Through its Title II program, USAID has traditionally provided its implementing partners with U.S. in-kind food aid, which its partners distribute to beneficiaries in need overseas. Figure 1 shows the locations of projects that received Title II funding in fiscal years 2012 through 2015. Congress has historically amended or reauthorized Title II program authorizations through farm bills enacted about every 5 years. To cover the costs associated with carrying out Title II projects, Congress authorizes USAID to provide implementing partners 202(e) and ITSH funding, with certain restrictions. Specifically, the 2014 Farm Bill increased the total amount of 202(e) funding USAID can provide from 13 percent to 20 percent of funds made available to implement Title II of the Food for Peace Act. The 2014 Farm Bill continued to allow USAID to use 202(e) funding to cover administrative-type costs but expanded the eligible uses of this funding beyond those authorized by the 2008 Farm Bill or previous farm bills, allowing the use of 202(e) funding to enhance existing projects. According to USAID, this provision permits the agency to use 202(e) funding to implement cash transfers, food vouchers, and local or regional procurement in Title II projects. Title II also authorizes USAID to use ITSH funding to cover costs that partners incur while moving and storing U.S. in-kind food aid after it reaches a destination country. (Fig. 2 shows images from a video depicting examples of USAID’s uses of 202(e) and ITSH funding for Title II projects.) In fiscal years 2012 through 2015, USAID obligated about $5.567 billion in Title II funding for its development and emergency projects. As figure 3 shows, USAID obligated about 44 percent of total Title II funding to 202(e) and ITSH during that period to cover the costs of implementing and supporting these projects. These obligations comprised about $889 million of 202(e) funding (16 percent of total Title II funding) and about $1.575 billion of ITSH funding (28 percent of Title II funding). USAID data for fiscal years 2012 through 2015 show that the agency provided about 4.5 million metric tons of food commodities. USAID obligated the remainder of Title II funding to cover the costs of purchasing the commodities in the United States (37 percent), transporting the commodities from the United States as ocean freight (12 percent), and transporting the commodities inland from the foreign port of entry to their destination in the country or to the border of another, landlocked country (7 percent). Title II also authorizes USAID to allow its implementing partners to monetize U.S.-sourced in-kind food aid—that is, to sell U.S.-donated commodities in local markets to generate funds for implementing the projects. However, according to USAID officials, it generally no longer encourages its implementing partners to monetize. Instead, according to USAID, it provides 202(e) funding, as authorized by the 2014 Farm Bill, and funding authorized by the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 directly to its implementing partners to offset the revenue partners previously received from monetizing commodities. USAID uses funding from accounts authorized by the Foreign Assistance Act to operate multiple programs to combat food insecurity in development and emergency situations worldwide. Development Assistance funding. According to USAID documentation, the agency draws on its Development Assistance account—as authorized under section 103 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended—for community-level development activities to complement Title II projects and to reduce the need for monetization. According to USAID officials, these funds can be used alongside Title II funding and may fund many of the same types of items and activities covered by Title II 202(e) and ITSH. USAID provided about $62 million from its Development Assistance account in fiscal year 2015 to complement Title II projects. International Disaster Assistance funding. USAID’s Office of Food for Peace uses the agency’s IDA account, authorized by the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, to fund the Emergency Food Security Program (EFSP). According to USAID, it provides most of its assistance for cash transfers, food vouchers, and local and regional purchases of food through EFSP to assist beneficiaries facing immediate food insecurity. According to USAID, it provided about $1.01 billion in fiscal year 2015 on EFSP projects implementing cash transfer, food voucher, local and regional procurement, and other activities. In 2014, USAID issued an information bulletin to its implementing partners outlining the 2014 Farm Bill’s changes to 202(e) and USAID’s policy regarding eligible and ineligible uses of 202(e) and ITSH funding. The bulletin states that 202(e) funding may be used for activities to establish and enhance Title II projects, including cash transfers, food vouchers, and local and regional procurement of food—modalities previously not authorized for Title II projects—as well as for traditional implementation costs such as the partner’s staff salaries, project overhead, project materials, and equipment, among others. USAID also instructs partners that ITSH funding is available only for in-country costs directly associated with the storage, movement, and distribution of U.S. in-kind commodities. In addition to outlining the eligible and ineligible uses for 202(e) and ITSH funding, and consistent with U.S. government-wide guidance issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) concerning federal awards outlined in 2 C.F.R. § 200, the bulletin instructs partners that these funds must be reasonable and allocable. Food assistance projects are subject to numerous financial risks, including risks associated with costs to implement and support projects providing food commodities, cash transfers, or food vouchers. USAID requires its partners ensure that aid reaches its intended beneficiaries and that costs are reasonable, necessary, and allowable. Financial oversight of international food assistance projects includes managing program funds to ensure they are spent in accordance with award agreements by, among other things, assessing financial risks and implementing controls to mitigate those risks. The internal controls framework prescribed for federal agencies and widely used by international organizations comprises five components (see fig. 4). These controls apply to the tracking of costs to implement and support projects providing commodities, cash transfers, or food vouchers. For projects that include cash transfers and food vouchers, controls may include steps to prevent the negative impact on market prices as well as to prevent theft and diversion of cash or counterfeiting of vouchers. In fiscal years 2014 and 2015, USAID used most of the increased proportion of Title II funds authorized by the 2014 Farm Bill for 202(e) to provide cash transfers, food vouchers, and local or regional procurement, modalities the agency did not previously support through Title II. USAID has also used funding from other accounts to complement Title II projects. USAID obligations of 202(e) funding increased from about $171 million in fiscal year 2012 to about $268 million in fiscal year 2015. Obligations of 202(e) funding for cash transfers, food vouchers, and local and regional procurement in fiscal years 2014 and 2015 constituted 75 percent and 96 percent, respectively, of the additional authorized 202(e) funding that the agency utilized for those years. USAID has used funds from accounts authorized by the Foreign Assistance Act, along with Title II funding, to implement and support projects. Moreover, it has increasingly used funding from these accounts to cover the same types of costs as are covered by 202(e) and in some cases has used funding from these accounts as well as Title II to provide cash transfers, food vouchers, or local or regional procurement within a single project. USAID used most of the 2014 Farm Bill’s increase in authorized 202(e) funding (from 13 percent to 20 percent of total Title II appropriations) to provide cash transfers, food vouchers, and locally or regionally procured food for beneficiaries—modalities the agency did not previously support through Title II. USAID obligations of 202(e) funding rose from $171 million in fiscal year 2012 to $268 million in fiscal year 2015. As table 1 shows, in fiscal year 2014, USAID’s obligations for these modalities comprised 75 percent of the additional 202(e) amount it obligated under the 2014 Farm Bill; in fiscal year 2015, USAID’s obligations for these modalities comprised 96 percent of the additional obligated amount. Specifically, USAID obligated $73.7 million in 202(e) funding in fiscal year 2015 for cash transfers, food vouchers, and local or regional procurement—that is, 96 percent of the additional $77 million of 202(e) funding available to the agency authorized by the 2014 Farm Bill. As figure 5 shows, USAID obligations of 202(e) funding in fiscal years 2012 and 2015—including the portion of 202(e) funding provided for cash transfers, food vouchers, and local or regional procurement beginning in 2014—were within the applicable 202(e) spending limits designated by the 2008 (13 percent) and 2014 (20 percent) Farm Bills. In both fiscal years 2014 and 2015, the 202(e) obligations were lower than the 20 percent appropriation limit of $293 million. During this period, 202(e) obligations for commodity and development activities fluctuated slightly. In addition, 202(e) obligations for cash transfers, food vouchers, and local and regional procurement increased from about 21 percent of total 202(e) obligations in fiscal year 2014 to about 28 percent in fiscal year 2015. As table 2 shows, of the approximately $130 million of 202(e) funding that USAID obligated for cash transfers, food vouchers, and local and regional procurement in fiscal years 2014 and 2015, the majority was obligated for local and regional procurement. USAID’s obligations of 202(e) funding for local and regional procurement accounted for about 66 percent of its total obligations of 202(e) funding for the three modalities in fiscal years 2014 and 2015. Cash transfers and food vouchers accounted for approximately 25 percent and 9 percent, respectively, of USAID’s obligations during this period. USAID has obligated 202(e) funding for some Title II projects that provided cash transfers, food vouchers, or locally or regionally procured food but no U.S.-sourced, in-kind food aid. Before 2014, USAID obligated Title II funding for projects that provided food commodities grown, purchased, and shipped from the United States and obligated 202(e) funding to cover the partners’ costs associated with administering these projects. According to USAID officials, multiple Title II projects can make up a Title II country program. In order to allow for the use of 202(e) funding for cash transfers, food vouchers, or locally or regionally procured food, a Title II country program must include U.S. in-kind commodities, though each individual project within the Title II country program is not required to include U.S. in-kind commodities, according to those officials. In fiscal years 2014 and 2015, USAID obligated a total of about $29.6 million for 202(e)-funded cash transfers, food vouchers, or local and regional procurement in seven projects (four emergency projects and one development project in fiscal year 2014, and two emergency projects in fiscal year 2015) that did not include U.S.in-kind commodities. For example, USAID obligated about $2.2 million in 202(e) funding in fiscal year 2014 for a Title II emergency project in Haiti that provided cash transfers to beneficiaries, with no U.S. in-kind food aid. In fiscal year 2015, USAID provided about $2 million for an emergency project implemented by the United Nations Children’s Fund in Niger that provided locally and regionally procured food and no U.S.in-kind food aid. In addition, in fiscal year 2015, USAID awarded $45 million in 202(e) funding for a 5-year Title II development project in Mali that did not include planned U.S. in-kind food aid. According to USAID, it has also used the increase in 202(e) funding, as well as funding from other sources, to reduce monetization in Title II projects. In 2011, we reported that USAID loses, on average, 24 cents on every dollar spent through the process of monetization. According to USAID officials, the use of 202(e) funds has allowed for a reduction in the use of monetization in development projects, enabling the agency to pay directly for the cost its partners incur and to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of its food assistance projects. Table 3 shows USAID’s use of monetization in Title II development projects in fiscal years 2012 through 2015. According to USAID, in fiscal year 2014, the agency saved $21 million by providing funds directly to implementing partners instead of using monetization. For example, for fiscal year 2014, USAID approved an approximately $13 million increase in the budgeted amount of 202(e) funding to be provided to an implementing partner in Zimbabwe to replace monetization. We found that the implementing partner used the 202(e) funding to support activities such as livestock management and water resources management (see fig. 6). According to USAID, the use of 202(e) funding in place of monetization will save the agency almost $10 million over the course of the 5-year project. Our review of USAID funding data shows that USAID has used funds from two accounts authorized by the Foreign Assistance Act along with Title II food assistance projects. Since fiscal year 2013, the agency has increasingly obligated funds from the Development Assistance account to cover many of the same types of implementation costs as 202(e) funding and to help reduce monetization. USAID has also used both Development Assistance funds and 202(e) funding to provide food vouchers or local or regional procurement in two Title II development projects. In addition, USAID has used funds from the IDA account as well as 202(e) funding to provide cash transfers or local and regional procurement in a number of emergency projects. Figure 7 shows the locations of projects where USAID used Title II funding along with funding from the two accounts authorized by the Foreign Assistance Act. With regard to funding for development projects, according to USAID officials, the agency uses funding from the Development Assistance account for many of the same types of implementation costs for Title II development projects that 202(e) funding covers, including implementing partners’ staff salaries, office and program supplies, and equipment, among other expenses. USAID provides Development Assistance account funds along with Title II development funding for projects either through a single award or through separate awards. According to USAID, it provides these funds in part to reduce monetization in Title II development projects by paying directly for the costs its partners incur. As table 4 shows, USAID obligations from the Development Assistance account in support of Title II projects increased from $25 million in fiscal year 2013 to $62 million in fiscal year 2015. For example, in fiscal year 2014, USAID began a 5-year, $60 million development project in Malawi, budgeting $40 million in Development Assistance funding and $20 million in Title II funding, including $4 million in 202(e). USAID’s implementing partner used Development Assistance funds for support costs such as staff salaries, office supplies, and veterinary kits as well as for local procurement of food that it provided to beneficiaries in exchange for their labor to build community assets (see fig. 8). In addition, since fiscal year 2014, USAID has used both Development Assistance funds and 202(e) funding to provide food vouchers or local procurement in Title II development projects in two countries. In Haiti, USAID obligated over $4 million in 202(e) funding and budgeted about $3 million in Development Assistance account funds to provide food vouchers in a Title II development project in fiscal years 2014 through 2015. According to USAID officials, the 202(e)-funded and Development Assistance account–funded food vouchers targeted different regions in Haiti and thus the beneficiaries did not overlap. USAID officials added that this was the first time USAID had used Development Assistance account funds for food vouchers in a Title II food assistance project. In Malawi, USAID used about $378,000 in 202(e) funding and budgeted about $161,000 in Development Assistance account funds in fiscal year 2015 to procure 325 metric tons of local commodities as part of a Title II development project. With regard to funding for emergency food assistance, USAID’s implementation of the new 202(e) authorities to enhance existing Food for Peace programs provided by the 2014 Farm Bill has resulted in USAID’s use of both 202(e) funding and IDA account funds to provide either cash transfers, food vouchers, or local or regional procurement in the same emergency food assistance projects. Before the 2014 Farm Bill was enacted, some emergency projects received both Title II funding for U.S. in-kind commodities and funds from the IDA account’s EFSP for either cash transfers, food vouchers, or locally or regionally procured food. Our review of USAID funding data shows that USAID used Title II U.S. in-kind food aid along with ESFP-funded cash transfers, food vouchers, or locally or regionally procured food in some emergency food assistance projects. For example, in fiscal year 2012, USAID obligated about $134 million in EFSP funds to 10 emergency food assistance projects for which it also obligated Title II funding for U.S. in-kind food aid. However, with its expanded Title II authorities, USAID obligated a total of about $56 million in 202(e) funding along with $140 million in EFSP funds to provide cash transfers, food vouchers, or locally or regionally procured food in nine WFP-implemented projects in fiscal years 2014 and 2015. For example, a WFP emergency operation in Malawi used both $3 million in 202(e) funding along with $2.5 million in EFSP funds for the local procurement of commodities in fiscal year 2015. According to USAID officials, the agency designs country programs using multiple funding sources to best meet the needs of the beneficiaries and comply with the restrictions placed on each funding source. USAID and its partners have various internal controls for financial oversight of implementation and support costs funded by 202(e) and ITSH in selected Title II development and emergency projects, although we found certain deficiencies in control activities, information and communication, and risk assessment. USAID’s and implementing partners’ internal controls for Title II project implementation and support costs include reviews of planned budgets and high-level spending, reviews of audit reports, and periodic monitoring data, according to USAID and partner officials. Nevertheless, we identified deficiencies that affect USAID’s ability to reasonably ensure that aid reaches the intended beneficiaries and that funding is used for allowable and approved purposes. First, regarding control activities, USAID generally does not conduct systematic, targeted financial reviews of partners’ actual Title II spending to implement and support projects. Our limited, nongeneralizable financial transactions testing identified instances where partners had not correctly recorded 202(e) and ITSH spending. Second, regarding information and communication, USAID lacks key monitoring data related to these costs that could identify areas needing additional financial oversight and inform future decisions. Third, also related to information and communication, USAID has not consistently updated guidance and systems to help ensure that partners for Title II development and emergency projects do not use ITSH funds to cover implementation costs for local and regional procurement of commodities, which is not an allowable use of these funds. Fourth, regarding risk assessment, USAID does not require Title II development project partners to conduct comprehensive assessments of financial, fraud, and other risks that can affect cash transfers and food vouchers funded by 202(e), although the agency has established such a requirement for emergency projects. USAID and its implementing partners have various controls for financial oversight of Title II project implementation and support costs funded by 202(e) and ITSH. The internal controls framework prescribed for federal agencies and widely used by international organizations notes that the establishment of effective internal controls can help agencies achieve desired results through the effective stewardship of resources. Examples of USAID’s and implementing partners’ internal controls for Title II project implementation and support costs include the following: Reviews of planned budgets. USAID officials told us that they review implementing partners’ detailed planned budgets for costs to implement and support Title II projects, which describe how the partners plan to spend U.S. funds in the future. Specifically, according to USAID, it reviews planned budget breakdowns and explanatory narrative submitted by partners for Title II project implementation and support costs, including partner staff salaries and fringe benefits; transport, shipping, and handling costs; subaward budgets; cash transfer, food voucher, and local and regional procurement costs; other project activity costs; and other direct and indirect costs. Reviews of spending. To monitor actual spending, USAID officials, including agreement officers’ representatives, told us that they rely primarily on each partner’s quarterly financial report, known as the SF-425. Implementing partners are required to report high-level expenditures for 202(e) and ITSH quarterly in the SF-425, according to USAID officials. The officials noted that they follow up with a partner if spending reported in the SF-425 is inconsistent with the annual approved amount. Reviews of audit reports. According to USAID officials, USAID’s Office of Food for Peace generally reviews the results of partners’ annual single audits as well as findings of the USAID Office of Inspector General’s (OIG) periodic audits. Single audits include an organization-wide review of an entity’s financial statements, a schedule of the expenditure of federal awards, and review of related internal controls. Single audit findings can be used by agencies to identify areas warranting additional financial oversight. For example, USAID officials informed us that the agency modified the terms of one partner’s letter of credit as a result of single audit findings, which included material weaknesses. Specifically, USAID stipulated that the partner must request payment for incurred expenses in lieu of advance payments. According to USAID officials, the Office of Food for Peace also reviews periodic audit reports completed by the OIG that may address financial internal controls related to 202(e) and ITSH spending. According to USAID officials, in response to USAID OIG findings of partners’ misspending, the Office of Food for Peace hired an external auditor to conduct financial reviews for two Title II projects. Partners’ internal controls. USAID officials noted that USAID generally relies on its partners to implement financial oversight in Title II projects. Our financial reviews of selected Title II development projects found that partners’ internal controls generally included (1) policies to prevent the commingling of U.S. government funds, (2) policy manuals to instruct employees on the proper use of U.S. government funds, and (3) procedures to segregate incompatible financial duties. Partner officials also cited examples of various steps they are taking to implement internal controls, such as using mobile services providers for cash transfers, which can enhance the traceability of funding, and maintaining warehouse records for commodity receipt, storage, and distribution. Periodic monitoring data for Title II emergency projects. To help inform USAID about potential issues, such as substantial increases or decreases in costs, USAID requires partners for Title II projects to report some information and data on implementation and support costs. For example, NGO partners for Title II emergency projects providing cash transfers, food vouchers, and local and regional procurement report quarterly and annual data comparing planned with actual activities, which may help inform USAID about the status and progress of these activities. Such information can also be used to help identify areas needing additional oversight. Although USAID reviews partners’ quarterly SF-425 reports of high-level expenditures for 202(e) and ITSH, USAID generally does not conduct systematic, targeted reviews of partners’ spending on these costs. As a result, USAID is limited in its ability to provide reasonable assurance that partners’ spending for Title II implementation and support costs is in compliance with law and in accordance with approved budgets. In addition, USAID may be unaware of potential gaps in partners’ internal controls, which could result in misspending of funding to implement and support Title II projects. USAID’s ADS notes that the USAID award agreement officer is responsible for oversight of the financial management aspects of awards to NGOs to confirm that activities funded conform to the terms and conditions of the award, through review of reports, correspondence, site visits, or other appropriate means. In addition, the internal controls framework prescribed for federal agencies and widely used by international organizations calls for control activities, which commonly include reviews by management to ensure achievement of objectives and to respond to risk. USAID officials, including agreement officers’ representatives, told us that to monitor NGO partners’ actual spending for implementation and support costs, they generally rely on reviews of partners’ quarterly financial (SF- 425) reports. However, in accordance with U.S. government regulation, the SF-425 reports provide only the partners’ total expenditures for 202(e) and ITSH costs in the relevant quarter; the reports do not provide detailed information on the actual nature of the expenditures. While USAID’s Office of Food for Peace reviews partners’ single audits and OIG reports—which can identify areas warranting additional financial oversight—these audits are not designed to annually assess financial oversight for each Title II project. For example, USAID modified the terms of one partner’s letter of credit in response to single audit findings, which included material weaknesses and significant internal control deficiencies. However, USAID did not require the partner to submit receipts or any other support documentation for expenditures. Additionally, according to USAID officials, USAID’s OIG typically reviews just one or two country food security programs each year, and these reviews do not typically address every Food for Peace project ongoing in a country. We found that in fiscal years 2012 through 2016, USAID’s OIG conducted an audit relevant to two of the four Title II development projects we reviewed. Although the Office of Food for Peace has hired an external auditor to conduct financial reviews for two Title II projects since fiscal year 2012 in response to USAID OIG recommendations, the external auditor has not reviewed most projects. Also, officials at two of the three USAID missions responsible for our selected Title II development projects implemented by U.S. NGOs told us that they generally do not conduct systematic, targeted financial reviews, including transaction testing, as part of their Title II project monitoring. Our limited, nongeneralizable financial transactions testing identified issues such as inaccurate accounting, insufficient support documentation, and misspending of 202(e) and ITSH funding in 14 of the 60 transactions we reviewed (representing $304,854 of $1,086,226 in expenditures) for fiscal years 2014 and 2015 for three of the four selected Title II development projects. These findings raise questions about whether the partners have sufficient controls in place to ensure that they spend 202(e) and ITSH funding as planned. For example, for one project, we found a 202(e) charge of $6,543 for fuel that should have been charged to another project. For another project, we found an ITSH charge of $6,449 for the movement of stones for cash-for-assets activities, which is not an allowable use of ITSH. Also, for two transactions for two projects, employees incorrectly charged time to 202(e) and ITSH that was not in accordance with approved budgets. After we informed implementing partner officials of these findings, the officials stated that they were taking steps to correct the errors we identified, such as providing additional training to staff. USAID has not collected complete and consistent monitoring data on an ongoing basis for Title II development projects and some Title II emergency projects. As a result, USAID lacks information that could help inform budget decisions and financial oversight of spending for implementation and support costs within and across food assistance projects. The internal controls framework prescribed for federal agencies and widely used by international organizations calls for the use of quality information to achieve objectives, which may include identifying information requirements, obtaining relevant and reliable data, and processing data into quality information to make informed decisions. Our review of available monitoring reports submitted by the implementing partners for the seven selected Title II development and emergency projects for fiscal years 2014 through 2016 found that some reports contained incomplete and inconsistent data and information for 202(e) cash transfers, food vouchers, and local and regional procurement as well as for ITSH. USAID has not required partners for Title II development projects to report on the status and progress of cash transfers, food vouchers, and local and regional procurement funded by 202(e) on a quarterly basis. Nonetheless, implementing partners for the four development projects we reviewed indicated that they were collecting these data on an ongoing basis. However, we found that the partners reported inconsistent data to USAID. For example, annual reports for the selected project that included 202(e)-funded food vouchers provided information on the frequency and number of months of food voucher distributions, but quarterly reports for the project did not consistently include this information. In addition, the project’s quarterly and annual reports did not include updates on certain data elements, including the actual number of vouchers redeemed and the actual cost of food vouchers. Further, the quarterly reports, but not the annual reports, for one of our two selected projects including 202(e)-funded cash transfers provided updates on the total actual cost of cash transfers and the value, frequency, and number of months that cash transfers were provided. For our other selected project that included cash transfers, the most recent annual report provided only annual data on the number of months that cash transfers were provided and the actual number of cash transfer beneficiaries. In October 2016, USAID updated reporting guidance, specifying requirements for Title II development projects to provide annual data on cash transfers, food vouchers, and local and regional procurement. However, USAID does not require partners for Title II development projects to provide quarterly updates for these data, which could help inform USAID about potential issues on a more frequent basis. In contrast, USAID requires this information and data in quarterly and annual reporting for Title II emergency projects implemented by NGOs. While, according to USAID, it generally relies on WFP to conduct financial oversight of Title II funding it receives, the agency has established requirements for WFP to report periodic project monitoring data related to its expenditures of 202(e) funding for cash transfers, food vouchers, and local and regional procurement and of ITSH funding. However, USAID generally has not collected complete and consistent data related to these expenditures from WFP. Our review of periodic monitoring reports that WFP submitted to USAID for the three selected Title II emergency projects—in Malawi, South Sudan, and Zimbabwe—found that the reports provided the required information for local and regional procurement on the types and volumes (in metric tons) of commodities procured. However, the reports for only one of the projects provided the required information on commodity cost and market price analysis, and none of the reports we reviewed provided the required safety or quality assurance inspection results. Further, USAID has not obtained any of the required information or data on ITSH costs from WFP for the three selected projects, although such costs can be significant. Although USAID has limited the use of ITSH funds for Title II projects to costs directly associated with providing U.S. in-kind commodities, it has not provided consistent guidance to implementing partners or updated certain systems to help ensure that ITSH funds are not used to cover costs related to local and regional procurement. As a result, USAID cannot have reasonable assurance that partners are spending, and accounting for, ITSH funds in compliance with its policy and the Food for Peace Act. The internal controls framework prescribed for federal agencies and widely used by international organizations calls for management to externally communicate necessary information to ensure achievement of objectives. Moreover, a key attribute of this principle states that agency management should communicate with, and obtain quality information from, external parties, so that those parties can help the agency achieve its objectives and address risks. According to internal controls standards prescribed for federal agencies, management should externally communicate necessary quality information to achieve an entity’s objectives. Appropriate methods of external communication may enable external parties to help an entity achieve its objectives and address risks. Although USAID issued guidance prohibiting the use of ITSH funds for local and regional procurement in 2014, it had not updated other relevant guidance and systems as of December 2016. Pursuant to the Food for Peace Act, USAID may pay transportation costs incurred in moving U.S.- sourced food commodities from ports of entry to storage and distribution sites as well as associated costs for storage and distribution. According to USAID, it has traditionally advised its partners to use ITSH funding to cover all movement and storage costs for the U.S. in-kind food aid authorized by Title II. With the increased authority granted in the 2014 Farm Bill, USAID began allowing its partners to provide locally and regionally procured food commodities through Title II projects, many of which also provided U.S. in-kind food aid. For example, in fiscal years 2014 and 2015, one Title II development project and 22 Title II emergency projects used Title II funding for local and regional procurement as well as U.S. in-kind food aid. In the same years, 21 WFP projects used Title II funding for U.S in-kind food aid as well as ESFP funding for local and regional procurement (9 of the 21 received both Title II and EFSP funding for local and regional procurement). In 2014, USAID issued guidance, in the form of a Food for Peace information bulletin, outlining the eligible and ineligible uses of ITSH funds. This guidance required that partners use ITSH funds only to cover costs directly associated with the movement, storage, and distribution of U.S. in-kind food aid. The guidance also advised partners that 202(e) funds may be used to cover movement and storage costs associated with locally or regionally procured commodities that enhance a Food for Peace program. However, as of December 2016, other USAID guidance and systems were not aligned with the 2014 information bulletin’s prohibition against using ITSH funds for costs related to local and regional procurement. Examples include the following: As of November 2016, USAID’s supplemental budget guidance for development programs stated that USAID prefers that partners use ITSH funding for all internal transportation, distribution, and storage costs. USAID’s fiscal year 2016 request for applications for development projects in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, and Liberia stated that if the applicant requested local or regional procurement as part of its project, the partner must also report on ITSH funding for the locally or regionally procured commodities. The fiscal year 2016 request for applications also directed USAID’s implementing partners to enter data in the Food for Peace information management system on the amount of funds spent in transporting and storing locally or regionally procured commodities as ITSH. According to USAID officials, although partners may use 202(e) funding to pay for costs related to local and regional procurement, the Food for Peace information management system does not clearly show that 202(e) funding should be used rather than ITSH funding. USAID officials told us that the agency was in the process of updating guidance to clarify the use of 202(e) funding related to local and regional procurement costs. However, as of January 2017, USAID had not completed these updates. USAID does not require implementing partners for Title II development projects to conduct and document comprehensive risk assessments and mitigation plans for cash transfer and food vouchers funded by 202(e) despite requiring risk assessments for these modalities in emergency projects implemented by NGOs. As a result, USAID may be impeded in its efforts to determine whether development project partners have adequate controls in place to manage risks associated with these modalities. OMB guidance for federal agencies emphasizes the importance of risk management as a key component of internal control for improving the accountability and effectiveness of federal programs. In addition, the internal controls framework prescribed for federal agencies and widely used by international organizations calls for the identification and analysis of risks from both external and internal sources related to achieving defined objectives, as a basis for designing risk responses. provide an analysis of risks related to proposed modalities and relevant mitigation measures, including an analysis of potential risks related to fraud, corruption, and mismanagement as well as security risks. Our review of three selected Title II development projects that provided 202(e) funding for cash transfers or food vouchers found that none of the implementing partners had submitted a comprehensive assessment of the risks of using those modalities. Although none of these projects had planned to provide cash transfers or food vouchers funded by 202(e) at the application stage, USAID approved the use of 202(e) funding for those modalities through award modifications. We found that award documentation submitted by partners for the three projects generally included some broad discussion of risks, such as security or weather risks. However, the documentation did not address financial or fraud risks related to cash transfers or food vouchers funded by 202(e). Since the 2014 Farm Bill was enacted, USAID has increased 202(e) funding for implementation costs in Title II food assistance projects and expanded the uses of this funding to support cash transfers, food vouchers, and local and regional procurement of commodities. At the same time, USAID has obligated funding authorized under the Foreign Assistance Act in addition to that authorized by Title II, in some cases using multiple funding sources to support similar costs and activities within the same food assistance project. USAID’s spending of significant and growing amounts of funding from different sources to implement and support Title II projects heightens the importance of effective financial oversight to ensure the correct and effective use of this funding. However, without conducting systematic, targeted reviews of Title II development and emergency projects, USAID has limited ability to ensure that partners’ expenditures of 202(e) and ITSH funding comply with law and align with approved budgets. In addition, without collecting complete and consistent monitoring data on partners’ use of 202(e) funding for cash transfers, food vouchers, and local and regional procurement and of ITSH funding, USAID lacks information that could help inform its financial oversight. Further, until it ensures that its guidance and systems communicate consistent information about allowable uses of ITSH funding in Title II projects, USAID lacks reasonable assurance that its partners will spend, and account for, these funds correctly. Finally, without requiring comprehensive risk assessments and mitigation plans for the use of cash transfers and food vouchers in Title II development projects, and taking steps to ensure that partners carry out the assessments, USAID cannot determine whether its partners are adequately addressing financial, fraud, and other risks. Taking steps to improve its financial oversight of Title II funding to implement and support food assistance projects will better position USAID to ensure the effective use of available U.S. resources to address both long-term and emergency food needs of vulnerable populations around the world. To enhance USAID’s financial oversight of implementing partners’ spending to implement and support Title II development and emergency projects, we recommend that the USAID Administrator take the following five actions: 1. Develop, document, and implement a process for periodically conducting systematic, targeted financial reviews of Title II development and emergency projects. Such reviews should include efforts to verify that actual costs incurred for these projects align with planned budgets. 2. Ensure that its requirements for implementing partners to provide monitoring data on an ongoing basis on the use of 202(e) funding for cash transfers, food vouchers, and local and regional procurement are consistent for Title II development and emergency projects. 3. Take steps to ensure that it collects complete and consistent monitoring data from implementing partners for Title II development and emergency projects on the use of 202(e) funding for cash transfers, food vouchers, and local and regional procurement as well as data on the use of Title II funding for ITSH costs, in accordance with established requirements. 4. Update key guidance and systems to consistently reflect allowable uses of ITSH funds in Title II development and emergency projects. 5. Establish a requirement for Title II development project partners to conduct and document comprehensive risk assessments and mitigation plans for cash transfers and food vouchers funded by 202(e), and take steps to ensure that implementing partners adhere to the requirement. We provided a draft version of this product to USAID for comment. USAID provided official comments, which are reprinted in appendix V, as well as technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. In its official comments, USAID concurred with our recommendations. For example, regarding our recommendation to develop, document, and implement a process for periodically conducting systematic, targeted financial reviews of Title II development and emergency projects, USAID stated that it is exploring options to develop a process for conducting financial reviews. USAID added that this process will include the development of additional guidance and training relevant to the management of food assistance awards, to help ensure that actual costs align with planned budgets. In addition, USAID stated that it has taken steps to implement our recommendation to establish a requirement that Title II development project partners conduct and document comprehensive risk assessments for cash transfers and food vouchers funded by 202(e) and to take steps to ensure that partners adhere to the requirement. Specifically, USAID stated that it added a risk assessment requirement to the fiscal year 2017 request for applications for development projects in Uganda, which USAID issued February 17, 2017. As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the report date. At that time, we will send copies to the Administrator of USAID. 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 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 major contributions to this report are listed in appendix VI. We examined (1) any changes in the U.S. Agency for International Development’s (USAID) use of Title II funding to implement and support projects since the enactment of the 2014 Farm Bill and (2) USAID’s financial oversight of Title II funding used to implement and support selected projects. To address these objectives, we analyzed USAID Title II Food for Peace (Title II) funding data and policies, guidance, and procedures documents and interviewed USAID and implementing partner officials in Washington, D.C., and in Haiti, Malawi, and Zimbabwe. We reviewed additional documentation, including partner application and award documentation, and annual and comprehensive project budgets for seven selected projects—four development and three emergency projects—that received Title II funding in fiscal years 2014 through2016. We selected these seven projects on the basis of factors such as the highest level of funding and types of modalities implemented with 202(e) funding, geographic diversity, and project timeframe. Specifically, we focused on projects that were ongoing in fiscal year 2016 and that included 202(e) funding for cash transfers, food vouchers, or local and regional procurement. In Haiti, Malawi, and Zimbabwe, we visited project sites and observed ongoing activities; inspected food storage warehouses; reviewed implementing partners’ systems for managing and storing commodities; and met with beneficiaries who received U.S. in-kind assistance or cash transfers, food vouchers, or locally and regionally procured commodities. We selected countries for fieldwork to ensure that we included (1) different geographic locations, (2) both emergency and development projects, and (3) examples of cash transfers, food vouchers, and local and regional procurement that were funded by 202(e). Since we judgmentally selected projects and locations for fieldwork, our findings cannot be generalized. To address our first objective, we analyzed USAID development and emergency Title II funding data for fiscal years 2012 through 2015, including annual project level data on total obligations and obligations for internal transportation, storage, and handling (ITSH); 202(e) costs; commodity costs; ocean freight costs and inland transportation costs; cash transfers; food vouchers; and local and regional procurement. To assess the reliability of these data, we reviewed related documentation, including data presented in USAID’s and the Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) annual United States International Food Assistance Report; interviewed, and reviewed written responses from, USAID agency officials; and electronically tested for outliers and potential errors. We determined that the data and information were sufficiently reliable to compare project funding obligations and amounts (metric tonnage) of food assistance provided. In addition, we reviewed implementing partner award documents for the selected projects, including detailed and comprehensive budget documents, quarterly and annual results reports, and award agreements. We analyzed these data and documents to determine the amount of 202(e) funding USAID has provided for costs to implement and support Title II projects; the amount of funding and number of projects using cash transfers, food vouchers, and local and regional procurement; and the most common types of modalities. We also reviewed non-Title II funding sources, such as foreign assistance funding from the Development Assistance and International Disaster Assistance (IDA) accounts, to identify countries and projects receiving funding from multiple sources. We did not assess partners’ studies on cost savings or efficiencies gained through reducing monetization. To address our second objective, we reviewed USAID’s policies, guidance, and procedures for financial oversight and monitoring of 202(e) and ITSH funding as of fiscal year 2016, including relevant chapters of USAID’s Automated Directives System (ADS), which outlines the agency’s operational policy. We also reviewed partner award documentation for the seven selected projects. For selected development projects, we reviewed and compared funding data and information provided in applications, award agreements, award modifications, approved budgets, quarterly and annual reports, expenditure reports (SF- 425s) for both 202(e) and ITSH expenditures, and relevant audits, among other documentation, to identify significant issues or discrepancies in implementing partners’ financial oversight and monitoring of 202(e) and ITSH spending. We reviewed monitoring data and information provided in quarterly and annual reports for 202(e) cash transfers, food vouchers, and local and regional procurement activities implemented during the period of our review. For our selected development projects, we reviewed the implementing partners’ internal controls and risks by reviewing policy manuals and procedures to see if partners had implemented key policies and procedures to (1) prevent comingling of U.S. funds, such as unique accounting codes; (2) separate bank accounts; (3) instruct employees on proper use of U.S. funds; (4) segregate financial duties; (5) document bank reconciliations; (6) monitor subpartners’ use of program funding, including subpartner financial risk and capacity assessments; (7) maintain proper documentation to support subpartner expenditures; (8) conduct cost and price analysis; (9) account for staff time; (10) conduct annual audits; (11) conduct risk assessments and mitigation plans to address financial risks and fraud; and (12) reconcile SF-425s to the general ledger. The financial information we reviewed included general ledger downloads from the implementing partners’ accounting systems, bank account statements, and other information generated by accounting systems. We focused our financial review primarily on compliance with internal control standards related to monitoring of program funds and to reviewing certain control activities. We also reviewed development partners’ disbursement processes and reviewed a nongeneralizable sample of 80 transactions from financial information provided by implementing partners to identify potential internal controls and financial management issues. We performed detailed expenditures transaction testing on expenditures of 202(e) or ITSH funds in fiscal years 2014 and 2015, using samples of 20 transactions for each of our four selected development projects, including a combination of larger and smaller transactions for traditional implementation costs as well as cash transfers, food vouchers, and local and regional procurement. We tested each selected transaction to determine whether the costs were (1) accurate, (2) allowable, (3) reasonable, (4) approved, (5) adequately reviewed, and (6) supported by sufficient documentation. We compared the selected transactions with the amounts budgeted in partners’ annual approved budgets to verify that expenditures were (1) spent using the funding stream budgeted for the expense and (2) not in excess of the budgeted amount. For each entity we selected for transaction testing, we reviewed the transactions against supporting documentation such as travel orders and authorizations, receipts and invoices, time and attendance reports, and billing reports. Since we judgmentally selected transactions, our findings cannot be generalized. Additionally, for selected World Food Program (WFP) emergency projects, we reviewed WFP policies, procedures, and guidance related to financial oversight and monitoring of food assistance projects; WFP’s external and internal audits; project funding and support documentation, including transfer agreements, amendments, budget revisions, and standard project reports. We reviewed monitoring data and information provided in periodic reports for 202(e) cash transfers, food vouchers, and local and regional procurement activities implemented during the period of our review. We also performed walk-throughs with WFP officials of preselected 202(e) and ITSH transactions. Because WFP is a public international organization (PIO), we did not audit its expenditures or its internal control systems. We conducted this performance audit from October 2015 to March 2017 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. The Food for Peace Act authorizes the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to pay for costs to transport, store, and distribute Title II agricultural commodities (i.e., U.S. in-kind) overseas. To cover these costs that partners incur while moving, storing, and distributing Title II U.S. in-kind food aid after it reaches a destination country, USAID provides the partners with funds that it categorizes as internal transportation, storage, and handling (ITSH) funding. In fiscal years 2012 through 2015, USAID provided about 28 percent of total Title II funding to cover ITSH costs (about $1.575 billion), which supported about 4 million metric tons of commodities during that timeframe. Since 2012, USAID’s obligations for ITSH costs have varied, ranging from about $371 million to about $405 million (see table 5). The amount of commodities USAID has provided in its Title II program also varied within this period, ranging from a high of about 1.2 million metric tons in fiscal year 2012, to a low of 873,414 metric tons in fiscal year 2014. Likewise, the amount of ITSH funding USAID has obligated per metric ton of commodities (i.e., ITSH rate) ranged from a high of $457 in fiscal year 2014, to a low of $338 in fiscal year 2012. According to USAID officials, increases in the ITSH rate were due to increased commodity storage and transport costs, food prices, the shift to specialized nutrition products, decreases in monetization, and security challenges, among other factors. While USAID makes ITSH funding available in both development and emergency projects, emergency projects comprised the majority of ITSH funding in fiscal years 2012 through 2015 (see fig. 9). According to USAID officials, conflict and lack of in-country infrastructure can greatly increase ITSH costs, particularly in emergency projects. For example, according to USAID, in South Sudan, the World Food Program (WFP)— USAID’s implementing partner—distributed food assistance to beneficiaries during the country’s armed conflict and was forced to deliver some food via airdrops to conflict-impacted areas. When food could be moved over land, trucking companies charged a premium due to the high risk their drivers faced. Because of these factors, in June 2015, WFP agreed to an ITSH cost of $1,087.50 per metric ton of food. In comparison, in a country such as Malawi, which did not experience security concerns and where WFP distributed emergency food assistance to beneficiaries affected by severe drought conditions, WFP’s ITSH cost in August 2015 was $97.87 per metric ton. USAID Title II development project: August 2011 to July 2016 U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) obligated Title II funding for U.S. in-kind (i.e., U.S.-donated) commodities, including wheat, split peas, and vegetable oil, in fiscal years 2014 and 2015. During this period, USAID also obligated Title II 202(e) funding for cash transfers to landless youth beneficiaries in exchange for their labor on public works projects. These public work projects included terracing hillsides to create farmland. Table 6 shows USAID obligations for this development project. USAID Title II development project: August 2013 to September 2017 USAID obligated Title II funding to the project for U.S. in-kind food aid, including lentils, bulgur, fortified cereal, and vegetable oil, in fiscal years 2014 and 2015. In fiscal years 2014 and 2015, USAID obligated Title II emergency 202(e) funding to support food vouchers for beneficiaries affected by drought. In addition, USAID obligated $18.8 million from its Development Assistance account for this project. Of this amount, about $3.1 million was budgeted to support food vouchers that the partner provided to beneficiaries as part of its efforts to develop a long-term social safety net in Haiti. Table 7 shows USAID obligations for this development project. USAID Title II development project: September 2014 to September 2019 In fiscal year 2015, USAID obligated Title II funding for U.S. in-kind food aid such as fortified corn and soybean blend and vegetable oil. In addition, USAID obligated Title II 202(e) funding for the local procurement of commodities such as maize flour, salt, and soybeans for beneficiaries with immediate food needs after severe flooding. According to USAID, it will obligate over 65 percent of funding for the project from the Development Assistance account, including funding for some project implementation costs and local procurement of commodities to support food-for-assets activities. Table 8 shows USAID obligations for this development project. World Food Program (WFP) project implemented with USAID Title II emergency funding: Protracted Relief and Recovery Operation (PRRO) 200692: December 2014 through March 2017 In fiscal years 2014 and 2015, USAID obligated Title II funding to this WFP PRRO for U.S. in-kind food aid—split yellow peas, lentils, sorghum, and vegetable oil, and obligated 202(e) funding for the local procurement of commodities such as maize, maize meal, and pulses. In addition, USAID obligated Title II 202(e) funding for the transport, storage, and distribution of 3,494 metric tons of maize that the government of Malawi locally procured and donated, which allowed WFP to transport, store, and distribute the food. Table 9 shows USAID obligations for this emergency project. WFP project implemented with USAID Title II emergency funding: Emergency Operation (EMOP) 200659: January 2014 through September 2015 In fiscal years 2014 and 2015, USAID obligated Title II funding to EMOP 200659 for U.S. in-kind food aid, including lentils, split peas, sorghum, and vegetable oil. USAID also obligated $4 million in Title II 202(e) funding for locally and regionally procured maize and fortified cereal along with $10.3 million in Emergency Food Security Program (EFSP) funds for regionally procured food for this project. Table 10 shows USAID obligations for this emergency project. USAID Title II development project: June 2013 to June 2018 In fiscal years 2014 and 2015, USAID obligated Title II funding for the project for U.S. in-kind food aid, including sorghum, lentils, and vegetable oil. In addition, USAID obligated Title II 202(e) funding for cash transfers to beneficiaries in exchange for building or rehabilitating assets, such as a livestock dip tank and dams that improve their community’s resilience to shocks. This project also used 202(e) funding for development activities, such as providing $150 household asset vouchers to 1,000 vulnerable beneficiaries in exchange for their participation in training in fiscal year 2015. These vouchers could be used for the purchase of agriculture inputs and supplies, such as seeds, livestock, wheelbarrows, and plows. The project’s other activities included using 202(e) funding for agricultural input and livestock fairs to facilitate market access for rural beneficiaries in order to reduce food insecurity. Table 11 shows USAID obligations for this development project. WFP project implemented with USAID Title II emergency funding: Protracted Relief and Recovery Operation (PRRO) 200453: May 2013 to June 2016 In fiscal years 2014 and 2015, USAID obligated Title II funding to PRRO 200453 for U.S. in-kind food aid, including peas, sorghum, and vegetable oil. In addition, USAID obligated Title II 202(e) funding along with EFSP funds to this project for regionally procured commodities such as maize and peas from Zambia and Malawi and for cash transfers to beneficiaries in exchange for their work on assets such as dams and irrigation schemes. Table 12 shows USAID obligations for this emergency project. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) makes most of its Title II emergency awards to the World Food Program (WFP). In accordance with USAID’s Automated Directives System (ADS), USAID has designated WFP as a category 1 public international organization (PIO) on the basis of its review of WFP and United Nations (UN) documents and reports, including strategy, policy, and audit documents related to WFP’s internal controls procedures, financial resources and risk management. USAID officials indicated that, in accordance with the ADS, USAID may make awards to a category 1 PIO without conducting pre-award audits or regularly reviewing audit and financial information. As a result, USAID officials noted that the agency generally relies on WFP to conduct financial oversight of implementation costs in Title II emergency projects awarded to WFP. WFP’s Office of Evaluation is responsible for evaluations to provide information on the quality and effectiveness of WFP’s policies, strategies, operations, and efficiency of their implementation. WFP’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) is responsible for providing assurance on governance, policy, risk, resources, operations and accountability, and internal controls, including through internal audit and investigation, to ensure the effective and efficient use of the resources of WFP and the safeguarding of its assets. WFP also has an external auditor that is appointed by, and reports to, WFP’s Executive Board and is responsible for auditing WFP’s accounts and for carrying out performance audits of WFP’s operations. According to the annual reports of WFP’s OIG for 2014 and 2015, the oversight work of the OIG did not disclose any significant weaknesses. Moreover, in 2015, WFP’s Finance Committee reported that the external auditor’s review of WFP’s financial statements for 2014 revealed no material weaknesses or errors. We found that WFP conducted 42 internal audits in 2014 and 2015 as well as several external audits, with a range of findings and recommendations. For example, audits identified instances in which a country office did not verify services performed by third parties before paying for services and also identified inconsistent or suboptimal rates of completion of risk assessments by country offices, particularly for cash transfers and food vouchers. The majority of internal audits reached satisfactory or partially satisfactory conclusions, and WFP generally reported implementing, or taking some steps to implement, the audits’ recommendations. We reviewed WFP’s policies and procedures for financial internal controls and found that they generally reflect Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO) principles. We also reviewed support documentation—such as purchase orders, payment requests, and reconciliation documents—for one or two transactions preselected by WFP involving 202(e) cash transfers, food vouchers, local and regional procurement, or internal transportation, storage, and handling (ITSH) funding for each of the three emergency projects we reviewed. For example, in Zimbabwe, WFP officials walked us through support documentation and discussed the approval process for a 202(e) cash transfer transaction for our selected WFP project in Zimbabwe. Support documentation included WFP’s agreement with the mobile service provider for the cash transfers to beneficiaries; the purchase requisition (including a breakout of actual cash distributed to beneficiaries and associated costs, such as fees paid to the mobile provider); the purchase order; the distribution plan by district and month; distribution lists (including names and account numbers for beneficiaries); and the actual payment request and corporate payment report, as well as reconciliation documentation. We determined that for the purposes of our review, documentation that WFP provided for these preselected transactions showed that expenses were accurate and allowable and had adequate levels of review and approval. Further, in reviewing three WFP projects for our current report, we found that WFP country offices had compiled required risk assessments and mitigation plans relevant to the three projects. Specifically, the three WFP country offices developed higher-level risk assessments that addressed risks to strategic or operational objectives of WFP country operations, such as risks related to political instability, poor road infrastructure, or erratic weather. In addition, one of the country offices, in South Sudan, also developed a more in-depth assessment that addressed 66 programmatic risks, including risks related to internal controls; financial risks; and potential fraud, waste, or abuse. According to WFP, it requires country offices to develop only the higher-level assessments, and country offices may choose to also develop more in-depth assessments. In addition, we reviewed WFP sectoral capacity assessments related to cash transfers, food vouchers, and local and regional procurement for the selected projects. These assessments evaluate the capacities and associated risks of cooperating partners, financial institutions, and markets as well as retailers for cash transfers, food vouchers, and local and regional procurement. WFP noted that it consults with local governments in developing these assessments. WFP also noted that it uses the assessments to inform the choice of program delivery modality, particularly examining logistics, financial, and information and communications technology in determining the appropriateness and feasibility of using cash transfers, food vouchers, and local and regional procurement and mobile technology in its projects. In addition to the contact named above, Valérie L. Nowak (Assistant Director), Elisabeth Helmer, Nicholas Jepson, Steven Rocker, Ming Chen, Jeff Isaacs, Reid Lowe, and Kimberly McGatlin made significant contributions to this report. Jaime Allentuck, Jacques Arsenault, Diana Blumenfeld, Martin de Alteriis, Neil Doherty, Mark Dowling, Christopher Hayes, Susmita Pendurthi, Theresa Perkins, and Sushmita Srikanth provided technical assistance.

Summary: In recent years, USAID has awarded about $1.4 billion annually for international food assistance projects under Title II of the Food for Peace Act (Title II). This funding has traditionally been used to provide U.S.-purchased commodities to food-insecure beneficiaries overseas. Section 202(e) of the Food for Peace Act authorizes USAID to also provide funding to cover project implementation costs, which have typically included administrative expenses such as implementing partner staff salaries. The Agricultural Act of 2014 (2014 Farm Bill) increased the amount of 202(e) funding USAID can use for implementation costs from 13 to 20 percent of the annual Title II appropriation and also expanded the eligible uses of these funds. USAID's utilization of these new authorities presents potential oversight challenges. GAO was asked to review Title II implementation costs. This report examines (1) any changes in USAID's use of Title II funding to implement and support projects since the 2014 Farm Bill and (2) USAID's financial oversight of this funding for selected projects. GAO analyzed USAID funding data for fiscal years 2012 through 2015 (the most recent available), reviewed USAID and partner documents, and interviewed officials. GAO conducted financial reviews of a nongeneralizable sample of seven Title II projects, selected on the basis of project funding and implemented modalities. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has used most of the 2014 Farm Bill's increase in authorized funding for section 202(e) of the Food for Peace Act to provide cash transfers, food vouchers, and locally or regionally procured food—modalities not previously supported through Title II. Of the additional authorized funding that the agency utilized, USAID obligated 75 percent in fiscal year 2014 and 96 percent in fiscal year 2015 for these modalities. In addition, to better meet beneficiaries' needs, USAID has increasingly used funds from accounts authorized by the Foreign Assistance Act, along with 202(e) funding, to implement and support projects—costs that 202(e) funding has typically covered. Also, in some cases, USAID has used funds from those accounts along with 202(e) funding to provide cash transfers, food vouchers, or local or regional procurement in a single project. USAID and its partners have various controls for financial oversight of Title II funding used for implementation and support costs; however, GAO found certain deficiencies in USAID's oversight. USAID reviews partners' detailed planned budgets for these costs and high-level quarterly financial reports, according to USAID officials, but it generally has not conducted systematic, targeted financial reviews of partners' actual spending on these costs. While GAO found that partners' internal controls generally included policies and procedures to help ensure proper use of funds, GAO's limited, nongeneralizable financial transactions testing identified instances of misspending, such as charging a 202(e) cost to one project that should have been charged to another. Also, USAID has not obtained key monitoring data from partners related to these costs that could identify areas needing additional financial oversight. Moreover, USAID does not require partners to conduct comprehensive assessments of financial and fraud risks for cash transfers and food vouchers in development projects, although it requires risk assessments for emergency projects. GAO found that partners for selected development projects provided broad discussions of risk to USAID but did not provide comprehensive risk assessments. As a result, USAID is limited in its ability to ensure that partners are spending funds as planned. GAO is making five recommendations to USAID—for example, to conduct financial reviews, collect monitoring data, and assess risks. USAID concurred with the recommendations.