Detailed Information on the
Economic Support Fund for Africa Assessment

Organize and conduct biannual training sessions for new and seasoned State desk officers to review the multi-stage process for moving ESF documentation through the system expeditiously. The training will include tips for preparing well-written ESF allocation memos and Congressional Notification documentation, and introduce participants to key steps in the ESF approval processes at both State and USAID.

Complete the development of baselines and targets for new annual performance measures.

Develop more transparent processes for analyzing performance data at both the field mission and Africa Bureau levels, and applying this analysis to budgeting and resource management.

Advocate and lobby for the reinstatement of an ESF-supported Regional Democracy Fund that would be tapped to respond quickly to pressing issues as they arise. Programs would focus on crisis response and democracy-building activities (e.g. successful elections and peace accords), primarily at posts that do not receive bilateral Development Assistance (DA) or ESf to support activities that fall under the Governing Justly and Democratically foreign assistance objective, as well as those that do not have resident USAID missions. Supporting and sustaining democratic transitions are priorities for U.S. foreign assistance in sub-Saharan Africa, and democracy is viewed as a stabilizing force that can help to avoid or mitigate humanitarian crises resulting from armed political power struggles that cost the United States billions of dollars each year.

Measure: Ratio of administrative costs to program funding.

Explanation:As program funding increases incrementally on an annual basis, administrative costs associated with management of activities supported with ESF resources should show a gradual decline. The overarching goal is to hold administrative costs to 0.01 percent or less.

Measure: Annual Freedom House "Freedom in the World" country ratings for AF countries. NF = "not free"; PF = "partly free"; F = "free".

Explanation:

Measure: Number of AF countries that score 5 or higher on Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI). (10 equals "highly clean" and 1 equals "highly corrupt.") Total number of countries ranked = 31.

Explanation:

Measure: Number of AF countries with improved annual rankings on the World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Index (GCI). (1 equals most competitive; 131 equals least competitive)

Explanation:The Global Competitiveness Index ranks a total of 131 countries worldwide, including 23 in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). A total of 21 SSA countries scored in the bottom half on the Index, including the lowest, Chad, at 131. South Africa scored highest at 44 and Mauritius scored second highest at 60.

Measure: Combined ranking for Sub-Saharan Africa on World Bank Institute's Voice and Accountability Index. (Percentile rank = 0 to 100; world average = 50 percent)

Explanation:

Measure: Number of Sub-Saharan African governments with sovereign credit ratings.

Explanation:

Measure: Levels of two-way trade between the United States and Sub-Saharan Africa (excluding U.S. energy-related imports).

Explanation:

Measure: Rule of law, democracy and good governance improves in Democratic Republic of Congo and Liberia.

Explanation:

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: ESF is authorized through the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (FAA) "in order to promote economic or political stability", under special conditions which may not justify these amounts of aid under chapter 1 or Part I of the FAA. State uses its ESF in Africa to provide additional resources to advance U.S. foreign policy and security interests on several important issues: democracy and governance; human rights; economic growth, sustainable development and the environment; health; education; and conflict resolution and management.

Evidence: a) Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, Section 531; b) FY 2006 State Dept Congressional Budget Justification (CBJ); c) AF cable to posts on FY 2007 Mission Performance Plan (MPP) priorities; d) AF cable to posts requesting summary proposals for FY 2005 projects; e) Congressional testimony relating to ESF delivered by Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary (PDAS) Michael Ranneberger to SFRC on March 2, 2005. BPP Evidence: A/S Statement: Goal Papers: FY 2005 and FY 2006 Bureau Performance Plans (BPPs), Assistant Secretary Statements, and Goal Papers (EP.01, EP.02, DE.01, CT.03, RS.02, SE.02, PD.02)

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

Explanation: Twelve focus countries receive bilateral ESF. Five of them identified by interagency community as key partners (South Africa, Nigeria, Ethiopia, Kenya, Djibouti). Their size, the size of their economies, strength of their militaries, cooperation on CT and/or their key roles in regional stability warrant our investment in their development as prosperous democracies. The other 7 are emerging from, or still enduring long periods of conflict and instability (Angola, Burundi, DRC, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Zimbabwe). U.S. support of efforts to resolve the conflicts and help people reintegrate into society will help stabilize these areas, saving lives and resources in the long run. Separate ESF resources from three regional programs (Africa Regional Fund, Safe Skies for Africa, Regional Organizations) support good governance, trade/investment, and civil society, strengthen borders, fight money laundering, and strengthen the capabilities of key regional orgs (e.g. AU).

Evidence: a) FY 2007 MPPs; b) USAID FY 2005 and FY 2006 CBJs; c) Freedom House Annual Survey of Freedom and Democracy; d) Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index; e) PDAS Ranneberger testimony to SFRC on March 2, 2005. BPP Evidence: A/S Statement: Goal Papers: FY 2005 and FY 2006 BPPs, Assistant Secretary Statements, and Goal Papers (EP.01, EP.02, DE.01, CT.03, RS.02, SE.02, PD.01)

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

Explanation: ESF is a unique and complementary lever that the USG utilizes to further its political and economic goals in Sub-Saharan Africa. It reinforces and supplements other types of U.S., third-country, and multilateral foreign assistance, but remains the most flexible funding source to promote urgent and short- to medium-term U.S. foreign policy interests.State collaborates closely with USAID on ESF programming plans from inception through implementation to ensure that ESF-supported activities complement, rather than duplicate. State also coordinates ESF programming with other relevant State bureaus (e.g. IO for activities implemented under the auspices of UNDP; INL and S/CT for CT programs; and Dept of Transportation/FAA for the Safe Skies for Africa program) to ward against duplication of efforts.

Evidence: a)NSDD 38; b) Clearance process for ESF allocation and requests to proceed with obligation memos; c) ESF Handbook (bkg info section); d) AF cable to posts requesting summary proposals for FY 2005 ESF projects; e) notes from State/USAID Joint Policy Council (JPC) subgroup on sources of foreign assistance; f) PDAS Ranneberger testimony to SFRC on March 2, 2005.

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

Explanation: USAID/AFR and State/AF created a Joint Policy Council subgroup that focuses exclusively on distinguishing between the different funding sources that support economic and political develoment. National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 38, "Staffing at Diplomatic Missions and Their Constituent Posts," assigns to Chiefs of Mission (COMs) the authority and responsibility to determine the appropriate size, composition, and mandate of all staffing operating under their authority. COM-chaired weekly team meetings attended by key staff of all agencies represented at overseas missions assures collaboration and the absence of program duplication.

Evidence: a) Notes from JPC Working Group on ESF/DA delineation; b) clearance process for ESF allocation and requests to proceed with obligation memos.

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

Explanation: Foreign policy priorities and specific country or regional needs determine how and where AF and USAID program ESF resources in the region. Performance indicators are then developed at the post or mission level to match performance to goals, and confirm whether or not resources are being applied effectively. AF has begun the process of developing annual regional performance measures through ongoing coordination with USAID which is the primary implementer (note: some 70 percent of ESF-supported programs are managed by USAID through grants to non-governmental organizations; roughly 30 percent of programs are implemented by State (AF, IO, INL) or other USG agencies (DOT, Commerce, Treasury). Long-term regional performance measures have already been established and are monitored to track progress. Examples: positive outcomes of election support and civil society strengthening initiatives in Angola, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, CAR, Chad, Mozambique, Niger, Tanzania.

Evidence: a) USAID Annual Reports (2004); b) anecdotal assessment of the value of ESF-supported Constitutional Court Virtual Library project in South Africa funded with FY 2004 resources (see approved allocation memo and 4/14/05 email from SA desk officer for details); c) USAID Eval web site (www.dec.org/partners/evalweb/evaluations/2003evals.cfm); d) FY 2005 and FY 2006 State CBJs; e) project examples: Central Africa Regional Program for the Environment (CARPE) and the Congo Basin Forest Partnership..

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: Although the variety of activities supported with ESF resources means that mission performance measures vary from country to country, the AF Bureau maintains and tracks regional performance goals and measures relating to its long-term objectives of fostering stability through the promotion of democracy, human rights and good governance; promoting private-sector driven growth and development; and increasing bilateral trade with Sub-Saharan Africa. OMB recommends that additional long-term measures be added that tie more directly to program outputs. Currently the 4 performance measures are third-party indices of democratic and economic development.

Evidence: a) AF's FY 2006 MPP guidance cable to the field; b) AF's FY 2006 MPPs. BPP Evidence: Goal Papers: FY 2006 BPP (DE.01, EP.01, EP.02, CT.03, RS.02, SE.02, PD.02 goal papers)

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

Explanation: AF has established ambitious targets and timeframes in the FY 2006 BPP for each of the long-term performance goals that are projected out for two years beyond the current fiscal year. All of these have quantifiable performance measures and targets. Examples include: A steady increase in the number of democratic states in Africa as measured by Freedom House rankings and other sources (this includes establishment of functioning parliaments, independent judiciaries, free media, and active civil societies); expansion of two-way trade between the United States and Sub-Saharan Africa; and increases in foreign direct investment and portfolio investment in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Evidence: BPP Evidence: A/S Statement: Goal Papers: FY 2006 BPP (DE .01, EP.01, and EP.02 goal papers)

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: New annual performance measures for ESF Africa have been developed. The agency has added several new measures this year for democracy and governance, since this sector iis such a significant focus for ESF in Africa (over 50% of resources). Some of these new measures reflect high priority activities in specific countries, and others measure results for the regiona overall.

Evidence: a) USAID Annual Report (2004) BPP Evidence: Goal Papers: FY 2006 and FY 2007 BPPs (DE.01, EP.01, and EP.02 goal papers)

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

Explanation: State has set accurate baselines and appropriately ambitious targets to measure performance through FY 2007, and is currently developing targets for FY 2008. One of these goals is to increase the number of Sub-Saharan African governments with sovereign credit ratings (SCRs): the FY 2004 target of 10 was achieved and the target for FY 2005 is 13. SCRs are strongly correlated with faster economic growth. The credit rating is an important indicator of the views of the private sector; improved ratings usually lead to lower cost of capital and greater domestic and foreign direct investment.

Evidence: a) Freedom House index; b) USAID Annual Report (2004); c) reports from Fitch Ratings Services BPP Evidence: Goal Papers: FY 2006 and FY 2007 BPPs (DE.01, EP.01, and EP.02 goal papers)

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: AF and USAID/AFR work collaboratively to ensure that efforts to achieve long-term goals of promoting democracy, good governance and human rights, and encouraging private-sector driven growth and development, are advanced in Sub-Saharan Africa. Each agency reviews the other's regional planning and budgeting documents on an annual basis to ensure the coordination of goals at the regional level, and an officer from USAID joins AF for a weekly discussion of AF issues. The close coordination between State/AF and USAID/AFR also affects USAID's country-level strategic objectives, which are developed to support the overarching long-term objectives for the region. Grantees and contractors that implement projects supported with ESF resources commit to support for the annual and overall strategic objectives that are set at the country level. State and USAID will continue to work closely to coordinate the improvement of annual and long-term performance measures.

Evidence: a) FY 2004-2009 Department of State and USAID Strategic Plan; b) Automated Directives System (ADS) Section 300 (guidance on assistance and acquisitions); c) NSDD 38 BPP Evidence: A/S Statement: Goal Papers: FY 2005 and FY 2006 BPPs (Assistant Secretary Statements and DE.01, EP.01, and EP.02 goal papers)

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: Routine independent evaluations are conducted, primarily through USAID's mechanisms. State's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) conducts periodic reviews of Bureau and post operations; AF's most recent OIG review was completed in FY 2002. ESF findings included an observation that the distribution of ESF funds corresponded closely to AF's BPP policy priorities. The OIG report also noted that ESF projects selected at random for review were well designed and modest in scope. The ESF-funded sovereign credit ratings program was described as an innovative and aggressive role taken by AF in promoting trade and investment in Africa. The USAID EvalWeb publishes periodic assessments and evaluations by sector or theme. Recent examples include evaluations on democracy and governance, economic growth, environment, global health, and human capacity development programs (www.dec.org/partners/evalweb/evaluations/2003evals.cfm#pov)

Evidence: a) USAID EvalWeb assessments (www.dec.org/partners/evalweb/evaluations/2003evals.cfm#pov); b) FY 2002 OIG Report on AF. BPP Evidence: A/S Statement: Goal Papers: FY 2006 BPP (Assistant Secretary Statement and DE.01, EP.01,and EP.02 goal papers)

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: At the regional level budget requests are not explicitly tied to accomplishment of annual and long-term performance goals. OMB commends State for its efforts to include reporting on performance targets in their Mission and Bureau Performance Plans; however, budget requests are not thereafter linked to this performance data. Budget requests for ESF Africa that are submitted to OMB, and the State Congressional Budget Justification that supports the Administration's budget request for ESF Africa, to not link budget requests and justification to specific annual and long term performance measures.

Evidence: a) FY 2005 and FY 2006 MPPs (reports on Foreign Operations funding requests by country); b) FY 2005 cable requesting ESF proposals. BPP Evidence: FY 2005 and FY 2006 BPPs (resource request tables for ESF)

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

Explanation: Efforts to improve AF's BPP and performance reporting have been initiated. A comparison of AF's FY 2005 and FY 2006 BPPs shows an enhanced focus on the Bureau's most important initiatives; a greater focus on clarity, improved performance indicators and targets for out-years, as well as enhanced linkages between the priorities identified in the Assistant Secretary's statement and strategic and performance goals. AF is working with USAID to develop annual performance measures for each post's ESF programs to better evaluate performance as one component of ESF budget requests. AF uses ESF to respond to changing and urgent conditions in the region. ESF's greatest asset - its flexibility - makes long-term strategic planning somewhat more challenging, but AF works to ensure that each use of ESF advances USG policy priorities.

Evidence: AF's FY 2002 Inspector General's Report BPP Evidence: FY 2005 and FY 2006 BPPs

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: AF and USAID require funding recipients to manage, monitor, and report project performance information on a regular basis. These requirements are incorporated as standard clauses in contracts and grant agreements. USAID's overseas posts collect performance reports from recipients on a quarterly, semi-annual, and/or annual basis through the Annual Report and Performance Management Plan. Similarly, State-implemented contract and grant recipients are required to submit performance reports on a quarterly, semi-annual and/or annual basis. Embassies and USAID missions use this information to manage program implementation, make changes to strategies and plan appropriate follow-on activities.

Evidence: a) USAID evaluation reports [www.dec.org/partners/evalweb/evaluations/2003evals.cfm#pov]; b) ADS 300 series on USAID Acquisitions and Assistance; c) State-implemented grant to the Int'l Union for Conservation (Collaborative Management and Sustainable use of Biological Diversity in Eastern Burkina Faso project); d)Zambia, Nigeria and South Africa mission communications

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: Contracts, grants and cooperative agreements contain clauses related to periodic progress/performance and financial reporting that are used to monitor activities. Past performance of contractors is considered in accordance with Federal Acquisition Requirements. Most ESF is implemented in the field by USAID working through contractors or grantees. A cognizant technical officer (CTO) is designated for each USAID program to manage contractors and grantees. CTO's review and approve vouchers, monitor contractor/grantee performance and financial pipelines, and oversee subgrants. In addition, through USAID's personnel evaluation process, activity managers are evaluated for effective management of agreements, and staff who serve as local managers for country programs are assessed according to their contributions toward achievement of the Mission's Strategic Plan. Input is sought from supervisors, peers, and clients on performance as part of the annual evaluation process.

Evidence: ADS 300 Series - Responsibilities of a Cognizant Technical Officer (CTO).

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

Explanation: Obligations and other information are tracked through the USAID Phoenix tracking system. The AFR Bureau in USAID has very small amounts of carry-over funds vs. funds made available. The USAID CBJ provides information by Strategic Objective (SO) for all posts' budget requests, expenditures, and program performance and results. USAID's Automated Directives System (ADS) Section 602 also provides specific guidance regarding forward funding of program funds. Finally, all posts are required to prepare procurement plans that outline planned procurements and obligations and help ensure that funds are spent in a timely manner and for the intended purpose.

Evidence: a) Phoenix Flash Report; b) FY 2005 USAID CBJ; c) ADS 602.

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: AF has defined the ESF efficiency measure as the ratio of administrative costs to program funding. RM/SPP worked closely with State's regional bureaus on the development of the ESF efficiency measures in FY 2004 and those measures were subsequently approved by OMB. Need to describe specific activities/actions for improving cost effectiveness

Evidence: BPP Evidence: FY 2007 BPP (in progress)/having a measure of status quo is alone insufficient evidence that you have procedures to achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness, i.e. improvement.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 38, "Staffing at Diplomatic Missions and Their Constituent Posts," assigns to COMs the authority and responsibility to determine the appropriate size, composition, and mandate of all staffing operating under their authority. COM-chaired weekly team meetings attended by key staff of all agencies represented at overseas missions assures collaboration and the absence of program duplication. State and USAID share a joint Strategic Planning Framework, and work closely at the bureau and country levels through the MPP/BPP development processes. As implementing agency for the ESF program, USAID coordinates through a variety of mechanisms: memos of understanding and 632(a) arrangements with other Fed Agencies; inter-agency working groups, e.g. with the U.S. Trade Representative on trade issues; and the Consultative Group with other donor agencies. AF and USAID actively seek public-partner alliances in common development areas.

Evidence: a) State-USAID Strategic Plan; b) USAID Annual Report examples (donor coordination sections); c) NSDD 38. BPP Evidence: A/S Statement: Goal Papers: FY 2005 and FY 2006 MPPs and BPPs (DE.01, EP.01, EP.02, CT.03, RS.02, SE.02, PD.02 goal papers and Assistant Secretary Statements)

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: USAID implements most of AF ESF funding. As a result, USAID's material weaknesses prevent a "yes", but USAID is on track to resolve remaining issues by FY 2006. USAID has an aggressive program to review management controls, identify risks and deficiencies, and establish corrective action plans in accordance with the Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA). USAID's audit management program monitors and responds to audit recommendations. USAID received a clean audit opinion on its financial statements in FY 2003. Two of the three FMFIA material internal control weaknesses are targeted for resolution in FY 2004. Worldwide rollout of the core accounting system in FY 2005 will close the third and result in compliance with the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act (FFMIA).

Evidence: AID financial management weaknesses were identified and acknowledged in: Independent Auditor's Report of USAID's Consolidated Financial Statements, Internal Controls, and Compliance for Fiscal Years 2003 and 2002; the fiscal year 2003 Performance and Accountability Report (PAR); and in the PMA Scorecards. Methods for identifying weaknesses are explained in the following documents: ADS Chapter 595 - Audit Management Plan, ADS Chapter 596 - Management Accountability and Control, MCRC Charter, ADS Chapter 620 - Financial Management Principles and Standards.

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

Explanation: USAID is actively addressing its weaknesses in financial management as described in 3.6. Missions address deficiencies or weaknesses that can appropriately be resolved at the post level. Any significant deficiency or material weakness is reported to USAID's AFR Bureau and included in the Bureau FMFIA memo to the Administrator. State/AF and USAID/AFR work closely together to ensure that programming funds are not used for duplicative efforts in instances where ESF, DA, and/or CSH are used to support democracy, economic growth and prosperity, and/or social and environmental activities.

Evidence: a) ADS 620; b) FMFIA checklist; c) USAID/AFR FMFIA memo to USAID Administrator dated Sept 3, 2004; d) State/USAID Joint Policy Council

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

Explanation: To the maximum extent permitted by legislation and statute, USAID and State AFR Bureau's contracts and grants are awarded competitively, except where supported by documentation approved by officials with authority to approve non-competitive awards. Decisions on grant and contract awards are properly documented (via selection memos, memos of negotiation, etc.). USAID Washington (via the Office of Procurement) reviews and provides oversight to ensure adherence to Federal regulations and Agency guidance on competition.

Evidence: ADS 300;ADS 202.3.9

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

Explanation: A Cognizant Technical Officer (CTO) is designated for each program to manage contractors and grantees. CTO responsibilities include technical review and approval of vouchers, monitoring contractor/grantee performance and financial pipelines, and overseeing subgrants.

Evidence: Cognizant Technical Officer (CTO) responsibilities as detailed in ADS 303.3 for Grants and ADS 302.3 for Contracts.

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: Grantee performance is not made available to the public.

Evidence: NA

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

Explanation: There is some objective evidence to support the assertion that progress is being achieved over the long term in Democracy. In 2005 Freedom House reported 32 African countries were "Free" or "Partly Free" vs. 24 countries in 1990. Despite periodic setbacks, regularly scheduled free and fair elections are increasingly becoming the standard by which African governments measure their legitimacy and seek to align their countries with democracies elsewhere. Recent examples: Cameroon, Guinea-Bissau, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, and South Africa held free and fair elections; ESF-supported work by NDI and IRI has contributed to multi-party cooperation on the development of new electoral laws in Angola, and the government is making preparations to hold parliamentary elections in 2006 that will be followed by constitutional reform and presidential elections; Burundi ratified its constitution and held free, fair, and violence-free elections. There is no evidence to support achievement of long-term goals in Economic Growth.

Evidence: a) Synopsis of the 2005 African Governance Report of the African Development Forum IV; b) MPP Database report "Funds by account/country w/ related performance indicators; c) NGO and USG monitoring and reporting;d) 2006 and 2007 BPPs; e)2005 Freedom House "Freedom in the World" annual report

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

Explanation: Leveraging reform efforts by African governments through AF support for programs such as the Sovereign Credit Rating Initiative and public/private partnerships that help to develop capital markets and create new credit institutions or build the capacity of existing institutions that support development of small and medium size enterprises in Africa are showing favorable results. The FY 2004 target of 10 was achieved; the performance for FY05 is currently under review. Levels of two-way trade between the US and Sub-Saharan Africa (excluding US energy-related imports) are increasing (2002 baseline - $12.4 billion; FY03 target - $13.5 billion/FY03 actual - $14.5 billion). Regularly scheduled free and fair elections are increasingly becoming the standard by which African governments measure their legitimacy and seek to align their countries with democracies elsewhere.

Evidence: BPP Evidence: Goal Papers: FY 2006 BPP (EP.01, EP.02, and DE.01 goal papers).

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

Explanation: As program funding has increased incrementally over the last three years administrative costs associated with management of activities supported with ESF resources have declined. Continued improvements in coordination with USAID have the potential to increase efficiencies in the near future and result in a slightly faster rate of obligation of program funds.

Evidence: a) formula and data used to compute ratio; b) ESF pipeline statistics for FY 2003 and FY 2004.

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

Explanation: USG foreign assistance programs are generally regarded as the model by which other donors determine success. While AF considers ESF-supported activities in Sub-Saharan Africa to be effective and comparable to programs supported with similar funding sources, targeted evaluations that compare ESF and USG work with the work of other donors have not been conducted. ESF assistance has been important in motivating other donors, however. Examples: Disarmament, Demobilization, and Reintegration (DDR) programs for ex-combatants in DROC; public/private sector cotton development network; support for tripartite peace talks involving DRC, Rwanda, and Uganda.

Evidence: a) USAID evaluation web; b) USAID Annual Reports; c) approved FY 04 ESF allocation memos for DDR programs in DROC; Regional Organizations; and the African Great Lakes Region

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

Explanation: Periodic program assessments and evaluations are published on USAID's EvalWeb. Recent examples include evaluations on democracy and governance, economic growth, environment, global health, and human capacity development programs (www.dec.org/partners/evalweb/evaluations/2003evals.cfm#pov). The FY 2002 OIG report found the distribution of AF's ESF corresponded closely to the Bureau's BPP policy priorities and noted that the correspondence has been tightened by procedures that were put in place to prepare the performance plan and ESF requests together. The OIG report also confirmed the Bureau's strategy of focusing the distribution of ESF in support of foreign policy priorities. Projects selected at random for review by OIG were described as well designed.

Evidence: a) USAID evaluation web; b) USAID Annual Reports; c) FY 2002 OIG Report