Presentation on theme: "USDA International Food Assistance"— Presentation transcript:
1 USDA International Food Assistance Presented by Members ofthe Office of Capacity Building and DevelopmentForeign Agricultural ServiceU.S. Department of AgricultureAugust 2, 2010
2 Welcome Roger Mireles Assistant Deputy Administrator Office of Capacity Building and DevelopmentForeign Agricultural Service
3 Introductions and Agenda Welcome and Introductory RemarksRoger Mireles, Assistant Deputy Administrator, Office of Capacity Building andDevelopment (OCBD)Food Assistance Division OverviewRon Croushorn, Director, Food Assistance Division (FAD)Food for Progress Programming for FY 2010 & BeyondJudy Phillips, Chief, Food for Development Branch, FADMcGovern-Dole ProgramErika Beltran, Senior Analyst, School Feeding and Humanitarian Assistance Branch, FADLocal and Regional Food Aid Procurement Pilot ProjectJamie Fisher, Chief, Local and Regional Procurement, FADTransportation and LogisticsAmy Harding, Acting Chief, Transportation and Logistics Branch, FADQuestions and Answers
4 USDA Objectives to Increase Food Security Overseas Ensure U.S. agricultural resources contribute to enhanced global food securitySupport sustainable agriculture production in food-insecure nations
5 USDA’s Unique Toolbox Tools that promote agricultural development Food Aid ProgramsTrade and Scientific Exchange ProgramsUSDA Technical ExpertisePartnershipsOverseas RepresentationUSDA brings many tools into one arena, creating a holistic and integrated approachExamples of Current FAS ProgramsAgLink: 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 plansImprovements in grants management in areas of finance, monitoring and evaluation, and complianceFull implementation of new regulations in FY 2010 food aid agreements
7 Food Assistance Division Ron CroushornDirector, Food Assistance DivisionOffice of Capacity Building and DevelopmentForeign Agricultural ServiceNow 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 ProgramLocal and Regional Food Aid Procurement Pilot Program
9 Key Topics Food aid quality Monitoring and evaluation Sustainability of projectsChanges in regulationsFood Aid Information System
10 FY 2010 Focus AreasDuring today’s session, FAS will provide information on:Program ManagementStrategic Framework & IndicatorsProcurement Practices
11 Food for Development Branch Food for ProgressPresented by:Judy PhillipsBranch ChiefFood for Development Branch
12 Food for Progress (FFPr) Program OverviewFY 2010 AwardsPriority CountriesFY 2011 Solicitation
13 FFPr Program Basics Authorized by the Food for Progress Act of 1985 Targets developing countriesSupports the expansion of private enterprise in the agricultural sectorCommodities are usually monetized to fund development activities
14 FFPr Resources Until 2012 Funding authorized by the Farm Bill $40 million cap on transportation costsCommodity value not restricted$15 million for administrative costsResidual Title I funds for government agreements
15 FFPr Program Value and Tonnage FiscalYearValue ($) **Tonnage (MT)2007$135.4303,9102008$156.6180,3702009$209.4261,7302010$172.6272,080$135 - $210 million** Includes prior FY carry over and Title I-funded FFPr programs.
16 FFPr Focus Improved Agricultural Production Agribusiness Development Improved farming methodsSoil and water conservationAnimal and plant healthAgribusiness DevelopmentProcessing, storage, marketingRoads and other infrastructureCooperative developmentFinancial ServicesMicrocreditBusiness training
17 Active FFPr Agreements (2005-2010) 40 Countries116 AgreementsAgreement 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)
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 concernsPotential market disruptionsOther donor activityExclude net food exporters
22 FFPr Priority Countries FY 2011FY 2012**AfghanistanBangladeshBeninBurkina FasoHaitiKenyaLiberiaMalawiMongoliaPhilippinesUgandaEl SalvadorGuatemalaHondurasMaliMozambiqueNicaraguaPakistanSenegalTanzaniaTimor LesteChange from preliminary 2011 list announced at 2009 IFACAdd HaitiAdd Kenya (no FY 2010 funding)Add LiberiaAdd Mongolia (Resolved issues w/govt – Strong embassy supportMali – Move to 2012Senegal – Move to 2012Namibia – 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 ProgramsGuidelines for Introductory StatementGuidelines for Plan of OperationSample Introductory StatementSample Plan of OperationAvailable:
24 FFPr Proposal Evaluation Criteria Focus on private sector agricultural developmentOrganizational capability and experienceProgram coordination with host government and other USG strategies (Feed the Future)Ability to quantify program impactCommodity management and appropriatenessOverall proposal quality
25 Improved Agricultural Productivity FFPr IndicatorsImproved Agricultural ProductivityOutputsNumber of trainings on improved practicesNumber of distributions of fertilizers, improved seeds, completed irrigation projects acreageOther such measures of activities related to expanded productionOutcomesIncrease in net revenue attributed to participation in trainingsIncrease in yields and/or productionChange in hectares under improved practiceNumber of farmers using improved practices
26 Agribusiness Development FFPr IndicatorsAgribusiness DevelopmentOutputsNumber of trained farmersNumber of total trainingsprovidedNumber of individual consultsNumber of treatments forlivestockNumber of applications ofimproved technologies forcrops or livestockCompleted business plansOutcomesIncrease in net revenueattributed to participationin trainingsIncrease in yield/productionNumber of jobs createdNumber of new businesses createdIncrease in value of beneficiaryassetsIncrease in adoption ofimproved technology
27 Provision of Financial Services FFPr IndicatorsProvision of Financial ServicesOutputsNumber of trainingsprovidedNumber of loans providedNumber of creditcooperatives formedNumber of credit unionsformedPercent increase incommunity bank depositsOutcomesIncrease in employee wages ofthose receiving financial servicesRevenue at companies receivingfinancial servicesNew jobs created in communitieswhere the financial services wereofferedTrained participants demonstratingability to use financial servicesIncrease in daily per capitaexpenditure by micro creditbeneficiaries
29 Erika Beltran, Senior Program Analyst McGovern-Dole International Food for Education & Child Nutrition ProgramPresented by:Erika Beltran, Senior Program Analyst
30 Presentation Overview Program OverviewFY 2010 Resources and AwardsPriority Country Determination and ListsProposal Evaluation CriteriaAwards Coming Later FY 2010
31 Program BasicsAuthorized by the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002Targets developing countriesFocuses on improving the education (attendance, literacy, and graduation rates) and nutrition of beneficiaries, especially girlsStrengthen community linkages and increase capacity of government to implement school feeding activitiesCommodities are primarily used for direct distributionGuatemala
32 Project Areas School Feeding Nutrition Improvement School Meals (breakfast, lunch)Food for Work (cooks, teachers)Take-home RationsNutrition ImprovementIn addition to the nutritional value provided through the school feeding activities, many projects provide vitamins and implement de-worming activitiesCapacity Building and DevelopmentTeacher/Parent TrainingIncrease capacity of government to implement activitiesPromotes 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 waterSchool Environment ImprovementProvide educational supplies (books, writing utensils, paper, etc…)Establish school gardensCreate PartnershipsPublicPrivateCommunitySenegal
34 Current Active Agreements Currently, 32 active agreements are being funded with 14 cooperating sponsors in 28 countries, assisting more than 5 million beneficiariesTo 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 million35 PVOs27 Countries13 proposals awarded to 7 PVOs9 continuing multi-year programs18 countriesTotal 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 educationAbsence of civil conflictUSDA Post coverage and ability to monitor agreements
38 Priority Country Lists 2011 Countries2012 Countries *Preliminary ListAfghanistanLao PDRMalawiBangladeshMaliCambodiaMozambiqueBeninNepalGuatemalaPakistanBurkina FasoNicaraguaHaitiSenegalEthiopiaKenyaTanzaniaRwandaLiberiaUganda
39 FY 2011 Solicitations October 15, 2010 at 5:00 PM ET Expected Funding – $209.5 millionDeadline for FY 2011 ProposalsOctober 15, 2010 at 5:00 PM ETOnline Resources Available
40 Proposal Evaluation Criteria Proposal Quality – Addresses goals of the program, implementation, and situational analysisExperience and Organizational Capacity Factors – Organization’s capability and effectiveness in implementing previous food aid programs, particularly school feeding and maternal child healthProgram 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 fundingCommodity 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 trainingsNumber of immunizations, de-wormingOutcomesChanges in height/weightMeasure of soap and latrines useMeasure of attendance
43 Improved Educational Quality Program ObjectivesImproved Educational QualityOutputsNumber of teacher trainingsNumber of new schools suppliesImproved student/teacher ratioOutcomesNumber of teachers adopting new techniquesMeasure of student performance, tests
44 Program Objectives Sustainability Outputs Number of PTAs formed Formation of advocacy groupNumber of PTA trainingsOutcomesChanges in school feeding budgetsImproved school system legal frameworkExpanded local procurement of meals
45 Awards Coming Later in FY2010 Haiti/Afghanistan – $20 millionFAS will provide commodities and resources to approved programs in order to implement school feeding activitiesMicronutrient Fortified Food Aid Pilot Project (MFFAPP) – $10 millionUnder 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 StepsPresented 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.
53 Types of Programs Receiving Funding Emergency:Emergency Family Rations for Drought-Affected HouseholdsFood for WorkCereal Bank Restocking in Drought-Affected AreasDevelopment:School FeedingFood for WorkFood for Training
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; andIncludes a plan to ensure commodity quality and safety.
59 Planning for FY 2011PVOs 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: ,
64 TLB’s Role Operational branch of the Food Assistance Division (FAD) Management of the Food for Progress and McGovern-Dole transportation budgetsRepresent FAD in communications regarding commodity and freight issues
65 TLB ObjectivesDevelopment of food aid agreements with respect to commodity selections, packaging, and freight terms and conditionsDevelopment of non-standard, cost-savings commodity and freight procurement scenarios
66 TLB ObjectivesMaintain detailed tracking reports for commodity and freight purchases for the Food for Progress and McGovern-Dole programsProcess ocean and inland freight payments for the Food for Progress and McGovern-Dole programsManage compliance with cargo preference requirements
67 TLB’s Relationship with Program Participants Point of contact for commodity and freight purchasesPoint of contact for commodity quality issues, such as commodities out of specificationFacilitate the resolution of documentation issues, customs clearance issues, service interruptions, and other transportation related issues
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.JorgeAngella
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”
78 Impact on Proposal Submission Proposal submissions for FY 2011 should support the strategic objective of the frameworkFood for ProgressMcGovern Dole Food for EducationProposals 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 VilsackIt’s still our priority!
80 Roadmap for 2010-2011 Develop thematic frameworks Establish measurable objectivesLink performance indicatorsCollaborate to build final productPublish guidance for indicator use
81 Status of ROM Food Aid Project Conducted Internal Assessment of Food Assistance Program Readiness for ROMCompleted 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 frameworkFood for ProgressMcGovern Dole Food for EducationProposals 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 2011Federal Register Notice - March 2011Formal Public Meeting - March 2011
86 Clear and Meaningful Measures of Project Achievement Measurement CriteriaClear and Meaningful Measures of Project AchievementBrian Goggin, Deputy DirectorFood Assistance DivisionOffice of Capacity Building and DevelopmentForeign 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 studentsWrite well-designed and coherent outputs and outcomes in “Criteria for Measuring Progress”
88 FY 2011 Proposals: Measuring Progress Measurements must reflect sound causal thinkingShow 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 farmersOutcomes 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 incompleteExplain what you will measureA 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 evaluationsOur strategy for achieving our evaluation goalsThe 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 VisionAll 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 StrategyCreate platform for conducting evaluations using Results Oriented ManagementCollaborate with FAD to provide timely feedback to stakeholders about monitoring issuesIncrease regular outreach visitsProvide guidance to stakeholders on third party evaluationsOur 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 MillerMonitoring & Evaluation Staff(202)
98 MONITORING and CLOSEOUT “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 reportsWorking on the design and functionality of the new FAIS systemAgreement 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 reportedNo 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 receivedAccounting 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 reportsA list of all equipment valued at over $5,000All relevant Tax CertificationsAll 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 budgetSpending funds on a budget line item not approved in the budgetSignificant differences between anticipated outputs and outcomes and reported outputs and outcomes
106 CLOSEOUTCloseout goal for fiscal year (FY) 2010 is to close 60% of the participants agreements for FY 2002 and 2003.
107 CLOSEOUTCloseout goal for fiscal year (FY) 2010 is to close 60% of the participants agreements for FY 2002 and 2003.
108 Monitoring & Evaluation Staff Barbara ShumarMonitoring & Evaluation Staff(202)Introduce next speaker- Delphine.
109 MES Outreach“Helping to Build a Sustainable Culture of Program Accountability and Transparency”
110 OutreachOne of MES’s most important new efforts to reach out to PVOs in order establish positive working relationships.
111 ObjectivesTo meet with the PVO hands-on level staff, specially those who do not attend IFADCTo help us smooth the process of gathering information needed to close out the agreementsTo 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 expectWe will notify you and make arrangements with you in advanceThe visits are short, 1-2 hoursTopics discussed will vary on a case-by-case basisMES will provide a mini-tutorial on the closeout processInformal, not an audit and not to discuss any proposals
114 ConclusionOur 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.