Detailed Information on the
International Disaster Assistance Assessment

Better integrating assistance needs in protracted emergencies with other U.S. Agency for International Development programs in order to reduce the Office's long-term presence in these countries.

Improving and expanding the use of performance measures across protracted emergencies, including ensuring that certain key performance data are measured reliably and uniformly across emergencies.

Developing additional measures of cost-effectiveness, including reviewing cost-effectiveness when doing post-crises assessments and evaluations.

Measure: In complex humanitarian crises, percent of monitored protracted emergency sites with less than 10 percent Global Acute Malnutrition (GAM).

Explanation:Nutritional status is a basic indicator for assessing the severity of crises, together with Crude Death Rate (CDR). In emergencies, the prevalence of global acute malnutrition among children 6-59 months is used as a proxy indicator for the health and well-being of the entire community. A GAM of less than 10 percent reflects the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines in the presence of aggravating factors. This GAM rate is a measure of success in emergencies, especially in sub-Saharan Africa where the baseline is approximately 8% in stable situations. OFDA will expand over time the number of sites receiving OFDA-funding that it is monitoring for changes in the GAM. 80% of sites were targeted in 2007.

Measure: Percent of monitored sites in complex humanitarian crises in which the crude death rate (CDR) declines or remains stable.

Explanation:The CDR is the most vital, public health indicator of the severity of a humanitarian crisis. It is an accepted indicator of the extent to which the international community is meeting minimum standards of care and thus the overall impact and performance of the collective international relief system. USAID also expanded the number of sites monitored over time from 52% in 2005 to a target of 75% in 2007.

Measure: Percentage of complex emergency and food security emergency country programs terminated within 5 years of initial program implementation and not restarted within 10 years after termination.

Explanation:Gauge of the extent to which OFDA has contributed to stability of the targeted population so that program may be ended or handed off to another USAID bureau or to the USAID mission. May be subject to conditions outside OFDA's control.

Measure: Share of costs borne by OFDA implementing partners.

Explanation:Average share of the value of an OFDA grant or cooperative agreement covered by recipients' own contributions. By contributing their own funding, implementing partners are leveraging OFDA funding, making it go farther and providing additional pressure on partners to ensure the efficacious use of the funding.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: "The program purpose, as authorized in law, is to facilitate and coordinate U.S. Government emergency assistance overseas (Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended). The President has designated the USAID Administrator as the Special Coordinator for International Disaster Assistance. The disaster assistance program is implemented through the Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA) and channeled through a range of U.S. nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), international organizations, United Nations agencies, USAID field missions, other U.S. Government agencies, universities and institutional contractors. OFDA also utilizes various interagency agreements with several other U.S. Government entities. OFDA's mandate is to save lives and reduce suffering of those affected by natural or man-made disasters and complex emergencies. OFDA targets the most vulnerable groups with its emergency assistance. OFDA seeks to assist beneficiaries in a timely manner to avert further suffering and death and to help victims restore their livelihoods and reduce their dependency on assistance."

Evidence: a. Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (Sec. 491 & 493). b. OFDA Strategic Plan FY2004-2008 (p. 1-3).

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

Explanation: OFDA provides relief and rehabilitation to populations in developing countries experiencing man-made and natural disasters, as well as mitigation and preparedness activities to help countries respond more quickly and effectively to disasters. OFDA also has the USG lead on addressing the humanitarian needs of persons who have been internally displaced as a result of man-made or natural disasters. OFDA's humanitarian assistance programs support the joint mission, objectives and goals of the Department of State and USAID; specifically, to "advance sustainable development and global interests" and to "minimize the human costs of displacement, conflicts, and natural disasters." OFDA's relief activities support strategic U.S. national interests and contribute to a positive image of the United States abroad. USAID's new IDP Policy Paper, which delineates OFDA's role as the USG's lead coordinator on internal displacement, lays out a clear USG strategy for IDPs, allowing OFDA to closely work with key stakeholders, including the U.S Department of State, UN agencies, and other donors. Internal displacement is a symptom of underlying problems, mainly conflict and instability, particularly in fragile, failed and failing states.

Evidence: a. State/USAID 2004-2009 Strategic Planning Framework (p. 28-29). b. Foreign Aid in the National Interest, Promoting Freedom, Security and Opportunity (p. 113-128). c. USAID Assistance to Internally Displaced Persons Policy. d. White Paper - US Foreign Aid, Meeting the Challenges of the 21st Century (p. 20).

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

Explanation: "OFDA is mandated by law to facilitate and coordinate the USG response to natural and man-made disasters abroad. In addition, OFDA has the USG lead in providing emergency humanitarian aid to internally-displaced populations (IDPs). OFDA coordinates and works with other USG entities during disaster response, but OFDA's role is distinct from others. The Office of Transition Initiatives (OTI) focuses on political transition needs, while OFDA focuses on humanitarian assistance. The Office of Food for Peace (FFP) provides food aid, while OFDA focuses on non-food aid. The Dept. of State's Bureau for Population Refugees and Migration (PRM) focuses on refugees, while OFDA focuses on the needs of internally displaced populations. OFDA's work is distinct from traditional development programs because of its focus on emergency needs. OFDA often stays in complex emergencies (long-lived emergencies usually related to conflicts) that continue for several years, providing livelihoods, health and other services. In some instances, USAID missions and other USAID funding could take over the activities, but rarely do. In some instances there has been overlap with PRM, PL 480 Title II and with other donors and NGOs (especially those not receiving OFDA funds). When OFDA discovers duplication, it usually takes corrective measures."

Evidence: a. Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended (Sec. 491 & 493).

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

Explanation: "OFDA has a demonstrated ability to effectively and efficiently coordinate the USG response to disasters and to respond quickly and flexibly to disasters such as the massive December 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami. OFDA's program is implemented through grants and/or cooperative agreements with NGOs, agreements with International Organizations, and use of in-house resources, depending on which vehicle is most appropriate for the situation. This flexibility allows OFDA to respond to each situation as appropriate. Transparency in the operation of OFDA and, as noted below, in certain instances coordination with and other donors, NGOs, and implementing agencies as well other parts of USAID and State could be improved. Coordination within its own USAID bureau, Democracy, Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance (DCHA) and with missions has been improving. USAID is in the process of developing and implementing a strategy that better addresses fragile, failing and failed states that is intended to better integrate all phases of aid in these states and to improve USAID effectiveness."

Evidence: OFDA has a long history of effectively coordinating the USG response to a number of major disasters. See, for example, USAID Center for Development Information and Evaluation (CDIE) 2001 review of USAID humanitarian assistance programs.

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

Explanation: "OFDA takes steps to target programs effectively, get resources to intended beneficiaries, and design individual programs to meet the most critical needs identified. Program beneficiaries are identified through a variety of mechanisms, relying on both internal and external assessments. OFDA generally conducts its own needs assessments at some point during an emergency, drawing on its pool of dedicated and knowledgeable field-based area experts and technical specialists. During large scale disasters, OFDA deploys Disaster Assessment and Response Teams (DARTs) to conduct on the ground assessments to guide programming decisions. DART members have completed OFDA's disaster assessment training. OFDA developed a Field Operations Guide (FOG), introduced in 1992, to serve as a field reference and assessment tool. OFDA has since harmonized the FOG with SPHERE standards - an international initiative to improve the effectiveness and accountability of humanitarian assistance. At the same time, OFDA utilizes needs assessments from respected outside organizations, such as ICRC and UN OCHA. OFDA also consults with its implementing partners on latest needs information, and provides partners with assessment frameworks and training through vehicles such as Interaction and RedR. The Famine Early Warning System (FEWSNET) is another tool which helps keep OFDA staff current on emergency needs. Washington based staff conduct regular program assessments to validate program approaches, and identify any necessary mid-course corrections. OFDA staff evaluate data collected by implementing partners, and review performance monitoring plans and grantee reports. Some evaluations of OFDA programs (such as DROC) suggest that targeting of beneficiaries could be improved. Academic analyses suggest that better targeting of beneficiaries by all donors is needed in humanitarian crises."

Evidence: a. OFDA Field Operations Guide (FOG). b. OFDA Disaster Assessment Training Course Material. c. Sample FEWSNET Report - Niger Food Security, June 2005. d. OFDA Guidelines for Proposals and Reporting - November 2004. DROC evaluation, HPG Report June 2004

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: OFDA's overarching long-term goal is to minimize the human costs of displacement, conflicts and natural disasters by meeting the emergency needs of targeted vulnerable populations. The long-term output measures indicate whether selected situations have improved as a result of OFDA and other relief and rehabilitation efforts mainly in the case of complex emergencies. USAID tracks the percentage of assessed programs where the beneficiaries' mortality rates have stabilized or declined and where nutritional status has improved, as measured by the crude death rate (CDR) and nutritional status of child under five years of age. OFDA is going to look at ways to better assess the overall effectiveness across individual programs. OFDA intends to track more globally than in past years the degree to which programs have stabilized beneficiaries' death rates and nutritional status. Although OFDA does not have control over conflicts that often create large internally-displaced populations, there are cases where the populations have become stabilized and where the USAID mission or bureaus could play a larger role -- provided that USAID has a mission operating in the affected country or other USAID field ability. In many cases, OFDA only oversees short-term activities such as the immediate relief activities following a natural disaster such as a hurricane. In those cases, annual measures that apply to these activities are effectively also the long-term measures.

Evidence: a. OFDA Strategic Plan 2004-2008. b. USAID/State Strategic Plan for 2004-2009. c. OFDA Operational Plan for Asia Pacific. e. OFDA Field Operations Guide (FOG). f. Sphere Guidelines. g. OFDA Guidelines for Proposals and Reporting. h. USAID Performance and Accountability Report, FY 2004 (USAID aggregate measures related to humanitarian assistance)

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

Explanation: OFDA developed targets and timelines for its long-term measures related to CDR and nutrition. These measures provide insight into how effective OFDA is across the monitored protracted emergencies that it supports. Over time, USAID will expand the percentage of emergencies that it monitors. In addition, OFDA will measure whether USAID is making progress in better integrating these emergencies into overall USAID development strategies and funding. To facilitate performance monitoring and reporting under the Joint State/USAID strategies, OFDA is currently a part of an agency wide effort to align and harmonize a set of contextual and regional performance indicators that would provide valuable performance information to managers both in the field and at Washington Headquarters. In addition, OFDA has developed a number of specific long-term goals for the small portion of its funding devoted to hydrometerological mitigation and preparedness program. These goals are focused, measurable, and outcome-oriented. The objective of the program is to reduce vulnerability to adverse impacts of climate/ weather induced disasters such as floods, droughts, cyclones, extreme temperatures, avalanches, and landslides. These long-term performance goals are supported by outcome and/or output-related performance measures and regional indicators which are used to assess the progress towards completion of the long-term goals, and allow OFDA to re-direct the program where necessary. All programs - whether responding to natural disasters or complex emergencies - are carried out with the expectation that other offices in USAID or the USG will address medium- to long-term rehabilitation and reconstruction needs. USAID is looking at how to better track its across-the-board effectiveness - overall and country-wide -- in protracted and short-term disasters. OFDA has developed a number of specific long-term goals for the small portion of its funding devoted to hydrometerological mitigation and preparedness program. These goals are focused, measurable, and outcome-oriented. The objective of the program is to reduce vulnerability to adverse impacts of climate/ weather induced disasters such as floods, droughts, cyclones, extreme temperatures, avalanches, and landslides. These longterm performance goals are supported by outcome and/or output-related performance measures and regional indicators which are used to assess the progress towards completion of the long-term goals, and allow OFDA to re-direct the program where necessary. All programs - whether responding to natural disasters or complex emergencies - are carried out with the expectation that other offices in USAID or the USG will address medium- to long-term rehabilitation and reconstruction needs. "

Evidence: a. OFDA Strategic Plan 2004-2008. b. USAID/State Strategic Plan for 2004-2009. c. USAID Performance and Accountability Report, FY 2004 (USAID aggregate measures related to humanitarian assistance). d.Measures, baselines and targets developed for PART.

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 emergencies that last several years, OFDA has developed annual measures to indicate whether the emergencies have improved as a result of OFDA relief and rehabilitation efforts following natural and man-made disasters, including complex emergencies. These measures provide insight into how effective OFDA is across the monitored protracted emergencies that it supports. Over time, USAID will expand the percentage of emergencies that it monitors. In addition, OFDA will measure whether USAID is making progress in better integrating these emergencies into overall USAID development strategies and funding. In addition, OFDA sets broad goals for individual country programs and works with individual implementing partners (NGOs, UN and other international organizations) to establish indicators for their specific agreement that bear on those goals. For example, in Darfur (one of the areas of Sudan in which OFDA operates programs), OFDA has three specific performance goals. (1) Meet emergency needs of vulnerable populations. The crisis in Darfur has resulted in the destruction of more than 500 villages and has dislocated almost two million people, most of whom were left with little or no access to food, water, shelter, or health care. USAID identified and addressed these life-threatening needs. (2) Mitigate the secondary effects of the crisis, both physical and psychosocial. Rape and other human rights violations have been widespread, leaving lasting psychological scars on victims and affecting the social fabric of their communities. Violence has separated families, denying them access to their farms, herds, and other livelihoods. USAID addressed these issues. (3) Address root causes of conflict and lay the groundwork for reconciliation. USAID has sought to avoid population displacement becoming the accepted rather than the exceptional state of affairs, as occurred to a large extent in southern Sudan. USAID has devoted resources to address the root causes that have led to the crisis, introducing conflict resolution and potential future reconciliation into its programs. The reporting requirements for individual agreements are tailored to each agreement and are not designed to contribute to aggregate OFDA measures of program effectiveness." However, presently OFDA still has difficulty identifying its overall annual progress in Darfur in a way that is readily comparable to other recipient countries or regions or other donors.

Evidence: a. OFDA Strategic Plan 2004-2008. b. USAID Darfur response plan. c. USAID Performance and Accountability Report, FY 2004 (USAID aggregate measures related to humanitarian assistance).

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

Explanation: OFDA developed targets and timelines for its long-term measures related to CDR and nutrition. Including baselines and targets. USAID is looking at how to better track its annual across-the-board effectiveness - overall and country-wide --in protracted and short-term disasters.

Evidence: a. OFDA Strategic Plan 2004-2008. b. USAID Performance and Accountability Report, FY 2004 (USAID aggregate measures related to humanitarian assistance).

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: OFDA's programs work towards one strategic objective: to meet critical needs of targeted vulnerable groups in emergency situations. OFDA's partners are committed to working towards the same objective. OFDA takes various steps to ensure collaboration with partners, and a focused effort towards achieving its goals. OFDA's needs assessments are coordinated with its partners (see answer to 1.5). . OFDA also promotes the coordination and leadership function of the United Nations through grants and cooperative agreements to UN bodies, such as the Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), World Food Program (WFP), Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), UNICEF, et al. Prior to funding programs, OFDA reviews all proposals to ensure consistency with its strategic objective. OFDA involves its government partners by inviting them to participate in the proposal review process as appropriate (e.g., FFP, USAID desk officer, State). OFDA's effectiveness is largely dependent on successful NGO implementation. OFDA supports InterAction - a Washington-based consortium with over 160 member agencies, committed to enhancing the effectiveness and professional capacity of NGOs engaged in international humanitarian and development work. OFDA provides funding for a disaster response committee at InterAction, and hosts monthly InterAction meetings. The meetings provide an opportunity for OFDA and its partners to review emergency responses and ensure they are effectively working together towards the same goals. OFDA has agreed to work with the NGOs to use more standardized data. In addition, it would be beneficial for NGOs to provide more frequent reporting in all emergencies in order for the U.S. to be able to explain in a more timely and consistent manner the specific outcomes that it is achieving, including the number of beneficiaries and the different benefits that they are receiving.

Evidence: a. OFDA Guidelines for Proposals and Reporting - November 2004 (p. 9). b. OFDA Strategic Plan 2004-2008 (p 13-16). c. USAID/State Strategic Plan for 2004-2009.

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: "OFDA regularly conducts independent evaluations of completed or on-going programs in order to evaluate a program's effectiveness, identify lessons learned, and make recommendations for the future. OFDA traditionally funds 5-6 such formal independent evaluations per year. Evaluation topics are wide-ranging, and chosen based upon suggestions solicited from across the office. OFDA's field staff also regularly conducts monitoring trips to assess the effectiveness of OFDA programs. OFDA has developed several monitoring and evaluation tools to be used by field staff. OFDA also requires that all programs include a monitoring and evaluation plan. While several individual country programs have been evaluated, the last overall program evaluation was by USAID's Center for Development Information and Evaluation (CDIE) in 2001. While GAO and IG may review USAID responses to major disasters such as Hurricane Mitch, there have rarely been evaluations of the overall operation and performance of OFDA. There are several academic analyses of responses to humanitarian crises, but these tend to focus on overall donor and implementing partner responses -- rather than specifically on USAID and its direct and indirect role in the response. "

Evidence: a. Evaluation: USAID/OFDA Humanitarian Assistance Program in Angola 2000-2003. b. Evaluation of USAID's Humanitarian Assistance Program in the Democratic Republic of the Congo 2000-2004. c. Evaluation of OFDA Cash for Relief Interventions in Ethiopia. d. UN Humanitarian Information Center Evaluation. e. Evaluation of OFDA Emergency Seed Relief Drought Response in Ethiopia, 2003-2004. f. Evaluation of USAID/OFDA LAC Risk Management Program. g. OFDA Guidelines for Proposals and Reporting - November 2004 (p. 32-37, 64).

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: OFDA's annual budget is based on a projection of ongoing emergency needs and contingency planning for unanticipated natural and man-made disasters. OFDA needs to maintain a significant portion of contingency funding. OFDA ability to provide effective responses to emergencies is widely recognized within the international community.

Evidence:

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

Explanation: USAID has developed some output performance measures and OFDA is in the process of reviewing them and developing additional measures, baselines and targets. OFDA has a history of undertaking initiatives to aid its strategic planning. OFDA created the Evaluation and Planning Team (EPT) in 1999 to establish practices and systems to improve OFDA's capacity to plan, monitor, and evaluate its individual programs. One example is the monitoring tool included in the OFDA Guidelines for Proposals and Reporting. To bridge the gap between development and relief, OFDA encourages integrated strategic planning. OFDA often coordinates with USAID mission staff to develop emergency response strategies that complement ongoing USAID development efforts. Coordination efforts extend to other USG agencies involved in disaster relief or development activities. Other government partner offices (within USAID and State) are invited to participate on OFDA proposal review teams, and disaster response and management teams. OFDA should include additional improvements to the measurement and reporting of performance results as well as to its evaluations.

Evidence: a. OFDA Guidelines for Proposals and Reporting - November 2004; b. Sample Monitoring Tools (p. 64); c. USAID Performance and Accountability Report, FY 2004 (USAID aggregate measures related to humanitarian assistance).

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: Grants and Cooperative Agreements administered by OFDA require implementing partners to submit a number of progress reports (some quarterly and some annually) in order to measure a programs performance and success. OFDA requires all reports to include information on progress made towards accomplishing program objectives and achieving expected results. OFDA asks that the data presented be both qualitative and quantitative against established indicators. Programs are also monitored by periodic field trips. Most individual grants and agreements run for less than one year. However, organizations wanting to renew a grant or cooperative agreement must make necessary programmatic or budget modifications requested by the OFDA program managers. Agreements are only signed once the organizations agree to the recommendations.

Evidence: a. OFDA Guidelines for Proposals and Reporting - November 2004 (p. 32-37).

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: Implementing partners are held accountable for performance, based on the guidelines agreed to in their grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts. Programs are monitored and evaluated via periodic program reports and field visits. OFDA has the option to withhold payments if implementing partners are not performing in accordance with the award agreement. OFDA also conducts post-program evaluations. Adjustments are made to follow-on agreements based on past performance, and evaluations are taken into account when making follow-on funding decisions. If past performance is shown to be weak and programs are not meeting stated objectives, OFDA discontinues funding.

Evidence: a. OFDA Guidelines for Proposals and Reporting - November 2004 (p. 32-37).

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

Explanation: OFDA prioritizes needs throughout the year as new emergencies arise. OFDA can obligate funds quickly. Often the initial response after a disaster declaration, particularly to fast-onset emergencies, is to immediately authorize use of the $50,000 Disaster Assistance Authority. Depending on needs, OFDA may provide relief commodities such as blankets, tents, plastic sheeting and water containers from one of its worldwide pre-positioned stockpiles. OFDA tracks the percentage of disaster declarations to which initial responses are made within 72 hours with financial resources, staff for technical visits, or other appropriate actions. OFDA normally provides an initial response to declared disasters within 24 hours, with 72 hours as an outside limit in certain circumstances. From 2000 to 2004 OFDA responded to a total of 295 disaster declarations with either funds or staff resources within 72 hours." However, these initial responses to disaster declarations account for only a small portion of OFDA funding. Most of the funding for disasters occurs after needs assessments rather than in the first 72 hours.

Evidence: a. Abacus Report - Tsunami Program Summary. b. OFDA Strategic Plan 2004-2008.

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: "OFDA has procedures in place such as those cited, including competitive sourcing and IT improvement initiatives. OFDA competes grants for its large programs by releasing Annual Program Statements (APS) as necessary. The APS highlights the need areas for the specific country program and invites the submission of grant proposals. Awards are made to those organizations whose applications offer the best value to OFDA. APS improve the overall cost effectiveness of programs as budget/cost is typically one of the criteria by which a proposals are rated. OFDA also competitively sources its internal technical and procurement support contracts, as well as individual personal service contracts. OFDA has implemented several IT improvements over the last several years. In 2001, OFDA implemented an information management system called Abacus. Abacus is an Oracle based application which helps OFDA manage its worldwide operations, and better meet internal and external reporting requirements. Abacus assists in budget planning, funds tracking, and extensively capturing the program planning and award information. Other IT improvements include the implementation of a dedicated OFDA network and the collaborative software tool "e-Rooms." The OFDA network ensures redundancy and 24/7 availability and e-Rooms helps teams better organize and share files and information from multiple locations. OFDA is also continually evaluating the most cost effective way to provide DARTs with reliable, efficient telecommunications capabilities in the field. OFDA also seeks out cost-saving technologies such as anti-malarial temporary shelter materials that reduce the disease -- and therefore treatment -- among internally-displaced populations. OFDA has changed the way it does therapeutic feeding for the most acutely malnourished to reach more people at lower cost." OFDA is developing additional efficiency measures.

Evidence: a. Annual Program Statement FY-2005 Conflict Response Initiative in Sudan. b. Abacus User Manual c. HPG report on therapeutic feeding.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: "One of OFDA's main responsibilities is to facilitate and coordinate USG emergency assistance overseas. Per the OFDA Response Management Team (RMT) Policy and Procedures manual, "during a disaster response, the OFDA RMT coordinates the USAID response and serves in a leadership role to coordinate the work of the various cooperating agencies." OFDA coordinates with related programs by involving their representatives in OFDA's disaster response and management teams, and inviting their participation in proposal reviews. OFDA also has a military liaison unit, which coordinates with the Department of Defense on its humanitarian assistance operations. OFDA has formal relationships with several other USG programs, including the USGS, NGA, CDCP, US Public Health Service, US Forest Service, NOAA, and the EPA. OFDA also coordinates with USAID mission staff to develop emergency response strategies that complement ongoing USAID development efforts. Improvements in coordination with other USAID bureaus and other USG agencies (such as PRM) and other donors could be made. OFDA tries not to create duplicative programs and tries to coordinate with other donors. However, there have been cases where duplicative programs ran parallel because they were being run by organization not receiving USAID funding. In emergencies when duplication is discovered, OFDA tries to take corrective measures. Coordination within its own USAID bureau, Democracy, Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance (DCHA) and with missions has been improving. During the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami response, for example, two other DCHA offices were brought on missions and OFDA was able to begin funding microcredits using their mechanisms in the first week of the tsunami to begin to restore livelihoods early in the relief phase. "

Evidence: a. OFDA Washington Response Management Team Policy and Procedures (p. 3). b. OFDA Strategic Plan for 2004-2008 (p. 13-16).

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: OFDA has strong financial management practices. In addition to complying with all USAID financial management procedures and systems, OFDA developed an information management system (Abacus) to meet its own financial management and reporting needs. Abacus was implemented in 2001. It allows OFDA to plan its budget, and track and report on funding, in a consistent, transparent, and reliable manner. . Abacus is reconciled with the agency's financial reporting system on a daily basis, to ensure the data is reliable. Within USAID, obtaining information on International Disaster and Famine Assistance funding used by USAID bureaus other than OFDA and getting a quick, coordinated, and complete picture of how the funding is being used is difficult. Improvements in the timing required to produce these data and in the transparency of these data are warranted.

Evidence: a. Sample Abacus Report - 6/28/05 Financial Summary.

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

Explanation: OFDA is continually taking steps to improve management of its operations. In 2001 OFDA implemented a system called Abacus to assist in budget planning, funds tracking, including program budgetary planning and award information. To better support and manage its Disaster Assessment and Response Teams (DARTs), OFDA established the practice of standing up a Washington based Response Management Team (RMT) for specific disasters. The RMTs manage the overall response, support DART activities, and respond to Washington based inquiries and needs. This has improved DART operations in the field and response coordination in Washington. The program has recently taken some steps to improve its operational transparency within the USG.

Evidence: a.Discussions with OFDA management. b.OFDA Washington Response Management Team Policy and Procedures.

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

Explanation: While a lot of OFDA's programs have external elements that are out of their control, such as security and resolution of conflicts, OFDA is often able, in conjunction with other donors, the UN and other organizations, and NGOs to stabilize and improve conditions created by man-made and natural disasters. OFDA has just established some long-term performance measures including baselines and targets for key long-term performance goals in protracted complex emergencies.

Evidence: a. Evaluation: USAID/OFDA Humanitarian Assistance Program in Angola 2000-2003. b. OFDA Operational Plan for Asia Pacific 2003-2008. c. Evaluation of USAID's Humanitarian Assistance Program in the Democratic Republic of the Congo 2000-2004. d. Evaluation of OFDA Cash for Relief Interventions in Ethiopia. e. UN Humanitarian Information Center Evaluation. f. Evaluation of OFDA Emergency Seed Relief Drought Response in Ethiopia, 2003-2004. g. Evaluation of USAID/OFDA LAC Risk Management Program. h. USAID CDIE 2001 report.

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

Explanation: While a lot of OFDA's programs have external elements that are out of their control, such as security and resolution of conflicts, OFDA is often able, in conjunction with other donors, the UN and other organizations, and NGOs to stabilize and improve conditions created by man-made and natural disasters. OFDA has just established some long-term performance measures including baselines and targets for key annual performance goals in protracted complex emergencies.

Evidence: a. Evaluation: USAID/OFDA Humanitarian Assistance Program in Angola 2000-2003. b. OFDA Operational Plan for Asia Pacific 2003-2008. c. Evaluation of USAID's Humanitarian Assistance Program in the Democratic Republic of the Congo 2000-2004. d. Evaluation of OFDA Cash for Relief Interventions in Ethiopia. e. UN Humanitarian Information Center Evaluation. f. Evaluation of OFDA Emergency Seed Relief Drought Response in Ethiopia, 2003-2004. g. Evaluation of USAID/OFDA LAC Risk Management Program.

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

Explanation: OFDA is developing additional efficiency measures. The program takes actions to improve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in achieving program goals. For example, OFDA has developed a rapid response mechanism for staffing in which a pool of qualified, pre-cleared and trained contractors are called on to fill short term staffing gaps. OFDA also has in place two Indefinite Quantity Contracts (IQC) which enables OFDA to efficiently contract for a wide range of short term services. In addition, OFDA has a contract in place which allows it to quickly process all grant awards and staffing contracts. OFDA also has a standing contract with the Forest Service to fill specialized staffing needs here in Washington and in the field. In addition, OFDA has partnerships with the Fairfax County (Virginia) and Los Angeles (California) County urban search and rescue teams, either of which can be deployed quickly in the event of an earthquake or other disaster requiring their expertise. The teams also provide support to their counterparts in several countries, focusing on the training of first responders (those first on the scene of a disaster), hospital preparedness for mass casualty events and improving capacities for regional collapsed search and rescue. In many cases, early responses -- even at higher initial costs than a slower response -- can prevent higher program costs later, and more importantly, can improve the outcomes of programs and save lives. In addition, OFDA is seeking to improve program implementation in ways that improve outcomes and allow an earlier exit by OFDA as well as USAID, such as introducing livelihood measures into the early relief phases to allow displaced persons to return more quickly to a sustainable situation. "

Evidence: a. HPG report on therapeutic feeding; b. IQC contract system

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

Explanation:

Evidence:

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

Explanation: "Independent evaluations have shown that individual OFDA programs are achieving results as defined by the goals for the specific program or strategic objective. Independent evaluation conducted on Angola, Ethiopia, DRC, and Latin America by independent consultants determined that individual OFDA programs are accomplishing or have achieved their individual program goals. In 2001,USAID's independent evaluation unit, the Center for Development Information and Evaluation (CDIE), issued a evaluation of multiple programs and indicated that the program was effective in saving lives. "

Evidence: a. Evaluation: USAID/OFDA Humanitarian Assistance Program in Angola 2000-2003. b. OFDA Operational Plan for Asia Pacific 2003-2008. c. Evaluation of USAID's Humanitarian Assistance Program in the Democratic Republic of the Congo 2000-2004. d. Evaluation of OFDA Cash for Relief Interventions in Ethiopia. e. UN Humanitarian Information Center Evaluation. f. Evaluation of OFDA Emergency Seed Relief Drought Response in Ethiopia, 2003-2004. g. Evaluation of USAID/OFDA LAC Risk Management Program. h. USAID CDIE 2001 report.