Detailed Information on the
Migration and Refugee Assistance -- Other Population, Refugee and Migration Programs Assessment

PRM will incorporate the newly developed International Organization for Migration Handbook on Performance Indicators for Counter-Trafficking into relevant programming and disseminate the handbook to interested governmental, non-governmental, and international partners.

The Administration will expand formal monitoring and evaluation of programs for priority activities.

The Administration will improve the presentation of budget information to include stronger links between NGO funding levels and program performance in protection, assistance, and durable solutions.

PRM will include reference to the newly developed International Organization for Migration Handbook on Performance Indicators for Counter-Trafficking Projects in its 2008 annual monitoring and evaluation workshop.

PRM will incorporate the newly developed Interational Organization for Migration Handbook on Performance for Counter-Trafficking Projects into relevant programming and disseminate the Handbook to interested governmental, international, and non-governmental partners.

Measure: (Filling Critical Roles) Percentage of PRM-funded NGO or 'other IO' assistance projects that include activities that focus on prevention and response to gender-based violence (GBV).

Explanation:Available evidence suggests that the stress and disruption of daily life during complex humanitarian emergencies may lead to a rise in GBV, particularly sexual violence. PRM's goal is to either target or integrate GBV activities into most refugee assistance programs, including our NGO/other International Organization programs. NGOs often have specialized capacities during complex humanitarian emergencies. Therefore, PRM relies on NGO partners to fill this important gap and ensure that essential GBV support is provided. Activities may include: awareness-raising, psychosocial, medical, and legal activities.

Measure: (Filling Critical Roles) Percentage of PRM-funded NGO or 'other IO' assistance projects that include activities that focus on prevention and response to gender-based violence (GBV).

Explanation:Available evidence suggests that the stress and disruption of daily life during complex humanitarian emergencies may lead to a rise in GBV, particularly sexual violence. PRM's goal is to either target or integrate GBV activities into most refugee assistance programs, including our NGO/other International Organization programs. NGOs often have specialized capacities during complex humanitarian emergencies. Therefore, PRM relies on NGO partners to fill this important gap and ensure that essential GBV support is provided. Activities may include: awareness-raising, psychosocial, medical, and legal activities.

Measure: (Monitoring and Evaluation) Percentage of funding to NGO and other IO projects that are monitored and evaluated by PRM through formal reporting channels.

Explanation:Information that is gathered and analyzed by officers through M&E reporting mechanisms is vital for both program accountability and assessing the capacity of our partners. M&E is also important for follow-up activities such as problem-solving and troubleshooting in order to meet the most urgent needs of the beneficiaries we serve. Reporting should be in line with Comptroller's M&E cables and PRM M&E procedures (i.e., reporting cables, official memos and/or e-mails.)

Measure: (Monitoring and Evaluation) Percentage of funding to NGO and other IO projects that are monitored and evaluated (M&E) by program officers and refugee coordinators through formal reporting channels.

Explanation:Information that is gathered and analyzed by officers through M&E reporting mechanisms is vital for both program accountability and assessing the capacity of our partners. M&E is also important for follow-up activities such as problem-solving and troubleshooting in order to meet the most urgent needs of the beneficiaries we serve. Reporting should be in line with Comptroler's M&E cables and PRM M&E procedures (i.e., reporting cables, official memos and/or e-mails.)

Measure: (TIP) Percentage of foreign governments with PRM-funded anti-trafficking projects that have increased their activities to combat TIP.

Explanation:Concrete actions taken by governments to combat TIP are good indicators of the effectiveness of PRM-funded projects to improve the capacity of these governments to address this problem. Activities include but are not limited to: (1) making new budget allocations or continuing budget allocations directed toward anti-trafficking; and/or (2) Developing new legislation to combat trafficking; and/or (3) providing in-kind support or facilitate program activities.

Measure: (TIP) Percentage of foreign governments with PRM-funded anti-trafficking projects that have increased their activities to combat TIP.

Explanation:Concrete actions taken by governments to combat TIP are good indicators of the effectiveness of PRM-funded projects to improve the capacity of these governments to address this problem. Activities include but are not limited to: (1) making new budget allocations or continuing budget allocations directed toward anti-trafficking; and/or (2) Developing new legislation to combat trafficking; and/or (3) providing in-kind support or facilitate program activities.

Measure: (Financial Oversight) Percentage of NGOs and 'other' IOs that take corrective action within a year of receiving negative findings in financial audits.

Explanation:Financial transparency is essential to ensuring responsible programming, accounting, and stewardship of funds.

Measure: (Financial Oversight) Percentage of NGOs and 'other' IOs that take corrective action within a year of receiving negative findings in financial audits.

Explanation:Financial transparency is essential to ensuring responsible programming, accounting, and stewardship of funds.

Measure: Average amount of time between receipt of project proposal or deadline of submission and funding action (working days).

Explanation:Demonstrates PRM's efficiency of managing NGO projects. The time that it takes for a grant to be processed by the Bureau's regional offices, the policy and resource planning office, the front office, and the comptroller's office reflects the administrative efficiency of these offices and the bureau as a whole. Reductions in the time that it takes to process a cooperative agreement should reflect efficiency gains in this administrative system and ultimately benefit refugee populations through quickened response.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: This program provides funding through cooperative agreements (CAs) to non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and through contributions to other international organizations (IOs), excluding the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). Funding supports refugee assistance activities authorized in the Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA) Act of 1962, as amended, and includes U.S. Governement membership in the International Organization for Migration (IOM), assistance to refugees outside of the U.S., and meeting unexpected and urgent refugee and migration needs.

Evidence: a) Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1962, as amended: Sections 2(b)(1), 2(b)(2), 2(c)(1), and 3(a)(1). BPP evidence: Goal Papers - HT.01: Protection and Durable Solutions, Assistance, Partner Accountability, and SE.04: International Migration (2006 Congressional Presentation Document).

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

Explanation: The program supports key partners who fill critical roles in the humanitarian assistance and protection programs of the U.S. Government's (USG) Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration's (PRM) major international organization partners. While operating within a multilateral structure, the program relies on the fast, flexible, and targeted response NGOs and IOs in emergencies as well as their continued commitment to assist longer-term refugee and other populations, while building local capacities and promoting development. Not only are these partners crucial for assistance delivery overseas and at home, they also provide critical information and analysis for policy development as well as advocacy.

Evidence: a) PRM's Organizational Policy and Program Implementation Paper for NGO Policy for Overseas Assistance for 2004 # 2004-09 and 2005 #2005-36. BPP evidence: Goal Papers - HT.01: Protection and Durable Solutions, Assistance, Partner Accountability, and SE.04: International Migration 9 (2006 Congressional Presentation Document).

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

Explanation: PRM is the USG bureau mandated to administer and monitor U.S. contributions to international and non-governmental organizations to assist and protect refugees. In carrying out their respective legislative and policy mandates within the USG, both PRM and USAID/DCHA regularly provide funding to UN agencies/IOs and NGOs for humanitarian assistance programs. In complex humanitarian emergencies that involve beneficiary populations of both PRM and DCHA, effective cooperation and coordination in funding the UN/IOs and NGOs can improve the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of combined humanitarian efforts. Guidelines have been established on the division of funding responsibilities where both bureaus are involved, which support cooperation and coordination among the UN/IOs, and NGOs. For example, for Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) being assisted by PRM's primary partners (UNHCR and ICRC), PRM funds NGOs that are also assisting those IDP populations (e.g., IDPs in Colombia and Chechnya, primarily supported through funding from PRM rather than DCHA.)

Evidence: a) PRM- U.S. Agency for International Development's (USAID) Bureau for Democracy, Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance (DCHA) Coordination and Funding Guidelines in Complex Humanitarian Emergencies"; b) Aide Memoire - "USG Humanitarian Assistance Funding."

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

Explanation: The program is implemented through CAs with NGOs and contributions to international organizations. CAs allow the USG to be involved with the implementation of the program and encourage administrative and operational efficiency among these organizations. PRM posts guidelines for NGOs and IOs on its website as well as on grants.gov and shares them with operational partners. These guidelines clarify PRM's policy regarding NGOs, including funding priorities, proposal format, internal processing, and reporting. PRM also established guidelines for IOM's migration-related programs. In some instances, reductions in funding to NGO programs by UNHCR have negatively affected PRM co-funding to NGOs. This has been addressed in the PRM-UNHCR Framework for Cooperation where UNHCR will inform the USG and NGOs in a timely fashion when reductions will affect co-funded NGO projects. PRM discusses options with NGOs and UNHCR in order for programs to continue to be viable. This effort assists in appropriate and responsible planning by the NGO for future activities.

Evidence: a) Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act of 1977; b) FY 2005 NGO Guidelines; c) PRM Guidelines for IOM Migration Projects; d) USG/UNHCR 2004 Framework for Cooperation; e) Quarterly report on progress made towards the 2004 USG/UNHCR Framework for Cooperation.

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

Explanation: This program ensures that the Bureau's regional, functional, and organizational objectives (as articulated in the BPP) are met by funding organizations that have: (1) the technical and regional expertise to implement quality programs in the field; (2) capacity to fill gaps in the multilateral response to the needs of refugees, conflict victims, and other persons of concern; and (3) organizational and financial capacity to administer USG funding. PRM ensures that resources are being targeted to focus on these three categories through an established core set of criteria against which proposal reviews (made up of internal policy teams) take place. Standards include: responsiveness to NGO guidelines, capacity and past performance, implementation plan, budget, and level of coordination.

Evidence: a) PRM's Bureau Performance Plan (BPP), 2006 (2006 Congressional Presentation Document); b) PRM's Organizational Policy and Program Implementation Paper for NGO Funding for Overseas Assistance for 2005 #2005-36. BPP evidence: Goal Papers - HT.01: Protection and Durable Solutions, Assistance, Partner Accountability, and SE.04: International Migration 9 (2006 Congressional Presentation Document).

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: There are a limited number of specific and ambitious long-term goals which relate to the program purpose. These goals are focused, measurable, and outcome-oriented. The primary long-term goals support filling critical roles, such as prevention and response to gender-based violence (GBV); assisting victims of trafficking; effectively monitoring and evaluating PRM partners; and effective financial oversight of program partners. These goals are included in the 2007 BPP.

Evidence: a) PRM's Bureau Performance Plan, 2006 (2006 Congressional Presentation Document). BPP evidence: Goal Papers - HT.01: Protection and Durable Solutions, Assistance, Partner Accountability, and SE.04: International Migration 9 (2006 Congressional Presentation Document).

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

Explanation: This program has set the following targets to be achieved by or before the end of 2008: 32% of PRM-funded NGO or 'other IO' assistance projects will include activities that focus on prevention and response to GBV; 80% of foreign governments with PRM-funded anti-trafficking projects have increased their activities to combat Trafficking in Persons (TIP); 75% of funding to NGO and 'other IO' projects are monitored and evaluated (M&E) by PRM through formal reporting channels; 98% of NGOs and 'other IOs' take corrective action within a year of receiving negative findings in financial audits; NGO CAs are processed within 48 working days of receipt of project proposal or deadline of proposal submission.

Evidence: a) PRM's Bureau Performance Plan, 2006 (2006 Congressional Presentation Document). BPP evidence: Goal Papers - HT.01: Protection and Durable Solutions, Assistance, Partner Accountability, and SE.04: International Migration 9 (2006 Congressional Presentation Document).

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: Each long-term performance measure has at least one accompanying annual performance measure that demonstrates the accomplishments of the long-term goals.

Evidence: a) PRM's Bureau Performance Plan, 2006 (2006 Congressional Presentation Document). BPP evidence: Goal Papers - HT.01: Protection and Durable Solutions, Assistance, Partner Accountability, and SE.04: International Migration 9 (2006 Congressional Presentation Document).

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

Explanation: Each of the annual goals listed above have baseline figures and present ambitious targets for the program. For example, in FY2003, 35% of PRM funding to NGO and other IO projects were monitored on an annual basis through formal reporting. In 2004, 56% were monitored. We expect to increase this measure in 2005 by 60%, in 2006 by 65%, and in 2007 by 70%. By 2008, the Bureau's target is that 75% of PRM funding to NGO and other IO projects are monitored on an annual basis through formal reporting. The Bureau has prioritized M&E during the last few years, for example, through establishing expanded training sessions and will work with program officers and refugee coordinators (RefCoords) to ensure that key monitoring and evaluation elements are addressed in every report through standardized reporting.

Evidence: a) Spreadsheet with FY2004 data compiled for 'other' PRM programs; b) Sample monitoring & evaluation memo drafted by the Comptroller's office. BPP evidence: Goal Papers - HT.01: Protection and Durable Solutions, Assistance, Partner Accountability, and SE.04: International Migration 9 (2006 Congressional Presentation Document).

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: Short and long-term goals of the program (as articulated in the BPP) are outlined generally in the standard NGO guidelines and specifically in regional/functional guidelines that the Bureau shares with partners, which outline bureau priorities. Additionally, CAs with NGOs and contribution letters to IOs include long and/or short-term goals of the specific program. CAs define the goal and describe the objectives of the program; they also provide measurable indicators for assessing progress toward achievement of each objective and explain how they are to be measured through the identification of each indicator as a process (input) and/or impact (outcome) indicator. Reporting requirements and monitoring through review of reports, phone calls and e-mails allow the Bureau to verify if goals are being met.

Evidence: "a) FY 2005 NGO Guidelines; b) FY 2005 Balkans NGO Guidelines (example); c) PRM Guidelines for IOM Migration Projects; d) Sample NGO Cooperative Agreement; e) Checklist for PRM review of NGO proposals; f) ""Nine core questions."" BPP evidence: BPP evidence: Goal Papers - HT.01: Protection and Durable Solutions, Assistance, Partner Accountability, and SE.04: International Migration 9 (2006 Congressional Presentation Document)."

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: PRM's partners conduct regular independent evaluations of their programs to measure effectiveness and identify gaps. International Medical Corps (IMC), recently conducted three independent program evaluations. In 2004, IOM's external auditor evaluated the efficiency of the decentralized structure of IOM's Missions with Regional Functions (MRF). PRM funded reports in 2001 and 2002 conducted by two GBV technical experts, the results of which helped PRM to prioritize GBV and make funding decisions. The last bureau-wide evaluation was undertaken by the Inspector General's (IG) office in 1995, resulting in the Bureau establishing an annual monitoring and evaluation (M&E) training course in 1997 for PRM headquarters and field officers. PRM staff conduct M&E of implementing partners throughout the year to provide accountability. Another IG inspection is scheduled in early 2006. In 2002, the IG office reviewed PRM's programs on behalf of refugee women. In 2003, the GAO completed a review of protection efforts on behalf of refugee women and girls. PRM's Comptroller's office also ensures that partners have been independently audited and found acceptable by certified public accounting firms arranged for by the funded organizations.

Evidence: a) Review of IOM's Decentralized Structure; b) International Medical Corps (IMC) independent evaluations; c) GBV Reports: 1) If Not Now, When? Addressing GBV in Refugee, IDP, and Post-Conflict Settings - A Global Review; 2) GBV - Emerging Issues in Programs Serving Displaced Populations; d) State Deptartment Inspector General's Office review of PRM, 1995; e) Government Accountability Office (GAO) Report on Protection of Refugee Women and Girls, 2003; f) State Deptartment Inspector General's Office review of Refugee Women's Programs, 2002; g) PRM responses to recommendations of Inspector General's Office review of Refugee Women's Programs, March 2002 (08/12/02, 10/29/02, 01/03/03, 07/19/03); h) Inspector General's Office Memorandum of April 30, 2004 indicating that all but one recommendations have been previously closed; i) 3/30/05 e-mail from State Deptartment Inspector General's Office on ABACUS compliance for closure of last recommendation (#5); j) 2004 PRM Monitoring & Evaluation (M&E) course materials [begins with table of contents].

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: PRM depends on NGOs and other IOs to address critical needs in humanitarian assistance and protection programs. Budget requests are explicitly tied to accomplishments of the program goals, as outlined in the standard NGO Guidelines and BPP. Program officers and RefCoords draft annual performance evaluations (APEs) for NGO programs if additional funding is sought. APEs outline whether activities: advance PRM's region/country-specific policy goals; accomplish objectives; were effective compared to other possible uses of funds; had adequate oversight by the organization's headquarters. Included in a program proposal is a detailed budget that is broken down by each objective of the proposed program and/or by sector of activity. In 1996, PRM established a separate line in its Financial Plan reflecting priority USG policies and activities (emergency response, protection, refugee women and children, health, and standards/indicators), tying resources directly to them. The plan also subdivides funding by regions/functions, and organization. Indirect costs are reported by NGOs in their budget submits to PRM. These costs are clearly reflected in the Cooperative Agreement (CA), per applicable reporting provisions of OMB Circular A-122 "Cost Principles for Nonprofit Organizations."

Evidence: a) PRM's Bureau Performance Plan, 2006 (2006 Congressional Presentation Document); b) PRM's Organizational Policy and Program Implementation Paper for NGO Funding for Overseas Assistance for 2005 #2005-36; c) Sample Annual Program Evaluation (APE); d) IOM SCBF Agenda, November 2004; e) IOM Programme and Budget, 2005 (p.1-35) f) PRM Guidelines for IOM Migration Projects; g) PRM Financial Plan, FY2005.

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

Explanation: The development of a Bureau Organizational Policy and Program Implementation Paper in 2004 assisted in streamlining the Bureau's approach to funding our "other" partners, especially NGOs. PRM tries to balance its responsibility toward refugees with good stewardship of limited resources. This often means funding organizations with which the Bureau has an established funding relationship. However, this at times led to the misperception among NGOs and other IOs that PRM is a "closed shop" that only funds a chosen few partners. Bureau efforts in recent years to issue region-specific NGO guidelines have helped counter this notion. New OMB regulations requiring Federal agencies to use grants.gov to electronically post synopses of funding opportunities, as well as the Bureau's regular meetings with NGOs (usually organized through InterAction) have made our policy priorities, requirements, and procedures more transparent. In addition, the Bureau has developed a database (ABACUS) that facilitates the tracking of Bureau efforts to promote program objectives.

Evidence: a) PRM's Organizational Policy and Program Implementation Paper for NGO Policy and Funding for Overseas Assistance for 2004 # 2004-09 and 2005 #2005-36; b) FY 2005 Balkans NGO Guidelines (example); c) Information on efforts to implement Bureau database (ABACUS) and training - Implementation Plan, October 2004 and Demo Powerpoint Presentation, August 2004; d) PRM's FY2003 Organizational Policy and Program Implementation Paper for Codes of Conduct #2003-73.

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: NGO CAs, as well as contributions to our "other" international organizations generally require a number of reports from program partners (some quarterly, twice per year, or annual). In addition, if an organization would like to renew their contract or are seeking to renew their CA, Bureau program managers and RefCoords draft a policy paper, which includes the organization's past performance, explanation of the need for onward funding, and an annual program evaluation. Agreements are only signed once Bureau leadership signs off on the funding recommendation and once the organization agrees to any changes in goals/objectives or budget.

Evidence: a) FY 2005 NGO Guidelines; b) Sample Annual Program Evaluation (APE); c) Sample NGO Cooperative Agreement.

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: Program managers with direct responsibility for the program are evaluated annually; personnel evaluations take account of program results and performance. Program partners are held accountable for past performance, based on the guidelines agreed to in the agreements. In instances where partner performance is not acceptable, program funding may be withheld and/or continued funding may not be provided.

Evidence: "a) Example of evidence in N'Zerekore, Guinea that reflects funding was withheld because of partner's performance; b) List of General Responsibilities for Program Officers - ""Job Elements""; c) Sample refugee coordinator instructions cable: State 189659: Overview of FY-05 RefCoord Responsibilities; d) Sample Program Officer Performance Appraisal Form. "

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

Explanation: USG funds are obligated and expended for "other PRM programs" in a timely manner and for the intended purpose. Comptroller's deadline for CAs and "other" IO agreements is two months before the end of the fiscal year. However, there are instances when these agreements have been submitted later in response to crisis situations. Now that ABACUS is up and running, the Bureau will be better able to track average amount of time between receipt of a project proposal and funding action. In terms of funds obligated for the intended purpose, financial reports and APEs clearly reflect this information. The majority of partners PRM supports received their funding for a contract on an annual basis. PRM obligates all funding when the annual cooperative agreement.

Evidence: a) FY 2005 Policy and Program Review Committee (PPRC) Guidance; b) Information on efforts to implement Bureau database (ABACUS) and training - Implementation Plan, October 2004 and Demo Powerpoint Presentation, August 2004; c) Sample Annual Program Evaluation (APE).

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: Efficiency measure is: efficiency of managing NGO projects, measured by the average amount of time between receipt of project proposal or deadline of submission and funding action. The time that it takes for a grant to be processed reflects the administrative efficiency of PRM as a whole. Reductions in the time that it takes to process a CA should reflect efficiency gains and ultimately benefit refugee populations through quickened response. The target is: number of working days from receipt of project proposal or deadline of proposal submission and funding action, and the goal is: decrease from 55 days in 2005 to 48 days by 2008. Progress will be tracked through PRM's new database system (ABACUS), which was finalized for implementation and deployment of Phase I in 2004, and will track NGO projects starting this year. ABACUS facilitates the tracking of Bureau programs, budget and funds, thereby increasing transparency and efficiency of programming. Program managers have the ability to produce reports which track program funding by organization, sector, and region.

Evidence: a) Information on efforts to implement Bureau database (ABACUS) and training - Implementation Plan, October 2004 and Demo Powerpoint Presentation, August 2004.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: The USG promotes coordination among humanitarian actors, requiring NGO partners to coordinate with UNHCR, and urging coordination among international organizations and other humanitarian agencies. Proopsals are not considered unless consultations with UNHCR have ocurred. In addition, the Department of State and USAID work closely together to achieve the diplomatic, development, and management priorities of the President, Secretary, and Administrator. Last year, our two agencies submitted the first-ever joint strategic plan to Congress and the President that outlined a common mission, goals, and values. Based on recommendations in the plan, State and USAID established the Joint Management Council (JMC) and the Joint Policy Council (JPC). In addition, the Bureau coordinates regularly with our counterparts at DCHA through triweekly operational meetings and monthly tripartite meetings with DCHA, PRM and InterAction (an umbrella NGO organization).

Evidence: a) Sample NGO cooperative agreement, which includes instructions on coordination with UNHCR; b) FY 2005 NGO Guidelines; c) PRM-DCHA "Coordination and Funding Guidelines in Complex Humanitarian Emergencies"; d) Aide Memoire - "USG Humanitarian Assistance Funding"; e) Protecting Refugees: A Field Guide for NGOs; f) Agenda for PRM-DCHA Trilateral weekly discussions; g) State-USAID Joint Performance Plan.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: "Each program partner must have an independent audit conducted yearly. For CAs, financial reports are also required within 45 days following the end of each calendar year quarter during the validity period of the agreement. A final financial report covering the entire period of the agreement is required within 90 days after the expiration date of the agreement. This system ensures that program managers can track funding for programs throughout the year. The Comptroller's office signs the agreements and monitors the organization's financial compliance by the following categories: financial position (payments, reported expenses), management (extensions, adjustments), reports (timeliness, completeness, accurateness), audit (material weaknesses), and responsiveness (timely follow-up). The Department is required to have yearly independent audits. In addition, PRM divides financial management functions between its Comptroller's office and its office of Policy and Resource Planning, thereby providing a system of checks and balances for funding actions. PRM is incorporated into the annual State Department financial audit. The Department has recieved audits that indicate that it is free of any internal material control weaknesses.

Evidence: a) Financial audit (example) of PRM NGO partner (p.23-31, procedures exist to identify improper payments); b) Sample NGO Cooperative Agreement; c) letters from PRM Office of the Comptroller conveying PRM's expectations of corrective actions and subsequent reporting; d) spreadsheet of audit reports of PRM-funded organizations (including those for which the Department is not the cognizant agency) for any unallowable costs or internal control problems. BPP evidence: Goal Paper - HT.01: Partner Accountability (2006 Congressional Presentation Document).

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

Explanation: Concrete steps have been undertaken in response to the last bureau-wide evaluation by the Department's Inspector General's (IG) office in 1995. Recent GAO and IG evaluations gave positive reviews of PRM efforts to meet the needs of refugee women and to address refugee protection needs. Through the Bureau's regional policy and program implementation papers for overseas assistance, PRM program officers and managers have clear and agreed upon objectives, thereby addressing any management deficiencies at the onset of policy implementation. PRM funds external reviews of partners' activities. PRM established a standardized, week-long M&E training course for all program officers that enhances PRM's review of its programs. In 2004, PRM began conducting monthly M&E trainings open to all bureau staff. The sessions provide a more thorough understanding of technical issues such as shelter, basic health, and nutrition and empowers program officers to question interventions that may not be working or raise doubts about performance data submitted by an implementing partner.

Evidence: a) State Deptartment Inspector General's Office review of PRM, 1995; b) Government Accountability Office (GAO) Report on Protection of Refugee Women and Girls, 2003; c) State Deptartment Inspector General's Office review of Refugee Women's Programs, 2002; d) PRM responses to recommendations of Inspector General's Office review of Refugee Women's Programs, March 2002 (08/12/02, 10/29/02, 01/03/03, 07/19/03); e) Inspector General's Office Memorandum of April 30, 2004 indicating that all but one recommendations have been previously closed; f) 3/30/05 e-mail from State Deptartment Inspector General's Office on ABACUS compliance for closure of last recommendation (#5); g) FY 2005 Policy and Program Review Committee (PPRC) Guidance; h) Example of evidence in N'Zerekore, Guinea that reflects funding was withheld because of partner's performance; i) 2004 PRM Monitoring & Evaluation (M&E) course materials [begins with table of contents]; j) Calendar/Summary of PRM's "Monthly" Monitoring & Evaluation training sessions.

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

Explanation: A Policy and Program Review Committee (PPRC) was established to provide a systematic process for the establishment of bureau policies and allocation of resources in accordance with those policies, as well as to provide a record of a transparent, accountable decision-making process. PPRC ensures policy and program consistency and accountability to PRM's leadership. PRM has established a core set of criteria against which proposal reviews take place. Standards include: responsiveness to NGO guidelines, capacity and past performance, implementation plan, budget, and level of coordination. Guidelines outlining specific bureau priorities in a region or sector define the criteria that must be met to qualify for a CA. Bureau efforts to issue region or functional-specific guidelines on its website, OMB regulations requiring Federal agencies to use grants.gov to electronically post synopses of funding opportunities, as well as the Bureau's regular meetings with NGOs, have made the Bureau's policy priorities, requirements, and procedures more consistent and transparent. A majority of PRM's grants are awarded on a competitive basis. Personnel conduction annual site visits to monitor NGO performance.

Evidence: a) PRM's Organizational Policy and Program Implementation Paper for NGO Funding for Overseas Assistance for 2005, including scorecard checklist for PRM review of NGO proposals, and implementation of grants.gov and e-find #2005-36; b) www.state.gov/g/prm/fund; c) www.grants.gov.

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

Explanation: PRM program managers and RefCoords meet when in the field or at headquarters and discuss (through phone calls and e-mails) regularly with implementing partners. Program officers complete a week-long standardized monitoring and evaluation course to enhance review capacity and program oversight and are then able to conduct regular monitoring and evaluation trips where Bureau funds are being expended. In addition, in 2004 PRM began conducting monthly M&E trainings open to all bureau staff. Such training sessions are designed to provide a more thorough understanding of specific technical issues such as shelter, basic health, and nutrition and empowers program officers to question interventions that may not be working or raise doubts about performance data submitted by an implementing partner. Program officers meet with IO partners, NGO partners, governments, and refugees, thereby providing in-depth knowledge of the program's activities and performance. PRM's Comptroller office has a reporting system in place which monitors the organization's financial compliance in five different categories. In addition, NGOs issue quarterly financial reports on obligations.

Evidence: a) Sample refugee coordinator monitoring & evaluation trip report; b) 2004 PRM Monitoring & Evaluation (M&E) course materials [begins with table of contents]; c) Monitoring Refugee Protection Booklet.

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: APEs are drafted on an annual basis when additional funding is sought. APEs outline whether the activities advanced the Bureau's region/country-specific policy goals as set forth in the BPP, whether objectives and indicators were accomplished, whether the program was effective compared to other possible uses of funds, whether there was adequate oversight of the program by the organization's headquarters, etc. The Bureau posts its standard NGO and regional/functional guidelines on its publicly-available website, as well as funding actions finalized with IOs and NGOs. Additional performance information is made publicly available through USG statements at IO governing bodies as well as press statements.

Evidence: a) Sample Annual Program Evaluation (APE); b) www.state.gov/g/prm/fund; c) www.state.gov/g/prm/rls; d) Performance Accountability Report (PAR).

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

Explanation: The program has made progress toward achieving each of its long-term performance goals. A key priority is to support programs that focus on prevention and response to GBV. PRM's baseline in 2003 showed that only 9% of NGO or other IO assistance projects included GBV activities; in 2004, it rose to 24%. Much of this increase is due to PRM's proactive response to allegations of sexual exploitation of refugees, and the 2003 GAO report. PRM has worked with IOM to assist victims of trafficking as well as to improve the capacity of local governments for appropriate response to TIP. PRM's baseline in 2003 showed that 60% of foreign governments with PRM-funded projects have increased their activities to combat TIP; in 2004, it rose to 65%. Expanding M&E is also a priority for PRM; 35% of projects were formally monitored in 2003, and 56% in 2004. Financial transparency of PRM partners is essential, and in 2003, 95% of our partners had taken corrective action within a year of receipt of negative findings in their audits. By 2008, we expect that 98% will take corrective action.

Evidence: a) PRM's FY2004 Organizational Policy and Program Implementation Paper for Prevention and Response to GBV #2004-64; b) PRM's FY2004 Organizational Policy and Program Implementation Paper for Migration and Trafficking in Persons #2004-45; c) PRM's Organizational Policy and Program Implementation Paper for NGO Funding for Overseas Assistance for 2005 #2005-36; d) Financial audit (example) of PRM NGO partner (p.23-31, procedures exist to identify improper payments); e) Performance Accountability Report (PAR); f) PRM's Bureau Performance Plan, 2006 (2006 Congressional Presentation Document).

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

Explanation: The program has met or exceeded its targets for its annual performance goals. Although the 'filling critical roles' and 'monitoring and evaluation' goals are new in this year's BPP, significant progress has been made on both measures. Regarding the first, since FY 2000, the Bureau has funded over $8 million in GBV programs which have been the catalyst for increasing NGO and IO focus, dialogue, research, and response to this problem. Regarding the latter, M&E has always been an integral part of measuring Bureau performance, reflected in the M&E training provided to program officers and the required APEs for continued funding. Goals on 'Trafficking in Persons' and Financial Oversight' have been included in the Bureau's BPP since 2003 and ratings thus far have exceeded targets.

Evidence: a) PRM's FY2004 Organizational Policy and Program Implementation Paper for Prevention and Response to GBV #2004-64; b) PRM's Organizational Policy and Program Implementation Paper for NGO Funding for Overseas Assistance for 2005 #2005-36; c) Performance Accountability Report (PAR). BPP evidence: Goal Papers - HT.01: Protection and Durable Solutions, Assistance, Partner Accountability, and SE.04: International Migration 9 (2006 Congressional Presentation Document).

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

Explanation: The program has adopted an efficiency indicator, "efficiency of managing NGO projects, measured by the average amount of time between receipt of project proposal or deadline of submission and funding action." Reductions in the time that it takes to process a cooperative agreement reflect efficiency gains and benefit refugees through quickened response. In FY03, PRM did not have the ability to track program information on a systematic basis; in FY04, the Bureau brought online the Abacus database capable of tracking a wide range of program information, including the time between proposal receipt and funding execution. Implementation of such a system was recommended by the OIG in 2002 and represents a major step toward increasing efficiency. In the first 2 quarters of FY05, Abacus reports an average of 55 working days between receipt of proposal receipt and funding execution. The goal is to shorten this average to 48 days by 2008. PRM also demonstrates programmatic efficiency by spending less than 3% of its funding on administrative and support expenses.

Evidence: a) Information on efforts to implement Bureau database (ABACUS) and training - Implementation Plan, October 2004 and Demo Powerpoint Presentation, August 2004; b) ABACUS report on Action Days. BPP evidence: Goal Paper - HT.01: Assistance (2006 Congressional Presentation Document).

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

Explanation: PRM is the USG bureau mandated to administer and monitor U.S. contributions to IOs and NGOs to assist and protect refugees and therefore is the only U.S. government agency that funds partner agencies for those activities. While other countries and private organizations support refugee programs, PRM is the only entity that provides refugee support in advance of U.S. government policy goals. PRM and USAID target distinct populations and generally fund separate programs; therefore, there are no documented comparisons of performance. During complex humanitarian emergencies where both PRM and USAID/DCHA are involved, the bureaus follow established guidelines on the division of funding responsibilities, which support cooperation and coordination among the UN agencies, other IOs and NGOs. It is rare that an IO or NGO would receive funding from both PRM and USAID in a given emergency. More frequently, discussions focus on gaps in response. In a recent GAO evaluation, PRM's funding of IOs and NGOs was found to be effective in filling gaps in other agencies' programming.

Evidence: a) PRM-DCHA Coordination and Funding Guidelines in Complex Humanitarian Emergencies"; b) Aide Memoire - "USG Humanitarian Assistance Funding"; c) Agenda for PRM-DCHA Trilateral weekly discussions; d) State-USAID Joint Performance Plan; e) Government Accountability Office (GAO) Report on Protection of Refugee Women and Girls, 2003

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

Explanation: "Evaluations of PRM's IO and NGO partners are abundant and diffuse, making it difficult to analyze results comprehensively; however, a sampling of reviews shows these programs are achieving positive outcomes. For example, a June 2003 evaluation of IOM's project for the return and reintegration of trafficking victims in the Mekong region found that "in Thailand, IOM is perceived as performing quite well and even proving instrumental in bringing about policy change within government." This finding directly supports PART measure #5. Similarly, an independent evaluator found that the International Medical Corps' GBV program (funded by PRM) in Uganda "is well managed and run and appears to be largely achieving its stated goals and programme objectives." GAO and the Department's IG found that PRM has taken adequate and appropriate measures to address issues highlighted in bureau reviews conducted in 1995, 2002 and 2003. The GAO report specifically found that PRM funding to NGOs effectively filled gaps in other agencies' programming. Another IG review of PRM is scheduled for early 2006."

Evidence: a) Review of IOM's Decentralized Structure; b) International Medical Corps (IMC) independent evaluations; c) GBV Reports: 1) If Not Now, When? Addressing GBV in Refugee, IDP, and Post-Conflict Settings - A Global Review; 2) GBV - Emerging Issues in Programs Serving Displaced Populations; d) State Deptartment Inspector General's Office review of PRM, 1995; e) Government Accountability Office (GAO) Report on Protection of Refugee Women and Girls, 2003; f) State Deptartment Inspector General's Office review of Refugee Women's Programs, 2002; g) PRM responses to recommendations of Inspector General's Office review of Refugee Women's Programs, March 2002 (08/12/02, 10/29/02, 01/03/03, 07/19/03); h) Inspector General's Office Memorandum of April 30, 2004 indicating that all but one recommendations have been previously closed; i) 3/30/05 e-mail from State Deptartment Inspector General's Office on ABACUS compliance for closure of last recommendation (#5); j) 2004 PRM Monitoring & Evaluation (M&E) course materials [begins with table of contents].