USDA InternationalFood AssistancePresented by Members of the Office of Capacity Building and DevelopmentForeign Agricultural ServiceU.S. Department of Agriculture

August 2, 2010

WelcomeRoger MirelesAssistant Deputy AdministratorOffice of Capacity Building and DevelopmentForeign Agricultural Service

Introductions and Agenda

Welcome and Introductory Remarks Roger Mireles, Assistant Deputy Administrator, Office of Capacity Building and Development (OCBD)

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

Food for Progress Programming for FY 2010 & BeyondJudy Phillips, Chief, Food for Development Branch, FAD

McGovern-Dole ProgramErika 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 LogisticsAmy Harding, Acting Chief, Transportation and Logistics Branch, FAD

Questions and Answers

USDA Objectives to Increase Food Security OverseasEnsure U.S. agricultural resources contribute to enhanced global food securitySupport sustainable agriculture production in food-insecure nations

USDAs Unique ToolboxTools that promote agricultural developmentFood Aid ProgramsTrade and Scientific Exchange ProgramsUSDA Technical ExpertisePartnershipsOverseas Representation

Priorities for Food Aid ProgramsLinkage 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

Food Assistance DivisionRon CroushornDirector, Food Assistance DivisionOffice of Capacity Building and DevelopmentForeign Agricultural Service

Program OverviewFood for ProgressMcGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition ProgramLocal and Regional Food Aid Procurement Pilot Program

Key TopicsFood aid qualityMonitoring and evaluationSustainability of projectsChanges in regulations http://www.fas.usda.gov/food-aid.asp Food Aid Information System

FY 2010 Focus AreasDuring todays session, FAS will provide information on:Program ManagementStrategic Framework & IndicatorsProcurement Practices

Food for Progress Presented by:Judy Phillips Branch ChiefFood for Development Branch

Program OverviewFY 2010 Awards Priority CountriesFY 2011 SolicitationFood for Progress (FFPr)

Authorized by the Food for Progress Act of 1985Targets developing countriesSupports the expansion of private enterprise in the agricultural sectorCommodities are usually monetized to fund development activitiesFFPr Program Basics

FFPr Resources Until 2012Funding 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

FFPr Program Value and Tonnage** Includes prior FY carry over and Title I-funded FFPr programs.

FiscalYearValue ($) **Tonnage (MT)2007$135.4303,9102008$156.6180,3702009$209.4261,7302010$172.6272,080

FFPr FocusImproved Agricultural ProductionImproved farming methods Soil and water conservationAnimal and plant healthAgribusiness DevelopmentProcessing, storage, marketingRoads and other infrastructureCooperative developmentFinancial ServicesMicrocreditBusiness training

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

FFPr Agreements (2005-2010) Country and Number of Agreements

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

FY 2010 FFPr Proposals

10 Proposals Approved Approved Programs: 7 PVOs 2 Governments 10 countries Total value = $146 million

89 Proposals Submitted Proposals from: 47 PVOs 3 Governments 19 countries Total value = $1,390 million

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

Other FFPr Determining Factors Security concernsPotential market disruptionsOther donor activity

FFPr Priority Countries **Preliminary

FY 2011FY 2012**AfghanistanBangladesh Benin Burkina Faso HaitiKenya Liberia Malawi MongoliaPhilippinesUgandaEl Salvador Guatemala Honduras MaliMozambique Nicaragua Pakistan SenegalTanzania Timor Leste

FY 2011 SolicitationProposals Due: October 15, 2010 at 5:00 PM ETOnline Solicitation Resources:Considerations for FY 2011 ProgramsGuidelines for Introductory StatementGuidelines for Plan of OperationSample Introductory StatementSample Plan of OperationAvailable: http://www.fas.usda.gov/excredits/FoodAid/FFP/ApplyForProgram.asp

FFPr Proposal Evaluation CriteriaFocus on private sector agricultural developmentOrganizational capability and experience Program coordination with host government and other USG strategies (Feed the Future)Ability to quantify program impactCommodity management and appropriatenessOverall proposal quality

FFPr Indicators

Improved 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

FFPr Indicators

Agribusiness DevelopmentOutputs 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 plansOutcomes 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

FFPr Indicators

Provision of Financial ServicesOutputs Number of trainings provided Number of loans provided Number of credit cooperatives formed Number of credit unions formed Percent increase in community bank depositsOutcomes 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

Contact InformationJudy Phillips (Branch Chief).....(202) 720-0732Debbie Pfaff (West Africa)....... (202) 720-9434 Al Ersoz (Southern Africa, Middle East). (202) 720-3405Shohreh Kermani-Peterson (Lat Am & Caribbean)..(202) 690-0637Nicola Sakhleh (Central Asia)......(202) 720-4228Echo Domingues (SE Asia, Europe, Caucuses)...(202) 401-0178Jane Wilkins (East Africa)........(202) 720-5263Colin Miller (Close Out Coordination).(202) 401-0188

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

Presentation OverviewProgram OverviewFY 2010 Resources and AwardsPriority Country Determination and ListsProposal Evaluation CriteriaAwards Coming Later FY 2010

Authorized 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 distributionProgram BasicsGuatemala

Project AreasSchool FeedingSchool 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

Project AreasInfrastructure ActivitiesBuild/Rehabilitate school kitchens, classrooms, etcIncrease access to waterSchool Environment ImprovementProvide educational supplies (books, writing utensils, paper, etc)Establish school gardensCreate PartnershipsPublicPrivateCommunitySenegal

Current Active AgreementsCurrently, 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

Current Active AgreementsCountry 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)

FY 2010 Resources and Awards54 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

Priority Country DeterminationPriority 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

Priority Country Lists

2011 Countries2012 Countries *Preliminary ListAfghanistanLao PDRAfghanistanMalawiBangladeshMaliCambodiaMozambiqueBeninNepalGuatemalaPakistanBurkina FasoNicaraguaHaitiSenegalEthiopiaPakistanKenyaTanzaniaHaitiRwandaLiberiaUganda

FY 2011 SolicitationsExpected Funding $209.5 million

Deadline for FY 2011 Proposals October 15, 2010 at 5:00 PM ETOnline Resources Available http://www.fas.usda.gov/excredits/FoodAid/FFE/ApplyForProgram.asp

Proposal Evaluation CriteriaProposal Quality Addresses goals of the program, implementation, and situational analysisExperience and Organizational Capacity Factors Organizations 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)

Proposal Evaluation CriteriaGraduation/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

Program Objectives

Improved NutritionOutputsNumber of meals servedNumber of hygiene trainingsNumber of immunizations, de-wormingOutcomesChanges in height/weightMeasure of soap and latrines useMeasure of attendance

Program Objectives

Improved Educational QualityOutputsNumber of teacher trainingsNumber of new schools suppliesImproved student/teacher ratioOutcomesNumber of teachers adopting new techniquesMeasure of student performance, tests

Program Objectives

SustainabilityOutputsNumber of PTAs formedFormation of advocacy groupNumber of PTA trainingsOutcomesChanges in school feeding budgetsImproved school system legal frameworkExpanded local procurement of meals

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

McGovern-Dole Food for Education Contact ListDorothy Feustel, Branch Chief..(202) 720-0150Erika Beltran, West Africa...(202) 401-0129Wentzel Mitchell, Southern Africa....(202) 720-7560Jennifer Wenger, East Africa.(202) 720-0275Alessandra McCormack, Asia...(410) 519-0845Mary Allen, Asia....(202) 720-5453Richard Chavez, Latin America & Caribbean(202) 401-0100Paul Alberghine, Health and Nutrition........(202) 720-2235Kate Ivancic, Program Assistant.........(202) 401-0189Damien Singh, Economics Assistant......(202) 720-6868

USDA Local and Regional Food Aid Procurement Pilot ProjectUpdates and Next Steps

Presented by: Jamie L. Fisher, Chief, Local and Regional Procurement

History of the USDA LRP Project

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

The purpose of the pilot program is to examine the timeliness, efficiency and cost-effectiveness of using local and regional procurement as a tool to respond to food crises and disasters around the world.

Four Phases of the USDA LRP Project

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)

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.

FY 2009 USDA LRP Project GrantsOrganizationRecipientCountryProgramType Value World Food ProgramMaliDevelopment$1.05 million World Food ProgramMalawiDevelopment$1.7 million World Food ProgramTanzaniaDevelopment$2.0 millionTotal $4.75 million

FY 2010 USDA LRP Project GrantsOrganizationRecipientCountryProgramType ValueMercy CorpsNigerEmergency$4.5 millionLand O'Lakes BangladeshDevelopment$2.6 millionCatholic Relief ServicesGuatemalaEmergency$1.8 millionCatholic Relief ServicesMaliDevelopment$100,000 Catholic ReliefServicesBeninDevelopment$1.5 millionCatholic ReliefServicesBurkinaFasoDevelopment$1.0 millionTotal$11.5 million

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

Types of Commodities PurchasedMaizeMilletRiceCorn Soy BlendFortified Maize FlourBeansVegetable OilFortified Cereal Bars

Commodity Safety and Quality AssuranceAll commodities purchased with USDA LRP Project funding must meet the specifications, and the nutritional, quality and labeling standards, of the recipient country.

If the recipient county lacks standards, the commodities must meet the standards of the Codex Alimentarius.

Commodity Safety and Quality Assurance contd.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.

Proposal Evaluation CriteriaA successful proposal:

Identifies a genuine need for food assistance;

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

Explains how the proposed intervention supports the host-country food security strategy;

Proposal Evaluation Criteria contd.

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.

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.

Application DeadlinesEligible 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.

Evaluation of the USDA LRP Project

In early FY 11, USDA will hire a qualified organization to conduct an independent evaluation of the pilot project.

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

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

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

The evaluation report will be submitted to Congress in late May of 2012. At that time it will also be made available to the public.

USDA LRP Project Team Contact List

Jamie Fisher, Chief, USDA LRP Project, Tel: 202-720-5620, Email: Jamie.Fisher@fas.usda.gov

John Lamm, Program Analyst, West and Central Africa, USDA LRP Project, Tel: 202-720-7507, Email: John.Lamm@fas.usda.gov

Erin Means, Program Analyst, Southern Africa and Latin America, USDA LRP Project, Tel: 202-401-0166, Email: Erin.Means@fas.usda.gov

Seth Miller, Program Analyst, East Africa and Asia, USDA LRP Project, Tel: 202-720-9432, Email: Seth.Miller@fas.usda.gov

Presented by:Amy Harding, Acting Branch Chief

Transportation and Logistics Branch (TLB)

TLBs RoleOperational 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

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

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 programs Manage compliance with cargo preference requirements

TLBs Relationship withProgram ParticipantsPoint 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

TLB Contacts

Amy Harding, Acting Branch Chief.(202) 720-3538Pamela White, Traffic Mgt Specialist.....(202) 720-3539Karen Hoag, Program Specialist....(202) 720-9421

The Monitoring & Evaluation Staff of the Office of Capacity Building & DevelopmentHelping to Build a Sustainable Culture of Program Accountability and Transparency

To increase your knowledge of how M&ES and FAD cooperate to administer USDAs Food Assistance programs.

M&ES Food Aid TeamDelphineRobertBarbaraJorgeAngella

Role of the M&E Staff in Food Aid

Brenda Freeman, Director Monitoring & Evaluation Staff(202) 690-1177

Managing Food Assistance Programs for Resultsthrough Results Oriented ManagementHelping to Build a Sustainable Culture of Program Accountability and Transparency

Looking Back at 2009 IFAC

What did we promise?

Our Reason for ROM Justify why the program is being implemented

Focus on the need for the program

Focus on results achieved

Strategic Framework[Program Name] [Project Type]Strategic ObjectiveIntermediate ResultsInitial ResultsActivities & Outputs

Impact on Proposal Submission Proposal submissions for FY 2011 should support the strategic objective of the frameworkFood for ProgressMcGovern Dole Food for Education

Proposals received that do not support the strategic objective of the framework will not be approved

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 VilsackIts still our priority!

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

Conducted Internal Assessment of Food Assistance Program Readiness for ROM

Completed ROM Orientation Training of Food Aid and M&E StaffsStatus of ROM Food Aid Project

Status of ROM Food Aid ProjectSolicitation Opens:_________

Solicitation closes:________

Estimated Contract Award:________

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

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

Thank you for listening.

Delphine Hamlin (202) 720-4233

Measurement CriteriaClear and Meaningful Measures of Project AchievementBrian Goggin, Deputy Director

Food Assistance DivisionOffice of Capacity Building and DevelopmentForeign Agricultural Service

Measurement Criteria for FY2011 ProposalsWhat 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

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

FY 2011 Proposals: Measuring ProgressIf 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?

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

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

Evaluating for ResultsHelping to Build a Sustainable Culture of Program Accountability and Transparency

Topics for DiscussionIncreased emphasis on evaluationsOur vision for evaluationsOur strategy for achieving our evaluation goals

Emphasis on EvaluationsOMB commitment to examine program performance

Increased Emphasis on Program Evaluation a 2009 OMB memorandum calling for rigorous, independent program evaluation

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.

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 evaluations

Robert Miller Monitoring & Evaluation Staff(202) 720 - 0581

Helping to Build a Sustainable Culture of Program Accountability and TransparencyMONITORINGandCLOSEOUT

MONITORINGCollaborationIssues 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

MONITORINGAccountability

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

MONITORINGProgram Compliance

Review OMB Circular A-133 to ensure:No major weaknesses were reported No findings were reported pertaining to FASs Food Aid programs.

CLOSEOUTUSDA 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.

CLOSEOUTUSDA needs the following to close a Food Aid Agreement:Final, cumulative financial reportsA list of all equipment valued at over $5,000 All relevant Tax CertificationsAll relevant audits and any issue related to the agreement resolved

CLOSEOUTA 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.

CLOSEOUTCloseout red flags include: Budget line item movementsOverspending 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

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

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

Barbara Shumar Monitoring & Evaluation Staff(202) 205 - 7651

MES OutreachHelping to Build a Sustainable Culture of Program Accountability and Transparency

Outreach One of MESs most important new efforts to reach out to PVOs in order establish positive working relationships.

Objectives To 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

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

What to 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

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.

*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. Now I would like to present Ron Croushorn, the director of the Food Assistance Division.$135 - $210 million

Exclude net food exporters

Change from preliminary 2011 list announced at 2009 IFAC

Add 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)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.

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.

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 weve 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 dont go as planned.That has been the case with our contracting endeavors.

Introduce next speaker- Delphine.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.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.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 weve established a platform for sharing information that will help agreement closeout process be timely and efficient. 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, Ill turn to my colleagues to elaborate further on monitoring, closeouts, and our outreach efforts.Introduce next speaker- Delphine.