Detailed Information on the
US Trade and Development Agency Assessment

Measure: Dollar amount of U.S. exports for every $1 in agency funding (the multiplier)

Explanation:

Measure: Percentage of Agency Projects that produce U.S. exports (the hit rate)

Explanation:

Measure: Percentage of projects that have the potential of producing U.S. exports (the hit rate)

Explanation:FS/TA reviewed to initially assess projects ability to involve U.S. exports-indicates potential contribution to meeting long-term hit rate target.

Measure: Percentage of projects that have the potential of contributing to the multiplier

Explanation:FS/TA reviewed to initially assess projects ability to involve U.S. exports-indicates potential contribution to meeting the long-term multiplier target.

Measure: Percentage of implemented activities that create 10 or more jobs or train at least 10 people

Explanation:FS/TA evaluated 6 years following completion to determine jobs created or number of people trained.

Measure: Percentage of implemented activities that result in the transfer of advanced technology or increased productivity

Explanation:FS/TA evaluated 6 years following completion to determine higher technology or increased productivity

Measure: Percentage of implemented activities that result in infrastructure/industrial projects

Explanation:FS/TA evaluated 6 years following completion to determine implementation

Measure: Percentage of implemented activities that lead to the adoption of market-oriented reforms

Explanation:FS/TA evaluated 6 years following completion to determine whether reform was adopted.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: USTDA's authorizing legislation states that "the purpose of the Trade and Developement Agency is to promote United States private sector participation in development projects in developing and middle-income countries, with special emphasis on economic sectors with significant United States export potential, such as energy, transportation, telecommunications, and environment." USTDA clearly reflects this intent in their mission statement: "The U.S. Trade and Development Agency (USTDA) advances economic development and U.S. commercial interests in developing and middle income countries".

Evidence: USTDA's authorizing statute is 22 U.S.C. Sec. 2421, which is the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, Section 661. The agency's Mission Statement is contained in USTDA's Strategic Plan and its website at www.tda.gov.

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

Explanation: USTDA programs address two principal U.S. interests: furthering U.S. trade and foreign policy objectives and promoting U.S. exports. In support of the first interest, USTDA programs assist developing and middle income nations to achieve their developmental objectives by promoting U.S. commercial participation (technology transfer, analysis and best practices) in infrastructure projects and policy creation. To advance its second interest, the agency sponsors early, strategic involvement of U.S. firms in development projects that possess high economic/political risks (and may deter private sector interest) or that face competition from state-supported, foreign firms. By supporting U.S. private sector participation in these projects, USTDA facilitates the export of high quality U.S. goods and services and increases transparency in procurement and project development.

Evidence: Other developed countries, such as Japan, Germany, etc., have well-established and active programs supporting their respective companies' attempts to participate in development projects in the same markets where USTDA is active. (2000 TPCC National Export Strategy (NES) Report; CIDA Materials; Japanese International Cooperation Agency (JICA) Materials; USTDA website). Before approving an activity, USTDA requires the following: a request from the host country government; verification by the U.S. Embassy in country that the proposal is a host country priority; a determination that the proposal has significant developmental and commercial impact, evidence the project will likely be financiable, and evidence of foreign competition. (USTDA Handbook, Chapter 6).

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: USTDA supports U.S. private sector involvement in priority development projects overseas by providing grant assistance to fund project-specific activities (feasibility studies, etc) and broader activities (technical assistance). The only programs that are similar in scope and objective are the programs in other nations with which USTDA competes, such as JICA in Japan and the Canadian International Development Agency/International Cooperation Program. No state or local government activities are comprehensive enough to compare with USTDA's mandate and range of activities. Private entities that conduct feasibility studies, technical assistance, etc. without USG support do not focus on providing broader benefits to other U.S. companies and foreign project sponsors.

Evidence: Within the U.S. government, agencies like the Department of Commerce and Ex-Im Bank provide assistance to U.S. exporters, but their mandates do not focus on the developmental impact on the host/recipient countries and they do not provide assistance through feasibility studies (early project development), technical assistance, etc. Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) has a similar development mandate to that of USTDA, but provides credit (insurance, loans, guarantees) not grants. USAID provides development assistance in the forms of grants and technical assistance, but focuses on social sector and local private sector development. USTDA, however, focuses on opening opportunities for the U.S. private sector in commercial and industrial sectors. Unique to USTDA is its emphasis on having the host country Grantee choose and oversee the work of the U.S. firm.

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: Through the aid of Definitional Missions and Desk Studies, USTDA's program design emphasizes project selection and utilizes a broad array of implementation devices (Technical Assistance, Feasibility Studies, Orientation Visits, Conferences and Training Grants). During its 23 year history, this design has allowed USTDA to be flexible, efficient, and expeditious towards achieving its objectives. The agency considered the alternative of hiring in-house experts to perform some or all of the work that is currently conducted by contractors, but believes that this would: a) limit access to cutting edge services; b) sacrifice flexibility and efficiency in acquiring a proper workforce skills mix; and c) be contrary to federal outsourcing policy.

Evidence: The agency's history of return on investment of over $35 in exports for every program dollar expended suggests the absence of any fundamental flaws in program design. (USTDA Annual Reports). The agency's newly designed developmental impact measures will allow it to measure the developmental impact of its past, ongoing and future activities. (Measures Tab). Feedback from stakeholders, including a recent TPCC survey of U.S. companies did not surface concerns or suggestions for program redesign. (2002 TPCC NES Report).

Is the program design effectively targeted so that resources will address the program's purpose directly and will reach intended beneficiaries?

Explanation: USTDA provides funding to a developing country Grantee to pay for expertise from a U.S. firm of the Grantee's choosing in the form of technical assistance or feasibility studies. While USTDA funds are granted to the foreign project sponsor grantee, all actual funds are disbursed directly from the agency to the U.S. contractor upon approval by the Grantee of the U.S. contractor's invoice. This method ensures that the Grantee receives the U.S. services for the agreed-upon activity. Further, agency funds are disbursed over a period of time, as milestones are achieved, thereby ensuring that the activity has been accomplished prior to releasing any funds. Both the developing country Grantee and the U.S. contractor are the agency's direct beneficiaries. The secondary beneficiaries are U.S. firms that export to these projects.

Evidence: To ensure that the developing country Grantee benefits from U.S. best business practices, USTDA uses transparent competitive procedures. USTDA approves the developing country's choice of a U.S. firm. Together, the Grantee, USTDA and the US firm set the terms of reference for the activity. In addition, before payment is made, both the Grantee and USTDA must approve the U.S. firm's work. Often, signing the grant agreement itself represents a change in policy or a move toward good business practice by the developing country Grantee. (USTDA Forms and Procedures; USTDA Handbook, Chapter 6.)

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

Explanation: USTDA uses two specific performance measures, the "multiplier" and the "hit rate", to ascertain whether its programs achieve its long-term strategic objectives of advancing U.S. commercial interests in development projects. USTDA's other long-term strategic objective of advancing economic development in developing and middle income countries will be measured by newly designed development measures t. These measures will be applied to past, current and prospective agency activities.

Evidence: USTDA's FY 03-07 Strategic Plan highlights these performance measures: (1) The Multiplier consists of identified U.S. exports/USTDA expenditures; (2) the "Hit Rate" consists of the percentage of USTDA projects with exports. Developmental measures are under the Measures Tab. The developmental measures will be included with the Multiplier and the Hit Rate in the FY '05 GOvernment Performance and Results Act (GPRA) documents. (FY '03,'04 GPRA Plan)

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: The targets for the "multiplier" and "hit rate" performance measures, while ambitious, have remained fairly constant. USTDA projects often take many years to mature and the measures are applied on the basis of ten year rolling averages (TYRA). The agency continues to maintain its ambitious targets but believes that they might be difficult to achieve in light of the increased complexity of the international economy and the economic distress in developing countries. USTDA has established and is implementing developmental impact measures.

Evidence: USTDA's long term performance target for the multiplier is 35 to 1, or $35 in U.S. exports for every $1 in agency funding. The target for the hit rate is 37%, or, to put it another way, 37% of the agency's projects produce U.S. exports. The targets for projects that successfully impact host country economic development will be measured after completion of the projects and these measures are being refined by OMB and USTDA. These targets and timeframes will be included in the FY '05 GPRA documents. Measures Tab. (FY '03,'04 GPRA Plans)

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

Explanation: To date, USTDA annual performance measures (multiplier and hit rate) are calculated on a ten year rolling average to reflect the length of time it takes some of the agency's projects to mature. USTDA evaluates these measures each year to determine whether they need adjustment to reflect changing market conditions and other factors. USTDA is currently implementing newly designed development measures.

Evidence: USTDA's Annual Performance Measures are: the multiplier (on a ten year rolling average basis) and the hit rate (on a ten year rolling average basis). (GPRA Documents). The agency's newly determined measures of developmental impact will be integrated into its FY '05 Annual Performance Plan and its revised 5 year Strategic Plan. Measures Tab. (FY '03,'04 GPRA Plans)

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: USTDA has baselines and ambitious targets for two of its annual measures (export multiplier, hit rate). The targets for these measures have increased significantly over the last decade due to the continuation of public sector projects at the same time as the growth of private sector projects in the developing world. Baseline data to be applied to the development measures is being gathered, and will be included in the agency's GPRA documents for FY '05.

Evidence: USTDA baselines and targets for its commercial impact measures are as follows: For the Multiplier: the FY '01 Target was 38:1 and the Actual was 39:1. For FY '02, the Target was 40:1 and the Actual was 39. For FY' 03, the Target is 40:1 and for FY'04, the Target is 35:1. For the Hit Rate: the FY '01 Target was 36% and the Actual was 39%. For FY '02, the Target was 40% and the Actual was 38%. For FY' 03, the Target is 38% and for FY'04, the Target is 37%.

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: As a part of its due dilligence and project documentation, USTDA requires that the grantee comply with certain terms and conditions designed to support the agency's annual and long term goals. In addition, when submitting requests, project managers must provide evidence of how the project will contribute to the agency's long-term goals. For future projects, the project documents will incorporate, where applicable, the development objectives that the project should address. Various sources, including Grantees and contractors, will provide the data necessary to measure the development impact. Through the Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee (TPCC) and direct partnerships in overseas offices in Ankara, Turkey, Johannesburg, South Africa, and Bangkok, Thailand, other federal agencies, like Ex-Im Bank, OPIC, International Trade Administration (ITA) at Commerce, and State, contribute to USTDA's commercial and developmental objectives.

Evidence: Grant Agreements between USTDA and developing country grantees contain Terms of Reference, Mandatory Clauses and other provisions that commit to working toward the annual and long term commercial goals of the agency. The subsequent, or Secondary Ageement, between the developing country Grantee and the U.S. firm must also include these Terms of Reference, Mandatory Clauses and other similar provisions. In the future, project documents will address the new development objectives. (USTDA Handbook, Chapter 6. Model Format for the Grant Agreement and the Secondary Agreement, Sample Grant Agreement, Sample letters from Grantees and Host Countries).

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: Independent evaluations have been conducted on an annual basis to evaluate the commercial impact of USTDA's activities. These evaluations also address the agency's existing broad developmental objectives; more specific developmental impact measures have been developed and are being implemented. Due to its size, USTDA pays for annual outside evaluations and these take the place or supplement third party audits. For the future, USTDA will expand the scope of its outside evaluations to gather the data necessary on an annual basis to measure both its developmental and its commercial impact in developing countries.

Evidence: The QED Group, LLC (2000 to 2002) The QED Group, LLC 2003 (Draft) Section 6, "Assessment of USTDA Development Impact." Assessments of Agency Effectiveness by Sector (e.g. Petrochemical Refining and Fossil Fuel Power).

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: The agency's FY05 and FY06 budget submissions integrated its budget with performance to clearly show all costs (program and administrative) needed to meet its commercial and development objectives.

Evidence: The FY05 and FY06 budget submissions include linkages to annual and long-term performance goals for both commercial and developmental outcomes. The FY06 PART Summary by OMB indicates that USTDA has completed integration of resources with performance.

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

Explanation: USTDA recognizes its past strategic planning deficiencies in the measurement of its program's developmental impact. OMB, working with USTDA, has developed more refined development measures and specific development goals to assess the developmental impact on the host country. USTDA will incorporate these goals and measures in its FY '05 GPRA documents. These evaluation measures will continue to be refined and expanded in future years to focus on newly established goals and targets.

Evidence: OMB is currently working with USTDA to refine the agency's developmental goals and measures. In addition, the agency is expanding the scope for its outside evaluation experts to gather the data necessary to measure its current and future developmental impact. USTDA will also apply its newly designed developmental measures to assess its performance on past activities. (Measures Tab)

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: USTDA collects data on the dollar value of U.S. exports that are associated with each of its activities and uses it to calculate the multiplier and hit rate. USTDA will begin to collect additional information to assess its program's developmental impact. The project documents include an annual reporting requirement, and the agency uses this and other information to guide future decisions on types of project proposals to support. Meetings with industry groups, bilateral business councils, and trade associations provide information on programs, competition, industry trends and development needs. The program and financial audits of select projects enable the agency to test current procedures and policies, and to put into place policies to more effectively manage the program. Reporting requirements allow the agency to manage program activities and to make adjustments, if necessary, to improve performance.

Evidence: Annual Evaluations by The QED Group, LLC 2000-2002. Grant Agreements. Cost Share and Success Fee Letter agreements. USTDA's Grants Administrator. Agency Forms and Procedures.

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: Through the annual performance appraisals and reviews, USTDA managers are held accountable for selecting projects that meet USTDA criteria and mission, supervising Contractors and Grantees, meeting payment schedules, and reviewing invoices for work performed under contracts and grants. USTDA managers ensure that Contractor and Grantee milestones have been met prior to payment, and that the Grantee has approved Contractor invoices, which are tied to established project deliverables. USTDA's Grants Administrator reviews the final product for compliance before the payment of the final 15 percent of the grant amount, ensuring that contractors are accountable for accomplishing agreed upon deliverables set forth in the Grant Agreement.

Evidence: Weekly/monthly Activity Reports and Annual Performance Appraisal Reviews. The weekly/monthly reports are up-dated in weekly or biweekly project reviews with senior management and the regional managers. Executive Information Reports (EIS) Reports, Performance Appraisal Reports (PARs), Grantee Performance Evaluation of USTDA projects, Agency Forms and Procedures Binder).

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

Explanation: USTDA obligates its appropriations in a timely manner. USTDA has two primary accounts: Operating Expenses and Program Budget. Similar to other International Assistance programs, USTDA receives a two year appropriation for the majority of its funds, reflecting Congressional and OMB intent for flexibility in obligating these funds. All USTDA funds are spent for the intended purpose.

Evidence: USTDA follows current Federal Law and apportions funds with OMB in accordance with sections 1211 and 1512 of the General Appropriations Act, as amended. For each project, the Grantee must submit disbursement documents for USTDA endorsement and payment. The Grant Agreement governs disbursement procedures and matters related to the proper use of USG funds. The agency has obligated its full allotment of appropriated funds and has never had to return unobligated funds to the Treasury.

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

Explanation: USTDA procedures measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution. By contracting with the private sector to perform its project Definitional Mission (DM), Desk Study (DS), Orientation Visit, and Conference work, USTDA enhances its staff expertise. The DM and DS Contractors are competitively selected and help USTDA staff assess appropriate funding levels and Terms of Reference for feasibility studies and technical assistance projects. To accomplish the same amount of work without outside assistance would require a substantial increase in staff. This outsourcing is consistent with USG policy and keeps the agency up-to-date on industry trends and development successes. USTDA also is investing in updating its management information system (TDAMIS) that helps track, measure and improve the efficiency of the contracting and grant process. USTDA also uses outside contractors to evaluate managerial and program performance.

Evidence: USTDA funds about 250 contracting opportunities per year (average from 2000-2002 period) for Desk Studies, Definitional Missions, Orientation Visits and Conferences. USTDA also funds annually about 200 Feasibility Study and Technical Assistance activities. On average, USTDA contracts with independent auditors to conduct 3 to 5 program and/or financial audits per year. These audits have helped the agency improve contract and grant management procedures. (USTDA Annual Reports from 2000 to 2002, USTDA Audits from 1998 to 2000)

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: USTDA coordinates directly with related programs and works through the Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee (TPCC) to collaborate effectively with other USG programs. Together, USTDA and the other TPCC agencies develop a government-wide strategic plan for carrying out U.S. trade promotion programs. USTDA also closely coordinates with USG agencies, including USTR, DHS, DOT, (in particular the FAA), DOC, State, Ex-Im Bank, OPIC, USAID and NSA, on developing public-private approaches to address the Administration's priorities in specific areas (e.g., transportation security).

Evidence: TPCC National Export Strategy Report, 2002 & 2003. On a daily basis, USTDA program staff coordinates overseas project development extensively with DOC's U.S. & Foreign Commercial Service, as well as with the State Department, FAA and DHS's Transportation Security Agency, and Commerce's Advocacy Center. Examples of USTDA leading a USG initiative in support of another agency are: Enterprise for ASEAN Initiative (USTR); SEED, FSA (State Department); and STAR Initiative (TSA). USTDA/OPIC office in Ankara, Turkey, and OPIC/Ex-Im/USTDA Office in Zagreb, Croatia.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: Independent financial audits of USTDA financial statements are conducted yearly. Each audit has provided a clean opinion with no findings of material weaknesses. In addition, USTDA's accounting and payroll services are provided through the Department of Interior's Federal Financial System (FFS), a system also subject to periodic, independent audit. Based upon standards outlined in the "Statement on Auditing Standards" (SAS), these audits have also rendered clean opinions. USTDA maintains written accounting policies and procedures to regulate internal accounting practices. USTDA also organizes regular meetings with trade associations, the business community, and its Grantees for feedback on agency operations.

Evidence: USTDA Financial Audit Reports for 2000 to 2002; KPMG Audit of Department of Interior's FFS.

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

Explanation: USTDA actively responds to management issues reported in its financial and program audits. Issues identified by independent auditors are specifically addressed and inserted into a corrective action tracking system for follow-up. Depending on the issue, policies and or procedures are modified and implemented agency-wide. While this is done in a responsive way, the agency continues to identify ways to tighten or improve its controls. An example is the establishment of an agency Grant Administrator. Also, in accordance with OMB Circular A-123, USTDA annually conducts an internal control management review and survey of all staff in all departments, actively seeking their identification of processes, procedures, incidents or actions that may require review, risk assessment, and possibly corrective action. USTDA recently completed a review of agency business rules in conjunction with the implementation for a web-based enterprise architecture.

Evidence: Management Letters from Audits; USTDA's Handbook; Functional Specifications for TDAMIS.

Are grants awarded based on a clear competitive process that includes a qualified assessment of merit?

Explanation: USTDA's program is neither a competitive grant program nor a block grant//formula grant program. USTDA's program is a foreign grant program that provides grant assistance to host country sponsors upon the request of the host country.

Evidence:  

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

Explanation: USTDA Grant Agreements, cost share/success fee agreements and contract mandatory clauses include provisions that provide for USTDA oversight and specifically require USTDA review and approval of contractors; contracts, including amendments and modifications; invoices; and deliverables, including final reports. USTDA milestone-payment procedures require the approval of USTDA Regional Staff, as evidenced by their signature on the Disbursement Voucher. Final invoice payment procedures require the review of the final work product by USTDA's Grants Administrator and the approval of the Regional Staff prior to payment of the final invoice. USTDA also conducts periodic program and financial audits of its grants. In the case of a program audit, an independent auditor will visit the Grantee in country as well as review the books and records with respect to the project.

Evidence: Grant Agreement; cost share/success fee agreements; USTDA Forms and Procedures; Agency Program Audits Binder, 1998-2000; Agency Financial Audits, 2000 - 2002.

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

Explanation: USTDA collects grantee performance on an annual basis through a project-by-project evaluation by an outside contractor to measure the commercial impact of its program. The agency makes this information available to the public through the multiplier and the hit rate, which are both transparent and meaningful. The agency will expand this methodology to include developmental performance using the newly-developed developmental impact measures. The status of projects is broadly disseminated through all of the agency's communication channels. Also, copies of public reports on agency projects are available through the agency library or the web site.

Evidence: www.tda.gov. Information also may be sought via Info@USTDA.gov. USTDA quarterly newsletters, USTDA's Briefs, FY2002 USTDA Annual Report.

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: USTDA has demonstrated consistent success in setting and meeting its long-term commercial goals (multiplier and hit rate). Since the agency has been evaluating the development impact of its projects, initial assessments show positive progress towards meeting the long-term development impact goals (Infrastructure, Human Capacity Building, Technology Transfer and Productivity Improvement, and Market-Oriented Reform).

Evidence: FY2003 and FY 2004 Initial Impact Assessments; USTDA Annual Report; 2004 QED Group, LLC Report; Internal Evaluations Office Project Assessments (Destructive Waters (DESWAT) Success Story); Economic Sectoral Evualuations by outside technical experts; Evaluations Office series on cost share/success fee, small company participation, financing of exports and US suppliers.

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

Explanation: "USTDA has exceeded its newly established annual goals for export and development measures each of the last two years (the Initial Impact Assessment, or IIA). This follows USTDA's history of meeting and exceeding targets for its commercial goals prior to the establishment of the new measures in FY03."

Evidence: For FY03, the IIA goal for exports was 60%; actual was 66%. For FY03 the IIA goal for development was 60%; actual was 69%. For FY04, the IIA goal for exports was 60%; actual was over 70%; For FY04, the IIA goal for development was 60%; actual was over 70%.

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

Explanation: Prior to project approval, USTDA conducts its own research as well as contracts with experts to conduct due diligence on potential projects. This combined review analyzes project information, scrubs budgets, and, by so doing, results in improved cost effctiveness, reduction in FTE utilization and staff time, and rejection of poorly planned or ill-conceived projects. In addition, to reduce paper processing time and improve data collection, the agency is updating its IT systems to include a new enterprise architecture. Together, USTDA and OMB will work on this initiative through the A-11, Exhibit 300 type process. USTDA improves efficiencies in the procurement of consultant services by revising contracting methods on an ongoing basis.

Evidence: Functional specifications for the IT enterprise architecture for the agency's redesign of its management information system and the agency's willingness to participate in an OMB Exhibit 300 (business case). Contracting efficiencies include: revisions to Definitional Mission contract provisions, contract reviews and participation in the Small Business Administration ProNet waiver program, which allows streamlined access by the agency to U.S. small businesses.

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: While there are no other directly comparable U.S. entities in either the public or private sector, there are foreign entities that conduct feasibility studies and other activities similar to USTDA. Since USTDA only has anecdotal evidence of the performance of these programs, the agency cannot make a meaningful decision.

Evidence: Insufficient information for comparison.

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

Explanation: USTDA has in place development impact measures that assess the effectiveness of infrastructure development, human capacity building, market-oriented reform, and technology transfer and productivity improvements. Since their inception, internal and independent evaluations of projects based on these measures indicate that USTDA programs are effective and achieve both commercial and developmental results. Therefore, the USTDA program must be deemed effective and achieving results.

Evidence: QED Group, LLC 2000-2004 reports; Enviromation Waste-to-Energy Definitional Mission (2004-70008A); Econergy review of IDB Evergreen Trust Fund Projects (2004-50019A); Economic Sectoral Evaluations by Outside Technical Experts; GAO-05-150 (US Trade Capacity Building Extensive, but its Effectiveness Has Yet to be Evaluated).