Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

USDA International Food Assistance

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "USDA International Food Assistance"— Presentation transcript:

1 USDA International Food Assistance
Presented by Members of the Office of Capacity Building and Development Foreign Agricultural Service U.S. Department of Agriculture August 2, 2010

2 Welcome Roger Mireles Assistant Deputy Administrator
Office of Capacity Building and Development Foreign Agricultural Service

3 Introductions and Agenda
Welcome and Introductory Remarks Roger Mireles, Assistant Deputy Administrator, Office of Capacity Building and Development (OCBD) Food Assistance Division Overview Ron Croushorn, Director, Food Assistance Division (FAD) Food for Progress Programming for FY 2010 & Beyond Judy Phillips, Chief, Food for Development Branch, FAD McGovern-Dole Program Erika Beltran, Senior Analyst, School Feeding and Humanitarian Assistance Branch, FAD Local and Regional Food Aid Procurement Pilot Project Jamie Fisher, Chief, Local and Regional Procurement, FAD Transportation and Logistics Amy Harding, Acting Chief, Transportation and Logistics Branch, FAD Questions and Answers

4 USDA Objectives to Increase Food Security Overseas
Ensure U.S. agricultural resources contribute to enhanced global food security Support sustainable agriculture production in food-insecure nations

5 USDA’s Unique Toolbox Tools that promote agricultural development
Food Aid Programs Trade and Scientific Exchange Programs USDA Technical Expertise Partnerships Overseas Representation USDA brings many tools into one arena, creating a holistic and integrated approach Examples of Current FAS Programs AgLink: A program for small U.S. agribusinesses in the NIS, Baltics and Poland. Agricultural Technology Utilization and Transfer Project: AID-funded collaborative research with Egypt. The Baltics & Poland Agribusiness and Development Program: An applied research program to enhance trade opportunities. Middle East Peace Process: Projects which bring together Israeli and Arab experts to address mutual problems through research and technical cooperation. Central European Joint Funds: Bilateral research initiatives in Poland, Hungary, Czech and Slovak Republics, Slovenia, Macedonia, and Croatia. The Scientific Cooperation Program: A small grants program which supports research world- wide. Sustainable Agriculture Video Project for China: RSED has collaborated with China NGO Global Village of Beijing to produce a sustainable agriculture video series for Chinese Central Television. The nine-segment series focuses on economically viable small-scale U.S. farms that have adopted environmentally innovative agricultural techniques. In addition to the broadcast on Chinese television, the series will be used as a teaching supplement in Chinese agricultural universities.  Trade Barrier Workshops: Targeted activities to address constraints to U.S. exports. Ukraine Cooperative Programs: Activities in beef and dairy production, production management and seed policy to build capacity and enhance trade opportunities. Water Quality Programs: Cooperative projects in China, the Middle East and Mexico to demonstrate U.S. drinking water and other environmental technologies.

6 Priorities for Food Aid Programs
Linkage with Feed the Future Initiative and other development plans Improvements in grants management in areas of finance, monitoring and evaluation, and compliance Full implementation of new regulations in FY 2010 food aid agreements

7 Food Assistance Division
Ron Croushorn Director, Food Assistance Division Office of Capacity Building and Development Foreign Agricultural Service Now I would like to present Ron Croushorn, the director of the Food Assistance Division.

8 Program Overview Food for Progress
McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program Local and Regional Food Aid Procurement Pilot Program

9 Key Topics Food aid quality Monitoring and evaluation
Sustainability of projects Changes in regulations Food Aid Information System

10 FY 2010 Focus Areas During today’s session, FAS will provide information on: Program Management Strategic Framework & Indicators Procurement Practices

11 Food for Development Branch
Food for Progress Presented by: Judy Phillips Branch Chief Food for Development Branch

12 Food for Progress (FFPr)
Program Overview FY 2010 Awards Priority Countries FY 2011 Solicitation

13 FFPr Program Basics Authorized by the Food for Progress Act of 1985
Targets developing countries Supports the expansion of private enterprise in the agricultural sector Commodities are usually monetized to fund development activities

14 FFPr Resources Until 2012 Funding authorized by the Farm Bill
$40 million cap on transportation costs Commodity value not restricted $15 million for administrative costs Residual Title I funds for government agreements

15 FFPr Program Value and Tonnage
Fiscal Year Value ($) ** Tonnage (MT) 2007 $135.4 303,910 2008 $156.6 180,370 2009 $209.4 261,730 2010 $172.6 272,080 $135 - $210 million ** Includes prior FY carry over and Title I-funded FFPr programs.

16 FFPr Focus Improved Agricultural Production Agribusiness Development
Improved farming methods Soil and water conservation Animal and plant health Agribusiness Development Processing, storage, marketing Roads and other infrastructure Cooperative development Financial Services Microcredit Business training

17 Active FFPr Agreements (2005-2010)
40 Countries 116 Agreements Agreement Value = $850 Million

18 FFPr Agreements (2005-2010) Country and Number of Agreements
Afghanistan (10) Ethiopia (3) Mauritania (1) Armenia (2) The Gambia (1) Mongolia (3) Bangladesh (1) Georgia (2) Mozambique (7) Bolivia (4) Guatemala (4) Nicaragua (4) Burundi (1) Guinea (1) Niger (5) Cameroon (2) Honduras (6) Pakistan (5) Cen. African Rep. (2) Iraq (1) Philippines (7) D. R. Congo (2) Jamaica (1) Senegal (3) Rep. of Congo (1) Kenya (2) Sri Lanka (3) Dominican Rep. (3) Lebanon (1) Tajikistan (1) East-Timor (2) Liberia (4) Tanzania (3) Ecuador (2) Madagascar (3) Uganda (2) El Salvador (3) Malawi (3) Yemen (1) Mali (4)

19 FY 2010 FFPr Proposals 89 Proposals Submitted 10 Proposals Approved
Proposals from: 47 PVOs 3 Governments 19 countries Total value = $1,390 million 10 Proposals Approved Approved Programs: 7 PVOs 2 Governments 10 countries Total value = $146 million

20 FFPr Priority Country Criteria
Income - Per capita below $3,855 (World Bank) Malnutrition - >20% of children under age 5 are stunted (WHO) Political Freedom - Free or partly free (Freedom House) USDA Post Coverage - Ability to monitor

21 Other FFPr Determining Factors
Security concerns Potential market disruptions Other donor activity Exclude net food exporters

22 FFPr Priority Countries
FY 2011 FY 2012** Afghanistan Bangladesh Benin Burkina Faso Haiti Kenya Liberia Malawi Mongolia Philippines Uganda El Salvador Guatemala Honduras Mali Mozambique Nicaragua Pakistan Senegal Tanzania Timor Leste Change from preliminary 2011 list announced at 2009 IFAC Add Haiti Add Kenya (no FY 2010 funding) Add Liberia Add Mongolia (Resolved issues w/govt – Strong embassy support Mali – Move to 2012 Senegal – Move to 2012 Namibia – Delete (high income) **Preliminary

23 FY 2011 Solicitation Proposals Due: October 15, 2010 at 5:00 PM ET
Online Solicitation Resources: Considerations for FY 2011 Programs Guidelines for Introductory Statement Guidelines for Plan of Operation Sample Introductory Statement Sample Plan of Operation Available:

24 FFPr Proposal Evaluation Criteria
Focus on private sector agricultural development Organizational capability and experience Program coordination with host government and other USG strategies (Feed the Future) Ability to quantify program impact Commodity management and appropriateness Overall proposal quality

25 Improved Agricultural Productivity
FFPr Indicators Improved Agricultural Productivity Outputs Number of trainings on improved practices Number of distributions of fertilizers, improved seeds, completed irrigation projects acreage Other such measures of activities related to expanded production Outcomes Increase in net revenue attributed to participation in trainings Increase in yields and/or production Change in hectares under improved practice Number of farmers using improved practices

26 Agribusiness Development
FFPr Indicators Agribusiness Development Outputs Number of trained farmers Number of total trainings provided Number of individual consults Number of treatments for livestock Number of applications of improved technologies for crops or livestock Completed business plans Outcomes Increase in net revenue attributed to participation in trainings Increase in yield/production Number of jobs created Number of new businesses created Increase in value of beneficiary assets Increase in adoption of improved technology

27 Provision of Financial Services
FFPr Indicators Provision of Financial Services Outputs Number of trainings provided Number of loans provided Number of credit cooperatives formed Number of credit unions formed Percent increase in community bank deposits Outcomes Increase in employee wages of those receiving financial services Revenue at companies receiving financial services New jobs created in communities where the financial services were offered Trained participants demonstrating ability to use financial services Increase in daily per capita expenditure by micro credit beneficiaries

28 Contact Information Judy Phillips (Branch Chief)………………………..... (202) Debbie Pfaff (West Africa)……………………… (202) Al Ersoz (Southern Africa, Middle East)……………. (202) Shohreh Kermani-Peterson (Lat Am & Caribbean).. (202) Nicola Sakhleh (Central Asia)…………………… (202) Echo Domingues (SE Asia, Europe, Caucuses)…... (202) Jane Wilkins (East Africa)……………………… (202) Colin Miller (Close Out Coordination)………………. (202)

29 Erika Beltran, Senior Program Analyst
McGovern-Dole International Food for Education & Child Nutrition Program Presented by: Erika Beltran, Senior Program Analyst

30 Presentation Overview
Program Overview FY 2010 Resources and Awards Priority Country Determination and Lists Proposal Evaluation Criteria Awards Coming Later FY 2010

31 Program Basics Authorized by the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 Targets developing countries Focuses on improving the education (attendance, literacy, and graduation rates) and nutrition of beneficiaries, especially girls Strengthen community linkages and increase capacity of government to implement school feeding activities Commodities are primarily used for direct distribution Guatemala

32 Project Areas School Feeding Nutrition Improvement
School Meals (breakfast, lunch) Food for Work (cooks, teachers) Take-home Rations Nutrition Improvement In addition to the nutritional value provided through the school feeding activities, many projects provide vitamins and implement de-worming activities Capacity Building and Development Teacher/Parent Training Increase capacity of government to implement activities Promotes creation of PTAs as well as other community groups

33 Project Areas Infrastructure Activities School Environment Improvement
Build/Rehabilitate school kitchens, classrooms, etc… Increase access to water School Environment Improvement Provide educational supplies (books, writing utensils, paper, etc…) Establish school gardens Create Partnerships Public Private Community Senegal

34 Current Active Agreements
Currently, 32 active agreements are being funded with 14 cooperating sponsors in 28 countries, assisting more than 5 million beneficiaries To date, the McGovern-Dole Program has provided meals to more than 23 million children

35 Current Active Agreements Country and Number of Agreement
Angola (1) Guatemala (2) Malawi (1) Afghanistan (1) Guinea (1) Mali (1) Bangladesh (1) Guinea-Bissau (1) Mozambique (1) Benin (1) Honduras (1) Niger (1) Bolivia (1) Kenya (1) Pakistan (1) Cambodia (3) Kyrgyzstan (1) Rwanda (1) Cameroon (1) Laos (2) Senegal (1) Chad (1) Liberia (1) Sierra Leone (1) Congo, Rep of (1) Ethiopia (1) Madagascar (1) Uganda (1)

36 FY 2010 Resources and Awards
54 proposals received; valued at $700 million 35 PVOs 27 Countries 13 proposals awarded to 7 PVOs 9 continuing multi-year programs 18 countries Total funding for FY 2010 is $166 million ***Total amount of funding is used to pay for: transportation, purchase commodities, Inland Transportation Shipping and Handling (ITSH), and activity and administration costs

37 Priority Country Determination
Priority Country Determination Factors: Income – Per capita below $3,885 (World Bank) Malnutrition – > 20% of children under age 5 are stunted (WHO) National literacy rate – Adult literacy rate < 80% Other Considerations during review process: Government commitment to education Absence of civil conflict USDA Post coverage and ability to monitor agreements

38 Priority Country Lists
2011 Countries 2012 Countries *Preliminary List Afghanistan Lao PDR Malawi Bangladesh Mali Cambodia Mozambique Benin Nepal Guatemala Pakistan Burkina Faso Nicaragua Haiti Senegal Ethiopia Kenya Tanzania Rwanda Liberia Uganda

39 FY 2011 Solicitations October 15, 2010 at 5:00 PM ET
Expected Funding – $209.5 million Deadline for FY 2011 Proposals October 15, 2010 at 5:00 PM ET Online Resources Available

40 Proposal Evaluation Criteria
Proposal Quality – Addresses goals of the program, implementation, and situational analysis Experience and Organizational Capacity Factors – Organization’s capability and effectiveness in implementing previous food aid programs, particularly school feeding and maternal child health Program Coordination – Host government and other USG strategies and activities (Feed the Future)

41 Proposal Evaluation Criteria
Graduation/Sustainability – Enables either a national government, local government, or community to continue the program beyond USDA funding Commodity or Funds Appropriateness – Commodities and tonnages are appropriate; Experience with distribution methods, process, storage and handling of commodities

42 Program Objectives Improved Nutrition Outputs Number of meals served
Number of hygiene trainings Number of immunizations, de-worming Outcomes Changes in height/weight Measure of soap and latrines use Measure of attendance

43 Improved Educational Quality
Program Objectives Improved Educational Quality Outputs Number of teacher trainings Number of new schools supplies Improved student/teacher ratio Outcomes Number of teachers adopting new techniques Measure of student performance, tests

44 Program Objectives Sustainability Outputs Number of PTAs formed
Formation of advocacy group Number of PTA trainings Outcomes Changes in school feeding budgets Improved school system legal framework Expanded local procurement of meals

45 Awards Coming Later in FY2010
Haiti/Afghanistan – $20 million FAS will provide commodities and resources to approved programs in order to implement school feeding activities Micronutrient Fortified Food Aid Pilot Project (MFFAPP) – $10 million Under the MFFAPP Program, participants will have access to resources to develop and field test new or improved micronutrient-fortified food aid products

46 McGovern-Dole Food for Education Contact List
Dorothy Feustel, Branch Chief…………………..(202) Erika Beltran, West Africa…………………….…..(202) Wentzel Mitchell, Southern Africa…………...….(202) Jennifer Wenger, East Africa…………………….(202) Alessandra McCormack, Asia…………………...(410) Mary Allen, Asia…………………………………....(202) Richard Chavez, Latin America & Caribbean…(202) Paul Alberghine, Health and Nutrition…...….....(202) Kate Ivancic, Program Assistant………… (202) Damien Singh, Economics Assistant………......(202)

47 USDA Local and Regional Food Aid Procurement Pilot Project
Updates and Next Steps Presented by: Jamie L. Fisher, Chief, Local and Regional Procurement

48 History of the USDA LRP Project
The Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 (the Farm Bill) directs the Secretary of Agriculture to implement a five-year local and regional procurement pilot program in developing countries from Fiscal Years 2008 thru 2012. The purpose of the pilot program is to examine the timeliness, efficiency and cost-effectiveness of using local and regional procurement as a tool to respond to food crises and disasters around the world.

49 Four Phases of the USDA LRP Project
Study of prior local and regional purchases (FYs 2008 thru 2009) Development of guidelines (FY 2009) Implementation of field-based projects (FYs 2009 thru 2011) Independent evaluation (FY 2012)

50 Available Funding $60 million will be available to USDA under the LRP pilot program, including $5 million in FY 09, $25 million in FY 10, $25 million in FY 11 and $5 million in FY 12. In FY 09, USDA provided $4.75 million for LRP projects in Sub-Saharan Africa. In FY 10, USDA will provide a total of $23.5 million to eligible organizations for LRP projects in developing countries around the world. To date, $11.5 million has been committed to LRP projects in Sub-Saharan Africa, Asia and Central America. $12 million is still available to fund additional projects in FY 2010.

51 FY 2009 USDA LRP Project Grants
Organization Recipient Country Program Type Value World Food Program Mali Development $1.05 million Malawi $1.7 million Tanzania $2.0 million Total $4.75 million

52 FY 2010 USDA LRP Project Grants
Organization Recipient Country Program Type Value Mercy Corps Niger Emergency $4.5 million Land O'Lakes Bangladesh Development $2.6 million Catholic Relief Services Guatemala $1.8 million Mali $100,000 Catholic Relief Services Benin $1.5 million Burkina Faso $1.0 million Total $11.5 million

53 Types of Programs Receiving Funding
Emergency: Emergency Family Rations for Drought-Affected Households Food for Work Cereal Bank Restocking in Drought-Affected Areas Development: School Feeding Food for Work Food for Training

54 Types of Commodities Purchased
Maize Millet Rice Corn Soy Blend Fortified Maize Flour Beans Vegetable Oil Fortified Cereal Bars

55 Commodity Safety and Quality Assurance
All commodities purchased with USDA LRP Project funding must meet the specifications, and the nutritional, quality and labeling standards, of the recipient country. If the recipient county lacks standards, the commodities must meet the standards of the Codex Alimentarius.

56 Commodity Safety and Quality Assurance cont’d.
Participants must also ensure that commodities purchased through voucher programs meet the specifications and the nutritional, quality and labeling standards of the recipient country, or the standards of the Codex Alimentarius. Prior to distribution, participants must hire a professional commodity inspection service to survey and report on the safety and quality of all commodities purchased under a USDA LRP Project agreement. All commodities must be tested for aflatoxin, and have moisture content certified at the time of inspection.

57 Proposal Evaluation Criteria
A successful proposal: Identifies a genuine need for food assistance; Provides a strong justification as to why local or regional procurement is more appropriate than in-kind food aid; Explains how the proposed intervention supports the host-country food security strategy;

58 Proposal Evaluation Criteria cont’d.
Indicates how the proposed intervention will complement and not overlap food security programs implemented by other actors in the area of distribution; Identifies the criteria and methodology to be used to target the beneficiaries; Identifies the methodology to be used to assess the impact of the purchase before, during and after it is made to ensure that it causes no harm to low-income consumers, or market systems; and Includes a plan to ensure commodity quality and safety.

59 Planning for FY 2011 PVOs interested in receiving funding for development programs are strongly encouraged to submit their proposals no later than August 31, 2010. Proposals for development programs that are received after September 30, 2010 will not be considered for funding. Emergency programs will be prioritized in FY 11.

60 Application Deadlines
Eligible organizations may submit applications for qualification for emergency programs until April 1, 2011. Proposals for emergency program funding may be submitted until June 1, 2011. Pre-award letters authorizing participants to begin incurring reimbursable costs prior to the receipt of a signed agreement will be made available upon request. The procurement and distribution of commodities for all LRP programs must be completed by September 30, 2011.

61 Evaluation of the USDA LRP Project
In early FY 11, USDA will hire a qualified organization to conduct an independent evaluation of the pilot project. The Office of Capacity Building and Development monitoring and evaluation staff will lead this process. The evaluation will examine the timeliness, efficiency and cost-effectiveness of local and regional procurement in various geographic regions. It will take into account the market impact of the USDA-funded purchases, as well as the impact of purchases funded by other USG and non-USG donors relative to the supply and availability of food. In addition, it will examine any actions taken by the host country and purchase country governments before, during and immediately following a USDA-funded purchase. The evaluation report will be submitted to Congress in late May of At that time it will also be made available to the public.

62 USDA LRP Project Team Contact List
Jamie Fisher, Chief, USDA LRP Project, Tel: , John Lamm, Program Analyst, West and Central Africa, USDA LRP Project, Tel: , Erin Means, Program Analyst, Southern Africa and Latin America, USDA LRP Project, Tel: , Seth Miller, Program Analyst, East Africa and Asia, USDA LRP Project, Tel: ,

63 Transportation and Logistics Branch (TLB)
Presented by: Amy Harding, Acting Branch Chief

64 TLB’s Role Operational branch of the Food Assistance Division (FAD)
Management of the Food for Progress and McGovern-Dole transportation budgets Represent FAD in communications regarding commodity and freight issues

65 TLB Objectives Development of food aid agreements with respect to commodity selections, packaging, and freight terms and conditions Development of non-standard, cost-savings commodity and freight procurement scenarios

66 TLB Objectives Maintain detailed tracking reports for commodity and freight purchases for the Food for Progress and McGovern-Dole programs Process ocean and inland freight payments for the Food for Progress and McGovern-Dole programs Manage compliance with cargo preference requirements

67 TLB’s Relationship with Program Participants
Point of contact for commodity and freight purchases Point of contact for commodity quality issues, such as commodities out of specification Facilitate the resolution of documentation issues, customs clearance issues, service interruptions, and other transportation related issues

68 TLB Contacts Amy Harding, Acting Branch Chief……….(202) 720-3538
Pamela White, Traffic Mgt Specialist..…...(202) Karen Hoag, Program Specialist………....(202)

69 The Monitoring & Evaluation Staff of the Office of Capacity Building & Development
“Helping to Build a Sustainable Culture of Program Accountability and Transparency”

70 To increase your knowledge of how M&ES and FAD cooperate to administer USDA’s Food Assistance programs. Why are they here? What are they expected to do? How long will they have to listen? Ground Rules: No tomatoes! Our objective today is to….

71 M&ES Food Aid Team Robert Delphine Barbara Jorge Angella
Delphine: Policy/Evaluation/Contracting. Will discuss ROM. Robert: Agreement Monitoring & Closeout. Discuss Evaluation. Barbara: Agreement Closeout Lead. Discuss Agreement Monitoring and Closeout. Jorge: Agreement Closeout. Discuss Outreach. Lita: Evaluation and Monitoring of Non-Food Aid Programs. Edward: Technical Support. Jorge Angella

72 Role of the M&E Staff in Food Aid
In line with our motto, we pride ourselves on being open and transparent about our goals and accomplishments. Barbara will discuss with you the progress we’ve made in closing food aid agreements. Rob will share with you our vision for evaluating those agreements. Following my presentation, Delphine will update you on our Results Oriented Management contracting endeavor. Let me take just a minute to discuss that. Sometimes in the real world things don’t go as planned. That has been the case with our contracting endeavors.

73 Brenda Freeman, Director Monitoring & Evaluation Staff (202) 690-1177
Introduce next speaker- Delphine.

74 Managing Food Assistance Programs for Results
through Results Oriented Management “Helping to Build a Sustainable Culture of Program Accountability and Transparency”

75 Looking Back at 2009 IFAC What did we promise?

76 Our Reason for ROM Justify why the program is being implemented
Focus on the need for the program Focus on results achieved

77 Strategic Framework [Program Name] [Project Type]
Strategic Objective Intermediate Results Initial Results Activities & Outputs

78 Impact on Proposal Submission
Proposal submissions for FY 2011 should support the strategic objective of the framework Food for Progress McGovern Dole Food for Education Proposals received that do not support the strategic objective of the framework will not be approved

79 “Tying what we do to specific articulated results is a very important function of what the management side of this agency has to do..” – Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack It’s still our priority!

80 Roadmap for 2010-2011 Develop thematic frameworks
Establish measurable objectives Link performance indicators Collaborate to build final product Publish guidance for indicator use

81 Status of ROM Food Aid Project
Conducted Internal Assessment of Food Assistance Program Readiness for ROM Completed ROM Orientation Training of Food Aid and M&E Staffs

82 Status of ROM Food Aid Project
Solicitation Opens:_________ Solicitation closes:________ Estimated Contract Award:________

83 Impact on Proposal Submission
Proposal submissions for FY 2012 must support a strategic objective of the framework Food for Progress McGovern Dole Food for Education Proposals received that do not support a strategic objective of the framework will not be approved

84 Stakeholder Involvement
Opportunities to Offer Comment on ROM Frameworks and Indicators: Electronic Comment - March 2011 Federal Register Notice - March 2011 Formal Public Meeting - March 2011

85 Thank you for listening.
Delphine Hamlin (202)

86 Clear and Meaningful Measures of Project Achievement
Measurement Criteria Clear and Meaningful Measures of Project Achievement Brian Goggin, Deputy Director Food Assistance Division Office of Capacity Building and Development Foreign Agricultural Service

87 Measurement Criteria for FY2011 Proposals
What you can do to ensure that your proposal will receive serious consideration? Show us that you have done your homework; that you understand the value chain, the credit market, ag production situation, the school system and it students Write well-designed and coherent outputs and outcomes in “Criteria for Measuring Progress”

88 FY 2011 Proposals: Measuring Progress
Measurements must reflect sound causal thinking Show us a casual chain; that by undertaking such activities with specific outputs, what can you expect the to achieve? Examples: If you are training someone in post harvest handling (PHH), your outputs would relate to the number of farmers trained, and outcomes related to reduction in post harvest losses

89 FY 2011 Proposals: Measuring Progress
If you are training farmers in fertilizer use, then: Your output would describe the completion of trainings by farmers Outcomes would relate to the overall objective and the actual results? Measures of proper application? A test of their knowledge. Better/Best: A measure of yield increase?

90 FY2011 Proposals: Measuring Progress
What about something less clear, like farmer organization? Or school system improvements? --Outputs could include trainings provided formations of organizations, --Outcomes: services provided by the organizations, the products processed, the beneficiaries that were served and how.

91 FY2011 Proposals: Measuring Progress
The overall goal: show us how you intend to measure your own progress. How do you know if you are achieving your objectives? What measures do you have in place? Something must be measured, or your knowledge is incomplete Explain what you will measure A learning organization

92 Evaluating for Results
“Helping to Build a Sustainable Culture of Program Accountability and Transparency”

93 Topics for Discussion Increased emphasis on evaluations
Our vision for evaluations Our strategy for achieving our evaluation goals The evaluation component of our division is of growing importance because of the need to provide essential information to decision makers about the continued success of our food aid programs. For this presentation I will briefly touch on three aspects of evaluation as it relates to M&ES. They are (1) the increased emphasis on evaluation by the Administration, (2) the M&ES vision for evaluations, and (3) the M&ES strategy.

94 Emphasis on Evaluations
OMB commitment to examine program performance “Increased Emphasis on Program Evaluation” a 2009 OMB memorandum calling for “rigorous, independent program evaluation” The Office of Management and Budget has placed new and increased emphasis on evaluating program performance. This was notable in the 2009 memorandum calling for a new focus on “rigorous, independent program evaluation.”

95 Our Vision All food aid programs are subject to a rigorous and independent evaluation. More frequent and transparent communication with our stakeholders. Assess the health of our programs at any point through monitoring. Provide effective training that results in reduced discrepancies that slow down agreement closure. In the spirit of rigorous and independent evaluations, our vision is for all our food aid programs to meet this standard. Evaluation efforts in general touch on all aspects of what we do in M&ES - - from PVO outreach efforts to project closeouts. Our vision includes enhanced outreach efforts in improve communication with our stakeholders, program monitoring that provides on going feedback about our programs and allows for midcourse adjustments if needed, and finally because of our better communication with stakeholders we’ve established a platform for sharing information that will help agreement closeout process be timely and efficient.

96 Our Strategy Create platform for conducting evaluations using Results Oriented Management Collaborate with FAD to provide timely feedback to stakeholders about monitoring issues Increase regular outreach visits Provide guidance to stakeholders on third party evaluations Our strategy then is to use ROM to create a platform for strengthening baselines in order to conduct evaluations. We will continue to work with FAD on monitoring efforts in areas such as creating more effective monitoring reporting tools and to ensure agreements are accountable and comply with regulations. We are also currently developing written guidance that will inform you of our requirements for hiring third party evaluators. With these points in mind, I’ll turn to my colleagues to elaborate further on monitoring, closeouts, and our outreach efforts.

97 Monitoring & Evaluation Staff
Robert Miller Monitoring & Evaluation Staff (202)

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

99 MONITORING Collaboration
Issues that FAD and MES collaborate on include: Revising the financial and logistic and monetization reports Working on the design and functionality of the new FAIS system Agreement violations

100 MONITORING Accountability
Ensure the accountability of CCC assets: Commodities are lost, damaged or misused. CCC funds and monetization proceeds are misused or expenses are unsupported.

101 MONITORING Program Compliance
Review OMB Circular A-133 to ensure: No major weaknesses were reported No findings were reported pertaining to FAS’s Food Aid programs.

102 CLOSEOUT USDA needs the following to close a Food Aid Agreement:
Final, cumulative logistic and monetization report (log\mon) Accounting for all commodity received Accounting for all monetization proceeds and interest A review of agreement objectives against reported outputs and outcomes.

103 CLOSEOUT USDA needs the following to close a Food Aid Agreement:
Final, cumulative financial reports A list of all equipment valued at over $5,000 All relevant Tax Certifications All relevant audits and any issue related to the agreement resolved

104 CLOSEOUT A closeout of an agreement includes:
A financial analysis comparing expenses reported to both the CCC and monetization budget. A review of agreement objectives against reported outputs and outcomes.

105 CLOSEOUT Closeout red flags include: Budget line item movements
Overspending the monetization administrative budget Spending funds on a budget line item not approved in the budget Significant differences between anticipated outputs and outcomes and reported outputs and outcomes

106 CLOSEOUT Closeout goal for fiscal year (FY) 2010 is to close 60% of the participants agreements for FY 2002 and 2003.

107 CLOSEOUT Closeout goal for fiscal year (FY) 2010 is to close 60% of the participants agreements for FY 2002 and 2003.

108 Monitoring & Evaluation Staff
Barbara Shumar Monitoring & Evaluation Staff (202) Introduce next speaker- Delphine.

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

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

111 Objectives To meet with the PVO hands-on level staff, specially those who do not attend IFADC To help us smooth the process of gathering information needed to close out the agreements To answer closeout related questions

112 How are visits determined?
By location. PVOs in the Washington area are more likely to be visited than those PVOs in other areas due to budget reasons. If there is a need. For instance, if there are many pending issues. By request from PVO.

113 What to expect We will notify you and make arrangements with you in advance The visits are short, 1-2 hours Topics discussed will vary on a case-by-case basis MES will provide a mini-tutorial on the closeout process Informal, not an audit and not to discuss any proposals

114 Conclusion Our goal is to make the closeout process as painless as possible, while increasing our transparency and accountability. If you would like to meet with MES during IFADC, please contact any MES staff.

Download ppt "USDA International Food Assistance"

Similar presentations

Ads by Google