Detailed Information on the
Department of Labor - Bureau of International Labor Affairs Assessment

Reconsidering the agency's role in government-wide international assistance efforts.

Conducting a comprehensive evaluation of ILAB??s technical assistance programs to assess the programs' overall impact and effectiveness, including program sustainability.

Implementing a cost-efficiency performance measure to reflect ILAB's policy functions.

Implement a cost-efficiency measure to demonstrate cost efficiencies per child removed or prevented from exploitive child labor and ensure that the annual and long-term goals for improving living standards are sufficiently challenging. Targets are under development

Measure: Number of children prevented or withdrawn from exploitative child labor and provided education/training opportunities as a result of DOL-funded education projects.

Explanation:The percentage of children enrolled in an Education Initiative supported program or programs that continue to subsequent years and/or levels of the program.

Measure: Number of children enrolled in education programs as a result of DOL-funded education projects.

Explanation:Children ages (5-17) who have been removed from or at risk of entering the worst forms of child labor and are matriculated in an educational program support by an Education Initiative program in a given year.

Measure: Cost per child removed or prevented from exploitative child labor.

Explanation:

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: ILAB's mission is very broad and not well-defined. Traditionally charged with supporting the Secretary of Labor and the President's international labor agenda by undertaking a policy, research, analysis and advocacy role, ILAB's mission has evolved over the years to accomodate additional functions delegated from Congress and the Executive Branch which are not always complementary of one another. For example, ILAB's Child Labor Program was created in 1993 in response to a direct request from Congress to investigate and report on child labor around the world. The focus turned to grantmaking in 1995 when ILAB received a $3 million grant to implement an international child labor technical assistance program with the International Labor Organization. Since then, ILAB's grantmaking funding has risen by 1,500 percent between 1996 and 2003. To date, ILAB has awarded $275 million to combat the worst forms of child labor. The 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005 Budget have proposed to return ILAB to its original mission and reduce its expanded grantmaking functions.

Evidence: Congressional appropriations record; EO 13126---Prohibition of Acquisition of Products Produced by Forced or Indentured Child Labor, June 12, 1999; EO 13277---Delegation of Certain Authorities and Assignment of Certain Functions Under the Trade Act of 2002, November 21, 2000; DOL Congressional Justifications, FY 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005.

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

Explanation: The program addresses specific areas of need through international technical assistance grants focused on reducing exploitive child labor and improving living standards and conditions internationally. In 1999, the member states of the ILO unanimously adopted Convention 182 on Worst Forms of Child Labor and called for the urgent elimination of worst forms as well as enhanced international cooperation and direct assistance to countries with need. As a member state to the ILO, the U.S. Government through USDOL-funded projects is working through the ILO and other organizations to reduce child labor, with a priority focus on its worst forms. ILAB projects also include global efforts to raise awareness and improve the knowledge base on child labor, which help to inform future policies and program to combat child labor. In addition to reducing child labor, ILAB addresses the need to improve labor standards and conditions internationally. Many governments in developing countries lack the capacity to enforce national labor laws consistent with internationally recognized labor standards. In order to address this need, ILAB also works directly with employers, workers, and government representatives to develop national strategies to promote employment and training, improve workplace safety and health, prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS infection among workers and increase compliance of national labor laws.

Evidence: Advancing the Campaign Against Child Labor (Volume II); DOL-ILAB Report, FY 2002. ILO Global Estimates on Child Labor. ILAB Research Symposium Papers on Social Safety Nets, Labor Law Compliance, and HIV/AIDS in the Workplace.

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

Explanation: Since 2001, ILAB has implemented a $10 million Global HIV/AIDS initiative to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS infection among workers. There is no data available to assess how ILAB's efforts in this area complement the billions of dollars the State Department has invested for global HIV/AIDS-related prevention, treatment, research and care activities. Combating Global AIDS is the primary focus of the State Department's Global AIDS Coordinator, including identifying the appropriate roles of other Federal agencies, such as USAID and HHS. ILAB's HIV/AIDS initiative is not linked to the Administration's 5-year funding strategy for AIDS relief. Alternative efforts to provide targeted, accountable international assistance have resulted in the creation of the Millenium Challenge Account (MCA) which is operated by the State Department. The MCA is part of the Administration's overall international development strategy. In FY 2004, $1 billion will be devoted to countries that qualify for participation based on objective indicators.

Evidence: The Millenium Challenge Account---the Economic Rational Behind It (John B. Taylor, U.S. Under Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs; before the House Committee on International Relations, March 6, 2003). The President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief: U.S. Five Year Global HIV/AIDS Strategy, February 23, 2004.

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

Explanation: One example of an alternative mechanism to international assistance is the MCA which was created to provide targeted, accountable international development assistance to developing countries with a focus on sustainable growth. While ILAB programs are designed primarily as grants to organizations with expertise in international labor and development issues, MCA provides an incentive for countries to demonstrate performance and achieve results. Under MCA, countries will qualify for funding based on their policy performance in the categories of ruling justly, investing in people and encouraging economic freedom. Since 1995, ILAB has invested more than $275 million in efforts to combat child labor, primarily through grants to the International Labor Organization's International Program on the Elimination of Child Labor (ILO/IPEC). Between 2000 thru 2003, U.S. contributions to IPEC have accounted for approximately 70 percent of the total IPEC budget for technical assistance.

Evidence: The Millenium Challenge Account---A New Vision for Development. Bureau of International Organization Affairs (Fact Sheet), September, 2003. The Millennium Challenge Account---'Aid for the Enterprising'. Secretary Colin L. Powell, Washington Post (Op-Ed), June 10, 2003.

Is the program effectively targeted, so that resources will reach intended beneficiaries and/or otherwise address the program's purpose directly?

Explanation: ILAB's programs are designed with clearly defined target groups and beneficiaries, including children, parents, workers and employers in countries with exploitive labor practices. The programs also target organizations and institutions as recipients. ILAB uses the following integrated strategies to ensure impact of its technical assistance projects on intended beneficiaries: work at the community level to withdraw and prevent selected children, through the provision of education for child laborers or children at-risk and income generating alternatives for their families; work at the institutional and policy level to raise awareness and enhance the capacity of local government, nongovernment and community partners to take action against child labor and promote access to education. These projects have impact at varying levels that directly and indirectly benefit individual children and families.

Evidence: Working to Eliminate the Worst Forms of Child Labor Worldwide Through International Projects. U.S. Department of Labor; Bureau of International Labor Affairs. USDOL Funded Projects and Activities on International Child Labor (1995-2002). Faces of Change---Highlights of U.S. Department of Labor Efforts to Combat International Child Labor.

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: The program's long-term goal is to reduce the exploitation of child labor, protect the basic rights of workers and strengthen labor markets. The Child Labor program has defined goals that are specific and measurable. While some of the targets are questionable, overall the Child Labor goals were meaningful and related back to the long-term goal. In FY 2003, ILAB reported on new outcome indicators that monitor progress in reducing exploitive labor practices. The goal to reduce child labor is measured by identifying the prevention and removal of specific groups of children from exploitive child labor through the provision of education and training opportunities. ILAB's annual goals are maintained as part of their internal strategic plan and monitoring system.

Evidence: USDOL Report on Performance and Accountability (2003 Annual Report). Office of Foreign Relations---Historical Summary of Indicators for DOL (FY 2000-2008); ILAB/International Child Labor Program--GPRA Goals and Indicators (FY 2005-2008).

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

Explanation: Difficult to comprehensively assess given the limited data and ongoing revisions to indicators and targets. ILAB has indicated setting realistic targets are dependent on future funding levels, however given the duration of projects ILAB still needs to set ambitious targets. OMB will work with DOL to ensure that the annual and long-term performance goals and target are sufficiently challenging. OMB will reconsider the answer to this question once work is complete.

Evidence: Office of Foreign Relations---Historical Summary of Indicators for DOL Goal 3.3B (2000-2008). ILAB/International Child Labor Program GPRA Goals and Indicators (FY 2005-2008).

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: For its child labor goals, ILAB has refined its FY 2004 indicators to report on increased capacity of countries to address child labor. ILAB continues to report on the number of children removed or prevented from exploitive child labor through the provision of education and training. In addition, ILAB has submitted an efficiency measure on the cost per child removed or prevented from exploitative child labor. This measure is currently under development. ILAB will work with OMB to meet requirements regarding the inclusion of cost and units of outcome performance based on an agreed upon timeframe. During this time, ILAB will identify a data collection system and a methodology for estimating the efficiency measure. ILAB has also been establishing a system to track output-related indicators to report on progress of its newer program, the Child Labor Education Initiative, and is working to make the goals more outcome oriented in future reporting years. These will include common indicators reported across all projects that track educational enrollment, persistence, and completion.

Evidence: USDOL Report on Performance and Accountability (2003 Annual Report). Performance Indicators: (1) Number of children prevented or withdrawn from exploitive child labor and provided education or training opportunities by DOL-IPEC programs funded in prior fiscal years (Target=70,000 children), Mid-Year Status: This indicator is at the half-way mark, 39,195 children have been prevented or withdrawn from exploitive child labor. This represents approximately 55% of the total year-end target which DOL expects to meet. (2) Number and percent of individuals whose economic situation has benefited from USDOL project assistance (Targets will be set at the beginning of FY 2005).

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

Explanation: Program goals and indicators lack specific and ambitious targets. Targets are unreliable and often revised making it difficult to comprehensively assess the outcomes attained. ILAB has indicated that setting reliable and realistic targets for the child labor program and the OFR are dependent on the availability of funding, however given that most of the grant activities have a three to four year duration period ILAB should ensure that these projects have ambitious and challenging targets. In the case of OFR, targets are less reliable and there is limited baseline data to reasonably measure any kind of trend.

Evidence: Cooperative Agreement Between DOL and the International Organization for Migration (September 30, 2003-September 30, 2007). IPEC Project Proposals for USDOL Consideration in FY 2004. Example of OFR Performance Indicator to improve living standards and conditions of work in developing and transition economies: Number and percent of workplaces exposed to USDOL project assistance that have implemented new measures to prevent workplace accidents and illnesses. (Note: ILAB has indicated that it will no longer continue to fund this project beyond 2005). Targets: 2005 (30%); 2006 (0%); 2007 (0%); 2008 (0%)

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: ILAB's grantees, including the ILO, are required to submit technical project reports on a semi-annual basis. These technical progress reports include data from the field to assess project performance in meeting ILABs annual and long-term goals.

Evidence: USDOL-ILO semi-annual meeting; management procedures and guidelines; ILAB-ILO project progress reports; cooperative grant agreements

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: Since 2000, the OIG has conducted audit and evaluations of ILAB's overall program effectiveness and management structure. In 2002, ILAB was assessed for its responsiveness to the recommendations put forth by prior OIG audit and evaluation reports. Due to ILAB's significant increases in funding beginning in FY 1999, one of the OIG's major concerns for this audit was ILAB's ability to demonstrate program results with the given staff and financial resources. The follow-up report concluded that ILAB's ability to improve program performance was addressed by (1) establishing and following written procedures regarding project oversight; (2) setting up managerial controls over projects; and (3) implementing improvements to project planning and project sustainability. One of ILAB's current efforts to assess its program effectiveness is through the evaluation of the ILO's International Program on the Elimination of Child Labor (ILO-IPEC). Since 1995, a majority of ILAB's technical assistance funds, based on Congressional appropriations, have gone to support ILO-IPEC. From FY 1995 to FY 2003, ILO-IPEC has received approximately $202 million. At the request of the U.S. Government and other ILO Governing Body members, the ILO is undertaking an external, independent evaluation of the ILO-IPEC program. I

Evidence: OIG Report No. 17-00-008-01-070, Review of the Bureau of International Labor Affairs, issued March 20, 2000, and Report No. 2E-01-070-0001, Evaluation of Program Implementation of ILAB's Child Labor Projects FYs 1995-2000, issued September 28, 2000.

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: Like the rest of DOL, ILAB does not have an integerated accouting and peformance management system to identify the full cost of achieving the program's performance goals.

Evidence:  

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

Explanation: In 2002, the OIG's recommendations for ILAB were based on the FY 2003 budget request to revise its mission and strategic planning efforts to be in line with the resources allocated to the program. However, Congress appropriated a significant level of funding for fiscal years 2003 and 2004. In order to meet its objectives, ILAB has developed office workplans so the activities of the program are accomplished in a timely manner. ILAB holds frequent staff meetings in which management issues are identified and corrective steps developed to resolve the problems.

Evidence: Top Management Challenges at the U.S. Department of Labor (OIG Report, January 2004) Operations Manual for ILAB Staff; Management Procedures and Guidelines for Grantees.

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: Data and information to assess project performance are collected semi-annually. Most of the data are obtained from the implementing organizations of ILAB projects based in the recipient country. Data are provided in the technical progress report, which includes a section on performance monitoring. In addition to reporting to ILAB on key performance indicators for GPRA, projects also include a number of other indicators to measure progress toward meeting individual project objectives. Information on performance monitoring is used to make adjustments in project design to improve project performance. The performance information also influences the design of future projects.

Evidence: Project progress reports (Technical and Status), Workplans, Project Monitoring Plans, and Financial Reports.

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: Cooperative grant agreements and management procedures and guidelines outline the specific duties of ILAB and the grantees. ILAB grantees are held accountable to deliverables, as outlined in specific project documents, budgets and workplans. Financial and technical reports are used to track activities, outcomes, and deliverables for each project and to assess performance and cost effectiveness. Grantees are held accountable to performance results through the linking of ILAB's annual performance to outcomes of ILAB projects. ILAB has tied its performance goals to performance ratings for federal managers; the new appraisal system has been applied throughout the Bureau.

Evidence: Notice of Award: Cooperative Agreement (E-9-K-4-0007) Between DOL and the ILO (April 28-2004--September 30, 2009). Notice of Award: Cooperative Agreement (E-9-K-0097) Between DOL and the International Organization for Migration (September 30,2003-September 30,2007).

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

Explanation: All funds are obligated before the end of the fiscal year, following an extensive consultative process of negotiating project agreements with foreign counterparts and reviewing and finalizing project documents submitted by grantees. Technical progress and financial reports, evaluations, and site visits are used by ILAB to monitor and ensure that project funds are spent for their intended purposes.

Evidence: ILAB financial reports on ILAB appropriations; grantee and contractors financial reports; HHS/PMS financial reports.; evaluation reports, ILO-ILO management procedures and guidelines.

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: The program is developing and plans to implement an efficiency measure or cost-effectiveness measure. ILAB works closely with the ILO and its other grantees to ensure a high level of cost efficiency in the design and implementation of its projects. At the project level, ILAB has developed indicators to measure cost efficiency. These are: Cost per 1% increase in labor law compliance rates in project countries; Cost per worker placed in employment through project assisted intervention; Cost per 1% increase in project educated workers who have comprehensive knowledge of HIV/AIDS prevention measures; Cost per child or worker who benefits from ILAB programs.

Evidence: ILAB procedures for SGA panel review; USDOL-ILO management procedures and guidelines

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: ILAB consults with the State Department and USAID to increase the impact of ILAB activities on new project development, on-going technical assistance and issues such as trafficking and child soldiers. Reporting requirements included in EO 13277 also require ILAB to coordinate efforts with lead agencies.

Evidence: Congressional appropriations record; EO 13126---Prohibition of Acquisition of Products Produced by Forced or Indentured Child Labor, June 12, 1999; EO 13277---Delegation of Certain Authorities and Assignment of Certain Functions Under the Trade Act of 2002, November 21, 2000; DOL Congressional Justifications, FY 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: ILAB utilizes an integrated financial and performance system to monitor its projects. Project officers monitor project costs through the receipt of periodic financial reports from grantees and the HHS/PMS reports. This information is reviewed against program performance. In addition, project officers monitor overall program costs through regular communication between DOL staff and project partners. All project officers have received Grants Officer Technical Representative (GOTR) and financial management training. All project-implementing partners must comply with the financial management provisions of federal procurement regulations. Based on the OIG's 2002 assessment, ILAB has addressed all of the management issues raised by the OIG. As part of its regular oversight of grants, ILAB has requested project specific audits to be conducted that provide a clean audit opinion and have no material internal control weaknesses. Through ILAB's competitive grants process, all potential grantees are also required to submit audit statements to demonstrate that organizations have no material internal control weaknesses. ILAB has also established internal mechanisms to ensure the program's efficiency and effectiveness by: (1) establishing and following written procedures regarding project oversight; (2) setting up managerial controls over our projects; and (3) implementing improvements to project planning and project sustainability.

Evidence: Financial Reports, OIG Report (2003)

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

Explanation: The Office of Inspector General (OIG) has undertaken several evaluations and audits of ILAB that raised some concerns about ILAB's management structure, managerial controls over grant programs, and the role and responsibilities of individual staff. ILAB has addressed all the concerns raised by the OIG by developing operations manuals, procedures, and management controls (including financial and activity tracking systems for grants and contracts). At the project level, ILAB continues to work with grantees and contractors to resolve management issues, when identified.

Evidence: OIG Report No. 17-00-008-01-070, Review of the Bureau of International Labor Affairs, issued March 20, 2000, and Report No. 2E-01-070-0001, Evaluation of Program Implementation of ILAB's Child Labor Projects FYs 1995-2000, issued September 28, 2000; project documents; Operations Manual for ILAB Staff; Management Procedure and Guidelines for ILAB grantees

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

Explanation: Solicitations for competitive grant programs are published in the Federal Register to solicit as many applicants as possible, including new and first time applicants. In addition, ILAB publishes the SGAs in its website and emails a notification to organizations in its database/list serve. The grants are open to any commercial, international or non-profit organization. Faith-based and community organizations in the U.S. and abroad are encouraged to bid for these grants. Between 2002 and the present, ILAB awarded a total of 23 grants through competitive bidding. Using FY 2003 and 2004 funds, ILAB expects to award approximately 17competitive grants. A panel of reviewers, including one ILAB employee and two outside experts, reviews ILAB's competitive grants applications. The panel makes their assessments based on objective criteria set in the Solicitation for Grant Applications/Request for Proposals. ILAB's international technical assistance programs receive their authorization from congressional appropriations. A majority of ILAB's funds are earmarked to the ILO while other funds are awarded through competitive grants. Through FY 2004, these programs are funded at approximately $398 million for child labor elimination efforts and $186.5 million for improved living standards and conditions of work). Of this amount, $183.1 ($136 million for child labor elimination efforts and $47.1 million for improved living standards and conditions of work) have been or will be awarded through competitive grants. The balance is implemented through non-competitive grants and competitive contracts.

Evidence: DOL/ILO Management Procedures and Guildelines (April 2004).

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

Explanation: ILAB requires that grantees report regularly on project performance. ILAB has established internal mechanisms to ensure the program's efficiency and effectiveness by: (1) establishing and following written procedures regarding project oversight; (2) setting up managerial controls over our projects; and (3) implementing improvements to project planning and project sustainability. ILAB has a strong relationship with its grantees and as a result is kept well informed of how grantees are spending federal resources. ILAB receives quarterly progress reports from all grantees. The technical report provides among other things, detailed information on the overall progress of project, performance monitoring, problems and corrective action and sub-contract information. DOL reviews the reports and follows up with grantees on a regular basis on issues raised. ILAB also receives on a regular basis financial reports from its grantees with information on actual expenditures versus the project's budget. In addition to reporting, ILAB undertakes site visits to project sites, participates in stakeholder evaluation workshops, holds annual/semi-annual meetings with grantees and communicates regularly with grantees, via phone, email, letters and videoconference. Since ILAB does not have field presence, we work closely with labor attaches/reporting offices in U.S. Embassies where DOL has funded projects.

Evidence: Operations Manuals for ILAB Staff; Management Procedures and Guidelines for Grantees; Project Progress Reports, Financial Reports, Site Visit Trip Reports/Schedules, Evaluation Reports

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: Data to assess project performance is collected semi-annually. Most of the data are obtained from the implementing organizations of ILAB projects based in the recipient country. Data are collected in accordance with the Performance Monitoring Plan and Technical Progress Reports, which influence the design of future projects thereby improving project performance. The results are made public annually in the Department's Annual Performance Report, in hard copy and on DOL's website.

Evidence: OFR Status Report (September 2001--June 30, 2004). ILO/IPEC Technical Progress Report.

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

Explanation: While ILAB's child labor projects have shown some results at the local level, data indicates that these projects can only affect a small percentage of the over 200 million working children around the world. However, ILAB continues to make progress towards achieving its long-term goals established in its strategic plans for FY 1999-2004. In regards to OFR's goal to improve living standards, it is difficult to measure the extent to which the program has been meeting its long-term objective given limited baseline data and reliable targets.

Evidence: OIG Report No. 2E-01-070-000 Evaluation of Program Implementation ILAB's Child Labor Projects FY 1995-2000, September 28, 2000 OIG Report No. 21-03-002-01-070, Follow Up of Prior Audit and Evaluation of the Bureau of International Labor Affairs, Fiscal Years Ended September 31, 2001 and September 30, 2002. Report issued March 4, 2003.

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

Explanation: Although there is some question on the rigor of the targets and measures, ILAB has achieved its annual performance goals for the Child Labor program. However, there is very limited data to assess OFR's goal to improve living standards.

Evidence: USDOL Report on Performance and Accountability (2003 Annual Report). Office of Foreign Relations---Historical Summary of Indicators for DOL (FY 2000-2008); ILAB/International Child Labor Program--GPRA Goals and Indicators (FY 2005-2008).

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

Explanation: ILAB is developing and plans to implement a cost-efficiency measure. ILAB's efficiency measure will aim to demonstrate cost efficiences per child removed or prevented from exploitive child labor. The OFR will also develop and implement a cost efficiency measure. OMB will reconsider the answer to this question once ILAB has implemented the new measure and the program has demonstrated cost effectiveness.

Evidence: Child Labor Program cost-efficiency measure: Cost per child removed or prevented from exploitative child labor.

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

Explanation: While no comprehensive evaluation has been done comparing ILAB to other international assistance programs, there is minimal evidence to suggest that the funding for the child labor programs compares favorably to other programs funded by international financial agencies and nongovernmental organizations. No data to assess if the OFR programs compare favorably to other technical assistance programs.

Evidence: USAID and State Department Programs on vulnerable children, education, and poverty alleviation; Project Evaluations

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

Explanation: There have been few evaluations conducted by the OIG but no comprehensive evaluation to assess the programs impact and effectiveness. However, ILAB plans to contract a third party evaluator to assess its overall technical assistance programs, and will work within OASAM's guidelines to carry out this evaluation. Such a broad, programmatic evaluation would be useful for demonstrating the overall impact of ILAB's investments to reduce exploitive child labor and improve living standards and conditions of work, and for identifying crosscutting lessons learned and best practices. More recent evidence of the programs effectiveness is limited. One of ILAB's current efforts to assess its program effectiveness is through the evaluation of the ILO's International Program on the Elimination of Child Labor (ILO-IPEC). Since 1995, a majority of ILAB's technical assistance funds, based on Congressional appropriations, have gone to support ILO-IPEC. From FY 1995 to FY 2003, ILO-IPEC has received approximately $202 million. At the request of the U.S. Government and other ILO Governing Body members, the ILO is undertaking an external, independent evaluation of the ILO-IPEC program.

Evidence: OIG Report No. 17-00-008-01-070, Review of the Bureau of International Labor Affairs, (March 20, 2000); OIG Report No. 2E-01-070-0001, Evaluation of Program Implementation of ILAB's Child Labor Projects FYs 1995-2000, (September 28, 2000).