This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-13-809 
entitled 'Global Food Security: USAID Is Improving Coordination but 
Needs to Require Systematic Assessments of Country-Level Risks' which 
was released on September 17, 2013. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as 
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. 
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data 
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features, 
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes 
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, 
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format 
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an 
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your 
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or 
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

Report to Congressional Requesters: 

September 2013: 

Global Food Security: 

USAID Is Improving Coordination but Needs to Require Systematic 
Assessments of Country-Level Risks: 

GAO-13-809: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-13-809, a report to congressional requesters. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

In fiscal years 2010 through 2012, the U.S. government allocated $7 
billion to implement global food security programs implemented under 
the FTF initiative by USAID and its U.S. FTF partner agencies, which 
include the Departments of Agriculture, State, and the Treasury, and 
the Millennium Challenge Corporation. To enhance FTF efforts to 
increase agricultural productivity and reduce malnutrition in 19 
chronically food insecure countries, USAID has outlined two 
approaches: an FTF whole-of-government approach, which aims to improve 
coordination and integrate expertise and resources of all FTF partner 
agencies, and a country-led approach to build country capacity to 
sustain U.S. efforts by including the host government and other 
stakeholders in planning and implementation. 

GAO was asked to study the FTF initiative. GAO examined (1) the extent 
to which USAID has implemented a whole-of-government approach and (2) 
how USAID has facilitated a country-led approach. GAO analyzed FTF-
related agency documents, conducted a survey of all USAID and U.S. FTF 
partner agency representatives implementing FTF in 19 focus countries, 
and interviewed FTF agency officials in Washington, D.C. 

What GAO Found: 

The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has made 
progress in coordinating with U.S. partner agencies through the whole-
of-government approach for the Feed the Future (FTF) initiative that 
began in 2010. According to USAID documents, this approach involves 
coordination and integration of expertise and resources across U.S. 
partner agencies with global food security programs. In reports issued 
in 2008 and 2010, GAO found that U.S. agency food security efforts 
were fragmented and uncoordinated. Under FTF, GAO found that USAID 
leads the whole-of-government approach by better coordinating and 
integrating partner agencies’ knowledge and expertise at three levels: 
at headquarters in Washington, D.C.; in each of the 19 FTF focus 
countries; and between the countries and headquarters. In 
headquarters, USAID and FTF partner agencies established joint 
strategies and new data management systems to track funding and 
results across the U.S. government. At the country level, in GAO’s 
survey of U.S. FTF partner agency representatives in 19 FTF focus 
countries, 93 percent reported coordinating with USAID. 

Figure: Reported Coordination with U.S. and Country Stakeholders in 
the 19 FTF Countries: 

[Refer to PDF for image: horizontal bar graph] 

Reported Coordination with U.S. and Country Stakeholders: 93%. 

Percentage of USAID Representatives in 19 FTF countries reported 
coordinating with: 
State: 60%; 
Department of Agriculture: 52%; 
Peace Corps: 40%; 
Other: 40%. 

Percentage of USAID Representatives in 19 FTF countries reported 
working with multiple country stakeholders: 
Host government officials: 86%; 
Nonprofits: 79%; 
Donors: 73%; 
For-profits: 68%. 

Note: All percentages have a margin of error of no more than plus or 
minus 4 percent. 

Source: GAO survey. 

[End of figure] 

USAID has facilitated a country-led approach but has not 
systematically assessed risks associated with this approach. USAID has 
facilitated the approach by providing assistance to the host 
governments in developing country plans and coordinating on FTF with 
country stakeholders, including nonprofit and for-profit 
organizations. U.S. FTF partner agency representatives answering GAO’s 
survey reported working with multiple country stakeholders on FTF. In 
its March 2010 report, GAO found that the country-led approach was 
vulnerable to a number of risks, including insufficient capacity of 
host governments to meet funding commitments for agriculture. USAID 
has since made some progress in monitoring these risks, including 
tracking the number of focus countries that increase public 
expenditure for agriculture. However, GAO’s current study found that 
USAID’s FTF multiyear country strategies did not systematically assess 
risks to the country-led approach. For example, 12 of the 19 
strategies did not contain sections discussing assessments of risks 
such as the host government’s insufficient capacity and policies that 
inhibit private sector investment. GAO also found that fewer than half 
of the risks identified had corresponding discussions of mitigation 
strategies. Although USAID country guidance documents indicate that 
country teams must assess risks associated with USAID’s development 
objectives, the agency does not require country teams to 
systematically assess and mitigate risks to the country-led approach. 
Without requirements for FTF country staff to identify and mitigate 
risks associated with the country-led approach, the U.S. government’s 
ability to achieve its goals for improving global food security could 
be limited. 

What GAO Recommends: 

The USAID Administrator should require FTF country staff to conduct 
periodic risk assessments associated with pursuing a country-led 
approach and to develop plans to mitigate the risks identified. USAID 
concurred with the recommendations. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-809]. To view an e-
supplement with more data, see [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-GAO-13-815SP]. For more information, 
contact Thomas Melito at (202) 512-9601 or MelitoT@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

USAID Has Made Progress in Coordinating with U.S. FTF Partner Agencies 
through Its Whole-of-Government Approach: 

USAID Facilitated a Country-Led Approach and Made Some Progress in 
Monitoring Risks but Has Not Systematically Assessed Risks at the 
Country Level: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Other U.S. Global Food Security Programs Related to Feed 
the Future: 

Appendix III: Illustrative Example of USAID Representatives' Reported 
Coordination with Feed the Future Partner Agencies in One Country: 

Appendix IV: Multiple Regression Analysis of Survey Results to 
Identify Predictors of Perceived Effectiveness of Coordination: 

Appendix V: Feed the Future Partner Agencies' Approaches to Country-
Led Program Implementation: 

Appendix VI: Comments from the U.S. Agency for International 
Development: 

Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: U.S. Agency Roles in Implementing Feed the Future: 

Table 2: Reported Annual Allocations and Disbursements for Feed the 
Future from Fiscal Year 2010 through March 31, 2013: 

Table 3: Percentage of U.S. Agency Representatives in 19 Feed the 
Future (FTF) Countries Who Reported Coordination with Country-Level 
Representatives from Other Agencies in Planning and Implementing FTF: 

Table 4: Percentage of USAID and Feed the Future (FTF) Partner Agency 
Representatives Who Reported Their Coordination with All Other 
Partners Was Generally Effective in Accomplishing Certain Actions: 

Table 5: Percentage of USAID Representatives Who Reported Feed the 
Future (FTF) Assistance USAID Provided to For-Profit Stakeholders to 
Facilitate Public-Private Partnerships, by Type of Assistance: 

Table 6: Percentage of U.S. Agency Feed the Future (FTF) 
Representatives Who Reported Working with Stakeholders on FTF Planning 
and Implementation, by Stakeholder Type: 

Table 7: Percentage of USAID Representatives Who Reported That Certain 
Features of Feed the Future (FTF) Planning and Implementation 
Increased as a Result of Coordination: 

Table 8: Feed the Future (FTF) Survey Response Rates, by Agency: 

Table 9: Other U.S. Global Food Security Programs Related to the Feed 
the Future (FTF) Initiative: 

Table 10: Categorical Variables in the Regression Model for Which at 
Least One Respondent Group Had a Significantly Higher Mean Number of 
Actions for Which Coordination Was Effective: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Map of USAID and Feed the Future (FTF) Partner Agency 
Representatives in the 19 FTF Countries, in 2012: 

Figure 2: USAID-Led Whole-of-Government Approach to the Feed the 
Future (FTF) Initiative: 

Figure 3: Illustrative Example of USAID's Reported Coordination with 
Feed the Future (FTF) Partner Agencies in One Mission: 

List of Abbreviations: 

CAADP: Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program: 

CDCS: Country Development Cooperation Strategies: 

CIP: country investment plan: 

CSO: civil society organization: 

FANEP: Food Aid Nutrition Enhancement Program: 

FTF: Feed the Future: 

FTF Guide: Feed the Future Guide: 

FTFMS: Feed the Future Monitoring System: 

FTF Scorecard: Feed the Future Scorecard: 

G8: Group of Eight: 

G20: Group of Twenty: 

GAFSP: Global Agriculture and Food Security Program: 

LRP: Local and Regional Procurement Pilot Project: 

MCC: Millennium Challenge Corporation: 

NGO: nongovernmental organization: 

OLS: ordinary least squares: 

OMB: Office of Management and Budget: 

OPIC: Overseas Private Investment Corporation: 

QDDR: Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review: 

State: Department of State: 

Treasury: Department of the Treasury: 

USADF: United States African Development Foundation: 

USAID: United States Agency for International Development: 

USDA: United States Department of Agriculture: 

USTR: Office of the United States Trade Representative: 

[End of section] 

GAO:
United States Government Accountability Office: 
441 G St. N.W. 
Washington, DC 20548: 

September 17, 2013: 

The Honorable Eliot Engel: 
Ranking Member: 
Committee on Foreign Relations: 
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Ileana Ros-Lehtinen: 
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable James P. McGovern: 
House of Representatives: 

Nearly 870 million people, more than one-eighth of the world's 
population, suffer from chronic hunger, and more than 2.5 million 
children die each year from undernutrition, according to the United 
Nations World Food Program. In 2008, the World Bank reported that 
numerous efforts to promote agriculture in developing countries had 
failed due to factors such as inefficient agriculture tax policies and 
underinvestment in agriculture.[Footnote 1] The World Bank also 
reported that, in response to recurring food crises, donors had 
shifted their priorities toward directly providing food rather than 
investing in programs to increase economic growth and food security. 

In 2009, recognizing that overcoming underinvestment in agriculture in 
the world's poorest countries would require stronger global 
partnerships, leaders at the Group of Eight (G8) Summit in L'Aquila, 
Italy, committed to increase food security assistance, and especially 
public and private investments in developing countries' agricultural 
sectors.[Footnote 2] The President announced that the United States 
would invest at least $3.5 billion over 3 years through the Feed the 
Future (FTF) initiative aimed at increasing agricultural productivity 
and reducing malnutrition among children in 19 chronically food 
insecure countries.[Footnote 3] 

To strengthen the effectiveness of this initiative, the President's 
new development policy outlined an operational model for global food 
security programs focused on among other things (1) enhancing the 
level of interagency cooperation by providing incentives for the 
design of common analysis, planning, and programs drawing on the 
perspectives and expertise of different U.S. agencies, and (2) 
responding to country priorities by ensuring that U.S. investments 
aligned with established national strategies and development plans of 
partner countries based on consultation with a broad range of 
stakeholders. In prior reports, we found that U.S. efforts to 
coordinate food security programs implemented by multiple federal 
agencies were fragmented and lacked integration and data management 
systems. Because of this fragmented approach to food security, the 
U.S. government was likely missing opportunities to leverage each 
agency's expertise and to minimize duplication. Furthermore, we found 
that coordination of agricultural development programs had been 
difficult at the country level due, in part, to the large number of 
donor agricultural development projects that were not adequately 
aligned. We also reported that the U.S. approach was vulnerable to a 
number of risks, including the weak capacity of host governments and 
difficulties in aligning U.S. assistance with host governments' own 
strategies, and recommended that State delineate measures to mitigate 
risks associated with the country-led approach.[Footnote 4] 

In fiscal years 2010 through 2013, the U.S. government, through 
multiple federal agencies, allocated $7 billion for global food 
security programs under FTF.[Footnote 5] Among other things, the 
initiative, led by the U.S. Agency for International Development 
(USAID), established a framework for a whole-of-government approach 
that attempts to maximize the effectiveness of interagency resources 
and knowledge through common goals, improved coordination, and 
resource alignment.[Footnote 6] Additionally, FTF sought to build 
country capacity and sustainability by obtaining input from the host 
government and other stakeholders in planning and implementation 
efforts. This country-led approach promotes the participation of key 
stakeholders, with an emphasis on including not only the host 
government but also nonstate actors, such as advocacy groups, the 
private sector, and local and international nonprofit entities. 
[Footnote 7] 

You asked us to review the FTF initiative. This report addresses (1) 
the extent to which USAID has applied a whole-of-government approach 
and (2) how USAID has facilitated a country-led approach. To determine 
the extent to which USAID has applied FTF's whole-of-government 
approach and to assess how USAID has facilitated a country-led 
approach, we reviewed agency planning and guidance documents, surveyed 
USAID and U.S. FTF partner agency representatives in the 19 FTF focus 
countries on coordination mechanisms and stakeholder consultation, and 
interviewed USAID and FTF partner agency officials in Washington, D.C. 
[Footnote 8] We also assessed whether coordination was consistent with 
key practices for interagency collaboration.[Footnote 9] To identify 
the extent to which USAID and U.S. FTF partner agency representatives 
believe that they were implementing a whole-of-government approach and 
country-led approach in planning and implementing FTF, we surveyed 499 
USAID and U.S. FTF partner agency representatives implementing FTF in 
the 19 focus countries.[Footnote 10] To identify the U.S. agency 
representatives implementing FTF, we obtained a list of all U.S. FTF 
representatives from USAID, and then confirmed with each agency the 
list of representatives in their agency who would meet our selection 
criteria. We administered the survey from May through August 2012. 
Overall, we achieved a weighted response rate of 72 percent, with 342 
respondents to our survey.[Footnote 11] Using information available to 
us for all survey recipients, such as employment status, we conducted 
a nonresponse bias analysis.[Footnote 12] The nonresponse bias 
analysis did not find any statistically measurable bias that would 
affect our analyses. Therefore, although our survey was intended to be 
a census, for the purposes of analyzing the results, we treat our 
survey as a random sample. Unless otherwise noted, point estimates we 
report for 2012 have a margin of error of no more than plus or minus 9 
percentage points at the 95 percent level of confidence. We did not 
survey country stakeholders about the U.S. government country-led 
approach in the planning and implementation of FTF. To determine if 
USAID has identified risks with engaging key country stakeholders and 
documented efforts to mitigate them, two analysts independently 
reviewed, categorized, and analyzed USAID's 19 FTF multiyear country 
strategies. Appendix I contains additional information on our scope 
and methodology. 

We conducted this performance audit from March 2013 to September 2013 
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Background: 

FTF is the U.S. government's global hunger and food security 
initiative. The overarching goal of the initiative is to accelerate 
progress toward the United Nation's Millennium Development Goal of 
halving the proportion of people living in extreme poverty and hunger 
by 2015. FTF pursues two paths toward this goal: (1) address the root 
causes of hunger that limit the potential of millions of people and 
(2) establish a lasting foundation for change by aligning resources 
with country-owned processes and sustained multistakeholder 
partnerships through a new country-led approach.[Footnote 13] FTF also 
attempts to coordinate existing U.S. government programs in 
agriculture and food security through a whole-of-government approach 
and complement the related work by multilateral institutions such as 
the World Bank that receive food security funds from the U.S. 
government. 

The U.S. government selected 19 countries as focus countries for FTF 
on the basis of the level of need, opportunity for partnership, 
potential for agricultural-led growth, opportunity for regional 
synergies, and resource availability.[Footnote 14] In these 19 
countries, the U.S. government concentrates FTF investments in 
specific geographic regions called "zones of influence" where a small 
number of commodities such as rice, maize, and wheat are targeted. 

In 2010, the Department of State and USAID's Quadrennial Diplomacy and 
Development Review (QDDR) designated USAID as the lead agency for the 
FTF initiative. USAID established the Bureau for Food Security to 
manage FTF as well as other agricultural development programs. Since 
that time, the USAID Administrator has served as the de facto Global 
Food Security Coordinator. In that capacity, he is responsible for 
implementing the initiative, including ensuring that all relevant U.S. 
government agencies and departments are consulted and engaged, as 
necessary, for the purposes of aligning and coordinating FTF with 
other food security-related programs and policies across the U.S. 
government. In addition, FTF has two Deputy Coordinators: one for 
development and one for diplomacy.[Footnote 15] 

To facilitate coordination of U.S. government activities at the 
country level, the U.S. ambassador in each focus country designates a 
U.S. FTF Country Coordinator to lead the whole-of-government 
implementation of FTF. The initiative incorporates USAID food security 
programs and activities of nine FTF partner agencies, as shown in 
table 1. Partner agency roles in implementing FTF include State's 
efforts to reform policy; Treasury's support for the Global 
Agriculture and Food Security Program (GAFSP); and USDA's support for 
agricultural research, economic, and market analysis.[Footnote 16] 

Table 1: U.S. Agency Roles in Implementing Feed the Future: 

Feed the Future (FTF) agency: U.S. Agency for International Development 
(USAID); 
FTF role: is the lead agency that coordinates, implements, and 
assesses FTF programming at country and regional levels; 
directly programs agriculture, nutrition, and development food aid 
funding; and contributes to GAFSP. 

Feed the Future (FTF) agency: Department of State (State); 
FTF role: is to use diplomatic means to improve coordination and 
increase global resources from other donors for agricultural 
investment, advance policy reforms that strengthen the effectiveness 
of agricultural investment, strengthen national frameworks for 
adoption of agricultural biotechnology, and partner with relevant UN 
agencies and other international organizations in pursuing the FTF 
agenda. 

Feed the Future (FTF) agency: Millennium Challenge Corporation; (MCC); 
FTF role: is to support country-led requests for agriculture and food 
security-related investments through MCC compacts including 
irrigation, roads, ports and post-harvest infrastructure, farmer 
training, agriculture finance, property rights, and land policy and 
nutrition. 

Feed the Future (FTF) agency: Department of Treasury; (Treasury); 
FTF role: is to coordinate multilateral support for food security 
including contributions to the GAFSP, promote monitoring and 
evaluation of projects, leverage funding through a GAFSP private 
sector lending window, use influence to align multilateral development 
bank efforts with U.S. food security priorities, and oversee other 
multilateral development bank funding for agriculture. 

Feed the Future (FTF) agency: Department of Agriculture; (USDA); 
FTF role: is to support agricultural research and extension, data and 
economic analysis, market information and statistics, and in country 
capacity building. 

Feed the Future (FTF) agency: Peace Corps; 
FTF role: is responsible for community economic development, 
agriculture, environment, and nutrition. 

Feed the Future (FTF) agency: U.S. African Development Foundation 
(USADF); 
FTF role: is to build the capacity of local farmers' associations and 
food processors in some African FTF countries. 

Feed the Future (FTF) agency: Overseas Private Investment Corporation; 
(OPIC); 
FTF role: is to support U.S. private sector investments in some 
FTF countries through insurance, debt financing, and support to private 
equity funds. 

Feed the Future (FTF) agency: Department of Commerce; 
FTF role: is to provide climate forecasting and guidance to some FTF 
countries on climate change mitigation and sustainable fisheries 
through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

Feed the Future (FTF) agency: U.S. Trade Representative (USTR); 
FTF role: is to advance work on trade and investment policy, including 
trade facilitation and other efforts to reduce barriers to efficient 
markets through Trade and Investment Framework Agreements. 

Source: USAID Feed the Future Progress Report, October 2012. 

[End of table] 

Source: USAID Feed the Future Progress Report, October 2012. 

Together, USAID and the U.S. FTF partner agencies allocated $7 billion 
for global food security programs in fiscal years 2010 through 2013. 
As of March 2013, USAID and U.S. FTF partner agencies had disbursed 
approximately $4.5 billion, or about 63 percent (see table 2). 
[Footnote 17] 

Table 2: Reported Annual Allocations and Disbursements for Feed the 
Future from Fiscal Year 2010 through March 31, 2013: 

L'Aquila commitment: 
Total (2010-2013): 
Allocated: $4.028 billion; 
Disbursed: $1.457 billion. 

USAID/State Feed the Future (FTF); 
FY 2010: 
Allocated: $808.6 million; 
Disbursed: $595.9 million; 
FY 2011: 
Allocated: $943.4 million; 
Disbursed: $379.2 million; 
FY 2012: 
Allocated: $953.6 million; 
Disbursed: $100.5 million; 
FY 2013 (as of March 31, 2013): 
Allocated: [Empty]; 
Disbursed: [Empty]; 
Total (2010-2013): 
Allocated: $2.706 billion; 
Disbursed: $1.076 billion. 

MCC: Agriculture and Food Security investments[A]; 
FY 2010: 
Allocated: $739.4 million; 
Disbursed: $0.0; 
FY 2011: 
Allocated: $241.5 million; 
Disbursed: $12.0 million; 
FY 2012: 
Allocated: $0.01 million; 
Disbursed: $32.4 million; 
FY 2013 (as of March 31, 2013): 
Allocated: $0.11 million; 
Disbursed: $10.5 million; 
Total (2010-2013): 
Allocated: $981.1 million; 
Disbursed: $54.8 million. 

Treasury: GAFSP[B]; 
FY 2010: 
Allocated: $66.6 million; 
Disbursed: $66.6 million; 
FY 2011: 
Allocated: $124.8 million; 
Disbursed: $99.8 million; 
FY 2012: 
Allocated: $149.6 million; 
Disbursed: $160.0 million; 
FY 2013 (as of March 31, 2013): 
Allocated: [Empty]; 
Disbursed: [Empty]; 
Total (2010-2013): 
Allocated: $341.0 million; 
Disbursed: $326.4 million. 

Other FTF-related programs; 
Total (2010-2013): 
Allocated: $2.875 billion; 
Disbursed: $3.063 billion. 

USAID: 

Nutrition (Global Health Programs); 
FY 2010: 
Allocated: $71.1 million; 
Disbursed: $57.9 million; 
FY 2011: 
Allocated: $89.8 million; 
Disbursed: $47.6 million; 
FY 2012: 
Allocated: $95 million; 
Disbursed: $10.4 million; 
FY 2013 (as of March 31, 2013): 
Allocated: [Empty]; 
Disbursed: [Empty]; 
Total (2010-2013): 
Allocated: $255.9 million; 
Disbursed: $115.9 million. 

Food for Peace Title II Development Food Aid; 
FY 2010: 
Allocated: $385.5 million; 
Disbursed: $385.5 million; 
FY 2011: 
Allocated: $422.6 million; 
Disbursed: $422.6 million; 
FY 2012: 
Allocated: $426.8 million; 
Disbursed: $426.8 million; 
FY 2013 (as of March 31, 2013): 
Allocated: $331.0 million; 
Disbursed: $56.6 million; 
Total (2010-2013): 
Allocated: $1.566 billion; 
Disbursed: $1.292 billion. 

MCC: 

Food Security Investments[C]; 
FY 2010: 
Allocated: $1.9 million; 
Disbursed: $92.8 million; 
FY 2011: 
Allocated: $6.1 million; 
Disbursed: $203.7 million; 
FY 2012: 
Allocated: $23.6 million; 
Disbursed: $255.2 million; 
FY 2013 (as of March 31, 2013): 
Allocated: $6.2 million; 
Disbursed: $88.3 million; 
Total (2010-2013): 
Allocated: $37.8 million; 
Disbursed: $640.0 million. 

Treasury: 

Treasury: International Fund for Agricultural Development; 
FY 2010: 
Allocated: $30.0 million; 
Disbursed: $30 million; 
FY 2011: 
Allocated: $29.44 million; 
Disbursed: $29.44 million; 
FY 2012: 
Allocated: $30 million; 
Disbursed: $30 million; 
FY 2013 (as of March 31, 2013): 
Allocated: [Empty]; 
Disbursed: [Empty]; 
Total (2010-2013): 
Allocated: $89.4 million; 
Disbursed: $89.4 million. 

USDA: 

Food for Progress; 
FY 2010: 
Allocated: $86.2 million; 
Disbursed: $86.2 million; 
FY 2011: 
Allocated: $127.5 million; 
Disbursed: $127.5 million; 
FY 2012: 
Allocated: $239.9 million; 
Disbursed: $239.9 million; 
FY 2013 (as of March 31, 2013): 
Allocated: [Empty]; 
Disbursed: [Empty]; 
Total (2010-2013): 
Allocated: $453.6 million; 
Disbursed: $453.6 million. 

Local and Regional Procurement Pilot Project; 
FY 2010: 
Allocated: $10.6 million; 
Disbursed: $10.6 million; 
FY 2011: 
Allocated: $7.1 million; 
Disbursed: $7.1 million; 
FY 2012: 
Allocated: $1.3 million; 
Disbursed: $1.3 million; 
FY 2013 (as of March 31, 2013): 
Allocated: [Empty]; 
Disbursed: [Empty]; 
Total (2010-2013): 
Allocated: $19.0 million; 
Disbursed: $19.0 million. 

McGovern-Dole Food for Education; 
FY 2010: 
Allocated: $129.7 million; 
Disbursed: $129.7 million; 
FY 2011: 
Allocated: $143.5 million; 
Disbursed: $143.5 million; 
FY 2012: 
Allocated: $173.4 million; 
Disbursed: $173.4 million; 
FY 2013 (as of March 31, 2013): 
Allocated: [Empty]; 
Disbursed: [Empty]; 
Total (2010-2013): 
Allocated: $446.6 million; 
Disbursed: $446.6 million. 

Food Aid Nutrition Enhancement Program (FANEP) Competitive Grants 
Program; 
FY 2010: 
Allocated: $2.7 million; 
Disbursed: $2.7 million; 
FY 2011: 
Allocated: $0; 
Disbursed: $0.0; 
FY 2012: 
Allocated: $0.0; 
Disbursed: $0.0; 
FY 2013 (as of March 31, 2013): 
Allocated: [Empty]; 
Disbursed: [Empty]; 
Total (2010-2013): 
Allocated: $2.7 million; 
Disbursed: $2.7 million. 

Cochran Fellowship Program; 
FY 2010: 
Allocated: $0.3 million; 
Disbursed: $0.3 million; 
FY 2011: 
Allocated: $0.2 million; 
Disbursed: $0.2 million; 
FY 2012: 
Allocated: $0.8 million; 
Disbursed: $0.8 million; 
FY 2013 (as of March 31, 2013): 
Allocated: [Empty]; 
Disbursed: [Empty]; 
Total (2010-2013): 
Allocated: $1.3 million; 
Disbursed: $1.3 million. 

Norman E. Borlaug International Agricultural Science and Technology 
Fellowship Program; 
FY 2010: 
Allocated: $0.2 million; 
Disbursed: $0.2 million; 
FY 2011: 
Allocated: $0.3 million; 
Disbursed: $0.3 million; 
FY 2012: 
Allocated: $1.7 million; 
Disbursed: $1.7 million; 
FY 2013 (as of March 31, 2013): 
Allocated: [Empty]; 
Disbursed: [Empty]; 
Total (2010-2013): 
Allocated: $2.2 million; 
Disbursed: $2.2 million. 

Totals: 
Total (2010-2013): 
Allocated: $6.902 billion; 
Disbursed: $4.519 billion. 

Legend: FY = fiscal year; State = Department of State; USAID = U.S. 
Agency for International Development; MCC = Millennium Challenge 
Corporation; Treasury= Department of the Treasury; GAFSP = Global 
Agriculture and Food Security Program. 

Source: GAO analysis of agency data. 

Notes: Columns may not sum to totals due to rounding. The information 
reported as allocations and disbursements was provided to us by the 
agencies. We use the term "allocations" to refer to funds the agencies 
reported that they directed to FTF. We did not independently assess 
the amounts agencies reported as allocations and disbursements. 
USAID/State includes funding for the 19 FTF focus countries, nine 
regional bureaus, 33 aligned countries, three strategic partner 
countries, the Bureau for Food Security, and other USAID departments 
such as the Economic Growth Agriculture and Trade Office. USAID/State, 
Treasury, and USDA annual disbursements for fiscal years 2010, 2011, 
and 2012 reflect disbursements to date (as of March 31, 2013) against 
funds allocated for each year. As of March 31, 2013, fiscal year 2013 
funding for State and Foreign Operations had not been appropriated. 
MCC disbursements reflect disbursements made in that given year. MCC 
data include new agreements that entered into force in fiscal years 
2010 through 2012. Funding for the Peace Corps, the U.S. African 
Development Foundation (USADF), the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), 
the Department of Commerce (Commerce), and the Overseas Private 
Investment Corporation (OPIC) are not tracked or reported for FTF 
purposes. USAID officials noted, however, that the Peace Corps and 
USADF plan to provide FTF funding data to USAID in fiscal year 2013. 
According to USAID, Commerce and USTR do not receive specific food 
security funding; they provide support and technical expertise to FTF. 
OPIC did not receive FTF funding during this period. For a description 
of the other FTF-related programs, see appendix II. 

[A] MCC funding is no-year funding. MCC's allocations and 
disbursements are tracked against the fiscal year in which the 
transaction is recorded. MCC's compacts are active for 5 years. 
Allocations take place upon compact signing and program reallocation 
of the budget within that compact can take place during the 5-year 
life of the compact. Disbursements take place anytime during the 5-
year window of the compact lifecycle. 

[B] According to USAID and State, State and USAID funding was 
transferred to Treasury for the U.S. contribution to the GAFSP: $66.6 
million in fiscal year 2010, $25 million in fiscal year 2011, and 
$14.6 million in fiscal year 2012. According to USAID officials, all 
transfers in fiscal year 2011 and fiscal year 2012 were to the GAFSP's 
Private Sector Window. 

[C] MCC funding data shown are for the following agricultural 
components of these compacts that entered into force prior to fiscal 
year 2010: Burkina Faso, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, and 
Tanzania. According to MCC, the majority of food security allocations 
were made at the point of entry into force of each compact, which was 
prior to the fiscal years shown in table 2. 

[D] The agency reported that food assistance programs are multi-year 
programs and the funds are drawdown gradually. According to USDA, due 
to the March 31st 2013 cutoff, funds were yet to be allocated for the 
fiscl year 2013 food assistance programs. 

[End of table] 

Of this amount, disbursements against the L'Aquila pledge accounted 
for $1.5 billion or about 33 percent, while other FTF-related programs 
were $3 billion or 67 percent.[Footnote 18] Within other FTF-related 
programs, USAID disbursed the highest amount of funds ($1.4 billion), 
followed by USDA ($879 million), MCC ($640 million) and Treasury (
$89 million). 

Figure 1 shows USAID and U.S. FTF partner agency locations in the 19 
FTF focus countries in 2012. USAID and State have representatives in 
all 19 countries, while MCC, USADF, and the Peace Corps are located in 
countries where they have food security programs, and USDA 
predominantly operates on a regional level. The countries with the 
highest number of FTF agencies are Mali, Senegal, and Tanzania while 
the countries with the lowest number of FTF agencies are Bangladesh, 
Haiti, Honduras and Tajikistan. 

Figure 1: Map of USAID and Feed the Future (FTF) Partner Agency 
Representatives in the 19 FTF Countries, in 2012: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated world map] 

Country: Bangladesh; 
USAID: In-country (Agency bilateral presence); 
State: In-country (Agency bilateral presence); 
Department of Agriculture regional presence: based in another country. 

Country: Cambodia; 
USAID: In-country (Agency bilateral presence); 
State: In-country (Agency bilateral presence); 
Peace Corps: In-country (Agency bilateral presence); 
Department of Agriculture regional presence: based in another country. 

Country: Ethiopia; 
USAID: In-country (Agency bilateral presence); 
State: In-country (Agency bilateral presence); 
Peace Corps: In-country (Agency bilateral presence); 
Department of Agriculture regional presence: based in the country. 

Country: Ghana; 
USAID: In-country (Agency bilateral presence); 
State: In-country (Agency bilateral presence); 
MCC: In-country (Agency bilateral presence); 
Peace Corps: In-country (Agency bilateral presence); 
Department of Agriculture regional presence: based in another country. 

Country: Guatemala; 
USAID: In-country (Agency bilateral presence); 
State: In-country (Agency bilateral presence); 
Peace Corps: In-country (Agency bilateral presence); 
Department of Agriculture regional presence: based in the country. 

Country: Haiti; 
USAID: In-country (Agency bilateral presence); 
State: In-country (Agency bilateral presence); 
Department of Agriculture regional presence: based in another country. 

Country: Honduras[C]; 
USAID: In-country (Agency bilateral presence); 
State: In-country (Agency bilateral presence); 
Department of Agriculture regional presence: based in another country. 

Country: Kenya; 
USAID: In-country (Agency bilateral presence); 
State: In-country (Agency bilateral presence); 
USADF: In-country (Agency bilateral presence); 
Peace Corps: In-country (Agency bilateral presence); 
Department of Agriculture regional presence: based in the country. 

Country: Liberia; 
USAID: In-country (Agency bilateral presence); 
State: In-country (Agency bilateral presence); 
Department of Agriculture regional presence: based in the country. 

Country: Malawi[A]; 
USAID: In-country (Agency bilateral presence); 
State: In-country (Agency bilateral presence); 
MCC: 
USADF: In-country (Agency bilateral presence); 
Peace Corps: In-country (Agency bilateral presence); 
Department of Agriculture regional presence: based in another country. 

Country: Mali[B]; 
USAID: In-country (Agency bilateral presence); 
State: In-country (Agency bilateral presence); 
MCC: In-country (Agency bilateral presence); 
USADF: In-country (Agency bilateral presence); 
Peace Corps: In-country (Agency bilateral presence); 
Department of Agriculture regional presence: based in another country. 

Country: Mozambique; 
USAID: In-country (Agency bilateral presence); 
State: In-country (Agency bilateral presence); 
MCC: In-country (Agency bilateral presence); 
Peace Corps: In-country (Agency bilateral presence); 
Department of Agriculture regional presence: based in another country. 

Country: Nepal; 
USAID: In-country (Agency bilateral presence); 
State: In-country (Agency bilateral presence); 
Peace Corps: In-country (Agency bilateral presence); 
Department of Agriculture regional presence: based in another country. 

Country: Rwanda[A]; 
USAID: In-country (Agency bilateral presence); 
State: In-country (Agency bilateral presence); 
USADF: In-country (Agency bilateral presence); 
Peace Corps: 
Department of Agriculture regional presence: based in another country. 

Country: Senegal; 
USAID: In-country (Agency bilateral presence); 
State: In-country (Agency bilateral presence); 
MCC: In-country (Agency bilateral presence); 
USADF: In-country (Agency bilateral presence); 
Peace Corps: In-country (Agency bilateral presence); 
Department of Agriculture regional presence: based in the country. 

Country: Tajikistan; 
USAID: In-country (Agency bilateral presence); 
State: In-country (Agency bilateral presence); 
Department of Agriculture regional presence: based in another country. 

Country: Tanzania[A]; 
USAID: In-country (Agency bilateral presence); 
State: In-country (Agency bilateral presence); 
MCC: In-country (Agency bilateral presence); 
USADF: In-country (Agency bilateral presence); 
Peace Corps: In-country (Agency bilateral presence); 
Department of Agriculture regional presence: based in another country. 

Country: Uganda[A]; 
USAID: In-country (Agency bilateral presence); 
State: In-country (Agency bilateral presence); 
USADF: In-country (Agency bilateral presence); 
Peace Corps: In-country (Agency bilateral presence); 
Department of Agriculture regional presence: based in another country. 

Country: Zambia[A]; 
USAID: In-country (Agency bilateral presence); 
State: In-country (Agency bilateral presence); 
USADF: In-country (Agency bilateral presence); 
Peace Corps: In-country (Agency bilateral presence); 
Department of Agriculture regional presence: based in another country. 

Source: GAO analysis from agency data; Map Resources (map). 

Legend: State = Department of State; USAID = U.S. Agency for 
International Development; MCC = Millennium Challenge Corporation; 
USADF = U.S. African Development Foundation. 

Note: The FTF partners listed had specific FTF programmatic activity 
in the focus countries in 2012. 

[A] For those countries in which the U.S. Department of Agriculture 
(USDA) regional representative is based in another country, USDA 
covers these countries as follows: Bangladesh and Nepal are covered 
from India; Cambodia is covered from Thailand; Ghana and Liberia are 
covered from Nigeria; Haiti is covered from the Dominican Republic; 
Honduras is covered from Guatemala; Malawi, Rwanda, Tanzania, Uganda, 
and Zambia are covered from Kenya; Mali is covered from Senegal; 
Mozambique is covered from South Africa; and Tajikistan is covered 
from Turkey. 

[End of figure] 

USAID Has Made Progress in Coordinating with U.S. FTF Partner Agencies 
through Its Whole-of-Government Approach: 

USAID has made progress in applying FTF's whole-of-government approach 
by coordinating and integrating U.S. FTF partner agencies' knowledge 
and expertise at three levels: at headquarters in Washington, D.C.; in 
each of the 19 FTF focus countries; and between the countries and 
headquarters. At the headquarters level, we found USAID has made 
significant progress in addressing vulnerabilities we previously 
reported on by coordinating with U.S. FTF partner agencies to, among 
other things, develop a global food security strategy and monitor 
interagency performance. In addition, USAID and U.S. FTF partner 
agency representatives reported coordinating with each other at the 
country level and between the countries and headquarters. For example, 
our survey of U.S. FTF representatives in 19 FTF focus countries shows 
that 93 percent of the U.S. FTF partner agency representatives 
reported coordinating with USAID and approximately 80 percent of all 
U.S. FTF representatives reported coordinating with their headquarters 
office. Figure 2 illustrates USAID's whole-of-government coordination 
efforts in headquarters, at the country level, and between the country 
level and headquarters. 

Figure 2: USAID-Led Whole-of-Government Approach to the Feed the 
Future (FTF) Initiative: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Headquarters: 

Global Food Security Coordinator (USAID): 
USAID and Feed the Future (FTF) partner agencies: 
* Interagency fund tracking; 
* Interagency monitoring and evaluation; 
* Interagency meetings. 

Headquarters and Country-level activity: 
* Updates on guidance and issues; 
* Conference calls; 
* Country-level progress data. 

Country-level: 
FTF Country Coordinator: 
USAID and FTF partner agencies: 
Food security working groups. 

Collaborative strategic planning documents: 
Country-level develops and Headquarters reviews: 
Implementation plans; 
Strategic reviews; 
Multi-year strategies. 

Source: GAO analysis of documentation and interviews; Corel Graphics 
(logo). 

Note: Country-level activities occur within each of the 19 FTF 
countries. 

[End of figure] 

USAID Has Made Significant Progress in Coordinating with FTF Partners 
in Headquarters: 

Since 2010, USAID has made significant progress in addressing 
fragmentation in global food security efforts by coordinating with FTF 
partner agencies in headquarters through FTF's whole-of-government 
approach. In reports issued in 2008 and 2010, we found that 
vulnerabilities in U.S. food security efforts included the lack of 
government-wide efforts such as an integrated strategy for food 
security, data management systems, and leveraging knowledge and 
expertise through coordination efforts such as food security working 
groups.[Footnote 19] Most of these vulnerabilities were related to a 
lack of coordination among U.S. agencies at the headquarters level. We 
concluded that, given this fragmentation in food security, the U.S. 
government was likely missing opportunities to leverage each agency's 
expertise and to minimize duplication. We made several recommendations 
on improving coordination efforts in food security programs. U.S. 
agencies agreed with our recommendations and said they would take 
actions to develop an interagency food security strategy and establish 
a common reporting system to monitor progress in food security 
programs. 

As a result, USAID has made significant progress in coordinating food 
security programs at the headquarters level by (1) developing a 
strategic approach to food security in collaboration with other U.S. 
agencies, (2) tracking interagency food security funding, (3) tracking 
and monitoring interagency food security performance data, and (4) 
coordinating food security efforts through biweekly interagency 
meetings. These efforts are consistent with key practices that enhance 
interagency collaboration.[Footnote 20] 

FTF Strategy Documents Represent Progress toward a Government-wide 
Global Food Security Strategy: 

Since 2010, U.S. agencies have made progress in outlining their joint 
strategic approach for global food security programs in various 
documents. The 2010 Feed the Future Guide (FTF Guide) --the strategic 
document guiding FTF--states that the overarching FTF goal is 
sustainably reducing poverty and hunger by tackling their root causes 
and employing proven strategies for achieving large scale and lasting 
impact. The FTF Guide also indentifies increasing agricultural growth 
and improving nutritional status of women and children as two key 
objectives to achieve progress towards the overarching goal. The 
outlining of a joint strategic approach for FTF is consistent with our 
previous recommendation that agencies develop a comprehensive global 
food security strategy. The FTF Guide specifies that U.S. agencies 
involved in food-security-related activities are to participate in 
planning and implementing the initiative. FTF officials told us that 
the U.S. agencies primarily involved in food security--USAID, State, 
USDA, MCC, and Treasury--collaborated on the development of the FTF 
Guide. The 2012 Feed the Future Progress Report, issued after the FTF 
Guide, provides additional information such as U.S. agency roles and 
responsibilities in implementing the U.S. government strategic 
approach. USAID officials told us they are updating the FTF Guide to 
include roles and responsibilities. These efforts are consistent with 
one of our key practices on interagency collaboration, which notes 
that in order for collaborating agencies to achieve a common outcome, 
they need to establish strategies that work together with their 
partners' strategies or are developed as joint strategies.[Footnote 21] 

USAID Created Budget Director Position to Track Interagency FTF 
Funding: 

USAID also made progress in tracking interagency funding by 
establishing the position of FTF Budget Director who requests and 
tracks funding data on U.S. global food security programs. Consistent 
with our previous recommendation that agencies periodically inventory 
food security-related programs and funding, the FTF Budget Director 
requests quarterly data from USAID, MCC, and Treasury on 
appropriations, obligations, and disbursements toward the L'Aquila 
pledge. The Budget Director also tracks appropriated funds for other 
food security programs such as USDA's Food for Progress and Food for 
Education programs and Treasury's contributions toward the 
International Fund for Agricultural Development by requesting data 
semiannually. The funding data collected are reported in USAID's 
annual Feed the Future Progress Report. 

USAID Has Begun to Track Interagency Performance Data Using an FTF 
Monitoring and Evaluation System: 

USAID has also made progress in establishing an FTF monitoring and 
evaluation system to track interagency performance data toward common 
future security goals using a shared online data input and reporting 
system. We previously recommended that agencies develop improved 
measures to monitor and evaluate progress.[Footnote 22] USAID and the 
FTF partner agencies agreed on this centralized system and common 
indicators for tracking food security programs and progress across 
agencies. According to U.S. officials, USAID, State, USDA, MCC, 
Treasury, OPIC, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
collaborated on developing 56 FTF performance indicators for 
monitoring and evaluation, including 8 indicators that show U.S. 
government progress toward meeting FTF goals. These indicators include 
prevalence of poverty and prevalence of underweight children under 5 
years of age. However, initially not all U.S. FTF partner agencies 
reported into the FTF Monitoring System (FTFMS) that USAID 
established. In fiscal year 2011, USAID, USDA, MCC, and Treasury 
reported on these indicators. The Peace Corps began reporting into the 
system in 2012, and USADF began reporting into the system in fiscal 
year 2013. OPIC officials told us that they plan to report into the 
system in 2014.[Footnote 23] 

USAID uses data from FTFMS to report on the implementation of its 
whole-of-government and country-led approaches in the FTF Scorecard--
which includes, among other things, measures to track the whole-of-
government approach. According to the FTF Scorecard, USAID is tracking 
five whole-of-government related measures including the number of FTF 
interagency biweekly meetings and agencies presenting their food 
security annual plans to FTF. This is consistent with another of our 
key practices for interagency collaboration: that collaborating 
agencies create the means to monitor and evaluate those efforts so 
that they can identify areas for improvement and report to clients and 
stakeholders.[Footnote 24] In fiscal year 2012, of the five whole-of-
government measures, results reported in the FTF Scorecard: 

* exceeded the target for one: number of partner agencies reporting 
into FTFMS; 

* partially met the target for three: number of FTF interagency 
working group meetings, number of country-level working groups holding 
regular interagency meetings, number of FTF agencies presenting their 
food security annual plans to FTF; and: 

* did not meet the target for one: number of country portfolio reviews 
with interagency participation.[Footnote 25] 

USAID and FTF Partner Agencies Hold Biweekly Meetings to Coordinate at 
Headquarters: 

Since 2010, USAID and FTF partner agencies have shared expertise and 
knowledge through biweekly headquarters meetings that all the FTF 
partner agencies we spoke with confirmed attending. In May 2008, we 
found that agencies did not have a government-wide interagency working 
group to coordinate their food security programs.[Footnote 26] On the 
basis of our current review of interagency meeting agendas and notes, 
we found USAID and FTF partners discussed planning documents such as 
the FTF strategic plan and progress reports and coordinated USAID and 
FTF partner agency feedback on the documents. FTF officials also told 
us that at these interagency meetings, agencies share implementation 
plans, discuss FTF plans and documents, request input, raise and 
discuss issues regarding implementation, and present information on 
their areas of expertise. This is consistent with our key practices 
for federal agencies engaged in collaborative efforts, which state 
that collaborating agencies create the means to address the 
compatibility of policies and procedures and other means to facilitate 
working across agency boundaries such as frequent communication among 
collaborating agencies.[Footnote 27] 

USAID and U.S. FTF Partners Reported Coordination at the Country Level 
and between the Country Level and Headquarters: 

USAID and U.S. FTF partner agency representatives we surveyed in 19 
FTF countries reported coordination at the country level and between 
the country level and headquarters through USAID's whole-of-government 
approach. 

Coordination at the Country Level: 

At the country level, 93 percent of U.S. FTF partner agency 
representatives reported coordinating with representatives from the 
lead FTF organization, USAID, in planning and implementing FTF. 
Approximately 66 percent of representatives from U.S. FTF partner 
agencies also reported coordinating with country-level FTF 
representatives from State, and approximately one-third or more of 
U.S. FTF partner agency representatives reported coordinating with 
USDA, the Peace Corps, and other FTF agency representatives (see table 
3).[Footnote 28] 

Table 3: Percentage of U.S. Agency Representatives in 19 Feed the 
Future (FTF) Countries Who Reported Coordination with Country-Level 
Representatives from Other Agencies in Planning and Implementing FTF: 

Respondent group: FTF partner agencies; 
Percentage reporting coordination with: 
USAID: 93%; 
State: 66%; 
USDA: 35%; 
Peace Corps: 39%; 
Other[A]: 41%. 

Respondent group: U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID); 
Percentage reporting coordination with: 
USAID: [Empty]; 
State: 60%; 
USDA: 52%; 
Peace Corps: 40%; 
Other[A]: 40%. 

Legend: State = Department of State; USDA = U.S. Department of 
Agriculture. 

Source: GAO survey. 

Notes: All point estimates have a margin of error of no more than plus 
or minus 9 percentage points. 

[A] The "Other" category includes the Departments of Commerce and the 
Treasury, the Millennium Challenge Corporation, and the U.S. African 
Development Foundation. 

[End of table] 

We undertook additional analysis of the coordination reported in the 
survey and found that in nearly all cases USAID's coordination with 
its partner agencies was a two-way relationship.[Footnote 29] For 
example, USAID officials reported coordinating with State, MCC, 
Treasury, USDA, the Peace Corps, and Commerce in all countries where 
those agencies were involved in FTF. Those same agencies also reported 
coordinating with USAID in all the FTF countries where they were 
present. We also found that a broad range of USAID representatives 
reported coordinating with FTF partner agency staff, including mission 
directors, Foreign Service Officers, personal services contractors, 
and Foreign Service Nationals. The USAID staff in our survey indicated 
that they worked in areas such as agricultural development, economic 
growth, food security, and health.[Footnote 30] Collectively, USAID 
representatives reported coordinating with multiple officials at the 
State, USDA, and the Peace Corps. For example USAID coordinated with 
U.S. ambassadors, political and economic affairs officers, and public 
affairs officers at State.[Footnote 31] 

Within each FTF country, USAID coordinates and shares knowledge and 
expertise with FTF partner agencies, under the leadership of the FTF 
Country Coordinator, through food security working groups as well as 
informal communication.[Footnote 32] Almost 80 percent of FTF partner 
representatives reported coordinating with USAID in FTF meetings at 
least quarterly. USAID FTF country-level representatives we 
interviewed while they were in Washington, D.C., told us that the 
interagency meetings in the field are their formal means of 
coordination. According to USAID documents, all FTF country-level 
staff report meeting at least twice a year; however, the frequency of 
these FTF meetings and the topics covered vary from country to 
country. For example, FTF officials in one Asian country told us that 
their food security working group meets once a week and discusses 
topics such as FTF and other food security-related projects, document 
development, budgets, and stakeholder meetings. By contrast, officials 
in an African country told us that FTF partner agencies meet quarterly 
to discuss FTF issues and implementation but certain agencies meet 
more frequently as needed and during development of FTF documents. 
According to senior USAID officials in headquarters, they have 
suggested to country-level staff that they hold interagency meetings 
at least monthly, but USAID has no requirement regarding the frequency 
of the meetings. 

Most USAID and partner agency representatives responding to our survey 
indicated that their coordination was generally effective in 
accomplishing a number of FTF-related actions,[Footnote 33] as shown 
in table 4. 

Table 4: Percentage of USAID and Feed the Future (FTF) Partner Agency 
Representatives Who Reported Their Coordination with All Other 
Partners Was Generally Effective in Accomplishing Certain Actions: 

Type of FTF action: Developing/contributing to integrated FTF program 
documents; 
Percentage reporting generally effective[A]: 
All: 76%; 
USAID: 77%; 
FTF partner agencies: 74%. 

Type of FTF action: Integrating FTF program/project planning with other 
US foreign assistance programs; 
Percentage reporting generally effective[A]: 
All: 72%; 
USAID: 73%; 
FTF partner agencies: 70%. 

Type of FTF action: Sharing observations/information obtained through 
meetings with other stakeholders; 
Percentage reporting generally effective[A]: 
All: 69%; 
USAID: 73%; 
FTF partner agencies: 59%. 

Type of FTF action: Sharing observations/information obtained through 
meetings with host government officials; 
Percentage reporting generally effective[A]: 
All: 68%; 
USAID: 71%; 
FTF partner agencies: 59%. 

Type of FTF action: Identifying donors/partners; 
Percentage reporting generally effective[A]: 
All: 62%; 
USAID: 63%; 
FTF partner agencies: 58%. 

Type of FTF action: Developing joint/compatible procedures/processes 
for FTF activities; 
Percentage reporting generally effective[A]: 
All: 60%; 
USAID: 60%; 
FTF partner agencies: 60%. 

Type of FTF action: Developing joint communication plans, reports and/
or cables; 
Percentage reporting generally effective[A]: 
All: 56%; 
USAID: 57%; 
FTF partner agencies: 53%. 

Source: GAO survey. 

Notes: For "All" and "USAID" responses, the point estimates have a 
margin of error of no more than plus or minus 3 percentage points. For 
"FTF partner agencies" responses, the point estimates have a margin of 
error of no more than plus or minus 7 percentage points. There were 
other responses that included "no opinion" and "not effective." The 
"not effective" responses, not shown in this table, were all under 8 
percent for these actions. We presented those actions that focused on 
interagency coordination. For the full list of actions, see the Q33 
series in the e-supplement [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-815SP]. 

[A] We grouped responses for "very" and "somewhat effective." 

[End of table] 

About three out of four FTF agency representatives (76 percent) 
indicated that their coordination was generally effective in 
developing or contributing to integrated FTF program documents, and 
our review of agency documents identified multiple examples of such 
efforts. USAID and USDA, for example, jointly prepared a roadmap to 
align their food assistance programs with FTF as part of the multiyear 
strategy development process in Guatemala and Haiti. Seventy-two 
percent of USAID and U.S. FTF partner agency representatives also 
reported generally effective coordination in integrating FTF program 
or project planning with other U.S. foreign assistance programs. 

Over half of U.S. FTF representatives responding to our survey 
indicated that certain factors helped interagency coordination at the 
country level, such as ongoing communication (65 percent), sharing FTF-
related data (64 percent), and the technical expertise of other U.S. 
government staff (61 percent). Less than half of all U.S. FTF 
representatives indicated that certain factors either hindered 
coordination or had no effect, such as staffing levels at other 
agencies (34 percent), lack of compatibility of procedures (39 
percent), and flexibility of funding (41 percent).[Footnote 34] 

Coordination between Country Level and Headquarters: 

Between the country level and headquarters, USAID and FTF partners 
reported coordinating and sharing information with each other through 
a variety of methods, including written communications and guidance, 
review of country strategies and progress data, country visits, and 
conference calls. Approximately 80 percent of USAID and U.S. FTF 
partner agency representatives reported coordinating with their 
offices in headquarters on FTF. About 90 percent of all USAID 
representatives reported coordinating with USAID's Bureau for Food 
Security on FTF. In addition, 73 percent of USAID and U.S. FTF partner 
agencies reported that they received FTF guidance from their own 
headquarters at least quarterly. All FTF agencies in headquarters 
provided written guidance to country-level staff on implementing FTF 
and requested updates on food security issues. Headquarters and 
country-level staff within USAID and FTF partner agencies also 
coordinated in the development and review of a series of FTF country 
strategic documents and progress data reported into the FTF monitoring 
and evaluation system.[Footnote 35] Moreover, headquarters officials 
from USAID, USDA, and the Peace Corps also told us that they hold 
regular telephone conferences with country-level staff. 

USAID Facilitated a Country-Led Approach and Made Some Progress in 
Monitoring Risks but Has Not Systematically Assessed Risks at the 
Country Level: 

USAID has taken steps to facilitate a country-led approach by 
providing support to the development and implementation of each 
country's food security plan and by coordinating with multiple 
stakeholders. We found that USAID has a performance management tool, 
the FTF Scorecard, that is monitoring some risks to the country-led 
approach and that USAID has efforts to mitigate some of those risks. 
However, FTF's multiyear country strategies did not systematically 
assess risks to the country-led approach and identify mitigation 
plans. USAID did not require a risk assessment in its FTF strategy 
guidance; however, other relevant USAID guidance states that a risk 
assessment informs management of the relevant risks associated with 
achieving objectives. 

USAID Has Taken Steps to Facilitate a Country-Led Approach: 

We found that USAID has taken steps to facilitate a country-led 
approach. According to the FTF Guide, the country-led approach to FTF 
involves (1) providing support to the development and implementation 
of each country's food security plan, called a country investment plan 
(CIP) and (2) coordinating with multiple stakeholders, including the 
host government, civil society organizations, donors, and the private 
sector in the planning and implementation of FTF.[Footnote 36] The 
U.S. government also planned to align its own multiyear country 
strategies with the priorities identified in the CIPs. 

USAID Supported Development and Implementation of Country Plans: 

We found that USAID and FTF partner agencies provided support to the 
development and implementation of CIPs in several ways. According to 
USAID officials, consistent with the FTF Guide, they provided support 
to the CIP development and implementation process through (1) 
assistance to strengthen the capacity of host governments and 
facilitate their consultation with multiple stakeholders; (2) 
financial and technical support to increase stakeholders' influence in 
developing and implementing the plans; and (3) participation in 
technical reviews of country investment plans to ensure, among other 
things, that the CIP development process, which included host 
government consultations with stakeholders, was carried out.[Footnote 
37] 

In our survey of U.S. agency representatives in 19 FTF focus 
countries, USAID representatives reported that USAID provided multiple 
types of assistance to strengthen the capacity of host governments and 
to support host government officials' consultations with other 
stakeholders, including technical assistance or research data (71 
percent), meetings (70 percent), and directly hosting consultation 
events or activities (68 percent). Sixty-two percent also reported 
providing policy or diplomatic support to improve host country laws, 
regulations, or organizational procedures relating to stakeholder 
consultations. In addition, over half of USAID representatives 
responding to the survey reported that, as a result of their 
coordination with host government stakeholders, partnership formation 
and engagement with other FTF project partners increased. 

Our survey also showed that USAID representatives reported that they 
provided support to increase stakeholders' involvement in developing 
and implementing the country plans. For example, more than half of 
USAID representatives reported identifying potential partners and 
about half reported providing technical assistance or research data to 
for-profit stakeholders to facilitate the creation of public-private 
partnerships. In addition, half of USAID respondents reported that, as 
a result of their coordination with for-profit stakeholders, 
partnership formation with these stakeholders increased. Table 5 shows 
the percentages of USAID representatives who indicated that USAID 
provided assistance to for-profit stakeholders to facilitate FTF-
related public-private partnerships.[Footnote 38] 

Table 5: Percentage of USAID Representatives Who Reported Feed the 
Future (FTF) Assistance USAID Provided to For-Profit Stakeholders to 
Facilitate Public-Private Partnerships, by Type of Assistance: 

Type of assistance: Identified potential partners; 
Percentage reporting USAID provided: 59%. 

Type of assistance: Technical assistance or research data to facilitate 
the creation of public-private partnerships; 
Percentage reporting USAID provided: 52%. 

Type of assistance: Directly hosted an event or activity to facilitate 
partnership creation; 
Percentage reporting USAID provided: 49%. 

Type of assistance: Funded partnerships for this type of stakeholder; 
Percentage reporting USAID provided: 44%. 

Type of assistance: Funding to build capacity of this stakeholder to 
enter into a public-private partnership; 
Percentage reporting USAID provided: 37%. 

Source: GAO survey: 

Note: All point estimates have a margin of error of no more than plus 
or minus 4 percentage points. 

[End of table] 

USAID and U.S. FTF partner agency officials also participated in 
technical reviews of CIPs in all FTF focus countries, but the process 
for the reviews varied. For the African FTF focus countries, USAID 
relied on the African Union's Comprehensive Africa Agriculture 
Development Program (CAADP) to guide the development and 
implementation of country investment plans.[Footnote 39] CAADP's 
framework requires a technical review of CIPs, which includes 
reviewing the prioritization of agriculture investments, documentation 
of the scope and form of stakeholder consultations in the planning 
process, incorporation of private sector investment, and a risk 
assessment.[Footnote 40] For the non-African FTF focus countries, 
USAID and MCC officials told us that they and State promoted 
guidelines similar to CAADP and provided support for technical reviews 
because such a regional-level program to guide the development and 
implementation of the CIPs did not exist. 

U.S. FTF Agency Representatives Reported Coordination with Multiple 
Stakeholders: 

In our survey of U.S. FTF agency representatives in the 19 FTF focus 
countries, USAID and partner agency representatives reported that 
multiple stakeholders were included in the planning and implementation 
of FTF: host governments, nonprofit organizations, donors, and for-
profit entities.[Footnote 41] U.S. government officials seek to 
coordinate with host government, nonprofit, donor, and private sector 
stakeholders to implement FTF as follows: 

* Host government: U.S. government officials are to coordinate with 
host governments on implementing agriculture policy reforms and 
consult with them on FTF policy priorities and investments. 

* Nonprofits: U.S. government officials are to coordinate with 
nonprofits to build their capacity and to achieve meaningful and 
effective engagement with host governments to sustain food security 
investments. 

* Donors: USAID is to participate in agriculture donor working groups 
in FTF countries to coordinate U.S. government food security 
investments with those of other donors. Additionally, one of State's 
roles is to encourage other donors to, among other things, meet their 
financial commitments to food security and to assist countries on 
policy reforms. 

* For-profits: USAID is trying to increase private sector investment 
in agriculture in FTF focus countries, including through public-
private partnerships. 

As shown in table 6, the percentages of all U.S. FTF agency 
representatives that reported working with the four kinds of 
stakeholders ranged from 83 percent (working with host government 
officials) to 62 percent (working with for-profit enterprises). 

Table 6: Percentage of U.S. Agency Feed the Future (FTF) 
Representatives Who Reported Working with Stakeholders on FTF Planning 
and Implementation, by Stakeholder Type: 

Respondent group: All; 
Percentage reporting working with: 
Host government officials: 83%; 
Nonprofits: 74%; 
Donors: 6%3; 
For-profits: 62%. 

Respondent group: USAID; 
Percentage reporting working with: 
Host government officials: 86%; 
Nonprofits: 79%; 
Donors: 73%; 
For-profits: 68%. 

Respondent group: U.S. FTF partner agencies; 
Percentage reporting working with: 
Host government officials: 76%; 
Nonprofits: 58%; 
Donors: 37%; 
For-profits: 45%. 

Legend: USAID = U.S. Agency for International Development. 

Source: GAO survey. 

Legend: USAID = U.S. Agency for International Development. 

Notes: For "All" and "USAID" responses, the point estimates have a 
margin of error of no more than plus or minus 4 percentage points. For 
"U.S. FTF partner agencies" responses, the point estimates have a 
margin of error of no more than plus or minus 7 percentage points. 

[End of table] 

Compared with representatives from U.S. FTF partner agencies, USAID 
representatives had a higher percentage reporting that they worked 
with each of the four stakeholder groups. As the lead agency for FTF, 
USAID engages a broad range of stakeholders, while FTF partner 
agencies may work with only certain groups of stakeholders depending 
on an agency's role in a focus country's FTF effort. For example, MCC 
works directly with host governments to design MCC compacts and 
support their implementation. In contrast, USADF provides grants 
directly to local organizations to fund projects that engage community 
groups in the design and implementation of the projects. (See appendix 
V for additional information on agencies' country-led approaches.) 

USAID representatives reported that certain features of stakeholders' 
participation in FTF increased as a result of coordination (see table 
7). About half or more of USAID representatives reported that the 
following three features of stakeholders' participation in FTF 
increased for all stakeholders: integration of stakeholders' key 
priorities, formation of partnerships that included the stakeholders, 
and engagement of stakeholders with other FTF project partners. 

Table 7: Percentage of USAID Representatives Who Reported That Certain 
Features of Feed the Future (FTF) Planning and Implementation 
Increased as a Result of Coordination: 

Feature of stakeholders' participation in FTF: Integration of 
stakeholders' key priorities; 
Stakeholder type: 
Host government: 74%; 
Nonprofits: 58%; 
Donors: 64%; 
For-profits: 59%. 

Feature of stakeholders' participation in FTF: Formation of 
partnerships that included the stakeholders; 
Stakeholder type: 
Host government: 68%; 
Nonprofits: 54%; 
Donors: 61%; 
For-profits: 57%. 

Feature of stakeholders' participation in FTF: Engagement of 
stakeholders with other FTF project partners; 
Stakeholder type: 
Host government: 58%; 
Nonprofits: 59%; 
Donors: 50%; 
For-profits: 51%. 

Feature of stakeholders' participation in FTF: Involvement of 
stakeholders in FTF project implementation; 
Stakeholder type: 
Host government: 58%; 
Nonprofits: 53%; 
Donors: 48%; 
For-profits: 52%. 

Feature of stakeholders' participation in FTF: Stakeholders' commitment 
to FTF project objectives; 
Stakeholder type: 
Host government: 55%; 
Nonprofits: 51%; 
Donors: 46%; 
For-profits: 53%. 

Feature of stakeholders' participation in FTF: Stakeholders' capacity 
to participate in FTF planning or implementation; 
Stakeholder type: 
Host government: 54%; 
Nonprofits: 52%; 
Donors: 41%; 
For-profits: 50%. 

Source: GAO survey. 

Notes: All point estimates had a margin of error of no more than plus 
or minus 4 percentage points. This table presents the features for 
which the largest percentages of USAID representatives reported that 
the features increased across all the stakeholder groups. These 
features were generally reported to have increased by about half or 
more of the USAID respondents. The features are rank ordered by the 
reported increases for host government stakeholders. For the full list 
of features, see Q49, Q56, Q63, and Q70 in the e-supplement 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-815SP]. 

[End of table] 

USAID Has Made Some Progress in Monitoring Risks to the Country-Led 
Approach: 

Since 2010, USAID has made some progress in monitoring risks related 
to the country-led approach by developing a tool--the FTF Scorecard--
that tracks performance goals on country ownership and includes 
measures that address risks to the country-led approach. In prior 
work, we have concluded that agencies may address management 
challenges and program risks by setting goals and measures related to 
those challenges and risks.[Footnote 42] In our May 2008 and March 
2010 reports on U.S. global food security efforts, we found 
deficiencies in measuring and monitoring progress in food security and 
risks associated with the country-led approach.[Footnote 43] In our 
current study, we found that USAID's 2012 and 2013 FTF Scorecards 
outline two goals to ensure country ownership and sustainability: 
focus countries lead collaborative implementation of the CIP and local 
capacity is increasingly able to sustain food security. Under these 
goals, USAID is monitoring five performance measures related to the 
country-led approach: number of (1) focus countries with increased 
public expenditure for agriculture; (2) focus countries using outreach 
platforms to civil society organizations (CSOs) and private sector 
companies to inform CIP development and implementation; (3) focus 
countries holding joint sector reviews with donors, CSOs, and private 
sector firms; (4) focus countries with improved ranking in the World 
Bank's ease-of-doing-business index;[Footnote 44] and (5) private 
enterprises and CSOs that applied new technologies or management 
practices.[Footnote 45] 

We found that each of these five performance measures on country 
ownership is related to a risk to the sustainability of U.S. food 
security investments. Broadly, these measures fall into four risk-
related categories: the ability of host governments to meet 
agriculture funding commitments; stakeholder consultations in the 
development and implementation of CIPs; host government policies that 
are conducive to private sector investment; and building local 
capacity. In our March 2010 report, we found that the country-led 
approach was vulnerable to a number of risks, including the weak 
capacity of host governments to meet funding commitments for 
agriculture and difficulties aligning host government and donor 
strategies due to differences in policy priorities.[Footnote 46] 
Additionally, other FTF guidance documents outlined the necessity of 
effective consultation with stakeholders, a policy environment 
conducive for investment, and building local capacity to ensure FTF's 
sustainability. In fiscal year 2012, of the five country-led measures, 
results reported in the FTF Scorecard: 

* exceeded two targets: number of focus countries with increased 
public expenditure for agriculture and private enterprises and number 
of CSOs that applied new technologies or management practices; 

* partially met two targets: number of focus countries using outreach 
platforms to engage civil society and private sector stakeholders in 
CIP development and implementation and number of focus countries with 
an improved Doing Business ranking; and: 

* did not meet one target: number of focus countries holding joint 
sector reviews.[Footnote 47] 

FTF officials who reviewed CIPs in 2010 said the host governments' 
consultations with their stakeholders were initially weak because host 
governments had limited time to complete their plans and that in some 
cases they consulted with stakeholders primarily in capital cities 
rather than rural areas. 

USAID has taken some steps and is planning others to improve 
stakeholder consultations with host governments and to increase 
private sector investment in agriculture. The fiscal year 2013 FTF 
strategic plan states that FTF intends to strengthen the engagement of 
civil society and private sector stakeholders. According to USAID 
officials, at least four African focus countries will hold joint 
sector reviews in 2013. In response to the need to increase the 
participation of civil society and private sector stakeholders in the 
CAADP process, USAID sponsored the Africa Lead program to, among other 
things, build the capacity of civil society and private sector 
stakeholders to engage more effectively in the implementation of 
African countries' CIPs.[Footnote 48] FTF has also sought to increase 
private sector participation in agriculture, recognizing the 
importance of these stakeholders to food security efforts. Part of 
this effort was the creation of the New Alliance for Food Security and 
Nutrition at the 2012 G8 Summit, in which global and local companies 
in Africa committed more than $3 billion in investments.[Footnote 49] 
However, similar programs to improve stakeholder consultations and 
private sector investment do not exist in the seven Asian and Latin 
American focus countries. 

USAID Did Not Systematically Assess Risks Related to the Country-Led 
Approach in Its Multiyear Country Strategies: 

Although USAID has made some progress at the headquarters level to 
monitor and address risks to the country-led approach, we found that 
USAID's FTF multiyear country strategies did not systematically assess 
these risks.[Footnote 50] According to USAID's Risk Assessment Guide, 
a risk assessment informs agency management of the relevant risks 
associated with achieving management objectives and is intended to 
help management identify and document risks, prioritize them in terms 
of susceptibility, and determine the adequacy of controls to manage 
those risks.[Footnote 51] A key characteristic of a national strategy 
is a risk assessment, including an analysis of the threats to, and 
vulnerabilities of, critical assets and operations.[Footnote 52] The 
FTF multiyear strategies outline the 5-year strategic planning for the 
U.S. government's global hunger and food security initiative at the 
country-level.[Footnote 53] According to these strategies, they 
represent whole-of-government approaches to address food security and 
were approved by interagency teams. USAID did not require a risk 
assessment in its guidance on FTF multiyear strategies. 

On the basis of our review of the 19 FTF multiyear country strategies, 
we found that 12 of the 19 did not specifically discuss risks related 
to a country-led approach. Our review showed that 7 multiyear country 
strategies contained sections specifically discussing risks, and 
roughly half of the identified risks related to the country-led 
approach, including the weak capacity of host governments and host 
government policies that inhibit private sector investment. The 
remaining 12 multiyear country strategies did not contain a section 
specifically discussing risk, but they each identified challenges to 
the strategies, at least one of which related to the country-led 
approach. For example, one African country strategy states that 
organizational and technical capacity remains a major impediment to 
implementation of its country-owned agriculture development strategy. 
Local nongovernmental organizations and the private sector are poorly 
developed, and weak government institutions and insufficient staffing 
prevent the government from meeting the scale and pace of 
implementation required by its country investment plan, according to 
the strategy. 

Across the seven multiyear country strategies with sections describing 
risks, USAID inconsistently identified plans to mitigate the risks 
identified. We found that fewer than half of the risks identified had 
corresponding discussions of mitigation strategies. For example, one 
African country strategy discusses plans to develop capacity and to 
promote dialogue between the government and private sector to mitigate 
the risks posed by limited government capacity and intervention in 
markets. In contrast, another African country strategy described risks 
to financial and procurement accountability of projects, but the 
strategy did not identify any mitigation plans to address these risks. 

According to the FTF multiyear country strategies, the strategies may 
be modified as appropriate, but the guidance on updating them 
indicates that USAID has made an effort to minimize the need to 
formally amend these strategies due to the comprehensive process used 
to develop them.[Footnote 54] Furthermore, USAID's country guidance 
documents indicate that USAID has plans to integrate FTF multiyear 
strategies into broader country strategies--Country Development 
Cooperation Strategies (CDCS).[Footnote 55] USAID's guidance for 
developing the CDCS indicates that country teams must assess risks 
associated with USAID's development objectives and assess the degree 
to which officials can identify and control critical risks. USAID 
officials told us that plans for integrating the multiyear strategies 
into the CDCS will address the lack of risk assessments in the FTF 
multiyear strategies. However, the guidance documents for developing 
the CDCS indicate that country teams have the flexibility to determine 
the level of integration of their FTF multiyear strategy; moreover, 
the guidance indicates that some country teams are exempt from the 
requirement to integrate FTF into their CDCS. The CDCS Supplemental 
Guidance for Integrating Feed the Future states that USAID country 
teams receiving FTF funding should demonstrate that they strongly 
considered integrating FTF planning into the CDCS, but they are not 
required to do so. Furthermore, the guidance states that the 
integration of FTF multiyear strategies is not applicable to those 
USAID country teams that have completed a CDCS or are far along in the 
CDCS process. Because the integration of FTF multiyear strategies into 
the CDCS remains an option, and not a requirement, for country teams, 
the extent to which USAID plans to systematically assess and mitigate 
risks to the country-led approach remains unclear. Without 
requirements for FTF country staff to identify and mitigate risks 
associated with the country-led approach, the U.S. government's 
ability to achieve its goals for improving global food security could 
be limited. 

Conclusions: 

In 2010, President Obama outlined a new operational model for 
enhancing interagency cooperation and responding to country priorities 
with broad consultation in global food security programs. This marked 
a shift from prior policy and efforts, and results from our survey of 
19 FTF focus countries strongly suggest that the U.S. government has 
made good progress in applying a whole-of-government and country-led 
approach. Progress achieved in U.S. interagency coordination and 
engagement with country stakeholders can enhance U.S. efforts in FTF 
countries to improve agriculture productivity and reduce malnutrition 
among children. In addition, by aligning and coordinating its food 
security efforts with those outlined in each country's investment 
plan, including efforts of other donors, the U.S. government can 
ensure a more effective contribution toward the United Nations 
Millennium Development Goal of eradicating extreme poverty and hunger. 
However, USAID has not systematically assessed risks to aligning U.S. 
investments to country priorities and engaging multiple stakeholders. 
USAID's guidance indicates that risk assessments inform management of 
the relevant risks associated with achieving objectives and help them 
determine the adequacy of controls to manage those risks. Although 
USAID guidance documents indicate that country teams must assess risks 
associated with USAID's development objectives, the agency does not 
require FTF country teams to systematically assess and mitigate risks 
to the FTF's country-led approach. 

In the absence of requirements for FTF country staff to identify and 
mitigate risks in aligning resources with country priorities and 
engaging multiple stakeholders, further progress in implementing the 
country-led approach could be hampered and could limit the U.S. 
government's ability to achieve its goals for improving global food 
security. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

To ensure that risks related to the country-led approach are 
systematically assessed, we recommend that the USAID Administrator 
take the following two actions: 

* require FTF country staff to conduct periodic risk assessments 
associated with pursuing a country-led approach and: 

* require FTF country staff to develop plans to mitigate any risks 
identified as part of its periodic risk assessments. 

Agency Comments: 

We provided a draft of this report for comment to USAID, State, MCC, 
Treasury, USDA, the Peace Corps, USADF, OMB, and OPIC. USAID provided 
written comments on a draft of our report. We have reprinted these 
comments in appendix VI. USAID concurred with both of our 
recommendations and outlined steps to revise their guidance to be more 
explicit about risk assessments and mitigation strategies for the 
country-led approach. We also received technical comments from USAID, 
USDA, State, and USADF, which we have incorporated, as appropriate. 

We are sending a copy of this report to interested congressional 
committees and to the Administrator of USAID; the Secretaries of 
State, Treasury, and Agriculture; the Directors of the OMB and the 
Peace Corps; and the Chief Executive Officers of MCC, OPIC, and USADF. 
In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO 
website at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staff have any questions regarding this report, please 
contact me at (202) 512-9601 or MelitoT@gao.gov. Contact points for 
our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found 
on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions 
to this report are listed in appendix VII. 

Signed by: 

Thomas Melito: 
Director, International Affairs and Trade: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

This report is part of a larger of body of work we have undertaken 
reviewing the U.S. government's efforts to improve international food 
security, including reports we issued in 2008 and 2010.[Footnote 56] 
This report specifically examines (1) the extent to which the U.S. 
Agency for International Development (USAID) has applied a whole-of-
government approach and (2) how USAID has facilitated a country-led 
approach for the Feed the Future (FTF) initiative. This report is 
primarily based on our survey of U.S FTF agency representatives in the 
19 FTF focus countries and on our review of FTF documents. 

To determine the extent to which USAID has applied a whole-of-
government approach and to assess how USAID has facilitated a country-
led approach, we collected and reviewed agency documents. We also 
assessed whether coordination was consistent with key practices that 
enhance and sustain interagency collaboration and key features that 
benefit interagency collaboration mechanisms identified in prior GAO 
reports.[Footnote 57] To identify how USAID outlined these two 
approaches, we reviewed agency FTF planning documents including FTF 
implementation plans, strategic reviews and multiyear strategies, and 
other agency specific food security planning documents such as the 
U.S. Department of Agriculture's 2011 and 2012 food security plans. We 
also reviewed FTF guidance documents such as the 2010 Feed the Future 
Guide, 2010 Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, focus 
country strategic reviews, the 2010 Feed the Future Multiyear Strategy 
Guidance, Feed the Future Indicator Handbook, and FTF-related agency 
cables. Furthermore, we reviewed the 2012 and 2013 Feed the Future 
Progress Report and Feed the Future Scorecard for the most recent 
program monitoring information available.[Footnote 58] 

To determine the extent to which USAID and FTF partner agency 
representatives believe that they were implementing a whole-of-
government approach and country-led approach in planning and 
implementing FTF, we conducted interviews with officials in 
Washington, D.C., from USAID, Department of State (State), Millennium 
Challenge Corporation (MCC), Department of the Treasury (Treasury), 
Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Peace Corps, U.S. African 
Development Foundation (USADF), Overseas Private Investment 
Corporation (OPIC), and the Office of Management and Budget. To obtain 
the views of USAID's and FTF partner agencies' in-country 
representatives on these topics, we sent a web-based survey to all 
representatives identified by their agency as key FTF personnel for 
the 19 FTF countries. The survey asked their perceptions of the whole-
of-government and country-led approaches in the planning and 
implementation of FTF. The topics included coordination within and 
between U.S. agencies, coordination with country stakeholders, the 
mechanism and frequency of coordination, the perceived effectiveness 
of the coordination, and factors that may have helped or hindered 
coordination. The questionnaire and survey results are available in an 
e-supplement [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-815SP]. 

To identify key personnel for each country, we asked USAID to provide 
a list of all key personnel for each country, including personnel from 
other agencies. We verified the non-USAID key personnel with each 
relevant agency. Since each FTF focus country is different in terms of 
the agencies involved, the FTF programs and activities, and the levels 
of commitment from the various embassy and in-country staff, there is 
no consistent definition of what constitutes a "key" person involved 
in FTF; for that reason, the population was defined for us by the FTF 
agencies. Key personnel included mission directors, Foreign Service 
Officers, Foreign Service Nationals, and personal services 
contractors. The final list of key personnel included 551 individuals, 
the majority of whom were USAID employees (see table 8). We did not 
survey focus-country stakeholders, such as country government 
representatives, about the U.S. government country-led approach in the 
planning and implementation of FTF. 

Table 8: Feed the Future (FTF) Survey Response Rates, by Agency: 

Agency: USAID; 
Total number identified as key personnel: 376; 
Total number determined to be out of scope: 28; 
Total number of responses: 252; 
Response rate[A]: 74%. 

Agency: FTF partners; 
Total number identified as key personnel: 175; 
Total number determined to be out of scope: 24; 
Total number of responses: 90; 
Response rate[A]: 65%. 

Agency: State; 
Total number identified as key personnel: 91; 
Total number determined to be out of scope: 13; 
Total number of responses: 36; 
Response rate[A]: 54%. 

Agency: USDA; 
Total number identified as key personnel: 18; 
Total number determined to be out of scope: 3; 
Total number of responses: 15; 
Response rate[A]: 100%. 

Agency: Peace Corps; 
Total number identified as key personnel: 21; 
Total number determined to be out of scope: 1; 
Total number of responses: 17; 
Response rate[A]: 86%. 

Agency: Other partners; 
Total number identified as key personnel: 45; 
Total number determined to be out of scope: 7; 
Total number of responses: 22; 
Response rate[A]: 64%. 

Agency: Total; 
Total number identified as key personnel: 551; 
Total number determined to be out of scope: 52; 
Total number of responses: 342; 
Response rate[A]: 72%. 

Legend: USAID = U.S. Agency for International Development; State = 
Department of State; USDA = U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

Source: GAO survey. 

Notes: After sending out the survey, we identified 52 key personnel 
who had left their post prior to our sending out the survey request, 
who told us that they did not work on FTF, who were U.S.-based, or who 
were otherwise out of scope. 

[A] We used Response Rate 3 (RR3) as defined by the American 
Association for Public Opinion Research in Standard Definitions: Final 
Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys, 7th ed., 
2011. Weighting accounts for the unequal agency sizes and response 
rates across agencies. 

[End of table] 

We sent the web-based survey to all 551 key personnel on May 21, 2012 
and administered the survey until August 31, 2012. To increase 
response rates, we sent several follow-up e-mails to agency officials 
and made telephone calls to nonrespondents. After sending out the 
survey, we identified 52 key personnel who had left their post prior 
to our sending out the survey request, who told us that they did not 
work on FTF, who were U.S.-based, or who were otherwise out of scope. 
This reduced our list of key personnel to 499. Overall, we achieved a 
weighted response rate of 72 percent, with 342 respondents to our 
survey.[Footnote 59] Agency response rates are shown in table 8. 

Using information available to us for all survey recipients, such as 
employment status, we conducted a nonresponse bias analysis.[Footnote 
60] The nonresponse bias analysis did not find any statistically 
measurable bias that would affect our analyses. Therefore, although 
our survey was intended to be a census, for the purposes of analyzing 
the results, we decided to treat our survey as a random sample. Unless 
otherwise noted, point estimates we report for 2012 have a margin of 
error of no more than plus or minus 9 percentage points at the 95 
percent level of confidence. 

The practical difficulties of conducting any survey may also introduce 
nonsampling errors, such as difficulties interpreting a particular 
question, which can introduce unwanted variability into the survey 
results. We took steps to minimize nonsampling errors by pretesting 
the questionnaire over the telephone with six in-country officials 
from USAID or FTF partner agencies in March and April 2012, including 
three from USAID (one of whom was a Foreign Service National) and one 
each from State, USDA, and the Peace Corps. We conducted pretests to 
make sure that the questions were clear and unbiased and that the 
questionnaire did not place an undue burden on respondents. An 
independent reviewer within GAO also reviewed a draft of the 
questionnaire prior to its administration. We made appropriate 
revisions to the content and format of the questionnaire after the 
pretests and independent review. 

To determine the extent to which USAID has identified risks and 
documented efforts to mitigate them in the FTF multiyear strategies, 
we completed the following analyses. We focused on risk assessments 
because in reports issued in 2004 and 2007 we identified a risk 
assessment as one of several key characteristics of a national 
strategy. Additionally, a risk assessment should include an analysis 
of the threats to, and vulnerabilities of, critical assets and 
operations.[Footnote 61] First, we reviewed and analyzed the multiyear 
strategies for all 19 FTF countries to identify those strategies that 
had a section dedicated to listing and describing "risks" to the FTF 
program. We found that 7 of the 19 strategies had specific risk 
sections. Second, we conducted an analysis on the types of risks found 
in the 7 strategies with specific risk sections. We found that a total 
of 44 risks were listed in these strategies and coded them according 
to whether they pertained to the key stakeholders in country (host 
governments, in-country for-profit sector, in-country nonprofit 
sector, and other donors) or whether they pertained to other, broader 
risks, such as natural resources or market conditions. We did this to 
determine the number of risks that pertain to key stakeholders because 
FTF considers these groups essential to implementing the country-led 
approach. Of the 44 risks, 25 pertained to key stakeholders and 19 
pertained to other, broader risks. For each of the 44 risks, we looked 
for a mitigation strategy that was directly tied to the listed risk. 
We recognize that, in some instances, other sections of the report 
described steps that U.S. agencies could take to address the risks to 
some degree. However, our purpose was not to assess the actions the 
U.S. government was taking to address risks, but to determine whether 
it was following a systematic risk assessment process. We found that 
21 of the 44 risks had mitigation strategies and 23 did not. Third, 
for the 12 strategies without specific risk sections, we reviewed 
other sections in the reports listing and examining concepts related 
to risk, such as "challenges," "barriers," "limitations," or 
"concerns." We also reviewed the strategies to determine whether they 
included a section referred to as "Development Challenges and 
Opportunities," as required by USAID's FTF multiyear strategy 
guidance. In addition, we determined whether each strategy included 
any challenges related to key stakeholders (host governments, in-
country for-profit sector, in-country nonprofit sector, and other 
donors), who are central to FTF's country-led approach. We found an 
example of these key stakeholder issues in each of the 12 strategies. 
To perform these analyses, two analysts independently reviewed all 19 
multiyear strategies, identified the risks or related issues, and 
coded the risks or issues according to whether they pertained to key 
stakeholders. The analysts worked iteratively, comparing notes and 
reconciling differences at each stage of the analysis. In addition, 
the final analysis was reviewed by other GAO staff independent of the 
two analysts, and modifications were made as appropriate. 

To identify the amount of funding provided to FTF, we obtained and 
analyzed allocations and disbursement data for FTF and FTF-related 
programs such as USAID Title II Food for Peace and USDA McGovern-Dole 
Food for Education for fiscal years 2010 through 2013 as of March 31, 
2013, for each agency. The information reported as allocations and 
disbursements was provided to us by the agencies. We use the term 
"allocations" to refer to funds the agencies reported that they 
directed to FTF. We did not independently assess the amounts agencies 
reported as allocations and disbursements. We also did not assess the 
extent to which the funds directed to FTF have been obligated. The 
agencies reported some differences in the ways that they provided data 
on allocations and disbursements for FTF, which we list as notes in 
table 2. We interviewed the agencies about the data and determined 
they were sufficient for background purposes in our report. 

We conducted this performance audit from March 2013 to September 2013 
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Other U.S. Global Food Security Programs Related to Feed 
the Future: 

The Feed the Future (FTF) initiative incorporates other U.S. 
assistance programs related to global food security that are 
implemented by the U.S. Agency for International Development, the 
Department of the Treasury, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture 
(USDA). Each of these other programs addresses global food security 
and other development challenges, as described in table 9. 

Table 9: Other U.S. Global Food Security Programs Related to the Feed 
the Future (FTF) Initiative: 

U.S. Agency for International Development: 

FTF-related program: Food for Peace Title II Development Food 
Assistance; 
Description: The Title II development assistance includes 
the donation of commodities to meet nonemergency needs as well as the 
sale of commodities in-country to obtain funds for development 
purposes, including food security goals. 

FTF-related program: Nutrition (Global Health Programs); 
Description: 
These programs provide technical leadership and direction in nutrition 
and food security with a focus on infant and young child nutrition, 
micronutrient supplementation, food fortification, and developing 
innovative products to improve diet quality for sustainable nutrition. 

Millennium Challenge Corporation: 

FTF-related program: Food Security Investments; 
Description: These programs include the development of irrigation 
systems in Burkina Faso, livestock and land and water resource 
management in Mongolia, fruit tree and fisheries sector development in 
Morocco, Coconut sector development in Mozambique, rangeland and 
livestock management and indigenous natural product sector development 
in Namibia, and feed and market roads rehabilitation and construction 
in Tanzania. 

Department of the Treasury: 

FTF-related program: International Fund for Agricultural Development; 

Description: Through this specialized agency of the United Nations, the 
Department of the Treasury, along with other international donors, 
invests in agricultural development, including rural development and 
policy reform. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA): 

FTF-related program: McGovern-Dole Food for Education; 
Description: This program donates U.S. agricultural commodities and 
financial and technical assistance for school feeding and maternal and 
child nutrition projects in low-income, food-insecure countries 
committed to universal education. 

FTF-related program: Food for Progress; 
Description: This program provides for the donation or credit sale of 
U.S. commodities to developing countries and emerging democracies 
committed to introducing and expanding free enterprise in the 
agricultural sector. In most cases, commodities are sold in-country to 
support agricultural projects to increase rural incomes and enhance 
food security. 

FTF-related program: Local and Regional Procurement Pilot Project; 
Description: This pilot program purchased local and regional food 
products to help meet nonemergency food needs in developing countries 
during fiscal years 2008 through 2012. One program objective was to 
provide a basis for determining the efficacy and impact of local and 
regional procurement of food aid. 

FTF-related program: Food Aid Nutrition Enhancement Competitive Grants; 
Description: This program provides grants for improving the nutritional 
content, product composition, packaging, and other components of food 
products delivered through humanitarian assistance program to enhance 
the short-and long-term health of individuals, especially infants and 
young children. 

FTF-related program: Cochran Fellowship; 
Description: This program provides participants from middle-income 
countries, emerging markets, and emerging democracies with high-
quality training to improve their local agricultural systems and 
strengthen and enhance trade links. 

FTF-related program: Norman E. Borlaug International Agricultural 
Science and Technology Fellowship; 
Description: This program promotes food security and economic growth 
by providing research and training opportunities for scientists and 
policymakers from developing and middle-income countries. USDA 
partners with U.S. land grant universities, international research 
centers, and other institutions to provide up to 12 weeks of U.S.-
based training for Borlaug Fellows each year. 

Source: GAO analysis of agency documents. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Illustrative Example of USAID Representatives' Reported 
Coordination with Feed the Future Partner Agencies in One Country: 

Figure 3 presents an illustrative example of U.S. Agency for 
International Development (USAID) representatives' reported 
coordination with Feed the Future (FTF) partner agencies in one 
country. We selected this country because (1) the number of USAID 
staff working on FTF represented the average for the 19 countries and 
(2) the country had a very high response rate to the survey. In this 
example, the USAID staff members are organized by the Mission Director 
and Deputy Director, Foreign Service Officers, Personal Services 
Contractors, and Foreign Service Nationals. For the diagram, we used 
generic rather than specific job titles for the USAID staff to ensure 
confidentiality. In addition, to simplify the example, we combined 
information we received from several survey respondents who reported 
similar or miscellaneous titles. 

Figure 3: Illustrative Example of USAID's Reported Coordination with 
Feed the Future (FTF) Partner Agencies in One Mission: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

USAID: 

Mission Director: 

Foreign Service Officers: 
* Economic Growth Officers; 
* Health Officer; 
* Agricultural Officer; 
* Other Foreign Service Officers. 

Personal Services Contractors: 
* Food Security Officer. 

Foreign Service National staff: 
* Economic Growth Specialist; 
* Environmental Specialist; 
* Nutrition Specialist; 
* Food Security Specialist; 
* Other Specialists. 

Other staff: 
* Agricultural Advisor. 

USAID Coordination with Partner Agencies: 

State: 
* Political/Economic Officers; 
* Public Affairs Officers; 
* Ambassador or DCM. 

Peace Corps: 
* Country Director; 
* Program Directors; 
* Volunteers; 
* Other in-country staff. 

USDA: 
* USDA Regional Attaché; 
* Other USDA staff. 

Other Agencies: 
* MCC staff; 
* FCS staff; 
* DOD staff; 
* USTR staff; 
* OPIC staff; 
* CDC staff. 

CDC: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 
DOD: Department of Defense; 
FCS: Foreign Commercial Service; 
MCC: Millennium Challenge Corporation; 
OPIC: Overseas Private Investment Corporation; 
State: Department of State; 
USAID: United States Agency for International Development; 
USDA: United States Department of Agriculture; 
USTR: United States Trade Representative. 

Source: GAO analysis of documentation and interviews; Corel Graphics 
(logo). 

Notes: USAID staff reporting similar positions were combined in this 
chart. Staff reporting miscellaneous positions were listed as "Other 
staff." Regional USAID staff were not included in this chart. The 
"Partner Agencies" are ordered by the number of USAID staff that 
reported coordinating with them. The named staff positions within each 
partner agency are ordered by the number of USAID staff that reported 
coordinating with them, except for "Other staff," who are always 
placed at the bottom of every category. 

[End of figure] 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Multiple Regression Analysis of Survey Results to 
Identify Predictors of Perceived Effectiveness of Coordination: 

In analyzing the results of our survey of several hundred U.S. 
representatives with duties related to the Feed the Future (FTF) 
initiative in 19 focus countries, we explored whether certain factors 
could help explain differences in how U.S. representatives perceived 
coordination related to FTF. To what extent were such factors as the 
U.S. representatives' different agencies, roles, and positions 
predictive of differences in their perceptions of FTF coordination? To 
answer that question, we used data from a series of questions in which 
the U.S. representatives assessed the effectiveness of their 
coordination in accomplishing eight specific actions, such as 
developing or contributing to integrated FTF program documents. 
[Footnote 62] Depending on how many agencies the representatives 
reported coordinating with, the questions were presented up to five 
times to obtain perceptions of the effectiveness of their coordination 
with representatives in their own and other agencies.[Footnote 63] We 
constructed a scale from responses to all coordination effectiveness 
questions, allocating each representative a point for each action for 
which they viewed their coordination as "very effective" or "somewhat 
effective." Thus, the maximum score was 40 points for representatives 
who answered the questions five times and each time rated their 
coordination as very or somewhat effective for all eight actions; on 
average each respondent rated 8.5 activities as very or somewhat 
effective.[Footnote 64] 

In analyzing the raw scores on the coordination effectiveness scale, 
we found marked differences among representatives when we grouped and 
compared them by different tenures in their jobs, different agencies, 
and different amounts of time on FTF activities. For example, 
representatives who reported spending very little of their time on FTF 
activities viewed their coordination as effective in accomplishing an 
average of 4 actions, compared with an average of 9 for 
representatives who reported spending most of their time on FTF 
activities. Similarly, Department of State (State) representatives on 
average viewed their coordination as effective for about 12 actions, 
compared with an average of 8 for nonregional representatives of the 
lead FTF agency, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). 

We used regression analysis to assess whether such differences in 
perceptions of effectiveness across representatives as measured by our 
scale persisted after controlling for other factors, such as different 
roles, positions, and opportunities to engage in the actions specified 
in the coordination effectiveness questions. Regression analysis 
allowed us to assess the unique association between our outcome 
variable and a given predictor variable,[Footnote 65] while 
controlling for multiple other predictor variables. In our ordinary 
least squares (OLS) regression model, we controlled for a variety of 
demographic factors that might have an impact on perceptions of 
effectiveness, including representatives' agency (USAID, State, the 
U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Peace Corps, and all other partner 
agencies); their tenure (less than a year, a year to less than 2 
years, and 2 years or more); their employment status (Foreign Service 
Officers/Foreign Service Officers Limited, Foreign Service Nationals, 
and all others including contractors); the amount of time spent on FTF 
activities (very little, some or about half, and most or all); the 
number of entities the representative reported coordinating with; and, 
for USAID representatives, whether the representative was considered a 
regional representative. Additionally, we also examined whether the 
representative reported coordinating with USAID (or other USAID 
representatives) and how many USAID staff they coordinated with. 
Finally, we used information from previous GAO research to identify 
certain factors that potentially affect coordination. For example, we 
included indicators for whether representatives felt that specific 
factors helped or hindered coordination overall, including funding, 
staffing levels, clarity of roles and responsibilities, and the 
compatibility of performance measures.[Footnote 66] 

Our regression model identified several factors that had statistically 
significant associations with representatives' perceptions of the 
effectiveness of their coordination, after controlling for other 
factors.[Footnote 67] Notably, State representatives, representatives 
with intermediate job tenure, and representatives who reported 
spending some to half their time on FTF activities had mean scores on 
the coordination effectiveness scale that were significantly higher 
than, respectively, USAID representatives, representatives with less 
job tenure, and representatives who spent less time on FTF. 
Additionally, we found that on average, representatives who felt, 
respectively, that staffing levels at their agencies, clarity of roles 
and responsibilities, and compatibility of performance measures and 
representatives helped with coordination also had significantly higher 
mean scores on the coordination effectiveness scale than those who 
felt these factors had no effect or had no opinion on them. After 
controlling for other factors, we did not find a significant 
association between representatives' perceptions of coordination 
effectiveness and their employment status (Foreign Service 
Officer/Foreign Service Officer Limited, Foreign Service National or 
Locally Employed Staff, and Personal Services Contractor/Others) 
regional status (for USAID representatives), or views on whether the 
amount of funding helped or hindered coordination activities. Table 10 
presents the categorical predictor variables in the regression model 
variables for which statistically significant associations were found 
with the outcome variable.[Footnote 68] 

Table 10: Categorical Variables in the Regression Model for Which at 
Least One Respondent Group Had a Significantly Higher Mean Number of 
Actions for Which Coordination Was Effective: 

Factor: Agency; 
Respondent group for which regression coefficient was 
statistically significant[A]: State; 
Reference respondent group for comparison: USAID nonregional; 
Other respondent groups for which regression coefficient was not 
statistically significant: USAID regional, USDA, and all other 
agencies. 

Factor: Tenure; 
Respondent group for which regression coefficient was 
statistically significant[A]: More than 1 year to 2 years; 
Reference respondent group for comparison: 1 year or less; 
Other respondent groups for which regression coefficient was not 
statistically significant: More than 2 years. 

Factor: Time spent on Feed the Future (FTF) activities; 
Respondent group for which regression coefficient was statistically 
significant[A]: 
Combined: Some of my time/About half of my time; 
Reference respondent group for comparison: Very little of my time; 
Other respondent groups for which regression coefficient was not 
statistically significant: Most of my time/All of my time[B]. 

Factor: Clarity on roles and responsibilities; 
Respondent group for which regression coefficient was statistically 
significant[A]: Clarity helped; 
Reference respondent group for comparison: No effect/No opinion; 
Other respondent groups for which regression coefficient was 
not statistically significant: Clarity hindered. 

Factor: Staffing levels in the field at own agency; 
Respondent group for which regression coefficient was statistically 
significant[A]: Staffing levels helped; 
Reference respondent group for comparison: No effect/No opinion; 
Other respondent groups for which regression coefficient was not 
statistically significant: Staffing levels hindered. 

Factor: Compatibility of performance goals and measures; 
Respondent group for which regression coefficient was statistically 
significant[A]: Compatibility helped; 
Reference respondent group for comparison: No effect/No opinion; 
Other respondent groups for which regression coefficient was not 
statistically significant: Compatibility hindered. 

Legend: State = Department of State; USAID = U.S. Agency for 
International Development; USDA = U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

Source: GAO survey. 

Notes: 

[A] Coefficients for these response groups were considered to be 
statistically significant at the p .05 level. This indicates that 
there is a 5 percent or lower chance that a coefficient would be as 
large as it is if there were no relationship between the variable and 
the outcome variable. 

[B] This variable was positively associated with the number of 
activities seen as effective at the p .10 level. 

[End of table] 

In developing our final model, we tested multiple versions of our 
model to evaluate the functional form of the relationships it 
specified and to ensure that the results were robust across 
specifications. We included core demographic variables in all models 
under consideration, including tenure, time spent on FTF, employment 
status, agency, and the number of entities the representative reported 
coordinating with. We tested additional predictor variables that 
surfaced as potentially important through our research, but decided 
against including in our final model all non-significant variables 
tested because of the limited number of representatives responding to 
our survey.[Footnote 69] Conversely, in some cases, we included in our 
final model several variables that were important controls or 
theoretically important but did not rise to the level of statistical 
significance. Most notably, because our outcome variable is 
constrained by the number of the five different agencies that each 
representative reported working with, all models included a control 
for this factor.[Footnote 70] 

We conducted a variety of other tests to check for high leverage 
outliers, model fit, and other issues. We did not find evidence of 
consistently high leverage points or outliers that appeared to have 
undue influence on our coefficients or model variance. We also checked 
across a variety of specifications, including different variables and 
functional forms, to ensure that the final model results were fairly 
stable across specifications in terms of the substantive and 
statistical significance of the coefficients (in terms of direction, 
magnitude, and significance). For example, because our outcome 
variable is highly skewed, we tested our model using different 
functional forms (including a logged outcome variable and a Poisson 
count model) to ensure that the interpretation of the results was 
consistent with our final model using OLS. We decided to use an OLS 
specification despite the skew in the outcome variable for several 
reasons, including the consistency of interpretation with the 
alternative models tested, the relative robustness of OLS to 
violations of functional forms, and the ease of interpreting the 
regression coefficients. Our final model had an R2 of 0.398, 
suggesting that the predictor variables predicted approximately 40 
percent of the variation in the outcome variable. 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: Feed the Future Partner Agencies' Approaches to Country-
Led Program Implementation: 

The country-led approaches to implementing food security programs by 
Feed the Future (FTF) partner agencies vary according to particular 
agency mandates and agency roles in FTF. The following examples 
illustrate the variation in approaches by the Millennium Challenge 
Corporation (MCC), the Peace Corps, the U.S. Department of State 
(State), the U.S. Department of the Treasury (Treasury), the U.S. 
African Development Foundation (USADF), and the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture (USDA). 

* MCC: MCC has been using the country ownership approach to 
development since its inception in 2004. MCC provides assistance to 
eligible countries through multiyear compact agreements including 
agriculture-related investments. Partner country governments are 
responsible for the implementation of MCC compacts, including 
initiating a meaningful consultative process with the country's civil 
society, nongovernmental organization, and private sector 
stakeholders, as well as a broad range of government stakeholders. 

* Peace Corps: Peace Corps officials described their approach to 
country ownership as working with partner countries from the national 
level down to the community level and engaging their volunteers in 
projects that are supported by host country governments. In addition, 
each project has a Project Advisory Committee that contributes to the 
design and evaluation of the project and includes at least one 
representative from the government and local community. 

* State: State was the lead agency for Feed the Future from 2009 to 
2010 and led the development of the FTF Guide, which described the FTF 
country-led approach. State officials have promoted stakeholder 
consultations around the development of country investment plans and 
have also helped facilitate greater civil society and private sector 
involvement in FTF. 

* Treasury: Treasury officials work with the World Bank's multidonor 
trust fund Global Agriculture and Food Security Program (GAFSP) and 
have made efforts to align GAFSP and FTF's country-led approaches. 
Treasury assisted in the development of the selection criteria for 
GAFSP funding which includes an assessment of the country's policy 
environment as well as evidence of consultations with local 
stakeholders. 

* USADF: USADF provides grants of up to $250,000 to the most 
vulnerable communities in Africa and these grants fund projects that 
are led by staff of local technical partners that engage community 
groups in the project's design and implementation. 

* USDA: USDA seeks to align its resources with country investment 
plans where it concentrates its food security investments. USDA 
particularly focuses on ensuring that the private sector is included 
in food security consultations and works directly with host government 
officials and local universities and civil society. 

[End of section] 

Appendix VI: Comments from the U.S. Agency for International 
Development: 

GAO received USAID letter on September 5, 2013. 

USAID: 
From The American People: 

Thomas Melito: 
Director, International Affairs & Trade: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Mr. Melito: 

I am pleased to provide USAID's formal response to the Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) draft report entitled "Global Food 
Security: USAID Is Improving Coordination but Needs to Require 
Systematic Assessments of Country-Level Risks" [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-809]. 

This letter, together with the enclosed USAID comments, are provided 
for incorporation as an appendix to the final report. 

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the GAO draft report and 
for the courtesies extended by your staff in the conduct of this audit 
review. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 
Angelique M. Crumbly: 
Assistant Administrator: 
Bureau for Management: 
U.S. Agency for International Development: 

Enclosure: a/s: 

USAID Comments On GAO Draft Report No. GAO-13-809: 

As the lead implementing agency within the U.S Government in the area 
of food security, the U.S. Agency For International Development 
(USAID) is pleased to offer its comments on the GAO Report to 
congressional requestors, Global Food Security: USAID Is Improving 
Coordination but Needs to Require Systematic Assessment of Country-
Level Risks. The report comes at an important time as many Feed the 
Future (FTF) multi-year strategies (MYS) will expire in 2014 and we 
are looking to more fully integrate them into the Country Development 
Cooperation Strategies (CDCS). 

We are pleased to see GAO acknowledge the very significant progress on 
whole-of-government coordination and the marked progress on mitigating 
the risks to the country-led approach. None of this progress could 
have been achieved without the strong leadership and commitment of all 
of the agencies/departments guiding the FTF initiative. 

Recommendation 1: We recommend that USAID require FTF country staff to 
conduct periodic risk assessments associated with pursuing a country-
led approach. 

USAID concurs with this recommendation. USA1D's commitment to 
assessing and mitigating risks associated with development programs is 
reflected in its Automated Directives System (ADS) policy guidance. 
ADS 201.3.3.3, which establishes policy for the development of the 
CDCS, provides: 

Local Capacity Development: A key strategic consideration is local 
capacity development. 'This includes both the use of partner country 
government systems and the constellation of local organizations in the 
country and their relationships with government, donors, one another, 
and the general population. An analysis of local public and private 
organizations (government, civil society and private sector entities), 
and how the Mission plans to support the capacity development of these 
entities should inform the CDCS. 

As part of this analysis, the Mission should conduct the Public 
Financial Management Risk Assessment Framework (PFMRAF) Stage 1 
analysis. Capacity development and the qualities of USA1D partnership 
with local entities should be considered at all stages of the Program 
Cycle. 

FTF MYS are subject to comply with the ADS policy in the above 
paragraph. As we move toward fuller integration of FTF MYS into the 
CDCS, we will revise the "CDCS Supplemental Guidance for Integrating 
Feed the Future" to be more explicit about risk assessment and 
mitigation of the country-led approach. The amended guidance will 
include the following requirements: 

1. All FTF MYS to be fully integrated into CDCS when the next CDCS is 
developed. 

2. If the FTF MYS expires before the next CDCS is developed, then the 
post must seek, in writing, an extension of the MYS. The justification 
for extension must include a risk assessment, specifically reviewing 
the country-led approach, and a plan to mitigate the identified risks. 

3. Posts to coordinate with the interagency to develop an annex to the 
CDCS that addresses the whole-of-government approach to achieving HT 
objectives. 

4. All FTF Posts to conduct periodic risk assessments of FTF programs 
in conjunction with Post portfolio reviews and develop plans to 
mitigate identified risks. 

Recommendation 2: We recommend that USAID require FTF country staff to 
develop plans o mitigate any risks identified as part of its periodic 
risk assessments. 

USAID concurs with this recommendation. Sec the comment under 
Recommendation 1. 

[End of section] 

Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Thomas Melito, (202) 512-9601 or melitot@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the contact named above, Cheryl Goodman (Assistant 
Director), Farahnaaz Khakoo-Mausel, Rachel Dunsmoor, Paige Muegenburg, 
Sushmita Srikanth, Michele Wong, Martin De Alteriis, Cynthia Grant, 
Jill Lacey, Justin Fisher, David Dornisch, Anna Maria Ortiz, Catherine 
Hurley, Mark Dowling, Grace Lui, Sarah Veale, Mallory Bulman, David 
Dayton, David Hancock, Justine Lazaro, and Etana Finkler made key 
contributions to this report. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] World Bank, World Development Report 2008: Agriculture for 
Development (Washington, D.C.: 2007). 

[2] The G8 is an assembly of world leaders who meet annually to 
discuss global issues. The leaders represent the United States, 
Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, and the United Kingdom. 
The European Union is also represented by the Presidents of the 
European Commission and the Council. At the G8 Summit in L'Aquila, 
Italy, in July 2009, and the subsequent Group of Twenty (G20) Summit 
in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, in September 2009, major donor countries 
and the European Commission pledged to significantly increase aid to 
agriculture and food security. 

[3] The U.S. global commitment was initially referred to as the Global 
Hunger and Food Security Initiative but came to be known as Feed the 
Future in May 2010 with the publication of the Feed the Future Guide 
(FTF Guide). 

[4] See GAO, International Food Security: Insufficient Efforts by Host 
Governments and Donors Threaten Progress to Halve Hunger in Sub-
Saharan Africa by 2015, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-680] (Washington, D.C.: May 29, 
2008), and Global Food Security: U.S. Agencies Progressing on 
Governmentwide Strategy, but Approach Faces Several Vulnerabilities, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-352] (Washington, D.C.: 
Mar. 11, 2010). To address some of these risks, State has begun to 
implement this recommendation by providing support to countries in the 
development of their food security plans and by reviewing these plans 
before committing a higher level of U.S. funding. 

[5] Funding data are reported as of March 31, 2013. 

[6] In this report, "whole-of-government" refers to FTF's approach for 
enhancing coordinated and comprehensive action within the U.S. 
government. While the May 2010 FTF Guide mentions the term "whole-of-
government" once, subsequent FTF program documents use the term more 
frequently. 

[7] Several international agreements, including the Paris Declaration 
on Aid Effectiveness, the Accra Agenda for Action, and the Five Rome 
Principles for Sustainable Global Food Security, highlight the need 
for country ownership as a means to coordinate development efforts and 
achieve sustainability. At the country level, partners can engage in 
meaningful dialogue on a common framework for action, identify how 
resources align with strategic priorities, and determine how to 
address gaps and make adjustments. According to the FTF Guide, through 
FTF, the U.S. government is expanding its commitment to align 
investments with partner country priorities while also increasing its 
own transparency and accountability. 

[8] In this report, FTF partner agencies include the Department of 
State, Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), Department of the 
Treasury (Treasury), Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Peace 
Corps, U.S. African Development Foundation (USADF) and the Overseas 
Private Investment Corporation (OPIC). We did not include the 
Department of Commerce and Office of the U.S. Trade Representative 
(USTR) because they have few representatives overseas who focus on 
FTF. However, some officials from the Departments of Commerce, Defense 
(DOD), and Health and Human Services (Centers for Disease Control, 
CDC) responded to our survey because USAID said they provided some 
support to FTF. 

[9] GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance 
and Sustain Collaboration among Federal Agencies, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-15] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 
2005) and Managing Results: Key Considerations for Implementing 
Interagency Collaborative Mechanisms, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-1022] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 27, 
2012). To identify key practices, GAO reviewed academic literature and 
prior GAO and Congressional Research Service reports. In addition, GAO 
interviewed experts in coordination, collaboration, partnerships, and 
networks such as the National Academy of Public Administration. See 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-15] and [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-1022] for additional details. 

[10] We sent a web-based survey to 551 USAID and FTF partner-country 
representatives but later determined 52 to be out of scope. After 
sending out the survey, we identified 52 key personnel who had left 
their post prior to our sending out the survey request, who told us 
that they did not work on FTF, who were U.S.-based, or who were 
otherwise out of scope. See app. I for additional information on the 
scope and methodology. See the e-supplement [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-815SP] for more information on the 
FTF survey questionnaire. 

[11] We used Response Rate 3 (RR3) as defined by the American 
Association for Public Opinion Research in Standard Definitions: Final 
Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys, 7th ed., 
2011. Weighting accounts for the unequal agency sizes and response 
rates across agencies. 

[12] A nonresponse bias analysis is used to verify that nonrespondents 
to the survey are not likely to answer differently from those who did 
respond and that the respondents are representative of the target 
population, thus ensuring that the results can be generalized to the 
population from which the sample was chosen. 

[13] FTF also has a goal to reduce the prevalence of poverty and 
stunted children less than 5 years of age by 20 percent in the areas 
in which it works. 

[14] The 19 FTF countries are Bangladesh, Cambodia, Ethiopia, 
Guatemala, Ghana, Haiti, Honduras, Kenya, Liberia, Malawi, Mali, 
Mozambique, Nepal, Rwanda, Senegal, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Uganda, and 
Zambia. In 2011, according to the FTF progress report, the U.S. 
government removed Nicaragua as a FTF country because the government 
of Nicaragua had not developed an effective country implementation 
plan that could guide U.S. investments, nor were its policies as 
conducive to success as other FTF focus countries. 

[15] The Deputy Coordinator for Development is a position at USAID, 
and the Deputy Coordinator for Diplomacy is a position at State. The 
USAID Assistant to the Administrator for the Bureau for Food Security 
is also part of the leadership. 

[16] GAFSP is a multilateral donor trust fund to assist in the 
implementation of pledges made by the G20 countries, who asked the 
World Bank to establish such a fund to support the L'Aquila initiative 
to boost support for agriculture and food security. The objective of 
this trust fund is to address the underfunding of country and regional 
agriculture and food security strategic investment plans already being 
developed by countries in consultation with donors and other 
stakeholders at the country level. The United States has committed 
funds through GAFSP and coordinated the design and development of the 
new multilateral fund. As of March 2013, Treasury had disbursed $326 
of the $475 million U.S. commitment. For specific information on 
agency food security programs and initiatives, see [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-352]. 

[17] In 2012, USAID and State worked with a coalition of U.S.-based 
international relief and development organizations called InterAction 
to attract non-U.S.-government resources for FTF. InterAction has 
pledged more than $1 billion for food security and nutrition over 3 
years. 

[18] See app. II for a description of the other FTF-related food 
security programs implemented by USAID, Treasury, and USDA. 

[19] See GAO, International Food Security: Insufficient Efforts by 
Host Governments and Donors Threaten Progress to Halve Hunger in Sub-
Saharan Africa by 2015, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-680] (Washington, D.C.: May 29, 
2008); and Global Food Security: U.S. Agencies Progressing on 
Governmentwide Strategy, but Approach Faces Several Vulnerabilities, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-352] (Washington, D.C.: 
Mar. 11, 2010). 

[20] GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance 
and Sustain Collaboration among Federal Agencies, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-15] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 
2005). For the purpose of this report, we use the term "collaboration" 
broadly to include interagency activities that others have variously 
defined as "cooperation," "coordination," "integration," or 
"networking." We have done so because there are no commonly accepted 
definitions for these terms, and we are unable to make definitive 
distinctions between these different types of interagency activities. 
We define collaboration as any joint activity by two or more 
organizations that is intended to produce more public value than could 
be produced when the organizations act alone (see [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-15]). 

[21] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-15]. 

[22] GAO, International Food Security: Insufficient Efforts by Host 
Governments and Donors Threaten Progress to Halve Hunger in Sub-
Saharan Africa by 2015, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-680] (Washington, D.C.: May 29, 
2008). 

[23] According to USAID officials, State, Commerce, and USTR do not 
have in country food security programs, and thus do not report into 
the FTFMS. 

[24] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-15]. 

[25] In fiscal year 2012, the results and targets for each of the five 
measures were the following: number of partner agencies reporting into 
FTFMS (5 of 4), number of FTF interagency working group meetings (19 
of 24), country-level working groups holding regular interagency 
meetings (15 of 19), agencies presenting their food security annual 
plans to FTF (3 of 4), and country portfolio reviews with interagency 
participation (0 of 6). 

[26] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-680]. 

[27] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-15] and see GAO, 
Key Considerations for Implementing Interagency Collaborative 
Mechanisms, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-1022] 
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 27, 2012). 

[28] U.S. agencies have not established criteria for an optimal level 
of coordination. 

[29] We looked at USAID's coordination with its partner agencies in 
all of the 19 FTF countries where the partner agencies had at least 
one representative that responded to the survey. 

[30] See the e-supplement [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-815SP] for more information on the 
FTF survey questionnaire. 

[31] See app. III for an illustrative example of U.S. representatives' 
reported coordination with FTF partner agencies in one country. 

[32] The FTF Country Coordinator is typically the USAID Mission 
Director. 

[33] We also used these survey results to examine the impact of 
various factors on the U.S. representatives' perceptions of whether 
their coordination had been effective in accomplishing the actions 
listed in table 4. For details on that multiple regression analysis, 
see app. IV. 

[34] This question in the GAO survey asked about factors that helped, 
hindered, or had no effect on respondents' coordination with all in-
country U.S. government representatives to plan or implement FTF-
related activities. 

[35] In 2010, country-level staff in each FTF country developed a plan 
outlining the U.S. government approach for the first year of FTF 
implementation as well as a new multiyear strategy for implementing 
FTF. Headquarters staff reviewed the plans and strategies. Reviewers 
included the de facto Global Food Security Coordinator, deputy 
coordinators, Bureau of Food Security, and representatives from State, 
Commerce, MCC, USDA, OPIC, and the Peace Corps. These reviewers 
provided their evaluation and feedback to the country-level staff, 
drawing from each reviewer's agency expertise. For example, officials 
recommended to USAID staff in one Latin American country that their 
strategy elaborate on the alignment of FTF with interagency partners 
by clearly delineating partner roles in achieving FTF objectives. In 
2011 and 2012, staff in each country revised their drafts of the 
implementation plan and multiyear strategy to incorporate the 
interagency input from the reviews and finalize their multiyear 
strategy. The final FTF multiyear strategies outline the 5-year 
strategic planning for FTF within each country and include agriculture 
and nutrition objectives, monitoring and evaluation plans, and 
interagency financial planning. 

[36] The U.S. government's country-led approach to implementing global 
food security is outlined in the FTF Guide, the Presidential Policy 
Directive on Global Development, and the Quadrennial Diplomacy and 
Development Review. The FTF Guide states that the U.S. government will 
be guided by the Five Rome Principles for Sustainable Global Food 
Security, which the United States and 192 other countries unanimously 
endorsed in 2009. These principles reflect a concerted global effort 
to accelerate progress toward the UN Millennium Development Goal of 
halving the proportion of people living in extreme poverty and hunger 
by 2015. Two principles relate to country ownership in support of food 
security programs. These principles call on governments to, among 
other things, consult with a broad group of stakeholders in planning 
and implementing food security programs. 

[37] Other support included studies or modeling to improve the 
evidence informing decisions on food security priorities and financial 
expertise to develop estimates on the costs of financing the 
priorities outlined in the CIP. 

[38] Public-private partnerships are those between government agencies 
and either for-profit or nonprofit organizations. 

[39] CAADP is an Africa-wide framework for developing, implementing, 
and measuring agriculture development investments at national, 
regional, and continent levels. 

[40] The CAADP regional process requires, among other things, that the 
host government develop its CIP with the participation of civil 
society and private sector stakeholders; that the CIPs undergo a 
technical review; and that donors, the host government, and 
representatives of the private sector and civil society convene a 
business meeting to endorse the CIP and commit to its implementation. 
During implementation of its CIP, CAADP requires a country to conduct 
a multistakeholder review, called a joint sector review, to assess the 
performance and results of the agriculture sector. 

[41] In our survey, stakeholders are those who are affected by a 
development outcome or have an interest in a development outcome. 

[42] See GAO, Managing for Results: Opportunities for Continued 
Improvements in Agencies' Performance Plans, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-99-215] (Washington, DC: July 20, 
1999).This is consistent with the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010, 
which states that agencies' performance planning should discuss plans 
to address major management challenges, including through relevant 
performance goals, indicators, and milestones. 

[43] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-680] and 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-352]. 

[44] The World Bank Doing Business project ranks countries on areas of 
business regulation. A high ranking on the ease-of-doing-business 
index means the regulatory environment is more conducive to starting 
and operating a local firm. See [hyperlink, 
http://www.doingbusiness.org/]. 

[45] In October 2012, USAID published the FTF Scorecard with fiscal 
year 2012 targets, as well as cumulative targets for fiscal years 2010-
2014. In June 2013, USAID published the FTF Scorecard with fiscal year 
2012 targets and actual results achieved. 

[46] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-352]. In 2010, we 
recommended that State delineate measures to mitigate risks associated 
with the country-led approach. To address some of these risks, State 
has begun to implement this recommendation by providing support to 
countries in the development of their food security plans and by 
reviewing these plans before committing a higher level of U.S. funding. 

[47] In fiscal year 2012, the results and targets for each of the five 
measures were reported as: focus countries with increased public 
expenditure for agriculture (12 of 10), private enterprises and CSOs 
that applied new technologies or management practices (44,100 of 
26,000), focus countries using outreach platforms to CSOs and private 
sector companies to inform CIP development and implementation (8 of 
10), focus countries with an improved "Doing Business" ranking (6 of 
8), and focus countries holding joint sector reviews with donors, 
CSOs, and private sector firms (0 of 5). The Doing Business report 
ranks countries on 11 areas of business regulation. 

[48] Africa Lead is a capacity-building program that provides 
leadership training, among other things, to public, civil society, and 
private sector institutions to support the CAADP. 

[49] The New Alliance builds upon the progress and commitments made at 
the 2009 L'Aquila summit and includes specific commitments from 
African leaders to enhance opportunities for private sector investment 
in their countries, as well as commitments from local and 
international private sector partners, who have collectively committed 
more than $3 billion in investments. In September 2012, the New 
Alliance expanded from the initial countries of Ethiopia, Ghana, and 
Tanzania to include Burkina Faso, Côte d'Ivoire, and Mozambique. In 
June 2013, the New Alliance announced that it was adding three more 
countries--Nigeria, Malawi, and Benin. 

[50] We defined risks to a country-led approach as those related to 
host governments, stakeholders, and other donors. 

[51] This definition is consistent with GAO's risk management 
framework based on best practices. See GAO, Homeland Security: 
Applying Risk Management Principles to Guide Federal Investments, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-386T] (Washington, 
D.C.: Feb. 7, 2007). As we stated above, the FTF Scorecard is a 
monitoring tool that tracks data on some of the risks; however, it is 
not clear how these risks were prioritized, and the tool does not 
determine the adequacy of controls to manage risks. 

[52] See GAO, Combating Terrorism: Evaluation of Selected 
Characteristics in National Strategies Related to Terrorism, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-408T] (Washington, 
D.C.: Feb. 3, 2004); and Influenza Pandemic: Further Efforts Are 
Needed to Ensure Clearer Federal Leadership Roles and an Effective 
National Strategy, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-781] 
(Washington, D.C.: Aug. 14, 2007). We identified risk assessments as a 
key characteristic of a national strategy by reviewing the Homeland 
Security Act of 2002, as well as other legislation, presidential 
directives, and GAO and policy research organization publications. See 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-408T] for additional 
details. 

[53] According to USAID, these strategies are to align with the CIPs. 

[54] The FTF multiyear strategy change guidance indicates that 
possible strategy changes may be deemed necessary due to budgetary, 
programmatic, interagency policy, host-country, or other 
considerations. 

[55] The CDCS are 5-year development strategies that include 
discussions of how USAID assistance will be synchronized with other 
agencies' efforts. 

[56] See GAO, International Food Security: Insufficient Efforts by 
Host Governments and Donors Threaten Progress to Halve Hunger in Sub-
Saharan Africa by 2015, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-680] (Washington, D.C.: May 29, 
2008), and Global Food Security: U.S. Agencies Progressing on 
Governmentwide Strategy, but Approach Faces Several Vulnerabilities, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-352] (Washington, D.C.: 
Mar. 11, 2010). 

[57] GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance 
and Sustain Collaboration among Federal Agencies, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-15] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 
2005) and Key Considerations for Implementing Interagency 
Collaborative Mechanisms, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-1022] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 27, 
2012). To identify key practices, we reviewed academic literature and 
prior GAO and Congressional Research Service reports. In addition, we 
interviewed experts in coordination, collaboration, partnerships, and 
networks such as the National Academy of Public Administration. See 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-15] and [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-1022] for additional details. 

[58] We presented 2012 performance data as reported by USAID for 
contextual purposes, and did not independently verify the data. 

[59] We used Response Rate 3 (RR3) as defined by the American 
Association for Public Opinion Research in Standard Definitions: Final 
Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys, 7th ed., 
2011. Weighting accounts for the unequal agency sizes and response 
rates across agencies. 

[60] A nonresponse bias analysis is used to verify that nonrespondents 
to the survey would not answer differently from those who did respond 
and that the respondents are representative of the target population, 
thus ensuring that the results can be generalized to the population 
from which the sample was chosen. 

[61] See GAO, Combating Terrorism: Evaluation of Selected 
Characteristics in National Strategies Related to Terrorism, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-408T] (Washington, 
D.C.: Feb. 3, 2004); Influenza Pandemic: Further Efforts Are Needed to 
Ensure Clearer Federal Leadership Roles and an Effective National 
Strategy, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-781] 
(Washington, D.C.: Aug. 14, 2007). Risk assessment as a key 
characteristic of a national strategy was identified by reviewing the 
Homeland Security Act of 2002, as well as other legislation, 
presidential directives, and GAO and policy research organization 
publications. 

[62] The other seven actions were integrating FTF program or project 
planning with other U.S. foreign assistance programs; sharing 
observations or information obtained through meetings with host 
government officials; sharing observations or information obtained 
through meetings with other stakeholders; making progress on needed 
policy reforms in host country; identifying donors and partners; 
developing joint or compatible procedures or processes for FTF 
activities (e.g., action plans, donor coordination procedures, etc); 
and developing joint communication plans, reports and/or cables. 
Additionally, the survey asked about "other actions" that were 
affected by coordination, but these were not included in our measure. 

[63] Representatives were presented with the same series of questions 
about effectiveness of coordination for each of four agencies--the 
USAID, State, USDA, and the Peace Corps. The series of questions was 
also presented to elicit responses regarding coordination with FTF 
staff from all other agencies at the representative's post. 

[64] To test the reliability of the scale, we examined Cronbach's 
alpha, a measure of whether the variation in the scale captures the 
majority of the variation in the underlying items. Our scale had a 
Cronbach's alpha of .95, which meets professionally accepted standards 
for the reliability of a scale. 

[65] The outcome variable is also referred to as the dependent 
variable, and predictor variables are also referred to as independent 
variables. 

[66] These indicators were derived from the Q32 question series, which 
asks representatives to rate field-based coordination among all US 
government representatives, and specifically whether certain factors 
such as communication, funding or staffing have helped or hindered 
coordination. 

[67] The associations are identified by regression coefficients, which 
are considered to be statistically significant at the p .05 level. 
This indicates that there is a 5 percent or lower chance that a 
coefficient would be as large as it is if there were no relationship 
between the variable and the outcome variable. Because it is possible 
that the failure to identify significant coefficients is partly a 
function of the relatively small sample size (327 observations with 
full data in the regression), we also examined several variables that 
were consistently significant across models at the p .10 level, and 
note that these variables are not significant at traditional levels. 

[68] The one continuous predictor variable in the model also showed a 
statistically significant association with the outcome variable: the 
number of USAID representatives that each survey respondent reported 
coordinating with. 

[69] This included, for example, additional questions from the q32 
question series. We checked for stability of coefficients and 
degradation of fit by comparing model R2 statistics before and after 
to drop variables that were not statistically significant. 

[70] Our final model treats the variable as categorical, to allow for 
different effects at different levels of coordination with other 
agencies. No individual category in our model was statistically 
significant compared with those who did not report coordinating with 
any other entities. Results from the final model were also generally 
consistent with a version of the model that included a categorical 
variable of the number of activities (out of the 40 possible in the 
dependent variable) for which each respondent reported a positive or 
negative opinion. 

[End of section] 

GAO’s Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the 
performance and accountability of the federal government for the 
American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates 
federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, 
and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, 
and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is 
reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and 
reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO’s website [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, 
testimony, and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select 
“E-mail Updates.” 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black 
and white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s 
website, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

Connect with GAO: 

Connect with GAO on facebook, flickr, twitter, and YouTube.
Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
Visit GAO on the web at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 
Website: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]; 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov; 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470. 

Congressional Relations: 

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, DC 20548. 

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, DC 20548. 

[End of document]