Detailed Information on the
Food Aid for Emergencies and Development (Public Law 480 Title II) Assessment

Ensure that emergency and development food aid are directed towards the highest priority needs and that contingency planning allows this program to address unanticipated needs throughout the year. Address flexibility by implementing better contingency planning for emergency needs that arise late in a fiscal year.

Take steps to better integrate food security issues and food aid into overall Agency planning in Washington and at its missions abroad and with donors, including addressing root causes of famine.

Improve performance measures that incorporate the implementation of programs by USAID's non-governmental partners, such as private voluntary organizations (PVOs). These improvements include developing new indicators for food security that encompass both emergency and development food aid programs as well as tracking across-the-board progress in countries and overall.

Implement changes to improve efficiency and continue others (such as for monetization).

Measure: Emergency Food Aid: % of targeted population reached by food aid

Explanation:The ability of emergency food aid programs in reaching their planned beneficiaries is important to assessing the impact of emergency food aid programs. Successfully reaching planned beneficiaries is especially important for protecting lives and livelihoods (i.e. protecting human capacities, livelihood capabilities and community resilience) of those affected by emergencies.

Measure: Emergency Food Aid: % of programs reporting improved or maintained nutritional status

Explanation:Nutritional status is useful for monitoring the extent to which Title II food aid programs are meeting the needs of affected populations, and thus the overall impact and performance of the emergency food relief effort. "Maintenance" of nutritional status is included in addition to "improvement" of status because, in many instances, maintenance of nutritional status in the face shocks is a positive outcome, especially in emergency situations.

Measure: Cost per person receiving Title II food assistance

Explanation:

Measure: Cost per ton of Title II food assistance

Explanation:

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The program purpose is clear. USAID's goal is to increase the impact of food aid in reducing hunger and food insecurity. The legislation governing Title II, the Food Aid and Food Security Policy Paper and the FY 1997-2001 Strategic Plan are key documents clarifying the program purpose. The Strategic Objective (SO) of Title II emergency food aid is to "meet critical food needs of targeted groups." The purpose of the Title II development (non-emergency) food aid program is to increase food security for vulnerable populations. This has been translated into the process-oriented SO of Title II development food aid to Increase the effectiveness of Food for Peace (FFP) partners in carrying out Title II development activities with measurable results related to food security with a primary focus on household nutrition and agricultural productivity.

Evidence: Food Aid and Food Security Policy Paper ; Report of the Food Aid and Food Security Assessment: A review of Title II Development Food Aid Program; the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954 (PL 480 Title II governing legislation); PL 480 Title II Development Program Policies ; FFP Strategic Plan

Does the program address a specific interest, problem or need?

Explanation: The program addresses the specific problems of malnutrition, hunger, and food insecurity among the most vulnerable foreign populations. The legislation governing Title II, the Food Aid and Food Security Policy Paper and the FY 1997-2001 Strategic Plan are key documents clarifying the program purpose. The emergency program focuses on crisis situations (natural or complex emergencies) where specific at-risk populations are targeted. The development (non-emergency) programs emphasize longer term impact on malnutrition and food insecurity including, among others, child survival, nutrition education and community development activities.

Evidence: Food Aid and Food Security Policy Paper ; Report of the Food Aid and Food Security Assessment: A review of Title II Development Food Aid Program; PL 480 Title II governing legislation; PL 480 Title II Development Program Policies; FFP Strategic Plan

Is the program designed to have a significant impact in addressing the interest, problem or need?

Explanation: The program is designed to have a significant impact in addressing food insecurity. Program activities are focused on areas which address malnutrition, hunger and food insecurity. The emergency component can respond to quick-onset disasters and protracted complex emergencies. For emergencies, food can be moved with a relatively short lead time into affected regions. The food is moved through private voluntary organizations (PVOs) and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and the U.N. World Food Programme (WFP) who have in-country presence and an extensive network of local partners. The development program seeks to increase household food security by promoting sustainable agriculture and nutritional improvements, especially for women and children. USAID integrates Title II with some financial and other USAID resources related to maternal and child health, HIV/AIDs, agriculture, microenterprise, education, natural resource management, water and sanitation.

Evidence: Food Aid and Food Security Policy Paper ; Report of the Food Aid and Food Security Assessment: A review of Title II Development Food Aid Program; PL 480 Title II governing legislation; PL 480 Title II Development Program Policies ; U.S. International Food Assistance Report; FFP Strategic Plan; R4; FY 01 Agency Performance Report

Is the program designed to make a unique contribution in addressing the interest, problem or need (i.e., not needlessly redundant of any other Federal, state, local or private efforts)?

Explanation: With respect to U.S. emergency food aid in particular, the Title II contribution is unique. To organize a major international emergency program and to implement it through WFP requires U.S. government involvement. In addition, USAID food aid programs have the capacity for synergies based on USAID's overseas presence and technical expertise with other development assistance (DA) such as health, nutrition, agriculture, agro-forestry, and microenterprise. On the non-emergency side, some observers have argued that many projects, particularly those involving monetization, fall more into the sphere of DA and therefore may not be not unique because DA could be substituted. USAID has an ongoing review to redirect future non-emergency projects toward priority food security objectives. U.S. private donations as well as foreign counterpart private and public institutions also have food aid programs. In addition, while USDA also implements food aid programs, USAID has the lead role in emergency programs. USAID is the largest program that has the capacity to integrate food aid with sustainable development.

Evidence: Food Aid and Food Security Policy Paper ; Report of the Food Aid and Food Security Assessment: A review of Title II Development Food Aid Program; PL 480 Title II governing legislation; PL 480 Title II Development Program Policies ; U.S. International Food Assistance Report; FFP Strategic Plan; R4; FY 2001, FY 2002 Agency Performance Report, discussions with GAO

Is the program optimally designed to address the interest, problem or need?

Explanation: The program generally allows effective cooperation between USAID and its cooperating sponsors (PVOs, NGOs, WFP). However, USAID continues to seek improvements. Several congressional mandates support other policy objectives and make program goals more difficult or costly to achieve. For example, cargo preference requirements increase delivery cost and time. Minimum and sub-minimum tonnage requirements decrease FFP's ability to respond flexibly to changing global needs, particularly in emergencies. Tonnage minimums may be difficult to attain depending on U.S. market conditions. Changes in cost recovery rules for monetized programs potentially lower program revenues. Monetized sales often generate less than the USG cost of providing the food. Legislation prohibits solely cash grants. Monetization, a non-transparent and unreliable funding source, has risen in recent years in order to provide funds for non-commodity project components. USAID 5-year or longer development project agreements permit a longer horizon to obtain more measurable results but reduce funding flexibility. More USAID program integration would be beneficial.

Evidence: FACG Minutes; PL 480 Title II governing legislation; U.S. International Food Assistance Report; FFP Strategic Plan; Food Aid and Food Security Policy Paper; Audits, such as USAID/OIG Audit on Cargo Preference; R4s, Food Aid: Experience of U.S. Programs Suggest Opportunities for Improvement, discussions with GAO, GAO reports.

Does the program have a limited number of specific, ambitious long-term performance goals that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: The FFP Strategic Plan states its overarching goals through its two strategic objectives (SO) stated in I.1. The strategic plan covers a five year time frame, which is adequate time to track achievement of the goals. The emergency SO is to meet the critical food needs of targeted groups (vulnerable groups identified as needing assistance at the time of proposal submission). Because USAID believes that is is more difficult to assess the impact of non-emergency programs on food security, and because PVOs (rather than USAID) implement programs, the current development SO focuses on improving PVO capabilities to carry out programs with results related to food security, with focus on household nutrition and agriculture productivity (process, rather than outcome related). USAID is developing a new strategic plan and is currently reviewing its approach to performance goals and indicators of food insecurity.

Evidence: Food Aid and Food Security Policy Paper ; Report of the Food Aid and Food Security Assessment: A review of Title II Development Food Aid Program; PL 480 Title II governing legislation; FFP Strategic Plan; R4s; SO II list of generic indicators

Does the program have a limited number of annual performance goals that demonstrate progress toward achieving the long-term goals?

Explanation: The FFP Strategic Plan states goals and targets. Both emergency and development programs have annual targets for progress toward achieving long term goals. The annual development goals address several sectors such as maternal and child health and nutrition and water and sanitation. Generic Title II indicators are used and can be tailored to each development food aid project in consultation with PVOs. (PVOs and missions are given flexibility in proposing activities that they believe will have the greatest impact on food security.) The emergency and development performance data collected are analyzed annually and reported in the Results Review/Annual Reports. Because performance may be measured differently across projects depending on available data and other factors, projects' contributions to Title II long-term goals are difficult to assess. Except for certain missions that roll up food aid results into their overall country results, the overall measure is percent of reported project targets achieved. Alternative methods for capturing achievement across Title II programs are under review.

Evidence: Food Aid and Food Security Policy Paper ; Report of the Food Aid and Food Security Assessment: A review of Title II Development Food Aid Program; PL 480 Title II governing legislation; FFP Strategic Plan; Annual Report; Agency Performance Report; SO II list of generic indicators

Do all partners (grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, etc.) support program planning efforts by committing to the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: FFP undertook an extensive consultative process in developing its performance indicators in 1996/97, and continued the regular dialogue in operationalizing the results framework. FFP partners are engaged in the current program planning and development of the follow-on Strategic Plan and are supportive of the long term goals of the program. Bi-annual discussions at the Food Aid Consultative Group (FACG) provide opportunities for collaboration on issues and discussion on current issues. Any policy changes are vetted through the PVO community who can provide feedback when items are listed on the Federal Register. Current efforts to update the strategic plan are being undertaken in a highly collaborative manner with PVO participation. USAID has tried to strengthen linkages to Agency objectives and appropriate programmatic and financial oversight. PVOs have sought and obtained legislatively more flexibility in those same areas, for example, limiting USAID's ability to achieve benchmark cost recovery on monetized development food aid programs.

Evidence: Food Aid and Food Security Policy Paper ; Report of the Food Aid and Food Security Assessment: A review of Title II Development Food Aid Program; PL 480 Title II governing legislation; FFP Strategic Plan; Annual Report; FACG minutes; R4s

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs that share similar goals and objectives?

Explanation: FFP, USDA and State, among others, participate on the Food Aid Policy Committee (FAPC) whose role is to coordinate food aid programs, although coordination could be improved. FFP holds bi-annual consultations with WFP to review program goals and objectives. Within FFP, more improvement is needed with transition guidance and communication between emergency and development programs. Additional coordination and integration of food aid with USAID development and disaster assistance is needed. More USAID missions need to integrate food aid into mission objectives or activities. Cross-bureau communications and program integration are improving under the Agency reorganization and new initiatives are under development. Interagency coordination by agencies including State Department has room for improvement particularly on consultation and coordination with other donor counterparts on burden-sharing and with recipient countries about their policies that may exacerbate famine conditions.

Evidence: Food Aid and Food Security Policy Paper ; Report of the Food Aid and Food Security Assessment: A review of Title II Development Food Aid Program; PL 480 Title II governing legislation; FFP Strategic Plan; Annual Report; WFP consultation minutes; discussions with GAO

Are independent and quality evaluations of sufficient scope conducted on a regular basis or as needed to fill gaps in performance information to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness?

Explanation: Development program key evaluations take place in the final year (based on performance relative to baselines established for each project with the cooperating sponsor). Evaluations of emergency programs are undertaken as needed. FFP programs have been evaluated by independent sources that include GAO, USAID OIG and FANTA (Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance project). Monitoring and evaluation systems have been developed to focus on reporting to the Mission and FFP. Incorporation of a systematic management agenda for external evaluations is needed and will be added in the future. PVOs final reports on food aid projects, but not mid-term reports, require an external review. The terms of reference that PVOs set for performance evaluations by external consultants are improving. USAID's last large-scale internal evaluation of humanitarian aid, including emergency food aid, was undertaken in December 2000 (CDIE).

Evidence: FANTA Report of the Food Aid and Food Security Assessment: A review of Title II Development Food Aid Program (FAFSA); GAO reports, AID OIG Audits; CDIE evaluation

Is the program budget aligned with the program goals in such a way that the impact of funding, policy, and legislative changes on performance is readily known?

Explanation: The program budget is not aligned so that the impact of the funding, policy and legislative changes on performance is readily known.

Evidence: PL 480 Title II governing legislation, discussions with USAID

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: FFP has reviewed lessons learned from implementing its Strategic Plan of 1997-2001 to be incorporated into the new one. While the framework for emergency food aid was a useful and effective monitoring tool, there were problems in measuring the impact of development food aid. The new strategic plan currently under development is expected to improve performance goals, indicators and targets by removing some that are no longer meaningful and by reviewing ways to allow better evaluation of overall performance results. FFP has met several times with its partners to develop a vision and address strategic planning deficiencies and emerging issues that should be incorporated. The Annual Report reflects regular refinements of performance indicators as experience is gained in measuring food aid outcomes.

Evidence: Food Aid and Food Security Policy Paper ; Report of the Food Aid and Food Security Assessment: A review of Title II Development Food Aid Program; PL 480 Title II governing legislation; FFP Strategic Plan; Annual Report; Draft FY 2003 Strategic Framework

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: While FFP requires its implementing partners to provide timely and credible performance data through its regular reporting system, FFP is working with its implementing partners to improve the timeliness of reports. USAID has not made tracking implementing partners' compliance or report verification a budget priority. Nonetheless, annual performance reports provide some program results based on information from implementing partners. Verification is done partly through USAID field visits. While USAID was tracking the information (FY1997-FY2000), compliance was improving. Those data indicated an improvement in the quality and validity of CSs monitoring and reporting systems. USAID noted, for example in its 2001 Annual Report that emergency program reporting is declining. For development food aid, performance targets are currently set on a case-by-case basis for each project and overall results (on percent of targets achieved) are based on those who report. USAID needs to make more progress in collecting and presenting generic Title II results at a country level at least.

Evidence: Annual report, R4s, guidelines, Transfer Authorization (grant agreement) for emergency food aid; FANTA

Are Federal managers and program partners (grantees, subgrantees, contractors, etc.) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: While there is a chain of authority for scheduling for food aid delivery -- from freight forwarders to actual discharge ports -- there is little information on how USAID is held accountable, particularly for cost and schedule results (beyond the normal personnel performance evaluation process). FFP also tracks program approvals. Audits have been done of selected programs (FFP, PVOs) reviewing commodity losses, packaging and condition of food once it arrives. USAID holds an annual training workshop for staff, program grantees, and contractors on program guidelines. While past performance of implementing partners is part of the review process to renew programs, failure to provide annual performance results in a timely manner can but does not necessarily affect project continuation or funding.

Evidence: Guidelines; OIG Audits; FFPIS Shipping Logistics Status report

Are all funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner and spent for the intended purpose?

Explanation: Title II funds are obligated continually. The program approvals (CSR4s) are followed closely and PVOs are supposed to follow program implementation requirements. Required reporting, evaluations, monitoring visits, and audits help ensure that funds are spent for the intended purpose. FFP has clear policies for reprogramming in-country development food commodities to meet unforeseen emergencies. A certain number of projects each year either are not started, use less food than anticipated, or are terminated. In these cases, funds are reprogrammed to priority areas. With respect to project commitments (as opposed to budgetary obligations), the five-year or more project horizon limits flexibility in shifting funds to meet changing priorities.

Evidence: Guidelines; OIG Audits; Year end financial documentation

Does the program have incentives and procedures (e.g., competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: FFP has not submitted a capital investment plan or gone through USAID's IT planning process approval for FFP's current IT investment (FFPIS) plans. FFP is collaborating with USDA on new food aid reporting system, Food Aid Reporting Entry System (FARES), which FFP expects to eventually replace part of FFPIS. Pilot testing has taken place. For emergency food aid, cost efficiencies are a lower priority than timely delivery of appropriate foodstuffs to vulnerable populations. Monetization expanded, though the trend should be reversing. Monetization may not achieve full cost recovery and is not the least-cost means to deliver most projects' desired outcomes. The FY 05 BPBS guidance asks bureaus and missions to address how rationalizing monetization will affect their programs. USAID is reviewing to improve resource targeting (Title II and DA) and cost efficiencies. In other areas, FFP has sought to increase its management efficiency, e.g., managing an emergency grant through a single PVO representative of a PVO consortium. Joint monetization efforts also achieve efficiencies through combined PVO efforts that reduce duplicative operations.

Evidence: FY 05 BPBS guidance

Does the agency estimate and budget for the full annual costs of operating the program (including all administrative costs and allocated overhead) so that program performance changes are identified with changes in funding levels?

Explanation: The Agency is in the process of developing the capacity for activity cost accounting. USAID has not made this a funding priority.

Evidence:  

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: USDA and USAID have not coordinated such that dates and cost of a project commodity shipment from start to finish are known and shared in a timely manner. Consistent final numbers are not produced although USAID notes that discrepancies have dropped sharply. In addition, neither agency is able to identify in a consistent fashion the timing of each step of commodity movement (such as the date that a PVO places a call-forward). PVOs are required to have independent audits of their financial activities. As a U.N. organization, WFP is not subject to U.S. audit requirements but is subject to its own independent audit process. GAO has raised concerns about how WFP accounts for certain expenditures.

Evidence: Discussions with GAO, GAO Report GAO-02-328

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: FFP is taking steps to address some of its management deficiencies. It has sought to improve pre-positioning of food commodities to respond more rapidly to sudden onset disasters. Several working groups have been addressing management improvements based on in the 2002 Farm Bill. These include a technology group to help implement an upgrade to the FFPIS, the streamlining group, to assess process improvements, and the Vision and Strategy Group to develop a new Strategic Plan. The FACG has a commodity work group to address issues for improvement on commodity management. FANTA formulated several recommendations to incorporate management improvements in a 2002 report. The Vision and Strategy Working Group is addressing the deficiencies of measuring the impact of development food aid.

Evidence: FFP Conference Minutes; R4s; 3/03 Interim Report to Congress on Streamlining

Are grant applications independently reviewed based on clear criteria (rather than earmarked) and are awards made based on results of the peer review process?

Explanation: Grant applications are reviewed based on clear, published criteria. The DAP guidelines provide parameters and policy direction for PVOs to submit development proposals. The Emergency Food Proposal and Reporting Guidelines specify emergency review criteria. The review criteria include whether the activity will address the identified problem, proposed use of the aid, target population, the exit strategy, how performance will be measured, capacity of the organization and cost issues. Legislated requirements such as noted in I.5 prevent a more competitive process or a process and limit USAID's ability to award contracts optimally. Pillar bureaus and missions have expanded their participation in proposal reviews.

Evidence: FY 2003 DAP Guidelines; PVO Guidelines for Title II Emergency Food Proposals and Reporting

Does the grant competition encourage the participation of new/first-time grantees through a fair and open application process?

Explanation: Grantees largely consist of a small number of PVOs that have specialized in food aid. However, the competition is open to first time grantees. Since food aid management requires knowledge of specific legislative mandates and other requirements, FFP has encouraged new grantees to work in partnership with organizations with more experience. Institutional Support Agreement (ISA) grants help PVOs strengthen and improve their capacity, so they can be competitive in the food distribution process. In general, the proposals of PVOs do not usually overlap (for example, with respect to targeted populations). USAID estimates a roughly 70 percent acceptance rate. Recent legislation (IFRP, 2000) tasks USAID to expand on its current base of PVO partners and to outsource additional food commodities outside USDA. As a result, USAID has begun working with 5 smaller PVOs on Title II food aid.

Evidence: FY 2003 DAP Guidelines; PVO Guidelines for Title II Emergency Food Proposals and Reporting; 2000 International Food Relief Partnership Act (IFRP); Breedlove Program documentation

Does the program have oversight practices that provide sufficient knowledge of grantee activities?

Explanation: FFP requires regular reporting on commodity and financial pipeline, activity, and performance progress. The Missions have technical staff that can provide oversight of PVO activities, but coordination between missions and FFP could be improved. By congressional mandate, programs may take place in non-mission countries, which makes oversight more difficult. Many FFP country and regional program managers (backstop officers) occasionally visit distribution locations to monitor and review the PVO operations. There are reporting requirements to document progress although verification and evaluation of midterm program results are limited. Reporting rates, quality and timeliness of mid-term and final reporting need improvement. In recent years, FFP has expanded overseas placement of PSCs to enhance oversight, monitoring and evaluation capability but oversight is not a USAID funding priority. PVOs are required to hire independent auditors to review their program financial activities. As WFP is a U.N. organization, no U.S. audit requirement applies to its activities (but it is subject to independent audits as a U.N. agency).

Evidence: Guidelines, R4s, discussions with USAID staff, GAO, FANTA

Does the program collect performance data on an annual basis and make it available to the public in a transparent and meaningful manner?

Explanation: FFP collects performance data annually from its implementing partners, although reporting rates, quality of the information collected, and timeliness need improvement. The FFP Annual Report, the Agency Performance Report, the Congressional Budget Justification and the U.S. International Food Assistance Report are prepared annually to report on those program results collected. Certain publications are posted on the USAID website. Results are generally not available in a manner which allows an assessment of their contribution to USAID's overall outcome goals for food aid.

Evidence: Annual Report; R4s; FY 2003 Congressional Budget Justification; 2001 US International Food Assistance Report; Agency Performance Report

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term outcome goal(s)?

Explanation: Overall changes in food security at a country or global level are difficult to measure particularly in development (non-emergency) cases. The emergency program met some targets but security and logistical problems prevented the program from meeting the population-fed target. The development program has made progress in last several years in implementing results-oriented programs and has met some of its objectives. Implementing partners develop goals and targets, and report on results. Performance at the project level is based on generic indicators. The selection of indicators and how they will be measured is done case-by-case in consultation with the cooperating sponsor. Overall annual results are not based directly on the generic indicators (which are generally difficult to aggregate across programs), but rather on the share of individual programs who reported meeting or exceeding (or failing to meet) their individually-set targets. These results are identified below. Some missions provide country-wide food aid results based on generic Title II indicators and more should be done. FFP is reviewing alternative methods for capturing achievement across Title II programs.

Evidence: R4s, Annual Report; FY 2001 ,FY 2002 Agency Annual Performance report, FASFA, FANTA 7/03 draft "Impact of Title II Maternal and Child Health and Nutrition Programs on the Nutritional Status of Children"

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: Title II emergency food aid program achieved some of its annual performance goals but was hampered by security and logistical problems in certain countries. Development food aid has met some of its goals. A 7/03 draft FANTA analysis of maternal and child health and nutrition (MCHN) development food aid programs finds that, where programs and performance indicators were redesigned in the last six to seven years, chronic malnutrition declined by an average of 2.4 percentage points per year. The review also found considerable variability in the quality and comparability of the data reported by Title II program coordinating sponsors.

Evidence: R4s, Annual Report; FY 2001, 2002 Agency Annual Performance report,FANTA 7/03 draft "Impact of Title II Maternal and Child Health and Nutrition Programs on the Nutritional Status of Children"

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies and cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: FFP does not collect information on cost-effectiveness or set goals to improve efficiency. However, USAID is instituting numerous program improvements based on its current performance goals. While the development program goals largely process or output related, the program has become more focused on food security and on higher-risk areas since their introduction. Timeliness of aid deliveries has improved since FY1998, for example, by pre-positioning food commodities for quick response to disasters in Sudan and Somalia. In FY 1999, the pre-positioning in US ports reduced the time needed to get food to countries affected by Hurricane Mitch. Currently, FFP is working to resolve several open USAID OIG audit recommendations related to efficiency, for example, some related to cargo preference reimbursements. In terms of reporting improvements, the FANTA project will work with cooperating sponsors to strengthen and improve their quality.

Evidence: R4s; IG audits, FAFSA

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: USAID is effective in targeting food to the most vulnerable populations and in overseeing food aid particularly with respect to PVOs and WFP. USAID's Mission presence provides an opportunity for in-country technical experts who could assist USAID in meeting performance goals. FFP has in-house capacity to integrate many of its projects with other USAID programs in health, nutrition, agriculture and education for value added effectiveness. USDA lacks similar in-house capabilities. USAID's strategic planning and performance measurement in food aid are ahead of USDA's and cover a broader range of food-security related outcomes. Some observers have argued that the ability of foreign counterpart agencies to use cash to buy food allows them to respond more quickly and to be more cost-effective than USAID. WFP often uses cash donations from other countries to buy food locally for these reasons. With respect to development food aid, GAO has suggested that much of development food aid might be less efficient than DA.

Evidence: GAO reports and discussions with GAO.

Do independent and quality evaluations of this program indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: The independent CDIE assessment of complex emergencies noted USAID's emergency assistance "clearly helped save lives and alleviate suffering." Per FAFSA, over the past 6 years, cooperating sponsors (CSs) have made progress in program assessment, program design, resource integration, partnering and capacity-building, while facing some significant constraints. Although there are still gaps, CSs have made gains in design and implementation of monitoring and evaluation plans -- by 1997, at least two-thirds of approved DAPs identified acceptable performance indicators, from a baseline of 20 percent. GAO indicates that a number of improvements are warranted, particularly in the development food aid program. Areas requiring improvements relate to program effectiveness, WFP treatment of certain expenditures, program monitoring and coordination, and cost-effectiveness. Calculations of the degree that food aid interferes with local production (Bellmon indicators) need improvement. Congressional mandates have limited Title II's effectiveness.

Evidence: OIG Audits; CDIE: Complex Humanitarian Emergencies and USAID's Humanitarian Response; FANTA: Report of the FAFSA, GAO reports and discussions with GAO.