USDA International Food Assistance by GQ7vn8e4

VIEWS: 42 PAGES: 114

									   USDA International
    Food Assistance
            Presented by Members of
the Office of Capacity Building and Development
           Foreign Agricultural Service
         U.S. Department of Agriculture

                August 2, 2010
               Roger Mireles
       Assistant Deputy Administrator
Office of Capacity Building and Development
         Foreign Agricultural Service
       Introductions and Agenda
•   Welcome and Introductory Remarks
     Roger Mireles, Assistant Deputy Administrator, Office of Capacity Building and
     Development (OCBD)

•   Food Assistance Division Overview
     Ron Croushorn, Director, Food Assistance Division (FAD)

•   Food for Progress Programming for FY 2010 & Beyond
     Judy Phillips, Chief, Food for Development Branch, FAD

•   McGovern-Dole Program
     Erika Beltran, Senior Analyst, School Feeding and Humanitarian Assistance Branch, FAD

•   Local and Regional Food Aid Procurement Pilot Project
     Jamie Fisher, Chief, Local and Regional Procurement, FAD

•   Transportation and Logistics
     Amy Harding, Acting Chief, Transportation and Logistics Branch, FAD

•   Questions and Answers
   USDA Objectives to Increase
     Food Security Overseas
• Ensure U.S. agricultural resources
  contribute to enhanced global food security
• Support sustainable agriculture production
  in food-insecure nations
      USDA’s Unique Toolbox
Tools that promote agricultural development
     Food Aid Programs
     Trade and Scientific Exchange Programs
     USDA Technical Expertise
     Partnerships
     Overseas Representation
 Priorities for Food Aid Programs
• Linkage with Feed the Future Initiative and
  other development plans
• Improvements in grants management in
  areas of finance, monitoring and
  evaluation, and compliance
• Full implementation of new regulations in
  FY 2010 food aid agreements
  Food Assistance Division

                Ron Croushorn
     Director, Food Assistance Division
Office of Capacity Building and Development
         Foreign Agricultural Service
         Program Overview
–   Food for Progress
–   McGovern-Dole International Food for
    Education and Child Nutrition Program
–   Local and Regional Food Aid Procurement Pilot
              Key Topics

• Food aid quality
• Monitoring and evaluation
• Sustainability of projects
• Changes in regulations
• Food Aid Information System
      FY 2010 Focus Areas
• During today’s session, FAS will provide
  information on:
  – Program Management
  – Strategic Framework & Indicators
  – Procurement Practices
Food for Progress
        Presented by:
         Judy Phillips
        Branch Chief
Food for Development Branch
     Food for Progress (FFPr)
• Program Overview
• FY 2010 Awards
• Priority Countries
• FY 2011 Solicitation
          FFPr Program Basics
• Authorized by the Food for
  Progress Act of 1985
• Targets developing
• Supports the expansion of
  private enterprise in the
  agricultural sector
• Commodities are usually
  monetized to fund
  development activities
   FFPr Resources Until 2012
• Funding authorized by the Farm Bill
• $40 million cap on transportation costs
• Commodity value not restricted
• $15 million for administrative costs
• Residual Title I funds for government
   FFPr Program Value
      and Tonnage
               Value ($) **               Tonnage (MT)
2007                $135.4                     303,910
2008                $156.6                     180,370
2009                $209.4                     261,730
2010                $172.6                     272,080
** Includes prior FY carry over and Title I-funded FFPr programs.
                     FFPr Focus
Improved Agricultural Production
   •   Improved farming methods
   •   Soil and water conservation
   •   Animal and plant health
Agribusiness Development
   •   Processing, storage, marketing
   •   Roads and other infrastructure
   •   Cooperative development
Financial Services
   •   Microcredit
   •   Business training
Active FFPr Agreements

           • 40 Countries
           • 116 Agreements
           • Agreement Value
                = $850 Million
  FFPr Agreements (2005-2010)
      Country and Number of Agreements

Afghanistan (10)        Ethiopia (3)     Mauritania (1)
Armenia (2)             The Gambia (1)   Mongolia (3)
Bangladesh (1)          Georgia (2)      Mozambique (7)
Bolivia (4)             Guatemala (4)    Nicaragua (4)
Burundi (1)             Guinea (1)       Niger (5)
Cameroon (2)            Honduras (6)     Pakistan (5)
Cen. African Rep. (2)   Iraq (1)         Philippines (7)
D. R. Congo (2)         Jamaica (1)      Senegal (3)
Rep. of Congo (1)       Kenya (2)        Sri Lanka (3)
Dominican Rep. (3)      Lebanon (1)      Tajikistan (1)
East-Timor (2)          Liberia (4)      Tanzania (3)
Ecuador (2)             Madagascar (3)   Uganda (2)
El Salvador (3)         Malawi (3)       Yemen (1)
                        Mali (4)
       FY 2010 FFPr Proposals
   89 Proposals             10 Proposals
    Submitted                Approved
• Proposals from:        • Approved Programs:
    - 47 PVOs                - 7 PVOs
    - 3 Governments          - 2 Governments
• 19 countries           • 10 countries
• Total value            • Total value
      = $1,390 million         = $146 million
FFPr Priority Country Criteria
• Income - Per capita below $3,855 (World Bank)
• Malnutrition - >20% of children under age
  5 are stunted (WHO)
• Political Freedom - Free or partly free
  (Freedom House)

• USDA Post Coverage - Ability to monitor
 Other FFPr Determining Factors

• Security concerns
• Potential market
• Other donor
FFPr Priority Countries
  FY 2011       FY 2012**
 Afghanistan    El Salvador
 Bangladesh      Guatemala
    Benin        Honduras
 Burkina Faso       Mali
     Haiti      Mozambique
    Kenya        Nicaragua
    Liberia       Pakistan
    Malawi        Senegal
   Mongolia       Tanzania
  Philippines   Timor Leste
           FY 2011 Solicitation
• Proposals Due: October 15, 2010 at 5:00 PM ET
• Online Solicitation Resources:
    – Considerations for FY 2011 Programs
    – Guidelines for Introductory Statement
    – Guidelines for Plan of Operation
    – Sample Introductory Statement
    – Sample Plan of Operation
• Available:
 FFPr Proposal Evaluation Criteria
• Focus on private sector agricultural development
• Organizational capability and experience
• Program coordination with host government and
  other USG strategies (Feed the Future)
• Ability to quantify program impact
• Commodity management and appropriateness
• Overall proposal quality
               FFPr Indicators
     Improved Agricultural Productivity
             Outputs                            Outcomes
• Number of trainings on           •   Increase in net revenue
  improved practices                   attributed to participation in
• Number of distributions of           trainings
  fertilizers, improved seeds,     •   Increase in yields and/or
  completed irrigation projects        production
  acreage                          •   Change in hectares under
• Other such measures of               improved practice
  activities related to expanded   •   Number of farmers using
  production                           improved practices
               FFPr Indicators
            Agribusiness Development
              Outputs                           Outcomes
• Number of trained farmers       • Increase in net revenue
• Number of total trainings          attributed to participation
  provided                           in trainings
• Number of individual consults   • Increase in yield/production
• Number of treatments for        • Number of jobs created
  livestock                       • Number of new businesses
• Number of applications of          created
  improved technologies for       • Increase in value of beneficiary
  crops or livestock                 assets
• Completed business plans        • Increase in adoption of
                                     improved technology
              FFPr Indicators
         Provision of Financial Services
           Outputs                           Outcomes
• Number of trainings        • Increase in employee wages of
  provided                      those receiving financial services
• Number of loans provided   • Revenue at companies receiving
• Number of credit              financial services
  cooperatives formed        • New jobs created in communities
• Number of credit unions       where the financial services were
  formed                        offered
• Percent increase in        • Trained participants demonstrating
  community bank deposits       ability to use financial services
                             • Increase in daily per capita
                                expenditure by micro credit
           Contact Information
Judy Phillips (Branch Chief)………………………..... (202) 720-0732
Debbie Pfaff (West Africa)………………………....... (202) 720-9434
Al Ersoz (Southern Africa, Middle East)……………. (202) 720-3405
Shohreh Kermani-Peterson (Lat Am & Caribbean).. (202) 690-0637
Nicola Sakhleh (Central Asia)……………………...... (202) 720-4228
Echo Domingues (SE Asia, Europe, Caucuses)…... (202) 401-0178
Jane Wilkins (East Africa)………………………........ (202) 720-5263
Colin Miller (Close Out Coordination)………………. (202) 401-0188
McGovern-Dole International
Food for Education & Child
    Nutrition Program

            Presented by:
Erika Beltran, Senior Program Analyst
       Presentation Overview
•   Program Overview
•   FY 2010 Resources and Awards
•   Priority Country Determination and Lists
•   Proposal Evaluation Criteria
•   Awards Coming Later FY 2010
             Program Basics
• Authorized by the Farm Security
  and Rural Investment Act of 2002
• Targets developing countries
• Focuses on improving the
  education (attendance, literacy,
  and graduation rates) and nutrition
  of beneficiaries, especially girls
• Strengthen community linkages
  and increase capacity of
  government to implement school
  feeding activities
• Commodities are primarily used for
  direct distribution
                Project Areas
• School Feeding
  – School Meals (breakfast, lunch)
  – Food for Work (cooks, teachers)
  – Take-home Rations
• Nutrition Improvement
  – In addition to the nutritional value provided through the
    school feeding activities, many projects provide vitamins
    and implement de-worming activities
• Capacity Building and Development
  – Teacher/Parent Training
  – Increase capacity of government to implement activities
  – Promotes creation of PTAs as well as other community
                     Project Areas
• Infrastructure Activities
   – Build/Rehabilitate school kitchens,
     classrooms, etc…
   – Increase access to water
• School Environment Improvement
   – Provide educational supplies (books,
     writing utensils, paper, etc…)
   – Establish school gardens
• Create Partnerships
   – Public
   – Private
   – Community
   Current Active Agreements
• Currently, 32 active agreements are being
  funded with 14 cooperating sponsors in 28
  countries, assisting more than 5 million
• To date, the McGovern-Dole Program has
  provided meals to more than 23 million
 Current Active Agreements
              Country and Number of Agreement
Angola (1)               Guatemala (2)       Malawi (1)
Afghanistan (1)          Guinea (1)          Mali (1)
Bangladesh (1)           Guinea-Bissau (1)   Mozambique (1)
Benin (1)                Honduras (1)        Niger (1)
Bolivia (1)              Kenya (1)           Pakistan (1)
Cambodia (3)             Kyrgyzstan (1)      Rwanda (1)
Cameroon (1)             Laos (2)            Senegal (1)
Chad (1)                 Liberia (1)         Sierra Leone (1)
Congo, Rep of (1)        Madagascar (1)      Uganda (1)
Ethiopia (1)
           FY 2010 Resources
              and Awards
• 54 proposals                          • 13 proposals awarded
  received; valued at                     to 7 PVOs
  $700 million                          • 9 continuing multi-year
   – 35 PVOs                              programs
   – 27 Countries                       • 18 countries
                                        • Total funding for FY
                                          2010 is $166 million

 ***Total amount of funding is used to pay for: transportation,
 purchase commodities, Inland Transportation Shipping and
 Handling (ITSH), and activity and administration costs
 Priority Country Determination
• Priority Country Determination Factors:
  – Income – Per capita below $3,885 (World Bank)
  – Malnutrition – > 20% of children under age 5 are
    stunted (WHO)
  – National literacy rate – Adult literacy rate < 80%
• Other Considerations during review process:
  – Government commitment to education
  – Absence of civil conflict
  – USDA Post coverage and ability to monitor
        Priority Country Lists
      2011 Countries       2012 Countries *Preliminary List

Afghanistan     Lao PDR     Afghanistan        Malawi

Bangladesh        Mali       Cambodia       Mozambique

   Benin         Nepal      Guatemala          Pakistan

Burkina Faso   Nicaragua        Haiti          Senegal

  Ethiopia      Pakistan       Kenya          Tanzania

   Haiti        Rwanda        Liberia          Uganda
           FY 2011 Solicitations
• Expected Funding – $209.5 million

• Deadline for FY 2011 Proposals
      October 15, 2010 at 5:00 PM ET
• Online Resources Available
Proposal Evaluation Criteria
• Proposal Quality – Addresses goals of the
  program, implementation, and situational
• Experience and Organizational Capacity
  Factors – Organization’s capability and
  effectiveness in implementing previous food aid
  programs, particularly school feeding and
  maternal child health
• Program Coordination – Host government and
  other USG strategies and activities (Feed the
 Proposal Evaluation Criteria
• Graduation/Sustainability – Enables either
  a national government, local government, or
  community to continue the program beyond
  USDA funding
• Commodity or Funds Appropriateness –
  Commodities and tonnages are appropriate;
  Experience with distribution methods,
  process, storage and handling of
           Program Objectives
                  Improved Nutrition
          Outputs                         Outcomes
• Number of meals served         • Changes in height/weight
• Number of hygiene trainings    • Measure of soap and latrines
• Number of immunizations, de-     use
  worming                        • Measure of attendance
            Program Objectives
           Improved Educational Quality
           Outputs                           Outcomes
• Number of teacher trainings      • Number of teachers adopting
• Number of new schools              new techniques
  supplies                         • Measure of student
• Improved student/teacher ratio     performance, tests
           Program Objectives
           Outputs                        Outcomes
• Number of PTAs formed         • Changes in school feeding
• Formation of advocacy group     budgets
• Number of PTA trainings       • Improved school system legal
                                • Expanded local procurement of
    Awards Coming Later in
• Haiti/Afghanistan – $20 million
  – FAS will provide commodities and resources to
    approved programs in order to implement school
    feeding activities
• Micronutrient Fortified Food Aid Pilot Project
  (MFFAPP) – $10 million
  – Under the MFFAPP Program, participants will have
    access to resources to develop and field test new or
    improved micronutrient-fortified food aid products
       McGovern-Dole Food for
        Education Contact List
•   Dorothy Feustel, Branch Chief…………………..(202) 720-0150
•   Erika Beltran, West Africa…………………….…..(202) 401-0129
•   Wentzel Mitchell, Southern Africa…………...….(202) 720-7560
•   Jennifer Wenger, East Africa…………………….(202) 720-0275
•   Alessandra McCormack, Asia…………………...(410) 519-0845
•   Mary Allen, Asia…………………………………....(202) 720-5453
•   Richard Chavez, Latin America & Caribbean…(202) 401-0100
•   Paul Alberghine, Health and Nutrition…...….....(202) 720-2235
•   Kate Ivancic, Program Assistant………….........(202) 401-0189
•   Damien Singh, Economics Assistant………......(202) 720-6868
USDA Local and Regional Food
 Aid Procurement Pilot Project
        Updates and Next Steps

        Presented by: Jamie L. Fisher,
    Chief, Local and Regional Procurement
      History of the USDA LRP Project

• The Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 (the
  Farm Bill) directs the Secretary of Agriculture to
  implement a five-year local and regional procurement
  pilot program in developing countries from Fiscal Years
  2008 thru 2012.

• The purpose of the pilot program is to examine the
  timeliness, efficiency and cost-effectiveness of using
  local and regional procurement as a tool to respond to
  food crises and disasters around the world.
     Four Phases of the USDA LRP Project
1.    Study of prior local and regional purchases (FYs
      2008 thru 2009)

2.    Development of guidelines (FY 2009)

3.    Implementation of field-based projects (FYs 2009
      thru 2011)

4.    Independent evaluation (FY 2012)
Available Funding
         •   $60 million will be available to USDA
             under the LRP pilot program, including
             $5 million in FY 09, $25 million in FY 10,
             $25 million in FY 11 and $5 million in FY

         •   In FY 09, USDA provided $4.75 million
             for LRP projects in Sub-Saharan Africa.

         •   In FY 10, USDA will provide a total of
             $23.5 million to eligible organizations for
             LRP projects in developing countries
             around the world.

         •   To date, $11.5 million has been
             committed to LRP projects in Sub-
             Saharan Africa, Asia and Central

         •   $12 million is still available to fund
             additional projects in FY 2010.
      FY 2009 USDA LRP Project Grants
               Recipient    Program
Organization                                 Value
               Country        Type

  World Food
                 Mali      Development    $1.05 million

  World Food
                Malawi     Development     $1.7 million

  World Food
               Tanzania    Development     $2.0 million

                                  Total   $4.75 million
        FY 2010 USDA LRP Project Grants
                  Recipient     Program
Organization                                      Value
                  Country         Type
Mercy Corps         Niger      Emergency       $4.5 million
Land O'Lakes      Bangladesh   Development     $2.6 million
Catholic Relief
                  Guatemala    Emergency       $1.8 million
Catholic Relief
                     Mali      Development      $100,000
Catholic Relief
                    Benin      Development     $1.5 million
Catholic Relief    Burkina
                               Development     $1.0 million
  Services          Faso

                                       Total   $11.5 million
               Types of Programs
               Receiving Funding
Emergency:                    Development:
• Emergency Family            • School Feeding
  Rations for Drought-
  Affected Households         • Food for Work

• Food for Work               • Food for Training

• Cereal Bank Restocking
  in Drought-Affected Areas
Types of Commodities Purchased
               •   Maize
               •   Millet
               •   Rice
               •   Corn Soy Blend
               •   Fortified Maize Flour
               •   Beans
               •   Vegetable Oil
               •   Fortified Cereal Bars
Commodity Safety and
 Quality Assurance
           • All commodities
             purchased with USDA
             LRP Project funding
             must meet the
             specifications, and the
             nutritional, quality and
             labeling standards, of
             the recipient country.

           • If the recipient county
             lacks standards, the
             commodities must meet
             the standards of the
             Codex Alimentarius.
 Commodity Safety and
Quality Assurance cont’d.
           •   Participants must also ensure that
               commodities purchased through
               voucher programs meet the
               specifications and the nutritional, quality
               and labeling standards of the recipient
               country, or the standards of the Codex

           •   Prior to distribution, participants must
               hire a professional commodity
               inspection service to survey and report
               on the safety and quality of all
               commodities purchased under a USDA
               LRP Project agreement.

           •   All commodities must be tested for
               aflatoxin, and have moisture content
               certified at the time of inspection.
          Proposal Evaluation Criteria
A successful proposal:

• Identifies a genuine need for food assistance;

• Provides a strong justification as to why local or regional
  procurement is more appropriate than in-kind food aid;

• Explains how the proposed intervention supports the
  host-country food security strategy;
    Proposal Evaluation Criteria cont’d.
• Indicates how the proposed intervention will complement and
  not overlap food security programs implemented by other
  actors in the area of distribution;

• Identifies the criteria and methodology to be used to target the

• Identifies the methodology to be used to assess the impact of
  the purchase before, during and after it is made to ensure that
  it causes no harm to low-income consumers, or market
  systems; and

• Includes a plan to ensure commodity quality and safety.
            Planning for FY 2011
• PVOs interested in receiving funding for
  development programs are strongly encouraged
  to submit their proposals no later than August
  31, 2010.

• Proposals for development programs that are
  received after September 30, 2010 will not be
  considered for funding.

• Emergency programs will be prioritized in FY 11.
              Application Deadlines
• Eligible organizations may submit applications for
  qualification for emergency programs until April 1, 2011.

• Proposals for emergency program funding may be
  submitted until June 1, 2011.

• Pre-award letters authorizing participants to begin
  incurring reimbursable costs prior to the receipt of a
  signed agreement will be made available upon request.

• The procurement and distribution of commodities for all
  LRP programs must be completed by September 30,
                    Evaluation of the USDA
                         LRP Project
•   In early FY 11, USDA will hire a qualified organization to conduct an independent
    evaluation of the pilot project.

•   The Office of Capacity Building and Development monitoring and evaluation staff will
    lead this process.

•   The evaluation will examine the timeliness, efficiency and cost-effectiveness of local
    and regional procurement in various geographic regions.

•   It will take into account the market impact of the USDA-funded purchases, as well as
    the impact of purchases funded by other USG and non-USG donors relative to the
    supply and availability of food. In addition, it will examine any actions taken by the
    host country and purchase country governments before, during and immediately
    following a USDA-funded purchase.

•   The evaluation report will be submitted to Congress in late May of 2012. At that time
    it will also be made available to the public.
             USDA LRP Project Team
                 Contact List
• Jamie Fisher, Chief, USDA LRP Project, Tel: 202-720-5620,

• John Lamm, Program Analyst, West and Central Africa, USDA LRP
  Project, Tel: 202-720-7507, Email:

• Erin Means, Program Analyst, Southern Africa and Latin America,
  USDA LRP Project, Tel: 202-401-0166,

• Seth Miller, Program Analyst, East Africa and Asia, USDA LRP
  Project, Tel: 202-720-9432, Email:
Transportation and Logistics
       Branch (TLB)

           Presented by:
   Amy Harding, Acting Branch Chief
             TLB’s Role
 Operational branch of the Food Assistance
  Division (FAD)
 Management of the Food for Progress and
  McGovern-Dole transportation budgets
 Represent FAD in communications
  regarding commodity and freight issues
          TLB Objectives
• Development of food aid agreements with
  respect to commodity selections,
  packaging, and freight terms and
• Development of non-standard, cost-
  savings commodity and freight
  procurement scenarios
          TLB Objectives
• Maintain detailed tracking reports for
  commodity and freight purchases for the
  Food for Progress and McGovern-Dole
• Process ocean and inland freight
  payments for the Food for Progress and
  McGovern-Dole programs
• Manage compliance with cargo preference
      TLB’s Relationship with
       Program Participants
 Point of contact for commodity and freight
 Point of contact for commodity quality
  issues, such as commodities out of
 Facilitate the resolution of documentation
  issues, customs clearance issues, service
  interruptions, and other transportation
  related issues
               TLB Contacts

Amy Harding, Acting Branch Chief……….(202) 720-3538
Pamela White, Traffic Mgt Specialist..…...(202) 720-3539
Karen Hoag, Program Specialist………....(202) 720-9421
  The Monitoring & Evaluation
  Staff of the Office of Capacity
    Building & Development

“Helping to Build a Sustainable Culture of Program Accountability and Transparency”
To increase your knowledge of how
   M&ES and FAD cooperate to
administer USDA’s Food Assistance
     M&ES Food Aid Team

Role of the M&E Staff in Food Aid

 Brenda Freeman, Director
Monitoring & Evaluation Staff
      (202) 690-1177
      Managing Food Assistance
        Programs for Results

   through Results Oriented Management

“Helping to Build a Sustainable Culture of Program Accountability and Transparency”
 Looking Back at
2009 IFAC

 What did we
      Our Reason for ROM
  Justify why the program is being

 Focus on the need for the program

 Focus on results achieved
                       Strategic Framework
                         [Program Name]
                          [Project Type]

Strategic Objective

Intermediate Results

Initial Results

Activities &
  Impact on Proposal Submission
 Proposal submissions for FY 2011 should
support the strategic objective of the framework
    Food for Progress
    McGovern Dole Food for Education

  Proposals received that do not support the
strategic objective of the framework will not be
“Tying what we do to specific articulated
results is a very important function of
what the management side of this agency
has to do..”
– Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack

       It’s still our priority!
     Roadmap for 2010-2011
 Develop thematic frameworks
 Establish measurable objectives
 Link performance indicators
 Collaborate to build final product
 Publish guidance for indicator use
 Status of ROM Food Aid Project

Conducted Internal Assessment of
 Food Assistance Program Readiness
 for ROM

Completed ROM Orientation Training
 of Food Aid and M&E Staffs
  Status of ROM Food Aid Project
 Solicitation

 Solicitation
 Estimated Contract
           Impact on Proposal
 Proposal submissions for FY 2012 must
support a strategic objective of the framework
    Food for Progress
    McGovern Dole Food for Education

 Proposals received that do not support a strategic
objective of the framework will not be approved
  Stakeholder Involvement
Opportunities to Offer Comment on ROM
Frameworks and Indicators:
 Electronic Comment - March 2011
 Federal Register Notice - March 2011
 Formal Public Meeting - March 2011
Thank you for listening.

    Delphine Hamlin
    (202) 720-4233
Measurement Criteria
Clear and Meaningful Measures of
       Project Achievement

    Brian Goggin, Deputy Director
            Food Assistance Division
 Office of Capacity Building and Development
          Foreign Agricultural Service
        Measurement Criteria
        for FY2011 Proposals
• What you can do to ensure that your
  proposal will receive serious
  – Show us that you have done your homework;
    that you understand the value chain, the
    credit market, ag production situation, the
    school system and it students
  – Write well-designed and coherent outputs and
    outcomes in “Criteria for Measuring Progress”
        FY 2011 Proposals:
        Measuring Progress
• Measurements must reflect sound causal
  – Show us a casual chain; that by undertaking
    such activities with specific outputs, what can
    you expect the to achieve?
  – Examples: If you are training someone in post
    harvest handling (PHH), your outputs would
    relate to the number of farmers trained, and
    outcomes related to reduction in post harvest
         FY 2011 Proposals:
         Measuring Progress
• If you are training farmers in fertilizer use,
  – Your output would describe the completion of
    trainings by farmers
  – Outcomes would relate to the overall objective
    and the actual results?
  – Measures of proper application? A test of their
  – Better/Best: A measure of yield increase?
        FY2011 Proposals:
        Measuring Progress
• What about something less clear, like farmer
  organization? Or school system improvements?
  --Outputs could include trainings provided
  formations of organizations,
  --Outcomes: services provided by the
  organizations, the products processed, the
  beneficiaries that were served and how.
        FY2011 Proposals:
        Measuring Progress
• The overall goal: show us how you intend
  to measure your own progress.
  – How do you know if you are achieving your
    objectives? What measures do you have in
  – Something must be measured, or your
    knowledge is incomplete
  – Explain what you will measure
  – A learning organization
            Evaluating for Results

“Helping to Build a Sustainable Culture of Program Accountability and Transparency”
     Topics for Discussion

 Increased emphasis on evaluations
 Our vision for evaluations
 Our strategy for achieving our
  evaluation goals
     Emphasis on Evaluations

 OMB commitment to examine program

 “Increased Emphasis on Program
  Evaluation” a 2009 OMB memorandum
  calling for “rigorous, independent program
               Our Vision
 All food aid programs are subject to a
  rigorous and independent evaluation.
 More frequent and transparent
  communication with our stakeholders.
 Assess the health of our programs at any
  point through monitoring.
 Provide effective training that results in
  reduced discrepancies that slow down
  agreement closure.
             Our Strategy
 Create platform for conducting evaluations
  using Results Oriented Management
 Collaborate with FAD to provide timely
  feedback to stakeholders about monitoring
 Increase regular outreach visits
 Provide guidance to stakeholders on third
  party evaluations
      Robert Miller
Monitoring & Evaluation Staff
     (202) 720 - 0581

“Helping to Build a Sustainable Culture of Program Accountability and Transparency”
• Issues that FAD and MES collaborate on
   Revising the financial and logistic and
    monetization reports
   Working on the design and functionality of the
    new FAIS system
   Agreement violations

• Ensure the accountability of CCC assets:
   Commodities are lost, damaged or misused.
   CCC funds and monetization proceeds are
    misused or expenses are unsupported.
         Program Compliance

• Review OMB Circular A-133 to ensure:
   No major weaknesses were reported
   No findings were reported pertaining to FAS’s
    Food Aid programs.
• USDA needs the following to close a Food
  Aid Agreement:
   Final, cumulative logistic and monetization
    report (log\mon)
     Accounting for all commodity received
     Accounting for all monetization proceeds and
      interest A review of agreement objectives against
      reported outputs and outcomes.
• USDA needs the following to close a Food
  Aid Agreement:
     Final, cumulative financial reports
     A list of all equipment valued at over $5,000
     All relevant Tax Certifications
     All relevant audits and any issue related to the
      agreement resolved
• A closeout of an agreement includes:
   A financial analysis comparing expenses
    reported to both the CCC and monetization
   A review of agreement objectives against
    reported outputs and outcomes.
• Closeout red flags include:
   Budget line item movements
   Overspending the monetization administrative
   Spending funds on a budget line item not
    approved in the budget
   Significant differences between anticipated
    outputs and outcomes and reported outputs
    and outcomes
Closeout goal for fiscal year (FY) 2010
is to close 60% of the participants
agreements for FY 2002 and 2003.
Closeout goal for fiscal year (FY) 2010
is to close 60% of the participants
agreements for FY 2002 and 2003.
    Barbara Shumar
Monitoring & Evaluation Staff
     (202) 205 - 7651
                        MES Outreach

“Helping to Build a Sustainable Culture of Program Accountability and Transparency”

One of MES’s most important new efforts to
reach out to PVOs in order establish positive
working relationships.

1. To meet with the PVO hands-on
   level staff, specially those who do
   not attend IFADC
2. To help us smooth the process of
   gathering information needed to
   close out the agreements
3. To answer closeout related
How are visits determined?

 By location. PVOs in the Washington area
  are more likely to be visited than those
  PVOs in other areas due to budget reasons.
 If there is a need. For instance, if there are
  many pending issues.
 By request from PVO.
          What to expect
 We will notify you and make arrangements with
  you in advance
 The visits are short, 1-2 hours
 Topics discussed will vary on a case-by-case
 MES will provide a mini-tutorial on the closeout
 Informal, not an audit and not to discuss any

Our goal is to make the closeout process as
painless as possible, while increasing our
transparency and accountability.

If you would like to meet with MES during
IFADC, please contact any MES staff.

To top