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

Letter

Background

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.

USAID Does Not Track Use of Conditional Food Aid, although Most Title II Projects Included It in Fiscal Years 2013-2014

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.

USAID Does Not Systematically Collect or Use Data on Conditional Food Aid to Manage Title II Projects

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.

Almost All Title II Projects Included Conditional Food Aid Activities, Predominantly Food for Assets

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.

Implementing Partners Cited Multiple Factors and Challenges Affecting Design of Food-for- Assets Activities

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.

Implementing Partners Cited Stakeholder Input, Food Security Assessment, and Availability of Technical Expertise as Important Design Factors

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.

Implementing Partners Reported Many Challenges Affecting Design of Food-for- Assets Activities

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.

USAID Cannot Systematically Assess Food-for- Assets Activities, but Implementing Partners Highlighted Both Benefits and Challenges

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.

USAID Cannot Systematically Assess the Effectiveness of Food for Assets across Title II Development Projects

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.

Implementing Partners Reported Food-for-Assets Benefits Such as Building Infrastructure and Teaching Skills

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.

Implementing Partners Cited Numerous Challenges to Implementing Food- for-Assets Activities

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.

Conclusions

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.

Recommendations for Executive Action

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.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

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.

Appendix I: WFP’s Use of Food for Assets in Emergency Projects

Factors WFP Considers in Designing and Implementing Food-for- Assets Activities for Emergency Projects

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.

WFP-Identified Benefits of Food-for-Assets Activities as Well as Risks and Challenges in Designing and Implementing Its Activities

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.

Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

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.

Appendix III: Award Amounts for Projects Including Conditional Food Aid in Fiscal Years 2013 and 2014

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.

Development Projects

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.

Emergency Projects

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.

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

GAO’s Comments

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.

Appendix V: Comments from the World Food Program

GAO’s Comments

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.

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff Acknowledgments

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.

Related GAO Products

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.