquarters, USAID and FTF partners reported coordinating and sharing information with each other through a variety of methods, including written communications and guidance, review of country strategies and progress data, country visits, and conference calls. Approximately 80 percent of USAID and U.S. FTF partner agency representatives reported coordinating with their offices in headquarters on FTF. About 90 percent of all USAID representatives reported coordinating with USAID’s Bureau for Food Security on FTF. In addition, 73 percent of USAID and U.S. FTF partner agencies reported that they received FTF guidance from their own headquarters at least quarterly. All FTF agencies in headquarters provided written guidance to country-level staff on implementing FTF and requested updates on food security issues. Headquarters and country-level staff within USAID and FTF partner agencies also coordinated in the development and review of a series of FTF country strategic documents and progress data reported into the FTF monitoring and evaluation system. Moreover, headquarters officials from USAID, USDA, and the Peace Corps also told us that they hold regular telephone conferences with country-level staff.

USAID Facilitated a Country-Led Approach and Made Some Progress in Monitoring Risks but Has Not Systematically Assessed Risks at the Country Level

USAID has taken steps to facilitate a country-led approach by providing support to the development and implementation of each country’s food security plan and by coordinating with multiple stakeholders. We found that USAID has a performance management tool, the FTF Scorecard, that is monitoring some risks to the country-led approach and that USAID has efforts to mitigate some of those risks. However, FTF’s multiyear country strategies did not systematically assess risks to the country-led approach and identify mitigation plans. USAID did not require a risk assessment in its FTF strategy guidance; however, other relevant USAID guidance states that a risk assessment informs management of the relevant risks associated with achieving objectives.

USAID Has Taken Steps to Facilitate a Country-Led Approach

We found that USAID has taken steps to facilitate a country-led approach. According to the FTF Guide, the country-led approach to FTF involves (1) providing support to the development and implementation of each country’s food security plan, called a country investment plan (CIP) and (2) coordinating with multiple stakeholders, including the host government, civil society organizations, donors, and the private sector in the planning and implementation of FTF. The U.S. government also planned to align its own multiyear country strategies with the priorities identified in the CIPs.

USAID Supported Development and Implementation of Country Plans

We found that USAID and FTF partner agencies provided support to the development and implementation of CIPs in several ways. According to USAID officials, consistent with the FTF Guide, they provided support to the CIP development and implementation process through (1) assistance to strengthen the capacity of host governments and facilitate their consultation with multiple stakeholders; (2) financial and technical support to increase stakeholders’ influence in developing and implementing the plans; and (3) participation in technical reviews of country investment plans to ensure, among other things, that the CIP development process, which included host government consultations with stakeholders, was carried out.

In our survey of U.S. agency representatives in 19 FTF focus countries, USAID representatives reported that USAID provided multiple types of assistance to strengthen the capacity of host governments and to support host government officials’ consultations with other stakeholders, including technical assistance or research data (71 percent), meetings (70 percent), and directly hosting consultation events or activities (68 percent). Sixty-two percent also reported providing policy or diplomatic support to improve host country laws, regulations, or organizational procedures relating to stakeholder consultations. In addition, over half of USAID representatives responding to the survey reported that, as a result of their coordination with host government stakeholders, partnership formation and engagement with other FTF project partners increased.

Our survey also showed that USAID representatives reported that they provided support to increase stakeholders’ involvement in developing and implementing the country plans. For example, more than half of USAID representatives reported identifying potential partners and about half reported providing technical assistance or research data to for-profit stakeholders to facilitate the creation of public-private partnerships. In addition, half of USAID respondents reported that, as a result of their coordination with for-profit stakeholders, partnership formation with these stakeholders increased. Table 5 shows the percentages of USAID representatives who indicated that USAID provided assistance to for- profit stakeholders to facilitate FTF-related public-private partnerships.

USAID and U.S. FTF partner agency officials also participated in technical reviews of CIPs in all FTF focus countries, but the process for the reviews varied. For the African FTF focus countries, USAID relied on the African Union’s Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program (CAADP) to guide the development and implementation of country investment plans. CAADP’s framework requires a technical review of CIPs, which includes reviewing the prioritization of agriculture investments, documentation of the scope and form of stakeholder consultations in the planning process, incorporation of private sector investment, and a risk assessment. For the non-African FTF focus countries, USAID and MCC officials told us that they and State promoted guidelines similar to CAADP and provided support for technical reviews because such a regional-level program to guide the development and implementation of the CIPs did not exist.

In our survey of U.S. FTF agency representatives in the 19 FTF focus countries, USAID and partner agency representatives reported that multiple stakeholders were included in the planning and implementation of FTF: host governments, nonprofit organizations, donors, and for-profit entities. U.S. government officials seek to coordinate with host government, nonprofit, donor, and private sector stakeholders to implement FTF as follows:

Host government: U.S. government officials are to coordinate with host governments on implementing agriculture policy reforms and consult with them on FTF policy priorities and investments.

Nonprofits: U.S. government officials are to coordinate with nonprofits to build their capacity and to achieve meaningful and effective engagement with host governments to sustain food security investments.

Donors: USAID is to participate in agriculture donor working groups in FTF countries to coordinate U.S. government food security investments with those of other donors. Additionally, one of State’s roles is to encourage other donors to, among other things, meet their financial commitments to food security and to assist countries on policy reforms.

For-profits: USAID is trying to increase private sector investment in agriculture in FTF focus countries, including through public-private partnerships.

As shown in table 6, the percentages of all U.S. FTF agency representatives that reported working with the four kinds of stakeholders ranged from 83 percent (working with host government officials) to 62 percent (working with for-profit enterprises).

Compared with representatives from U.S. FTF partner agencies, USAID representatives had a higher percentage reporting that they worked with each of the four stakeholder groups. As the lead agency for FTF, USAID engages a broad range of stakeholders, while FTF partner agencies may work with only certain groups of stakeholders depending on an agency’s role in a focus country’s FTF effort. For example, MCC works directly with host governments to design MCC compacts and support their implementation. In contrast, USADF provides grants directly to local organizations to fund projects that engage community groups in the design and implementation of the projects. (See app. V for additional information on agencies’ country-led approaches.)

USAID representatives reported that certain features of stakeholders’ participation in FTF increased as a result of coordination (see table 7). About half or more of USAID representatives reported that the following three features of stakeholders’ participation in FTF increased for all stakeholders: integration of stakeholders’ key priorities, formation of partnerships that included the stakeholders, and engagement of stakeholders with other FTF project partners.

Since 2010, USAID has made some progress in monitoring risks related to the country-led approach by developing a tool—the FTF Scorecard— that tracks performance goals on country ownership and includes measures that address risks to the country-led approach. In prior work, we have concluded that agencies may address management challenges and program risks by setting goals and measures related to those challenges and risks. In our May 2008 and March 2010 reports on U.S. global food security efforts, we found deficiencies in measuring and monitoring progress in food security and risks associated with the country-led approach. In our current study, we found that USAID’s 2012 and 2013 FTF Scorecards outline two goals to ensure country ownership and sustainability: focus countries lead collaborative implementation of the CIP and local capacity is increasingly able to sustain food security.

Under these goals, USAID is monitoring five performance measures related to the country-led approach: number of (1) focus countries with increased public expenditure for agriculture; (2) focus countries using outreach platforms to civil society organizations (CSOs) and private sector companies to inform CIP development and implementation; (3) focus countries holding joint sector reviews with donors, CSOs, and private sector firms; (4) focus countries with improved ranking in the World Bank’s ease-of-doing-business index; and (5) private enterprises and CSOs that applied new technologies or management practices.

We found that each of these five performance measures on country ownership is related to a risk to the sustainability of U.S. food security investments. Broadly, these measures fall into four risk-related categories: the ability of host governments to meet agriculture funding commitments; stakeholder consultations in the development and implementation of CIPs; host government policies that are conducive to private sector investment; and building local capacity. In our March 2010 report, we found that the country-led approach was vulnerable to a number of risks, including the weak capacity of host governments to meet funding commitments for agriculture and difficulties aligning host government and donor strategies due to differences in policy priorities. Additionally, other FTF guidance documents outlined the necessity of effective consultation with stakeholders, a policy environment conducive for investment, and building local capacity to ensure FTF’s sustainability. In fiscal year 2012, of the five country-led measures, results reported in the FTF Scorecard exceeded two targets: number of focus countries with increased public expenditure for agriculture and private enterprises and number of CSOs that applied new technologies or management practices; partially met two targets: number of focus countries using outreach platforms to engage civil society and private sector stakeholders in CIP development and implementation and number of focus countries with an improved Doing Business ranking; and did not meet one target: number of focus countries holding joint sector reviews.

FTF officials who reviewed CIPs in 2010 said the host governments’ consultations with their stakeholders were initially weak because host governments had limited time to complete their plans and that in some cases they consulted with stakeholders primarily in capital cities rather than rural areas.

USAID has taken some steps and is planning others to improve stakeholder consultations with host governments and to increase private sector investment in agriculture. The fiscal year 2013 FTF strategic plan states that FTF intends to strengthen the engagement of civil society and private sector stakeholders. According to USAID officials, at least four African focus countries will hold joint sector reviews in 2013. In response to the need to increase the participation of civil society and private sector stakeholders in the CAADP process, USAID sponsored the Africa Lead program to, among other things, build the capacity of civil society and private sector stakeholders to engage more effectively in the implementation of African countries’ CIPs. FTF has also sought to increase private sector participation in agriculture, recognizing the importance of these stakeholders to food security efforts. Part of this effort was the creation of the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition at the 2012 G8 Summit, in which global and local companies in Africa committed more than $3 billion in investments. However, similar programs to improve stakeholder consultations and private sector investment do not exist in the seven Asian and Latin American focus countries.

USAID Did Not Systematically Assess Risks Related to the Country-Led Approach in Its Multiyear Country Strategies

Although USAID has made some progress at the headquarters level to monitor and address risks to the country-led approach, we found that USAID’s FTF multiyear country strategies did not systematically assess these risks. According to USAID’s Risk Assessment Guide, a risk assessment informs agency management of the relevant risks associated with achieving management objectives and is intended to help management identify and document risks, prioritize them in terms of susceptibility, and determine the adequacy of controls to manage those risks. A key characteristic of a national strategy is a risk assessment, including an analysis of the threats to, and vulnerabilities of, critical assets and operations. The FTF multiyear strategies outline the 5-year strategic planning for the U.S. government’s global hunger and food security initiative at the country-level. According to these strategies, they represent whole-of-government approaches to address food security and were approved by interagency teams. USAID did not require a risk assessment in its guidance on FTF multiyear strategies.

On the basis of our review of the 19 FTF multiyear country strategies, we found that 12 of the 19 did not specifically discuss risks related to a country-led approach. Our review showed that 7 multiyear country strategies contained sections specifically discussing risks, and roughly half of the identified risks related to the country-led approach, including the weak capacity of host governments and host government policies that inhibit private sector investment. The remaining 12 multiyear country strategies did not contain a section specifically discussing risk, but they each identified challenges to the strategies, at least one of which related to the country-led approach. For example, one African country strategy states that organizational and technical capacity remains a major impediment to implementation of its country-owned agriculture development strategy. Local nongovernmental organizations and the private sector are poorly developed, and weak government institutions and insufficient staffing prevent the government from meeting the scale and pace of implementation required by its country investment plan, according to the strategy.

Across the seven multiyear country strategies with sections describing risks, USAID inconsistently identified plans to mitigate the risks identified. We found that fewer than half of the risks identified had corresponding discussions of mitigation strategies. For example, one African country strategy discusses plans to develop capacity and to promote dialogue between the government and private sector to mitigate the risks posed by limited government capacity and intervention in markets. In contrast, another African country strategy described risks to financial and procurement accountability of projects, but the strategy did not identify any mitigation plans to address these risks.

According to the FTF multiyear country strategies, the strategies may be modified as appropriate, but the guidance on updating them indicates that USAID has made an effort to minimize the need to formally amend these strategies due to the comprehensive process used to develop them. Furthermore, USAID’s country guidance documents indicate that USAID has plans to integrate FTF multiyear strategies into broader country strategies—Country Development Cooperation Strategies (CDCS). USAID’s guidance for developing the CDCS indicates that country teams must assess risks associated with USAID’s development objectives and assess the degree to which officials can identify and control critical risks. USAID officials told us that plans for integrating the multiyear strategies into the CDCS will address the lack of risk assessments in the FTF multiyear strategies. However, the guidance documents for developing the CDCS indicate that country teams have the flexibility to determine the level of integration of their FTF multiyear strategy; moreover, the guidance indicates that some country teams are exempt from the requirement to integrate FTF into their CDCS. The CDCS Supplemental Guidance for Integrating Feed the Future states that USAID country teams receiving FTF funding should demonstrate that they strongly considered integrating FTF planning into the CDCS, but they are not required to do so. Furthermore, the guidance states that the integration of FTF multiyear strategies is not applicable to those USAID country teams that have completed a CDCS or are far along in the CDCS process. Because the integration of FTF multiyear strategies into the CDCS remains an option, and not a requirement, for country teams, the extent to which USAID plans to systematically assess and mitigate risks to the country-led approach remains unclear. Without requirements for FTF country staff to identify and mitigate risks associated with the country-led approach, the U.S. government’s ability to achieve its goals for improving global food security could be limited.

Conclusions

In 2010, President Obama outlined a new operational model for enhancing interagency cooperation and responding to country priorities with broad consultation in global food security programs. This marked a shift from prior policy and efforts, and results from our survey of 19 FTF focus countries strongly suggest that the U.S. government has made good progress in applying a whole-of-government and country-led approach. Progress achieved in U.S. interagency coordination and engagement with country stakeholders can enhance U.S. efforts in FTF countries to improve agriculture productivity and reduce malnutrition among children. In addition, by aligning and coordinating its food security efforts with those outlined in each country’s investment plan, including efforts of other donors, the U.S. government can ensure a more effective contribution toward the United Nations Millennium Development Goal of eradicating extreme poverty and hunger. However, USAID has not systematically assessed risks to aligning U.S. investments to country priorities and engaging multiple stakeholders. USAID’s guidance indicates that risk assessments inform management of the relevant risks associated with achieving objectives and help them determine the adequacy of controls to manage those risks. Although USAID guidance documents indicate that country teams must assess risks associated with USAID’s development objectives, the agency does not require FTF country teams to systematically assess and mitigate risks to the FTF’s country-led approach.

In the absence of requirements for FTF country staff to identify and mitigate risks in aligning resources with country priorities and engaging multiple stakeholders, further progress in implementing the country-led approach could be hampered and could limit the U.S. government’s ability to achieve its goals for improving global food security.

Recommendations for Executive Action

To ensure that risks related to the country-led approach are systematically assessed, we recommend that the USAID Administrator take the following two actions: require FTF country staff to conduct periodic risk assessments associated with pursuing a country-led approach and require FTF country staff to develop plans to mitigate any risks identified as part of its periodic risk assessments.

Agency Comments

We provided a draft of this report for comment to USAID, State, MCC, Treasury, USDA, the Peace Corps, USADF, OMB, and OPIC. USAID provided written comments on a draft of our report. We have reprinted these comments in appendix VI. USAID concurred with both of our recommendations and outlined steps to revise their guidance to be more explicit about risk assessments and mitigation strategies for the country- led approach. We also received technical comments from USAID, USDA, State, and USADF, which we have incorporated, as appropriate.

We are sending a copy of this report to interested congressional committees and to the Administrator of USAID; the Secretaries of State, Treasury, and Agriculture; the Directors of the OMB and the Peace Corps; and the Chief Executive Officers of MCC, OPIC, and USADF. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions regarding this report, please contact me at (202) 512-9601 or MelitoT@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix VII.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

This report is part of a larger of body of work we have undertaken reviewing the U.S. government’s efforts to improve international food security, including reports we issued in 2008 and 2010. This report specifically examines (1) the extent to which the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has applied a whole-of-government approach and (2) how USAID has facilitated a country-led approach for the Feed the Future (FTF) initiative. This report is primarily based on our survey of U.S FTF agency representatives in the 19 FTF focus countries and on our review of FTF documents.

To determine the extent to which USAID has applied a whole-of- government approach and to assess how USAID has facilitated a country-led approach, we collected and reviewed agency documents. We also assessed whether coordination was consistent with key practices that enhance and sustain interagency collaboration and key features that benefit interagency collaboration mechanisms identified in prior GAO reports. To identify how USAID outlined these two approaches, we reviewed agency FTF planning documents including FTF implementation plans, strategic reviews and multiyear strategies, and other agency specific food security planning documents such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s 2011 and 2012 food security plans. We also reviewed FTF guidance documents such as the 2010 Feed the Future Guide, 2010 Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, focus country strategic reviews, the 2010 Feed the Future Multiyear Strategy Guidance, Feed the Future Indicator Handbook, and FTF-related agency cables. Furthermore, we reviewed the 2012 and 2013 Feed the Future Progress Report and Feed the Future Scorecard for the most recent program monitoring information available.

To determine the extent to which USAID and FTF partner agency representatives believe that they were implementing a whole-of- government approach and country-led approach in planning and implementing FTF, we conducted interviews with officials in Washington, D.C., from USAID, Department of State (State), Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), Department of the Treasury (Treasury), Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Peace Corps, U.S. African Development Foundation (USADF), Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC), and the Office of Management and Budget. To obtain the views of USAID’s and FTF partner agencies’ in-country representatives on these topics, we sent a web-based survey to all representatives identified by their agency as key FTF personnel for the 19 FTF countries. The survey asked their perceptions of the whole-of-government and country-led approaches in the planning and implementation of FTF. The topics included coordination within and between U.S. agencies, coordination with country stakeholders, the mechanism and frequency of coordination, the perceived effectiveness of the coordination, and factors that may have helped or hindered coordination. The questionnaire and survey results are available in an e-supplement (GAO-13-815SP).

To identify key personnel for each country, we asked USAID to provide a list of all key personnel for each country, including personnel from other agencies. We verified the non-USAID key personnel with each relevant agency. Since each FTF focus country is different in terms of the agencies involved, the FTF programs and activities, and the levels of commitment from the various embassy and in-country staff, there is no consistent definition of what constitutes a “key” person involved in FTF; for that reason, the population was defined for us by the FTF agencies. Key personnel included mission directors, Foreign Service Officers, Foreign Service Nationals, and personal services contractors. The final list of key personnel included 551 individuals, the majority of whom were USAID employees (see table 8). We did not survey focus-country stakeholders, such as country government representatives, about the U.S. government country-led approach in the planning and implementation of FTF.

We sent the web-based survey to all 551 key personnel on May 21, 2012 and administered the survey until August 31, 2012. To increase response rates, we sent several follow-up e-mails to agency officials and made telephone calls to nonrespondents. After sending out the survey, we identified 52 key personnel who had left their post prior to our sending out the survey request, who told us that they did not work on FTF, who were U.S.-based, or who were otherwise out of scope. This reduced our list of key personnel to 499. Overall, we achieved a weighted response rate of 72 percent, with 342 respondents to our survey. Agency response rates are shown in table 8.

Using information available to us for all survey recipients, such as employment status, we conducted a nonresponse bias analysis. The nonresponse bias analysis did not find any statistically measurable bias that would affect our analyses. Therefore, although our survey was intended to be a census, for the purposes of analyzing the results, we decided to treat our survey as a random sample. Unless otherwise noted, point estimates we report for 2012 have a margin of error of no more than plus or minus 9 percentage points at the 95 percent level of confidence.

The practical difficulties of conducting any survey may also introduce nonsampling errors, such as difficulties interpreting a particular question, which can introduce unwanted variability into the survey results. We took steps to minimize nonsampling errors by pretesting the questionnaire over the telephone with six in-country officials from USAID or FTF partner agencies in March and April 2012, including three from USAID (one of whom was a Foreign Service National) and one each from State, USDA, and the Peace Corps. We conducted pretests to make sure that the questions were clear and unbiased and that the questionnaire did not place an undue burden on respondents. An independent reviewer within GAO also reviewed a draft of the questionnaire prior to its administration. We made appropriate revisions to the content and format of the questionnaire after the pretests and independent review.

To determine the extent to which USAID has identified risks and documented efforts to mitigate them in the FTF multiyear strategies, we completed the following analyses. We focused on risk assessments because in reports issued in 2004 and 2007 we identified a risk assessment as one of several key characteristics of a national strategy. Additionally, a risk assessment should include an analysis of the threats to, and vulnerabilities of, critical assets and operations. First, we reviewed and analyzed the multiyear strategies for all 19 FTF countries to identify those strategies that had a section dedicated to listing and describing “risks” to the FTF program. We found that 7 of the 19 strategies had specific risk sections. Second, we conducted an analysis on the types of risks found in the 7 strategies with specific risk sections. We found that a total of 44 risks were listed in these strategies and coded them according to whether they pertained to the key stakeholders in country (host governments, in-country for-profit sector, in-country nonprofit sector, and other donors) or whether they pertained to other, broader risks, such as natural resources or market conditions. We did this to determine the number of risks that pertain to key stakeholders because FTF considers these groups essential to implementing the country-led approach. Of the 44 risks, 25 pertained to key stakeholders and 19 pertained to other, broader risks. For each of the 44 risks, we looked for a mitigation strategy that was directly tied to the listed risk. We recognize that, in some instances, other sections of the report described steps that U.S. agencies could take to address the risks to some degree. However, our purpose was not to assess the actions the U.S. government was taking to address risks, but to determine whether it was following a systematic risk assessment process. We found that 21 of the 44 risks had mitigation strategies and 23 did not. Third, for the 12 strategies without specific risk sections, we reviewed other sections in the reports listing and examining concepts related to risk, such as “challenges,” “barriers,” “limitations,” or “concerns.” We also reviewed the strategies to determine whether they included a section referred to as “Development Challenges and Opportunities,” as required by USAID’s FTF multiyear strategy guidance. In addition, we determined whether each strategy included any challenges related to key stakeholders (host governments, in-country for- profit sector, in-country nonprofit sector, and other donors), who are central to FTF’s country-led approach. We found an example of these key stakeholder issues in each of the 12 strategies. To perform these analyses, two analysts independently reviewed all 19 multiyear strategies, identified the risks or related issues, and coded the risks or issues according to whether they pertained to key stakeholders. The analysts worked iteratively, comparing notes and reconciling differences at each stage of the analysis. In addition, the final analysis was reviewed by other GAO staff independent of the two analysts, and modifications were made as appropriate.

To identify the amount of funding provided to FTF, we obtained and analyzed allocations and disbursement data for FTF and FTF-related programs such as USAID Title II Food for Peace and USDA McGovern- Dole Food for Education for fiscal years 2010 through 2013 as of March 31, 2013, for each agency. The information reported as allocations and disbursements was provided to us by the agencies. We use the term “allocations” to refer to funds the agencies reported that they directed to FTF. We did not independently assess the amounts agencies reported as allocations and disbursements. We also did not assess the extent to which the funds directed to FTF have been obligated. The agencies reported some differences in the ways that they provided data on allocations and disbursements for FTF, which we list as notes in table 2. We interviewed the agencies about the data and determined they were sufficient for background purposes in our report.

We conducted this performance audit from March 2013 to September 2013 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

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

The Feed the Future (FTF) initiative incorporates other U.S. assistance programs related to global food security that are implemented by the U.S. Agency for International Development, the Department of the Treasury, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Each of these other programs addresses global food security and other development challenges, as described in table 9.

Appendix III: Illustrative Example of USAID Representatives’ Reported Coordination with Feed the Future Partner Agencies in One Country

Figure 3 presents an illustrative example of U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) representatives’ reported coordination with Feed the Future (FTF) partner agencies in one country. We selected this country because (1) the number of USAID staff working on FTF represented the average for the 19 countries and (2) the country had a very high response rate to the survey. In this example, the USAID staff members are organized by the Mission Director and Deputy Director, Foreign Service Officers, Personal Services Contractors, and Foreign Service Nationals. For the diagram, we used generic rather than specific job titles for the USAID staff to ensure confidentiality. In addition, to simplify the example, we combined information we received from several survey respondents who reported similar or miscellaneous titles.

Appendix IV: Multiple Regression Analysis of Survey Results to Identify Predictors of Perceived Effectiveness of Coordination

In analyzing the results of our survey of several hundred U.S. representatives with duties related to the Feed the Future (FTF) initiative in 19 focus countries, we explored whether certain factors could help explain differences in how U.S. representatives perceived coordination related to FTF. To what extent were such factors as the U.S. representatives’ different agencies, roles, and positions predictive of differences in their perceptions of FTF coordination? To answer that question, we used data from a series of questions in which the U.S. representatives assessed the effectiveness of their coordination in accomplishing eight specific actions, such as developing or contributing to integrated FTF program documents. Depending on how many agencies the representatives reported coordinating with, the questions were presented up to five times to obtain perceptions of the effectiveness of their coordination with representatives in their own and other agencies. We constructed a scale from responses to all coordination effectiveness questions, allocating each representative a point for each action for which they viewed their coordination as “very effective” or “somewhat effective.” Thus, the maximum score was 40 points for representatives who answered the questions five times and each time rated their coordination as very or somewhat effective for all eight actions; on average each respondent rated 8.5 activities as very or somewhat effective.

In analyzing the raw scores on the coordination effectiveness scale, we found marked differences among representatives when we grouped and compared them by different tenures in their jobs, different agencies, and different amounts of time on FTF activities. For example, representatives who reported spending very little of their time on FTF activities viewed their coordination as effective in accomplishing an average of 4 actions, compared with an average of 9 for representatives who reported spending most of their time on FTF activities. Similarly, Department of State (State) representatives on average viewed their coordination as effective for about 12 actions, compared with an average of 8 for nonregional representatives of the lead FTF agency, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).

We used regression analysis to assess whether such differences in perceptions of effectiveness across representatives as measured by our scale persisted after controlling for other factors, such as different roles, positions, and opportunities to engage in the actions specified in the coordination effectiveness questions. Regression analysis allowed us to assess the unique association between our outcome variable and a given predictor variable, while controlling for multiple other predictor variables. In our ordinary least squares (OLS) regression model, we controlled for a variety of demographic factors that might have an impact on perceptions of effectiveness, including representatives’ agency (USAID, State, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Peace Corps, and all other partner agencies); their tenure (less than a year, a year to less than 2 years, and 2 years or more); their employment status (Foreign Service Officers/Foreign Service Officers Limited, Foreign Service Nationals, and all others including contractors); the amount of time spent on FTF activities (very little, some or about half, and most or all); the number of entities the representative reported coordinating with; and, for USAID representatives, whether the representative was considered a regional representative. Additionally, we also examined whether the representative reported coordinating with USAID (or other USAID representatives) and how many USAID staff they coordinated with. Finally, we used information from previous GAO research to identify certain factors that potentially affect coordination. For example, we included indicators for whether representatives felt that specific factors helped or hindered coordination overall, including funding, staffing levels, clarity of roles and responsibilities, and the compatibility of performance measures.

Our regression model identified several factors that had statistically significant associations with representatives’ perceptions of the effectiveness of their coordination, after controlling for other factors. Notably, State representatives, representatives with intermediate job tenure, and representatives who reported spending some to half their time on FTF activities had mean scores on the coordination effectiveness scale that were significantly higher than, respectively, USAID representatives, representatives with less job tenure, and representatives who spent less time on FTF. Additionally, we found that on average, representatives who felt, respectively, that staffing levels at their agencies, clarity of roles and responsibilities, and compatibility of performance measures and representatives helped with coordination also had significantly higher mean scores on the coordination effectiveness scale than those who felt these factors had no effect or had no opinion on them. After controlling for other factors, we did not find a significant association between representatives’ perceptions of coordination effectiveness and their employment status (Foreign Service Officer/Foreign Service Officer Limited, Foreign Service National or Locally Employed Staff, and Personal Services Contractor/Others) regional status (for USAID representatives), or views on whether the amount of funding helped or hindered coordination activities. Table 10 presents the categorical predictor variables in the regression model variables for which statistically significant associations were found with the outcome variable.

In developing our final model, we tested multiple versions of our model to evaluate the functional form of the relationships it specified and to ensure that the results were robust across specifications. We included core demographic variables in all models under consideration, including tenure, time spent on FTF, employment status, agency, and the number of entities the representative reported coordinating with. We tested additional predictor variables that surfaced as potentially important through our research, but decided against including in our final model all non-significant variables tested because of the limited number of representatives responding to our survey. Conversely, in some cases, we included in our final model several variables that were important controls or theoretically important but did not rise to the level of statistical significance. Most notably, because our outcome variable is constrained by the number of the five different agencies that each representative reported working with, all models included a control for this factor.

We conducted a variety of other tests to check for high leverage outliers, model fit, and other issues. We did not find evidence of consistently high leverage points or outliers that appeared to have undue influence on our coefficients or model variance. We also checked across a variety of specifications, including different variables and functional forms, to ensure that the final model results were fairly stable across specifications in terms of the substantive and statistical significance of the coefficients (in terms of direction, magnitude, and significance). For example, because our outcome variable is highly skewed, we tested our model using different functional forms (including a logged outcome variable and a Poisson count model) to ensure that the interpretation of the results was consistent with our final model using OLS. We decided to use an OLS specification despite the skew in the outcome variable for several reasons, including the consistency of interpretation with the alternative models tested, the relative robustness of OLS to violations of functional forms, and the ease of interpreting the regression coefficients. Our final model had an R2 of 0.398, suggesting that the predictor variables predicted approximately 40 percent of the variation in the outcome variable. statistics before and after to drop variables that were not statistically significant.

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

The country-led approaches to implementing food security programs by Feed the Future (FTF) partner agencies vary according to particular agency mandates and agency roles in FTF. The following examples illustrate the variation in approaches by the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), the Peace Corps, the U.S. Department of State (State), the U.S. Department of the Treasury (Treasury), the U.S. African Development Foundation (USADF), and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).

MCC: MCC has been using the country ownership approach to development since its inception in 2004. MCC provides assistance to eligible countries through multiyear compact agreements including agriculture-related investments. Partner country governments are responsible for the implementation of MCC compacts, including initiating a meaningful consultative process with the country’s civil society, nongovernmental organization, and private sector stakeholders, as well as a broad range of government stakeholders.

Peace Corps: Peace Corps officials described their approach to country ownership as working with partner countries from the national level down to the community level and engaging their volunteers in projects that are supported by host country governments. In addition, each project has a Project Advisory Committee that contributes to the design and evaluation of the project and includes at least one representative from the government and local community.

State: State was the lead agency for Feed the Future from 2009 to 2010 and led the development of the FTF Guide, which described the FTF country-led approach. State officials have promoted stakeholder consultations around the development of country investment plans and have also helped facilitate greater civil society and private sector involvement in FTF.

Treasury: Treasury officials work with the World Bank’s multidonor trust fund Global Agriculture and Food Security Program (GAFSP) and have made efforts to align GAFSP and FTF’s country-led approaches. Treasury assisted in the development of the selection criteria for GAFSP funding which includes an assessment of the country’s policy environment as well as evidence of consultations with local stakeholders.

USADF: USADF provides grants of up to $250,000 to the most vulnerable communities in Africa and these grants fund projects that are led by staff of local technical partners that engage community groups in the project’s design and implementation.

USDA: USDA seeks to align its resources with country investment plans where it concentrates its food security investments. USDA particularly focuses on ensuring that the private sector is included in food security consultations and works directly with host government officials and local universities and civil society.

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

Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above, Cheryl Goodman (Assistant Director), Farahnaaz Khakoo-Mausel, Rachel Dunsmoor, Paige Muegenburg, Sushmita Srikanth, Michele Wong, Martin De Alteriis, Cynthia Grant, Jill Lacey, Justin Fisher, David Dornisch, Anna Maria Ortiz, Catherine Hurley, Mark Dowling, Grace Lui, Sarah Veale, Mallory Bulman, David Dayton, David Hancock, Justine Lazaro, and Etana Finkler made key contributions to this report.