Detailed Information on the
Assistance to Transforming Countries Assessment

Identify and track intermediate indicators at the operating unit level that assess whether the program is on track to meet longer-term targets.

Ensure that performance on measures is factored into the decision-making process and presentation of future budget requests.

Develop targets for the efficiency measure and develop a method to identify cost savings or efficiencies from meeting future targets.

Measure: Net enrollment rate for primary schools

Explanation:Number of pupils of the theoretical school-age for a given level of education, expressed as a percentage of the total population in that age-group. The rationale for this measure is to show the extent of participation in a given level of education of children and youths belonging to the official age-group corresponding to the given level of education. Data is reported by UNESCO and is an average for India and the Philippines. The 2015 target is the internationally agreed upon target for the Millennium Development Goal for Education for All. Annual targets are not available. Direction of Change: Higher = Better

Measure: Number of deaths among children under age five in a given year per 1,000 live births in that same year.

Explanation:Under-five mortality rate (U5MR) is the probability (expressed as a rate per 1,000 births) of a child born in a specified year dying before reaching the age of five if subject to current age-specific mortality rates. The under-five mortality rate demonstrates the likelihood that a child will survive past the age of five and is a widely used indicator to measure the overall health in a country. The past performance data is an average of data for India and the Philippines as reported by UNICEF and the World Health Organization (WHO). 2005 is the most recent year of data for this indicator. The 2015 target is based on the Millennium Development Goal of reducing the under-five mortality rate by two-thirds between 1990 and 2015 and was calculated by taking the average of the individual targets for India and the Philippines. Direction: Lower = Better

Measure: Percent of population using improved drinking water sources.

Explanation:This indicator measures the percentage of urban and rural population that has access to drinking water sources that hygienically separate human excreta from human, animal, and insect contact. Good sanitation is important for urban and rural populations, but risks are greater in urban areas where it is more difficult to avoid contact with wastes. 2004 is an average of data for India and the Philippines as reported by the World Health Organization (WHO) and is the is the most recent year of data for this indicator. The 2015 target is the internationally agreed upon Millennium Development Goal for Ensuring Environmental Sustainability. Direction of Change: Higher = Better.

Measure: World Bank Rule of Law Index

Explanation:The Rule of Law Index is one of six indicators utilized by the World Bank's Governance Matters Initiative, as reported by D. Kaufmann, A. Kraay, and M. Mastruzzi. In addition to the Rule of Law Index, the indicators include Voice and Accountability, Government Effectiveness, Political Stability and Absence of Violence, Regulatory Quality, and Control of Corruption. The indicators cover 213 countries and territories and are based on several hundred individual variables, drawn from 31 separate data sources constructed by 25 different organizations. Each indicator is a weighted average of its underlying data, with weights reflecting the precision of the individual data sources. The composite score depends on the available material for that year, for that country. Each indicator score is based on a worldwide average being 0.0, with scores ranging from -2.5 to 2.5, with higher scores corresponding to better outcomes. The methodology generates margins of error for the estimates for each indicator for each country, which needs to be taken into account when making comparisons across countries and over time. The Rule of Law Index measures the extent to which agents have confidence in and abide by the rules of society, and in particular the quality of contract enforcement, the police, and the courts, as well as the likelihood of crime and violence. Countries are evaluated on the following factors: crime losses and costs; how often an individual or family member has feared crime; organized crime; foreign kidnappings; the effectiveness of the police in safeguarding personal safety; a tradition of law and order; trust in police; private contract enforceability; government contract enforceability; banking corruption; the extent of the black market; the extent of tax evasion; security of property rights; protection of intellectual property; predictability of the judiciary; compliance with court rulings; trust in the courts?? tribunals and supreme; judiciary's effectiveness; legal recourse for challenging government actions; ability to sue government through independent and impartial courts; willingness of citizens to accept legal adjudication over physical and illegal measures; and trafficking in persons. Actuals for FY 2004 and FY 2005 reflect an average of the World Bank Rule of Law Index for India and the Philippines. FY 2005 is the most recent year of data for this indicator. The 2015 target, .36, reflects the average for countries in the Sustaining Partner category. This indicator is utilized in each country's "spider graph," a snapshot of country progress across key dimensions in four of the five objectives in the new foreign assistance framework. Direction of Change: Higher = Better

Measure: Number of learners enrolled in USG-supported primary schools or equivalent non-school based setting.

Explanation:This indicator measures the number of individuals formally enrolled in USG-supported primary schools or equivalent non-school based settings for the purpose of acquiring academic basic education skills or knowledge. This may include individuals receiving USG-supported educational radio and/or TV programs. This indicator is intended to capture direct rather than indirect beneficiaries and is reported on by USAID operating units. Counting the number of learners allows USAID to track the number of direct beneficiaries of education programs. This is not a cumulative indicator. Direction of Change: Higher = Better.

Measure: Number of teachers/educators trained with U.S. Government support.

Explanation:This indicator measures the number of individuals who have successfully completed a pre-or in-service training program to teach in schools or equivalent non-school based setting with USG support. Training teachers and/or educators supports individual and institutional capacity building. This is not a cumulative indicator. Direction of Change: Higher = Better.

Measure: Number of cases of child diarrhea treated in U.S. Government-assisted programs.

Explanation:This is a new indicator that measures the number of cases of child diarrhea treated through USG-supported programs using oral rehydration therapy or zinc supplements. Diarrheal illness is a major cause of preventable mortality among infants and young children. This indicator provides a measure of the number of children with diarrheal illness receiving required treatment. This is not a cumulative indicator. The 2008 target represents an increase in both the Philippines and India budget for Maternal and Child health. Direction of Change: Higher = Better.

Measure: Number of people in target areas with access to improved drinking water supply in the Philippines as a result of U.S. Government assistance.

Explanation:U.S. Government assistance focuses on providing improved sanitation facilities that utilize technologies more likely to ensure privacy and hygienic use, i.e., connection to public sewer, connection to septic system, pour-flush latrine, simple pit latrine, and ventilated improved pit latrine. This indicator accurately measures delivery of a basic human service, using definitions that are completely consistent with internationally endorsed WHO/UNICEF indicators. Starting in FY 2007 this indicator will only apply to the Philippines as the project in India will phase out beginning in FY 2008. Past performance data for 2005 and 2006 captures both India and the Philippines. This indicator is not cumulative from FY 2007 onward. Direction of Change: Higher = Better.

Measure: Number of domestic human rights Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) receiving U.S.Government support.

Explanation:To be considered a Human Rights Non-Governmental Organization (NGO), the NGO should be focused on strengthening human rights, i.e. in providing services, reporting, advocacy, outreach, education, or protection of citizens. This indicator measures the output of USG assistance aimed at strengthening human rights NGOs. This is not a cumulative indicator. This is a new indicator, and therefore, there is no past performance information. Only India will report on this indicator . Direction of Change: Higher = Better.

Measure: % of U.S. Government Management Support Funds to Total U.S. Government Program Funds

Explanation:This efficiency indicator measures the ratio of funds used for management support to the total amount of program funds utilized in Transforming Countries. Support functions include personnel, program design and learning activities (i.e. evaluations, assessments, and new activity design), outreach, contracting, and financial management. (See 4.3)

Measure: Number of justice sector personnel in the Philippines that received U.S. Government training.

Explanation:In 2006, USAID provided training on economic development and judicial reform to 473 judges, 130 of whom were women, and training on ethics and the new code of conduct to 1,300 participants including 729 female court personnel in the Philippines. For 2007 the focus is on prosecution as currently police-prosecutor cooperation is almost non-existent. The number decreases from 2006 to 2007 because they are different training projects to address different needs although tied to the same overarching objective of Governing Justly and Democratically. A new targeted training program will be initiated once President Arroyo's Executive Order on Police-Prosecutor Cooperation has been approved. The training will likely start in the latter half of FY07 and continue through FY08. Only the Philippines will report on this indicator. This indicator is not cumulative. Direction of Change: Higher = Better.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: Yes. Transforming Countries are states close to achieving US foreign assistance objectives of government, civil society, and private sector institutions capable of sustained development progress but facing a limited number of constraints. Thus, programs and resources focus narrowly on those constraints. Transforming Countries are defined as a low or lower-middle income group based on the World Bank Atlas classification; meeting Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) performance criteria related to effective and democratic governance, investments in people, and economic freedom; and meeting the criteria related to political rights. All countries must have a gross national income (GNI) per capita of less than $3,256. Countries in this category are good performers. Starting in FY 2006, the State Department created an Office of the Director of U.S. Foreign Assistance in order to clearly outline USG-wide objectives for financial engagement overseas. This office produced a new Strategic Framework for U.S. Foreign Assistance. This framework clearly defines the purpose of assistance to Transforming Countries, one of five Country Category designations that group countries according to common characteristics that make common goals clear. The Transforming Country program is designed to advance these countries to a sustained assistance partnership program or to graduate from foreign assistance altogether. This particular program is demonstrated through the assistance programs in two countries in the Asia and Near East Region. The countries are India and the Philippines and the program is focused on three broad objectives: Investing in People, Economic Growth, and Governing Justly and Democratically. The Assistance to Transforming Countries program is administered jointly by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)and the Department of State (State).

Evidence: The new Strategic Framework for U.S. Foreign Assistance is built around five priority objectives that, if achieved, support the USG overarching goal of helping move countries toward self-sufficiency and strengthened strategic partnerships. The framework includes five country categories based on shared characteristics to make common goals clear. (Foreign Assistance Summary Framework and Foreign Assistance Extended Framework, http://www.state.gov/f/direction/) The FY 2008 Congressional Budget Justification reflects a focus on the specific gaps and obstacles countries face in moving from one country category to another, and the identification of the target objectives appropriate to the individual country context. With the proper implementation of financial and human resources, it is believed that the USG goal of moving countries through the transformational development trajectory is possible. ( FY 2008 Foreign Operations Congressional Budget Justification http://www.usaid.gov/policy/budget/cbj2008/) The Transforming Country Guidance provides an overview of a transforming country. The overview includes the following: transforming category definitions, goals, issues, and approaches used to help advance those countries that fall into this category along the transformational development trajectory to a Sustaining Partnerships. (Transforming Countries Category Guidance on website http://f.state.gov/framework.html)

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: Yes. Assistance to Transforming countries addresses the specific and existing problems, interests and needs that Transforming Countries must target in order to progress toward the overarching goal of graduating from a US development assistance program: "sustained, well-governed states that will respond to the needs of their people, reduce widespread poverty and conduct themselves responsibly in the international system." As the President and Secretary of State have repeatedly stated, our nation's security depends on the stability of other nations. Foreign assistance helps empower citizens worldwide to overcome the poverty and hopelessness our foes seek to exploit, and is therefore, a pillar of the U.S. national security strategy and Global War on Terror. Assistance to Transforming Countries specifically seeks to create an environment that nurtures good governance and sustainable economic growth with flourishing institutions, civil society, and private sector groups. Transforming Countries are characterized by relative stability and well-functioning governments, but poverty, unchecked disease, and human capacity remain barriers to progress. Based on need, over 80% of the resources allocated to India and the Philippines will address health, education, and economic opportunity. In the Philippines, our efforts help address disparities in education access and quality in disadvantaged areas of Mindanao where elementary school participation and completion rates are the lowest in the country. The intended result is to mitigate the social consequences of disaffected youth. In order to achieve the long-term goal of promoting economic growth in the Philippines, our efforts will focus on infrastructure projects in conflict-affected areas of Mindanao to catalyze economic growth and improve access to social services. India's ability to achieve sustainable growth and reduce poverty depends on its ability to stabilize population growth, address infectious diseases, and provide water and sanitation services. Therefore, assistance will focus predominately on reducing the prevalence of tuberculosis through public-private alliances and stemming rapid population growth. By focusing on these specific problems and needs, U.S. assistance to India and the Philippines will help advance them to the Sustaining Partners category or to graduation from development assistance altogether.

Evidence: The FY 2008 Congressional Budget Justification reflects a focus on the specific gaps and obstacles countries face in moving from one country category to another, and the identification of the target objectives appropriate to the individual country context. With the proper implementation of financial and human resources, the USG goal of moving countries through the transformational development trajectory should be possible. (FY 2008 Foreign Operations Congressional Budget Justification http://www.usaid.gov/policy/budget/cbj2008/). Examples of development indicators can be found in each country's "spider graph." Spider graphs are graphic illustrations of country progress across a handful of key dimensions in four of the five objectives in the new foreign assistance framework. The charts are intended to provide a snapshot of country progress to facilitate discussion on country needs across objectives as well as within objectives. Alongside other considerations (including government commitment, U.S. strategic priorities, U.S. assistance effectiveness, other donor activity, and political considerations such as earmarks) this discussion in turn is intended to facilitate USG resource allocation decisions. http://ppc.usaid.gov/esds/tracking_tools.cfm The data is primarily from the World Bank, UN, and Freedom House were converted to values ranging from a "1" to "5" representing the best score possible worldwide.

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: Yes. In 2006 the Office of the Director of U.S. Foreign Assistance (State/F) developed a new process to help ensure that there is no duplication of effort within the U.S. Government (USG) and between international donors. This office has authority over Department of State and U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) foreign assistance program resources and the ability to convene all USG agencies involved in foreign assistance. Using this authority, State/F integrates all budgeting, planning, and implementation within the U.S. Government. At the headquarters level, other U.S. Government agencies, including the Millennium Challenge Corporation, Department of Defense, and Treasury, participate in budget allocation meetings and policy reviews to ensure that there is no duplication of effort. The reform process also has addressed redundancy and coordination through the development of integrated Operational Plans, in which State and USAID describe how they collaborate with other USG agencies and international donors. The Fiscal Year 2007 Operational Plans for India and the Philippines carefully list other U.S. agency and international donor activities in each program area. For example, the Philippines Fiscal Year 2007 Operational Plan demonstrates how State and USAID work closely with other USG agencies all foreign donors and multilateral institutions, including Australia, Belgium, World Bank, Asian Development Bank, and other private corporations and non-governmental organizations, to coordinate basic education activities and increase the impact of education programs. Logistical support provided by the Joint Special Operations Task Force - Philippines, under the Department of Defense, helps USAID implement its education programs, particularly in the area of book distribution.

Evidence: Through collaboration between USAID and the Department of State, guidance was issued to help operating units develop their FY 2007 Operational Plans. The guidance addresses how the units should take into account resources and activities from other U.S. Government agencies and other donors in planning activities. The Operational Plan is an integral tool designed to link funding to activities and results in a particular country. By their design, they help to: strengthen the role of leadership in the field in driving the allocation of foreign assistance; improve coordination, efficiency, and effectiveness; strengthen accountability; help the USG provide more accurate and consistent data on programs so that the USG can efficiently and effectively communicate to various stakeholders, including Congress, OMB, and the American public what funds have been directed to and what we are getting in return for our foreign assistance investments; and identify the essential links between U.S. policy objectives, resource allocation, and results. The Operational Plans for both the Philippines and India were reviewed in conjunction with this PART help identify those areas of focus that will help the countries progress to the Sustaining Partner category. The Philippines FY 07 Operational Plan reflects how the Department of State and USAID worked with multiple agencies to coordinate basic education activities and increase their impact.(FY 07 Operational Plan for Philippines, Basic Education, pg. 155) With the creation of the Office of the Director of U.S. Foreign Assistance came the ability to fully to fully integrate into one office all foreign assistance planning, budgeting and implementation. With this Office at the helm, there are increased opportunities for those agencies implementing foreign assistance to collaborate in order to accomplish maximum outcomes (Testimony of Ambassador Randall L. Tobias, Director of U.S. Foreign Assistance and Administrator of USAID, House Foreign Affairs Committee, March 8, 2007.)

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: Yes. The Transforming Countries assistance program is free of major flaws and sufficiently flexible to allow a country program to implement activities deemed the most effective and efficient in the specific country context. Prior to foreign assistance reform, the program design process was often fragmented across operating units and between field missions and Washington headquarters. Field missions submitted design proposals based on a given country context without full benefit of the global overview afforded by headquarters. Absent a uniform system for foreign assistance program analysis and design, critical information to determine the most effective programs and appropriate resource allocations was not always available. The new Foreign Assistance Strategic Framework established priorities for Transforming Countries, which are translated into annual technical Operational Plans at the country or other operating unit level. Prior to approval, the Office of the Director of U.S. Foreign Assistance leads an inter-agency technical and programmatic review of each Plan to identify possible design and implementation flaws and to determine whether the proposed activities will move the country along the transformational development and diplomacy path. Senior leaders then review the plan for alignment with overall foreign policy and assistance objectives. Operational Plans are approved by the Director of U.S. Foreign Assistance once all technical, program and policy-related issues and concerns are resolved. While the foreign assistance framework has only been in place for a year, there is already evidence that this new approach will be more effective in achieving the intended results of the program. To ensure that the program continues to be free of flaws throughout the year, inter-agency teams come together periodically to review proposed changes to the Operational Plans or to discuss new problems or unforeseen issues in a specific country or region. In addition, State and USAID also continually evaluate how to address limitations that may be imposed by Congress, such as earmarks and directives, to ensure that the program design continues to be effective. Evaluations and efficiency reviews assess whether other approaches would be more efficient or effective to achieve the ultimate purpose of moving the country to the next category, i.e., Sustaining.

Evidence: With the creation of the Office of the Director of U.S. Foreign Assistance (State/F) came the ability to fully integrate into one office all foreign assistance budgeting, planning, and implementation. With State/F at the helm, there are increased opportunities for those agencies implementing foreign assistance to collaborate in order to accomplish maximum outcomes. (Testimony of Ambassador Randall L. Tobias, U.S. Director of Foreign Assistance and Administrator of USAID, Hearing on Foreign Assistance Reform and FY 2008 Budget, House Foreign Affairs Committee, March 8, 2007-http://www.usaid.gov/press/speeches/2007/sp070308.html) The Operational Plan review process assesses whether, within dollar levels provided to the operating unit for the objective, area, and element, the proposed programs maximizes the impacts on that functional objective and reflects best practices. Operational Plan reviews assess whether Bureaus are fulfilling their specific roles such as conducting research, providing technical leadership, and supporting the field. The overall goal of the Plans is to ensure that operating units are planning in accordance with the Secretary's Transformational Diplomacy goals and providing solutions when progress is being impeded. (Operational Plan Review Process Guidance and Templates) Evaluations are conducted to evaluate program effectiveness and to identify areas for improvement. All evaluations conducted at USAID are made available to the public at-large for review. Viewers are able to view how current programs fare and where recommendations are made for improvement. Evaluations and cost effectiveness studies are available at http://dec.usaid.gov/

Is the program design effectively targeted so that resources will address the program's purpose directly and will reach intended beneficiaries?

Explanation: Yes. Teams of USAID and State experts, with input from field operating units, used independent indicators, including need statistics, to plot the development gaps in each country and then crafted the budget request to address those gaps with the goal of advancing the Transforming Countries toward sustainable development. Prior to foreign assistance reform, resources were first allocated by account, then by sector and finally by country. Starting with the FY 2008 budget, the inter-agency budget process reversed that order, beginning with allocations to countries for the most critical interventions, and then to accounts. As part of this process, operating units generated detailed Operational Plans that described the activities that State and USAID will undertake to achieve the objectives of the Transforming Country program, including the intended beneficiaries. USAID, as the main implementing agency, also ensures that assistance targets and reaches the intended beneficiaries and that the program achieves results through the review and analysis of grant and contract applications, performance data, needs assessments, evaluations, regular reporting routine submitted by grantees and contractors, audits, and field visits.

Evidence: The FY 2008 Foreign Operations Congressional Budget Justification reflects a focus on the specific gaps and obstacles countries face in moving from one country category to another, and the identification of the target objectives appropriate to the individual country context. "Spider graphs" are graphic illustrations of a country's performance during a particular year within strategic framework objectives, i.e. Governing Justly and Democratically, Investing In People and Economic Growth. Progress or regression on a spider graph provides an indication of whether the program is successful in reaching appropriate beneficiaries and progress is occurring along the transformational diplomacy trajectory (Fact Sheet: New Foreign Assistance Budget Process http://www.state.gov/f/releases/factsheets2006/75017.htm). The FY 2007 Operational Plan Guidance, P. 12, notes "host country needs" as the first critical question to be considered when preparing an Operational Plan. Grant applications require a needs statement to ensure that the activities target the proper beneficiaries. Evaluations are conducted to assess program effectiveness and to identify areas for improvement. All needs assessments and evaluations conducted by USAID are made available to the public at http://dec.usaid.gov

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: Yes. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Department of State use specific long-term measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully measure both what is being accomplished with U.S. foreign assistance funds and the collective impact of foreign and host-government efforts to advance country development. This assessment includes a representative set of Transforming Countries measures for the two transforming countries highlighted to demonstrate outcomes that will be achieved in ten years. The long-term indicators measure progress in the areas where the majority of the funding for the Transforming Countries program is invested: education, health, and economic growth. One of the long-term measures, the World Bank Institute's Rule of Law Indicator is used by the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), USAID and State to determine whether countries are moving along the transformational development trajectory. The net enrollment rate for primary education indicator helps measure the Philippines and India's progress in strengthening institutional capacities needed to become Sustaining Partnership states. Targets for these long-term measures are largely established by international agreements and U.S. Government commitments. For example, the Millennium Development Goals and data for these indicators is collected by third party sources. When combined with other factors, these long-term measures will demonstrate whether the Transforming Countries program is of sufficient scope and focus to move countries to a sustained assistance partnership or graduation from development assistance.

Evidence: The long term goal for moving towards graduating from the Transforming Country Category is described in the Foreign Assistance Framework and Extended Framework, http://www.state.gov/f/direction/, and Foreign Assistance Standardized Program Structure and Definitions, http://www.state.gov/f/direction/. The specific indicators and their explanation can be found at: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/78558.pdf, http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/78557.pdf, and http://www.state.gov/f/releases/factsheets2007/78450.htm. The Millennium Development Goals are at http://www.undp.org/mdg/goallist.shtml while the Millennium Challenge Account indicators are here: http://www.mcc.gov/selection/indicators/index.php.

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: Yes. the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Department of State have set ambitious targets and timeframes for the long-term measures that represent ambitious goals for the Transforming Country program over a ten year period. Two of these long-term measures - net enrollment rate in primary school and under five mortality rate - reflect the international community's and host countries' commitment to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). State and USAID based the targets for these indicators on the MDG goals of reaching 100 percent enrollment in primary school by 2015 and reducing by two-thirds, between 1990 and 2015, the under five mortality rate. Although these organizations do not set annual targets prior to 2015, the U.S. Government will track progress toward end targets as data is available on most of these measures annually. Meeting these targets will demonstrate the Philippines' and India's progress towards moving from the Transforming Country category and toward graduation from USG development assistance Operating units currently report on indicators that demonstrate outcomes attributable to U.S. Government foreign assistance and show the link between the annual, output measures and the long-term, outcome measures. Program managers use these mid-level indicators to assess whether the program is on track to meet the 2015 targets, making management changes if progress is lagging. The Office of the Director of U.S. Foreign Assistance has convened a State/USAID team to examine the most efficient and accurate way to track each operating unit's specific mid-level indicators within its Operational Plans, which in turn are based on the foreign assistance framework.

Evidence: The long term goal for moving towards graduation from the Transforming Country Category is described in the Foreign Assistance Framework and Extended Framework, http://www.state.gov/f/direction/, and Foreign Assistance Standardized Program Structure and Definitions, http://www.state.gov/f/direction/. The specific indicators and their explanation can be found at: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/78558.pdf, http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/78557.pdf, and http://www.state.gov/f/releases/factsheets2007/78450.htm. The Millennium Development Goals are at http://www.undp.org/mdg/goallist.shtml while the Millennium Challenge Account indicators are here: http://www.mcc.gov/selection/indicators/index.php.

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: Yes. The Department of State and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) have selected discrete, quantifiable, and measurable annual performance measures from the list of standard indicators developed by the Office of the Director of U.S. Foreign Assistance to assess progress towards achieving the program goals established in the Foreign Assistance Framework. This assessment includes a representative set of measures for the Philippines and India. These annual performance measures, when combined with mid-level, impact indicators tracked by field missions, indicate whether the Transforming Countries program is of sufficient scope and focus and on track to achieve the long-term targets discussed in questions 2.1 and 2.2. For example, the annual outcome indicator "number of cases of child diarrhea treated in USAID-assisted programs" will demonstrate progress towards reaching the long-term goal of reducing the number of deaths among children under age five. All transforming countries have targets for these indicators, which when combined with other indicators and per capita income, determine whether a country is progressing toward graduating from USG development assistance. The annual performance measures are reported on by operating units and measure outcomes and outputs that are directly attributable to the U.S. Government program. In addition to these annual indicators, each USAID Mission tracks mid-level impact indicators that highlight the link between annual and long-term measures. An example of a mid-level indicator is the percentage of USG-assisted mothers breastfeeding until two years of age, which links the annual indicator "number of people trained in maternal/newborn health" with the long-term indicator "number of deaths among children under age five." Although these mid-level indicators are not tracked by the Office of the Director of U.S. Foreign Assistance, the Office is examining the most efficient and accurate way to track each operating unit's specific mid-level indicators within its Operational Plans.

Evidence: The long term goal for moving towards graduating from the Transforming Country Category is described in the Foreign Assistance Framework and Extended Framework, http://www.state.gov/f/direction/, and Foreign Assistance Standardized Program Structure and Definitions, http://www.state.gov/f/direction/. The specific indicators and their explanation can be found at: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/78558.pdf, http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/78557.pdf, and http://www.state.gov/f/releases/factsheets2007/78450.htm. The Millennium Development Goals are at http://www.undp.org/mdg/goallist.shtml while the Millennium Challenge Account indicators are here: http://www.mcc.gov/selection/indicators/index.php.

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: Yes. The program has ambitious targets for almost of its annual measures. Two of the annual measures do not have baselines as these are new measures starting in FY 2007. Targets are set through a variety of methods, including needs assessments, trusted data from other organizations, and performance data from on-going projects. This information, combined with a variety of related factors including other donors' actions, adequacy of staffing, and the status and timeline of needed inputs, is analyzed to determine achievable, ambitious targets for its annual measures. For those measures that are new, the State Department and USAID analyzed prior measures, performed needs assessments, and gathered data from external sources to set an appropriate target level. An inter-agency team of technical, strategy, and policy experts reviews each Operational Plan to ensure that targets are appropriate, ambitious and realistic. Under foreign assistance reform, a set of standard performance measures has been developed to enable the systematic review of program results across the program, and not all of the standard performance measures align completely with measures previously established. As noted in the answer to question 4.2, the two measures that are new for FY 2007 are based on comparable, but not identical, measures for which there is prior year performance data. The comparative data for these sets of measures is included in the 4.2 answer. The baselines for these new measures will be 0, but the analysis used to assess the target and ensure that it is ambitions and attainable is the same.

Evidence: The FY 2007 Operational Plan Guidance describes the baseline and target selection process operating units used and the FY 2007 Operational Plan Review Process Guidance and Templates from Technical and Program Reviews explain how targets were reviewed to be ambitious yet realistic. USAID's Automated Directive System - ADS 200 Planning offers many helpful tools that are currently being re-written to accommodate the new foreign assistance framework however the basic principles of the learning cycle beginning with a needs assessment, target formulation and SMART indicators (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, Timely) will remain the same.

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: Yes. The execution of a contract, grant, or cooperative agreement in the Transforming Country program requires that all program partners agree to commit to and work toward specific annual and/or long-term program goals and provide regular performance reports that document their progress toward these goals. These goals directly align to the measures captured in this assessment. A designated Cognizant Technical Officer (CTO) is assigned for each contract, grant and cooperative agreement, to closely monitor partners' performance and activities and ensure that they are committed to the goals of the program. CTOs hold partners accountable for performance and ensure that their activities are contributing to the program purpose, as described in questions 1.1 and 1.2. Results are verified by U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and Department of State employees through regular site visits, meetings with partners and stakeholders, evaluations, and audits.

Evidence: ADS 300 defines CTO responsibilities (ADS 302 for contracts and ADS 303 for grants) http://www.usaid.gov/policy/ads/300/. Evaluations are available to the public on http://dec.usaid.gov/, for example see the Final Evaluation of USAID/India's Development Assistance Program, implemented by Catholic Relief Services. The Quarterly Report from USAID/Philippines Contractor on Anti-Trafficking in Persons Program (October 1 - December 31, 2006) is available at http://dec.usaid.gov/. Inspector General audits are available to the public on http://www.usaid.gov/oig/public/aud_usaid.htm, for example see Audit of USAID/India's Global Development Alliances.

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: Yes. Independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality are conducted on a regular basis to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the needs of the Transforming Countries program. As the primary implementing agency, U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) policy ensures that timely and meaningful information is available to make management decisions. In recognition of the importance of rigorous and comprehensive evaluation, in 2005USAID launched an initiative to revitalize evaluations requiring evaluations of all major programs, mandating that all operating units appoint a monitoring and evaluation officer, set aside funding for evaluations, create an annual evaluation plan, provide training in evaluation, and offer incentives to staff that encourage evaluations. Most evaluation work is done at the project and activity level, where contracts and grants often require independent evaluations. There are often mid-term evaluations to determine the future course of projects, pointing out gaps or weaknesses in the approach so that the program can be adjusted and achieve its objectives efficiently and effectively. Final evaluations assess the impact of a completed project, determine whether there are future opportunities or obstacles for assistance, and articulate lessons learned for future interventions. Evaluations are generally conducted by entities outside of USAID and State, such as private firms not directly associated with the activity or program. Regular audits by the Government Accountability Office and Office of the Inspector General provide additional, independent information on the impact of the USAID and State programs. For example, under the Investing in People objective, the final independent evaluation of USAID's $160 million Reproductive and Child Health, Nutrition and HIV/AIDS Program (RACHNA) in India drew on numerous program information documents, interviews with key informants and stakeholders, field visits and existing qualitative assessments and quantitative sources, finding that in those areas targeted by RACHNA, there were substantial improvements in nutritional status and access to and use of health, nutrition, family planning and HIV/AIDS prevention services. For the Governing Justly and Democratically objective, a four-member team undertook a major independent evaluation of the Transparent Accountable Governance (TAG) Project in the Philippines during March and April 2004. The Evaluation Team observed an increased level of activities at the national level focused on increasing transparency and opposing corruption, specifically within the past three to four years. A significant portion of activities observed can be directly associated with TAG and that TAG-sponsored activities encouraged other media and institutions to openly discuss corruption and undertake activities to oppose corruption. An independent evaluation for the Economic Growth objective is the Evaluation of the Economic Growth Technical Assistance (EGTA) program in the Philippines. The objectives were to contribute to continuing policy liberalization, and to assist in efforts geared towards increasing the degree of competition in the economy. The evaluation of EGTA was carried out by a three person Development Associates team and concluded that EGTA made a very valuable contribution to the Philippine development effort and hoped a similar approach would continue to foster sound policy formation and implementation in the Philippines and be replicated elsewhere.

Evidence: The recommitment of USAID to evaluation in 2005 is well described in Administrator Andrew Natsios' Cable FW: 05070811419/ State 127594 / Actions Required to Implement the Initiative. ADS 203.3.6 on evaluations discusses the importance of evaluations, when to evaluate, what to evaluate, evaluation methodologies, and learning from evaluations at http://www.usaid.gov/policy/ads/200/. ADS 202.3.9.4 on Conducting Audits can be found at http://www.usaid.gov/policy/ads/200/202.pdf. Specific independent evaluations for each framework objective include: Reproductive and Child Health, Nutrition and HIV/AIDS Program (RACHNA) in India. Final Evaluation, June 2006; The Transparent Accountable Governance Program, An Evaluation, March - April 2004; and the Evaluation of Economic Growth and Technical Assistance, March 2004.

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: Yes. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is the primary implementing agency for this program, and with the exception of FY 2008, its Congressional Budget Justifications (CBJs) tied budget requests for each of its performance goals to performance scores. The performance scores were calculated utilizing various inputs from an array of disparate and disaggregated sources. Foreign assistance reform introduced a more streamlined, standardized and transparent performance management system to be phased in over a two-year period. This system requires each USAID and Department of State (State) operating unit to prepare an annual Operational Plan (OP) that reflects a uniform system of budget requests linked to standardized performance objectives, goals, measures and targets for the current and future years. The OP data is supported by a budget and performance database tracking system, the Foreign Assistance Comprehensive Tracking System (FACTS). Once aggregated across relevant operating units, the performance measures tied to requested funding reflect the resources needed to achieve the entire program's performance goals. In addition, each Operational Plan must justify the impact of a 10% increase or decrease in funding. The transition to the OP system began in FY 2007, and although held to an accelerated schedule, data from the FY 2007 Operational Plans were not fully available in FACTs prior to submission of the FY 2008 Foreign Operations Congressional Budget Justification. In lieu of this data, the budget justification drew from performance data contained in the integrated FY 2008 Mission Performance Plans (MPPs) submitted by each of the program's field operating units. As the FY 2007 Operational Plans are now been complete, a summary FY 2008 Foreign Assistance Performance Plan is being prepared which will include budget and performance data for this program. With FY 2008 Operational Plans scheduled for submission in early fall, the performance and budget data contained in these Plans will serve as the basis for the FY 2009 Congressional Budget Justification and will be incorporated into requests to the Office of Management and Budget.

Evidence: USAID's FY 2007 Congressional Budget Justification includes Country Profile Tables that tie budget requests for each of its performance goals (listed as "Objectives") to performance scores. FY 2008 Operational Plans for India and the Philippines link budget and performance data in a transparent and complete manner. The Foreign Assistance Tracking and Coordination System (FACTS) is the database that houses Operational Plan data for each operating unit, including the specific links between performance measures and budget requests. FY 2008 Mission Performance Plans are comprehensive, integrated planning documents prepared by each overseas U.S. mission.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: Yes. Prior to foreign assistance reform, the program was fragmented across numerous operating units within the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Department of State (State). Assistance efforts lacked the coherence necessary for maximum impact, accountability could be difficult to measure and resources were not always strategically tied to overarching goals. Under foreign assistance reform, Washington and the field focus on their respective strengths and responsibilities - integrated strategic direction and priorities across agencies set in Washington, and operational plans and tactics for the achievement of results developed and implemented by the field. The new Foreign Assistance Strategic Framework clearly defines the purpose of and priorities for Assistance to Transforming Countries, one of five Country Category designations that group countries according to common characteristics that make common goals clear. In the past, State and USAID operating units in the same country submitted their own plans, to their own agencies, for their own operations??often on different timelines. This resulted in inconsistent opportunities, and little motivation, to compare programs across agencies and ensure that foreign assistance programs were comprehensive and coordinated. Under foreign assistance reform, USAID and State have prepared joint operational plans for each of the two countries that comprise this Transforming Countries program, namely the Philippines and India. The plans fully integrate USAID and State activities and resources that in turn link directly to the strategic goals of the overall Assistance to Transforming Countries program. As described in 2.2 and 2.3, the Office of the Director of U.S Foreign Assistance (State/F) does not currently track all mid-level indicators that link annual measure to long-term performance measures. However, the Office has convened a State/USAID team to examine the most efficient and accurate way to track each operating unit's specific mid-level indicators within its Operational Plans.

Evidence: The new Strategic Framework for U.S. Foreign Assistance is built around five priority objectives that, if achieved, support the USG overarching goal of helping move countries toward self-sufficiency and strengthening strategic partnerships. The framework includes five country categories based on shared characteristics to make common goals clear. (Foreign Assistance Summary Framework and Foreign Assistance Extended Framework, http://www.state.gov/f/direction/) An Operational Plan is an integral tool designed to link funding to activities and results in a particular country. By their design, they help to strengthen the role of leadership in the field in driving the allocation of foreign assistance; improve coordination, efficiency, and effectiveness; strengthen accountability; help the USG provide more accurate and consistent data on programs so that the USG can efficiently and effectively communicate to various stakeholders, including Congress, OMB, and the American public what funds have been directed to and what we are getting in return for our foreign assistance investments; and identify the essential links between U.S. policy objectives, resource allocation, and results. (FY 2007 Operational Plans for the Philippines and India) Through a joint collaboration of efforts between USAID, the Department of State and the Office of the Director of Foreign Assistance a guidance manual was created to assist missions in their FY 2007 Operational Plans. The guidance provided a "how to process" on how missions should complete their operational plans and addressed frequently asked questions. (FY 2007 Operational Plan Guidance)

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: Yes. Credible and timely performance information is collected from partners and used to manage the program and improve performance. As specified in their contracts or grants, funding recipients are required to submit performance information to operating units on a regular basis (no more than quarterly, no less than annually). The program manager, known as the Cognizant Technical Officer (CTO) compares the reported results to the baseline data and milestones established in the program's performance management plan. The CTO meets with implementing partners to discuss performance issues and make adjustments as needed. Performance is also assessed periodically during portfolio reviews. For example, in its 2006 portfolio review, USAID/Philippines and USAID/India presented performance, implementation, and management issues to senior management for their input. In addition, operating units conduct program evaluations to identify strengths and weaknesses, assess performance, and recommend improvements to the program's design, approach, or implementation. CTOs assess the credibility of performance information submitted by partners by conducting data quality assessments. In their operational plans, operating units use performance information from their partners to report on progress towards meeting the targets established in their performance management plan. When targets are not met, the contract or grant agreement may be modified, additional funds may be delayed or not provided, or management changes may be introduced.

Evidence: Credible and timely performance information is collected from partners and used to manage the program and improve performance. Quarterly Report from USAID/India Contractor on Water and Energy Nexus Project (June 2006) http://dec.usaid.gov The Operational Plan is an integral tool designed to link funding to activities and results in a particular country. By their design, they help to: strengthen the role of leadership in the field in driving the allocation of foreign assistance; improve coordination, efficiency, and effectiveness; strengthen accountability; help the USG provide more accurate and consistent data on programs so that the USG can efficiently and effectively communicate to various stakeholders, including Congress, OMB, and the American public what funds have been directed to and what we are getting in return for our foreign assistance investments; and identify the essential links between U.S. policy objectives, resource allocation, and results. The Operational Plans for the Philippines and India were reviewed in conjunction with this PART to help identify those areas of focus that will help the countries progress to the Sustaining Partner category. (FY 2007 Philippines and India Operational Plan). A Mission Performance Management Plan is a critical tool for planning, managing, and documenting how performance data is collected and used. It defines specific performance indicators for each strategic objective, determines baselines, and sets targets. It also plans and manages the Annual Report data collection process to meet quality standards, incorporates relevant data collection requirements into activities and obligation agreements, and communicates expectations to partner institutions responsible for producing the outputs intended to cause measurable changes in performance. USAID/India Performance Management Plan Additional evaluations used to assess program peformance include: USAID/Philippines Portfolio Review presentations, Evaluation of USAID/Philippines Credit Improvement Program http://dec.usaid.gov and Data Quality Assessment checklist (MS Word). In order to assess implementing partner performance and overall program performance, CTOs and Strategic Objective Teams routinely gathers to discuss performance. ADS 202.3.6 on Monitoring Timeliness of Key Outputs outlines CTO responsibilities as they relate to monitoring contractor/grantee performance. (http://www.usaid.gov/policy/ads/200/202.pdf) Policies used to manage and assess assistance awards to grantees are found at 22 CFR 226 "Administration of Assistance Awards to US Non-governmental organizations," Section 226.51 "Monitoring and Reporting Program Performance" http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/10apr20061500/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2006/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr226.51.pdf.

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: Yes. Project and grant managers are held accountable for program results under their purview through an annual performance evaluation and periodic program reviews and discussions. Agency employees are evaluated annually on their overall performance and skills, which have a direct bearing on the success of their programs. A Cognizant Technical Officer (CTO) is designated for each contract and grant, signing a standard designation letter which outlines their duties and states that failure to discharge these responsibilities can result in disciplinary action. CTOs are certified by passing formal training courses to ensure that they have the knowledge and skills to effectively manage contracts and grants. CTOs are responsible for holding partners accountable for performance and compliance with technical, cost, and schedule provisions of their award. When performance targets are not met or other accountability issues arise, managers and program partners work together to identify the source of the problem and needed remedial action. The contract or grant agreement may be modified, additional funds may be delayed or not provided, and/or management changes may be introduced. CTOs report to USAID Mission Directors, who are responsible for achieving program results in their country. Each Mission Director must complete an annual performance plan with work objectives and performance measures. These annual performance plans must include one work objective and one performance measure related to achieving key program results. The work objective is stated as follows: "Provide leadership and direction to Mission staff to identify and develop technical programs, activities and partners to accomplish foreign policy/transformational diplomacy objectives." and the performance measure must relate to how "Mission program implementation and management of approved activities meet or exceed annual program and management efficiency targets." A Mission Director's performance on this work objective and performance measure forms the basis for their annual performance evaluations which are, in turn, the basis for Performance Board decisions on promotion, limited career extensions, performance pay, Presidential Award and referrals to the Performance Standards Board, which determines whether the employee has failed to meet the standards of class. Findings of the Performance Boards are also one basis for tenure decisions. A Senior Coordinator at State is responsible for overseeing and coordinating assistance for the Transforming Country program. The Senior Coordinator is measured on his or her ability to coordinate processes with State and USAID regional bureaus to develop foreign assistance priorities and associated foreign assistance funding requirements for the Transforming country category throughout the budget development process. Although Senior Coordinators are not responsible for program performance, Deputy Assistant Administrators (DAAs) at USAID are responsible for achieving program results at the regional level instead of the country category level.

Evidence: A Cognizant Technical Officer (CTO) is designated for each contract and grant, signing a standard designation letter that outlines their duties and states that failure to discharge these responsibilities can result in disciplinary action (AAPD 04-10 Standardized Model Letters for Designating the Cognizant Technical Officers for Contracts, Grants and Cooperative Agreements can be found at http://www.usaid.gov/business/business_opportunities/cib/pdf/aapd04_10_Att1.pdf for contracts and http://www.usaid.gov/business/business_opportunities/cib/pdf/aapd04_10_Att2.pdf for grants). Agency managers are required to pass a Cognizant Technical Officer course to ensure that they have the knowledge and skills to effectively manage contracts and grants (USAID's CTO Program Course Description, CTO Certification Requirement Announcement). ADS 303.2 (f) defines CTO responsibilities (http://www.usaid.gov/policy/ads/300/303.pdf). Performance is a major factor in selecting contractors and grantees (See Guidance on Evaluation and Use of Contractor Performance Information and ADS 303.3.6.3 http://www.usaid.gov/policy/ads/300/303.pdf for guidance on the use of past performance information in selecting grantees). Request for Applications Jordan 05-012 Community Based Initiatives for Water Demand Management shows that past performance is 15% of the score used for selection. A USAID Executive Message dated June 14, 2006, entitled "Standard Work Objective for Mission Director's Annual Evaluation Form," outlines the required performance objectives and measures (http://iapp1.usaid.gov/notices/notDetail.cfm?msgid=11509&currmo=6&curryr=2006&prevnext=no). USAID's Automated Directive System (ADS) Chapter 463 describes the foreign service Performance Board system.

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner, spent for the intended purpose and accurately reported?

Explanation: Yes. As the primary implementing agency, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has a financial management system, Phoenix, which tracks obligations and enables transparent and accurate reporting of obligations down to the program element level. In fiscal year 2006, USAID's Bureau for Asia and the Near East (ANE) and its operating units obligated 99 percent of that year's funds. Funds are provided on an incremental, as-needed basis so operating units and headquarters can monitor disbursements. Agency policy stipulates that the amount of funds in the pipeline, the amount of funds obligated but not expended, cannot exceed what is needed for the next 12 - 18 months. Expenditures are estimates of the total cost incurred by USAID for a given agreement, activity, or program. Regular portfolio reviews are conducted to ensure that partners are expending funds in a timely manner and for the intended purpose. Finally, all operating units are required to prepare plans that outline upcoming procurements and obligations to ensure that funds are spent in a timely manner. Awards and modifications are reported in the Federal Procurement Data System - Next Generation.

Evidence: The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has a financial management system, Phoenix, which tracks obligations and enables transparent and accurate reporting of obligations down to the program element level. (Sample Accruals Report Phoenix Report on Commitments and Obligations) The following policies in USAID's Automated Directive System/Employee Handbook provide directives on how to manage obligations and forward funding. (ADS 202.3.8.3 on Obligations Management http://www.usaid.gov/policy/ads/200/202.pdf; ADS 602 provides Agency guidance regarding forward funding of programs http://www.usaid.gov/policy/ads/600/602.pdf) Among other purposes, portfolio reviews are conducted to ensure that partners are expending funds in a timely manner and for the intended purpose. (USAID/Philippines 2006 Portfolio Review Presentations Procurement plans provide an outline for those services/goods a particular country will be seeking to obtain in order to carry out program activities in order to meet stated object. (USAID/Philippines 2006 Procurement Plan)

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: Yes. The foreign assistance reform process has included a rigorous review of the program's measures for achieving efficiencies and cost effectiveness. Resources are clearly and directly aligned with program goals within an overarching, coherent framework for joint management, planning, and budgeting decisions at the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Department of State. As the primary implementing agency for this program, USAID has undertaken a number of initiatives under the reform to improve cost effectiveness. These measures include: 1) improved financial forecasting through more frequent pipeline reviews (pipeline is defined as the calculation of financial obligations less accrued expenditures [accruals plus disbursements]; 2) adopting a new standard of Expended Object Class Codes (EOCC), which links to performance goals and focuses on data gathering across all funds, providing more detail regarding the agency's administrative support costs than ever before; 3) implementation of the Foreign Assistance Coordination and Tracking System (FACTS) which houses program budget data linked directly to program goals; 4) implementing the Global Acquisition System (GLAS), a web-based system that standardizes and streamlines the agency's business processes by eliminating paper-based manual procedures, thus reducing costs agency-wide and enabling better managing and tracking of procurement decisions and contract supervision, and; 5) implementing the Manage to Budget (MTB) initiative which strives to ensure the most efficient and effective In launching the MTB, USAID conducted a comprehensive review of its program goal support costs, collecting prior year data from all operating units. USAID analyzed this data to determine the current average ratio of administrative costs to program costs of 12%. Prior to this exercise, USAID had not developed an agency-wide standard for administrative cost ratios. As a result of this analysis, USAID was able to set initial guidance that an operating unit's annual combined management support costs cannot exceed the current baseline average of 12% of the annual program budget. As USAID further analyzes this data, this 12% level threshold may need to be adjusted. In the annual Operational Plans, field posts and other operating units must indicate the amount of general program funds associated with management support, a key factor in determining the program's efficiencies and cost effectiveness. As part of the Operational Plan approval process, this cost is reviewed and if necessary, adjusted by the Office of the Director of U.S. Foreign Assistance. Operating units must also provide quarterly reports on their progress toward target ratios, burn rates and significant changes. Managers are held accountable for their decisions through performance evaluations which include a measure that must relate to how Mission program implementation and management of approved activities meets or exceeds annual program and management efficiency targets. USAID also has a decentralized management structure which allows field managers to modify programs as needed to respond to rapidly changing circumstances, without headquarters' approval. USAID also uses annual portfolio reviews to identify ways to achieve efficiencies. For example, the October 2004 review of USAID's Asia Near East Bureau Washington-based programs resulted in the transfer of remotely-managed activities to the Bangkok regional office, cutting travel costs and improving oversight.

Evidence: Under Manage To Budget, managers must justify all management support expenses, as opposed to only explaining increases over the prior year's budget, defend any budgets exceeding the established budget ratio, and present a narrative describing the impact of a 10% reduction from it. Managers are held accountable for their decisions and rewarded for managing an efficient operational unit and strategically aligning their program and management support resources. (USAID's OMB Presentation: Going to Green - Manage to Budget Implementation (March 28, 2007) and USAID Administrator's Memorandum for Senior Staff, USAID/Washington and Overseas re FY 2007 and FY 2008 Operational Budget Request Guidance (August 1, 2006)) USAID's Getting to Green Plan (March 15, 2007) outlined the steps requiring implementation within the agency in order to move the agency to "Green" status on the Presidential Management Agenda Scorecard. A cable outlines efficiencies to be achieved and duplicative efforts to be eliminated when the Department of State and USAID moved to cost-sharing for administrative support services. (Consolidating and Eliminating Duplication in Shared Administrative Support Services (State Cable, December 2005)) Through a joint collaboration of efforts between USAID, the Department of State and the Office of the Director of Foreign Assistance a guidance manual was created to assist missions in their FY 2007 Operational Plans. The guidance provided a "how to process" on how missions should complete their operational plans and addressed frequently asked questions. (FY 2007 Operational Plan Guidance (PDF)) Portfolio reviews amongst other purposes are conducted to ensure that partners are expending funds in a timely manner and for the intended purpose. (USAID's Asia Near East Bureau's 2004 Portfolio Review Final Narrative and Activity Table show activities managed in Washington that had already been or were going to be moved to field.) The Operational Plan review process was an evaluation tool used to assess whether, within dollar levels provided to the operating unit for the objective, area, and element, the proposed programs maximize the impacts on that functional objective, and reflects best practices. Operational plan reviews were also used to assess whether Bureaus were fulfilling such specific roles as conducting research, providing technical leadership, and supporting the field. Their overall goal was to ensure that operating units were planning in accordance with the Secretary's Transformational Diplomacy goals and providing solutions when flaws or progress was being impeded. (India & Philippines FY 2007 Operation Plan)

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: Yes. Since 2004, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Department of State have had a joint strategy that establishes common goals and ensures that all programs are contributing to U.S. foreign policy objectives. In 2006, the process for foreign assistance program coordination and collaboration was greatly enhanced with the creation of the Office of the Director of U.S. Foreign Assistance. To ensure that funds appropriated to USAID and the Department of State are properly targeted and coordinated, the Office instituted a new budget formulation process that resulted in the first joint USAID/Department of State foreign operations budget request to Congress, for Fiscal Year 2008. This joint request ensured collaboration and coordination with USAID and State, and also enabled coordination with other agencies with related programs such as MCC, Treasury, and the Department of Defense. The Operational Plan process also allowed USAID and State to ensure coordination of resources with other non-Federal entities. For example, India's Operational Plan demonstrates how USAID collaborates with other donors, including the World Health Organization and World Bank, and other U.S. Government agencies, including the Department of State, Centers for Disease Control, and Department of Health and Human Services to increase the reach and impact of tuberculosis programs.

Evidence: The Joint State-USAID Strategic Plan Fiscal Years 2004 - 2009 is a collaborative effort that sets forth the Secretary of State's direction and priorities for both organizations in the coming years. The Strategic Plan supports the policy positions set forth by President Bush in the 2002 National Security Strategy and presents how the Department and USAID will implement U.S. foreign policy and development assistance. (http://www.state.gov/s/d/rm/rls/dosstrat/2004/) Through a joint collaboration of efforts between USAID, the Department of State and the Office of the Director of Foreign Assistance a guidance manual was created to assist missions in their FY 2007 Operational Plans. The guidance provided a "how to process" on how missions should complete their operational plans and addressed frequently asked questions. (FY 2007 Operational Plan Guidance (PDF)) An Operational Plan is an integral tool designed to link funding to activities and results in a particular country. By their design, they help to strengthen the role of leadership in the field in driving the allocation of foreign assistance; improve coordination, efficiency, and effectiveness; strengthen accountability; help the USG provide more accurate and consistent data on programs so that the USG can efficiently and effectively communicate to various stakeholders, including Congress, OMB, and the American public what funds have been directed to and what we are getting in return for our foreign assistance investments; and identify the essential links between U.S. policy objectives, resource allocation, and results. (FY 2007 Operational Plan for India (pg. 28), see "Work of Other Players" and "Narrative of USG Participants" as examples of how USAID and State collaborate with other donors and other USG agencies)

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: Yes. Under the Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA) and Management Control Review Committee (MCRC) process, the primary implementing agency, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) ensures that resources are protected against fraud, waste, and abuse and that they achieve the results for which funds were appropriated. The process requires each operating unit to do an assessment of the adequacy of management controls in all areas of Agency operations, including program, administrative, and financial management. Each operating unit within USAID's Asia and Near East Bureau (ANE) submits a FMFIA memo to ANE, which in turn submits a consolidated memo to USAID's Administrator. Following the review of these memos by the MCRC, USAID's Administrator reports major deficiencies and plans to correct them to Congress and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) via the Performance and Accountability Report. The Office of the Inspector General audits the Agency's financial statements every year and conducts financial-related audits of grantees and contractors. For the fourth year in a row, USAID received clean (unqualified) audit opinions on its financial statements. By rolling out the Phoenix financial management system to the field, USAID has significantly improved accounting practices. Financial data is now available worldwide in real time, allowing the Agency to know its financial status at all times.

Evidence: Under the Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA) and Management Control Review Committee (MCRC) process, USAID ensures that resources are protected against fraud, waste, and abuse and that they achieve the results for which funds were appropriated. The following USAID Automated Directive System policies/USAID Employee Handbook outlines policies and procedures instituted to ensure strong financial management practices (ADS 620 chapter on Financial Managements Principles and Standards http://www.usaid.gov/policy/ads/600/620.pdf & ADS 596 Management Accountability and Control http://www.usaid.gov/policy/ads/500/596.pdf). A memo is prepared for USAID's Administrator by the ANE Bureau that provides details on the assessment of the adequacy of management controls in all areas of Agency operations, including program, administrative, and financial management. Following the review of these memos by the Management Control Review Committee, USAID's Administrator reports major deficiencies and plans to correct them to Congress and OMB via the Performance and Accountability Report. (ANE Bureau FMFIA Memo to Ambassador Tobias) Performance accountability reports (PAR) are one of several reporting requirements that are required for all Federal agencies under the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA). Traditionally, PARs have enabled interested stakeholders such as the President, the Congress and the public at-large to assess the performance of an agency relative to its mission and demonstrate accountability. (USAID FY 2006 Performance and Accountability Report http://www.usaid.gov/policy/par06/) The following reports provide additional evidence of commitment to strong financial management practices and courses of actions taken in order to sustain sound financial management. (IG Audit of Selected Micro and Small Enterprise Development Loan Guarantees in the Philippines http://www.usaid.gov/oig/public/aud_usaid.htm, Phoenix Report on Commitments and Obligations and Report on the Audit of USAID's Financial Statements for Fiscal Years 2006 and 2005 http://www.usaid.gov/oig/public/fy07rpts/0-000-07-001-c.pdf )

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: The Department of State/U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) Joint Management Council (JMC) is charged with aligning and achieving the diplomatic and development priorities of the President, Secretary of State, and USAID Administrator, as the two agencies come together to build a common management foundation. Regularly bringing State and USAID together, the JMC addresses financial management, human resources, information technology, procurement, and shared services. This body has overseen the consolidation of mission administrative support services, known as ICASS (International Cooperative Administrative Support Services System), leading to improved efficiencies and decreased duplication. In terms of program management, State and USAID use regular evaluations, audits, site visits, and meetings with implementing partners to identify management weaknesses and rectify deficiencies. Additionally, USAID's Business Transformation Executive Committee (BTEC) is made up of senior officials who meet monthly to discuss progress and obstacles to reforming USAID's management systems and improving organizational performance. Through the BTEC's efforts, USAID improved financial management accountability and for the fourth year in a row received unqualified (clean) audit opinions from the Office of the Inspector General. The BTEC was also the body that, due to identified inconsistencies in procurement, led to the establishment of the Global Acquisition System (GLAS) noted in answer 3.4. In addition, USAID's Asia and Near East Bureau prepares an annual memo for USAID's Administrator that assesses the adequacy of management controls in all areas of Agency operations, including program, administrative and financial management. Following the review of these memos by USAID's Management Control Review Committee, USAID's Administrator reports major deficiencies and plans to correct them to Congress and OMB via the Performance and Accountability Report. The financial management system, Phoenix, mentioned in 3.6, was a direct result of this procedure through which the Agency found that the lack of a common financial management system was a material weakness. USAID is required to report to OMB, on an annual basis, 100% of funding (Program and Operating Expense) that is allocated by OMB mandated class codes. The Agency has never fully complied with this directive, because the Agency did not have an accounting system that could systematically capture the data. Similarly, USAID/Washington had no systematic way of tracking what missions were spending in administrative expenses across both program and OE. This made it difficult to compare agency administrative performance and set targets for administrative cost reductions. With Phoenix deployed worldwide, the Agency can now capture all financial actions in Phoenix using the new code structures, or Expanded Object Class Codes (EOCC), cited in 3.4. While the Phoenix financial management system provides the Agency's financial operating platform, the Agency's overarching goal is to streamline operations and reduce costs throughout the entire Agency. Therefore, USAID is implementing the Global Acquisition System (GLAS), which will bring the Agency another step closer to achieving its goal by providing an end-to-end automated procurement process that will address multiple acquisition and procurement challenges faced by the Agency. USAID has been struggling under ever tightening operating expense budgets that are reducing the ability of USAID to effectively manage program resources and deliver foreign assistance consistent with foreign assistance needs. The Manage To Budget initiative described in 3.4 is intended to permit the Agency to address in part the declining operating resources by devolving responsibility for achieving cost reductions to mission managers, who are then provided with strong incentives to develop innovative solutions.

Evidence: The Joint Management Council regularly brings State and USAID together to address common management issues including financial management, human resources, information technology, procurement, and shared services. Their website is: http://jmc.state.gov/. Evaluations are conducted to evaluate program effectiveness and to identify areas for improvement. All evaluations conducted at USAID are made available to the public at-large for review. Viewers are able to view how current programs fare and where recommendations are made for improvement. Evaluations and cost effectiveness studies are available at http://dec.usaid.gov/ and IG audits are at http://www.usaid.gov/oig/public/aud_usaid.htm. Management deficiencies are also addressed through USAID's Business Transformation Executive Committee (BTEC). This committee, made up of senior officials, meets monthly to discuss progress and obstacles to reforming USAID's management systems and improving organizational performance as seen in the Welcome to the BTEC Website message from the Deputy Administrator, and Chairman of USAID's Business Transformation Executive Committee, http://inside.usaid.gov/BTEC/misc/welcome.html. (Please note that this website appears out of date but these meeting are occurring regularly and email meeting notices can be submitted upon request.) The ANE Bureau FMFIA Memo to Ambassador Tobias provides details on the assessment of the adequacy of management controls in all areas of Agency operations, including program, administrative, and financial management. Following the review by the Management Control Review Committee of this memo and those submitted by other Bureaus, USAID's Administrator reports major deficiencies and plans to correct them to Congress and OMB via the Performance and Accountability Report, also submitted. Many of the challenges and proposed solutions from question 3.4 are outlined in USAID's Getting to Green Plan, March 15, 2007 include Phoenix, Manage to Budget, and Expanded Object Class Codes.

Are grants awarded based on a clear competitive process that includes a qualified assessment of merit?

Explanation: Yes. Federal and Agency regulations require grants and contracts to be awarded through a clear, competitive process. Requests for proposals are posted at www.fedbizopps.gov. USAID's assistance programs are announced in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (www.cfda.gov), and requests for applications and annual program statements are posted at www.Grants.gov. All solicitations include selection criteria. USAID is the primary agency for this program, and a significant majority of USAID's grants and contracts (84%) are awarded based on a competitive process through which an independent panel scores and ranks proposals. Exceptions are made according to federal and USAID procurement regulations when full and open competition would impair programs, when urgency is critical, or when an organization is the only one suited to undertake the work. Justifications for Other Than Full and Open Competition and unsolicited proposals demonstrating a unique, innovative, and propriety capability must be documented and approved by officials with the authority to approve non-competitive awards. USAID's Office of Acquisition and Assistance reviews and provides oversight to ensure adherence to federal regulations and Agency guidance on competition. USAID has led a major push in the past few years to reach out to new and unconventional partners, including faith-based organizations, small businesses, and minority serving institutions. In an effort to expand the range of implementing partners, all operating units are required to receive approval from the Director of U.S. Foreign Assistance for a partner to receive more than 15% of the program budget.

Evidence: Federal and Agency regulations require grants and contracts to be awarded through a clear, competitive process. Requests for proposals are posted at www.fedbizopps.gov. Assistance programs are announced in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (www.cfda.gov), and requests for applications and annual program statements are posted at www.Grants.gov. All solicitations include selection criteria. The following evidence lays out federal and agency acquisition and assistance processes. (ADS 300 provides overall guidance on procurement, including competition requirements (ADS 302 for Contracts and ADS 303 for Grants http://www.usaid.gov/policy/ads/300) A significant majority of USAID's grants and contracts are awarded based on a competitive process through which an independent panel scores and ranks proposals. (AIDAR Part 706 - Competition Requirements www.usaid.gov/policy/ads/300/aidar.pdf) A sample of requests for proposals include Request for Proposals Philippines No. 492-04-004 Environmental Governance Phase 2 (EcoGov 2) www.fedbizopps.gov. Exceptions are made according to federal procurement regulations when full and open competition would impair programs, when urgency is critical, or when an organization is the only one suited to undertake the work. For example, USAID/Philippines exception from full and open competition was approved for an unsolicited proposal from an organization with an innovative approach to advancing policy reform. USAID's Office of Acquisition and Assistance reviews and provides oversight to ensure adherence to federal regulations and Agency guidance on competition. (ADS 202.3.9 on Avoiding Conflict of Interest, Ensuring Procurement Integrity, Complying with Ethics Rules, and Meeting Audit Responsibilities http://www.usaid.gov/policy/ads/200/202.pdf) USAID has led a major push in the past few years to reach out to new and unconventional partners, including faith-based organizations, small businesses, and minority serving institutions. (AAPD 03-10, issued October 31, 2003, "Prohibition on Requirement for Prior USAID-Specific Experience in Evaluation Criteria for Award of Agency A&A Instruments" & Creating Opportunities for USAID: http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/global_partnerships/) Through a joint collaboration of efforts between USAID, the Department of State and the Office of the Director of U.S. Foreign Assistance a guidance manual was created to assist missions in their FY 2007 Operational Plans. The guidance provided a "how to process" on how missions should complete their operational plans and addressed frequently asked questions. (FY 2007 Operational Plan Guidance (PDF))

Does the program have oversight practices that provide sufficient knowledge of grantee activities?

Explanation: Yes. A cognizant technical officer (CTO) is designated for each contract and grant to audit grantee performance and assess compliance with the technical, price, and schedule provisions of their award. CTO responsibilities include reviewing and approving vouchers, monitoring contractor/grantee performance, conducting site visits, tracking financial expenditures to ensure that funds are used for their designated purpose, and overseeing sub-awards. Oversight is reinforced through a Strategic Objective Team approach, whereby a team routinely comes together to discuss contractor and grantee performance and resolve performance or technical issues. Operating unit management is kept informed of program performance, progress, and issues via periodic portfolio reviews. For example, during the U.S. Agency for International Development/Philippines' annual portfolio review, each SO Team presented the results of their programs, programmatic issues, and management issues to senior management. Headquarters provides another layer of oversight through the annual report process, while audits, evaluations, and site visits enable sound oversight.

Evidence: Cognizant Technical Officers have a number of duties and responsibilities. These duties and responsibilities are specifically outlined in USAIDs Automated Directive System/Employee Handbook. (ADS 303.3 defines CTO responsibilities http://www.usaid.gov/policy/ads/300/) In order to assess implementing partner performance and overall program performance, CTOs and Strategic Objective Teams routinely gathers to discuss performance. ADS 202.3.6 on Monitoring Timeliness of Key Outputs outlines CTO responsibilities as they relate to monitoring contractor/grantee performance. (http://www.usaid.gov/policy/ads/200/202.pdf) Annual Report assesses the country's performance against targets/goals established in the country's performance plan for a particular fiscal year. USAID/India's 2006 Annual Report. (USAID/India's 2006 Annual Report) Audits conducted by USAID Office of the Inspector General are used to provide insight into how well the agency is operating, making recommendations when problems are found and acknowledging when things are going well. ADS 202.3.9.4 on Conducting Audits provides explanations on the purpose of USAID OIG audits and the types of audits performed. (http://www.usaid.gov/policy/ads/200/202.pdf) Additional evaluations that assess program performance include: IG Audit of Selected Micro and Small Enterprise Development Loan Guarantees in the Philippines http://www.usaid.gov/oig/public/audusaid.htm and USAID/Philippines 2006 Portfolio Review presentations

Does the program collect grantee performance data on an annual basis and make it available to the public in a transparent and meaningful manner?

Explanation: Yes. Grantees and other funding recipients are required to submit performance information at least once a year. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Department of State report on performance data in their annual Performance and Accountability Report, which is available to the public in print and on the agencies' internal and public websites. The report is also distributed in hard copy to Congress and the Office of Management and Budget. Program evaluations and contractors' and grantees' quarterly, semi-annual, annual, and final reports are also available to the public through USAID's Development Experience Clearinghouse online database. Inspector General audits are also published, allowing the public to read objective assessments of performance.

Evidence: Performance accountability reports (PAR) are one of several reporting requirements that are required for all Federal agencies under the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA). Traditionally, PARs have enabled interested stakeholders such as the President, the Congress and the public at-large to assess the performance of an agency relative to its mission and demonstrate accountability. (USAID FY 2006 Performance and Accountability Report http://www.usaid.gov/policy/par06/) Evaluations are conducted to evaluate program effectiveness and to identify areas for improvement. All evaluations conducted at USAID are made available to the public at-large for review. Viewers are able to view how current programs fare and where recommendations are made for improvement. (Evaluations are available to the public on http://dec.usaid.gov/, for example see the Final Evaluation of USAID/India's Development Assistance Program, implemented by Catholic Relief Services) Additional reports that assess program performance include: Quarterly Report from USAID/Philippines Contractor on Anti-Trafficking in Persons Program (October 1 - December 31, 2006) available at http://dec.usaid.gov/ and Inspector General audits, which are available to the public on http://www.usaid.gov/oig/public/aud_usaid.htm, for example see Audit of USAID/India's Global Development Alliances.

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: Large Extent. The long-term measures not only show progress towards achieving the 2015 targets but also indicate that the Transforming Countries program is of sufficient scope and focus to move both India and the Philippines towards the Sustaining Partnership category. Progress towards the 2015 targets shows that a country is making progress towards graduating from the Transforming Countries category and eventually graduating from U.S. development assistance. Key criteria for moving transforming countries along the transformational diplomacy trajectory are an increase in per capita income and the ability to support a strategic partnership with the United States in such areas of security, counterterrrorism, trade and democracy. Once countries have met the Millennium Challenge Account (MCA) thresholds for Ruling Justly, Economic Freedom, Investing in People categories as well as Corruption, these countries will no longer be eligible for MCA funding in the Sustaining Partnership category. The Transforming Country program is demonstrating notable progress towards achieving the long-term performance goals. The net enrollment rate in primary education has increased from 48.2% in 1991 to 91.8% in 2004 and is well on its way to achieving the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) of 100% enrollment by 2015. Under-five mortality has declined from 92.5% per thousand in 1990 to 59.5% in 2004, indicating that the MDG of reducing under five mortality by two-thirds, 30 per thousand, by 2015 is well within reach. USAID and State will know whether the Transforming Countries program is on track to meet its ambitious 2015 targets by assessing mid-level impact measures for which the U.S. government can claim credit. Operating units establish mid-level indicators which provide the link between the annual output measures and long-term outcome measures. Program managers will use the performance data from these mid-level indicators to make management changes if the Developing Country program is not on track to meet its targets. Although these mid-level indicators are not tracked by the Office of the Director of U.S. Foreign Assistance, the Office is examining the most efficient and accurate way to track each operating unit's specific mid-level indicators within its Operational Plans.

Evidence: Proof that the Transforming Country program is making significant progress toward these long-term targets can also be found in the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) award-winning Performance and Accountability Report (PAR http://www.usaid.gov/policy/par06/. This report shows that USAID consistently meets its annual targets for enrollment rate and child mortality. It also shows great progress in improving the business enabling environment - which would mean a reduction in the number of days to start a business - through indicators that measure the incorporation of Millennium Challenge Account goals into United Nations programs and the number of companies for whom advocacy services are provided. Finally, the PAR demonstrates strong performance in improving democratic principles and institutions in and reducing corruption in the region, which is directly related to increasing government effectiveness.

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: Large extent. The annual performance measures are directly linked to the long-term measures, and when combined with the mid-level impact indicators, tell whether the program is on track to meet its long-term, ambitious performance targets. The Transforming Country program regularly achieves, and often exceeds its annual performance targets. The annual measure - number of teachers/educators trained with USG support, exceeded its FY 2006 target of 169,970 with 377,999 enrolled in the training. The U.S. Agency for International Development's (USAID) efforts in Central and Western Mindanao have focused on teacher training to improve instructional capacity in reading, English, and math. In FY 2005, USAID trained more than 5,000 elementary teachers and 400 high school teachers, greatly exceeding the target of 3,000 elementary teachers and 150 high school teachers identified for professional development. Another example where the program has met an annual performance goal is increased access to improved drinking water. As a result of USG assistance, the numbers rose significantly from 71,560 in FY 2005 to 277,427 in FY 2006. The FY 2006 actual also exceeded its target of 272,500. Although the number of cases of child diarrhea treated in US Government-assisted programs is a new indicator, past successful performance in the provision of clean water will be an important contributing factor to reducing diarrhea and should help ensure that the 2007 target is met. The number of domestic human rights NGOS receiving US Government support is also a new indicator. Related past performance under the "Protect Human Rights" heading in India's 2006 Annual Report shows that the number of non-governmental organization counseling, legal aid and/or mediation programs created, expanded or strengthened was 36 in FY05 - exceeding the FY05 target of 30. Additionally, the Muslim Women's Initiative increased awareness of women's rights under the Quran and the constitution and reached 3,500 Muslims (women and men), including 503 community and religious leaders. The program was so successful that Muslim community councils in nearby communities have asked the program to extend its efforts. USAID provided training on economic development and judicial reform to 473 judges, 130 of whom were women, and training on ethics and the new code of conduct to 1,300 participants including 729 female court personnel in the Philippines.

Evidence: Qualitative and quantitative data from USAID/Philippines's 2006 Annual Report and USAID/India's 2006 Annual Report shows strong performance in education, child health, clean water, and strengthening the court system.

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: No. A key objective of foreign assistance reform is to improve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in achieving program goals. Under the processes described in 3.4, a standard administrative cost ratio of 12% has been established as the initial target for each operating unit implementing the program. The Transforming Country program's administrative cost ratio has improved from the baseline of 15% in FY 2005 to 13.5 % in FY 2006. However, these programs have not yet met the 12% initial target and cannot yet demonstrate cost savings from efficiency initiatives taken at this time.

Evidence: Guidance on the target efficiency ratio is in the FY 2007 Operational Plan Guidance and USAID Administrator's Memorandum for Senior Staff, USAID/Washington and Overseas re FY 2007 and FY 2008 Operational Budget Request Guidance (August 1, 2006). Evidence of the program's commitment to improved efficiencies is in USAID's OMB Presentation: Going to Green - Manage to Budget Implementation (March 28, 2007) and USAID's Getting to Green Plan (March 15, 2007). As discussed in 3.4, the Consolidating and Eliminating Duplication in Shared Administrative Support Services State Cable in December 2005 sought to decrease inefficiencies by combining administrative services for the two bodies.

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: Yes. The Transforming Countries program performs favorably in comparison to other government and donor programs with similar purposes and goals. In general, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is often recognized by other donors and host governments for its ability to respond quickly to challenges and opportunities and its leadership of coordination with other donors. The Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness highlights the importance of devolving responsibility to field staff, the hallmark of USAID's programs. The United States is also one of the only donors with a stringent, auditable performance management system that monitors and can report on results with good quality data. In its 1998 peer review, the Development Assistance Committee (DAC)-Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that, "among DAC Member-agencies, USAID has been one that has placed great emphasis in assessing its aid effectiveness, measuring and evaluating program performance, (including gender issues) and using this information 'to manage for results.'" Most donors, on the other hand, lack the capability to track their performance because they conduct development assistance through budget support. USAID and the Department of State also have a comparative advantage in implementing programs in high-threat environments such as Mindanao in the Philippines, because of the security resources at hand and on-the-ground presence. USAID and the Department of State routinely seek out the best entity to implement foreign assistance programs, recognizing that different organizations have different strengths. Through full and open competition, USAID ensures that the implementing partner is the best-positioned to achieve the program's objectives. USAID also recognizes the private sector's comparative advantage in providing assistance in business-related sectors, and therefore, routinely partners with private sector and non-profit organizations to leverage funds and increase the program's impact. Furthermore, USAID and State have the ability to transfer funds to other U.S. Government (USG) agencies if that agency is better positioned to implement the activity, such as to the Army Corps of Engineers for infrastructure programs. Lastly, the U.S. is often recognized for its leadership of country program coordination with other donors in Transforming Countries. For example, in India, the U.S. Government works closely with non-USG participants such as the World Bank, the United Kingdom, and the World Health Organization to address Tuberculosis.

Evidence: The OECD-DAC Peer Review of U.S. Foreign Assistance 2006 (http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/61/57/37885999.pdf) and 1998 (http://www.oecd.org/document/5/0,2340,en_2649_201185_2094661_1_1_1_1,00.html) cite the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) for its strong field presence and flexible programming. USAID and the Department of State are often sited for their comparative advantage in implementing programs in high-threat environments because of the security resources at hand and on-the-ground presence; see Operating in High-Threat Environments (Report).

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: Large Extent. Independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the Transforming Countries program is effective and achieving results. For example, the final evaluation of USAID's $160 million Reproductive and Child Health, Nutrition and HIV/AIDS Program (RACHNA) in India drew on numerous program information documents, interviews with key informants and stakeholders, field visits and existing qualitative assessments and quantitative sources, finding that in those areas targeted by RACHNA, there were substantial improvements in nutritional status and access to and use of health, nutrition, family planning and HIV/AIDS prevention services. The Final Evaluation of the Maguindanao Child Survival Project in the Philippines included quantitative data collected through a sampling methodology and qualitative information collected through focus group discussions and key informant interviews of project staff, mothers of children under 5 years of age, community leaders and Department of Health personnel. The evaluation verified quantitative improvements in all but one of the project impact indicators. The project addressed the principal causes of child mortality through interventions in four areas, including Breastfeeding and Nutrition, Pneumonia Case Management, Diarrhea Case Management and Expanded Program in Immunization (EPI). The Phase 1 Evaluation of the "Watergy" program in India utilized quantitative and qualitative information, including site visits and an evaluation framework and discussion guide for interviews with implementing partner staff, host country field staff and major stakeholders and other partners. The evaluation determined that the Watergy program has achieved results that represent major accomplishments in municipal energy efficiency in its four target states. For the Governing Justly and Democratically objective, a four-member team undertook a major independent evaluation of the Transparent Accountable Governance (TAG) Project during March and April 2004. TAG was initiated by The Asia Foundation (TAF) and four partner organizations to shed more light on problems of corruption in the Philippines. The first phase emphasized a national program, including research and analysis, an information campaign, agenda setting, and a modest program for policy reform. The second phase, implemented at the national level, is generally taking more direct action against corruption. The Evaluation Team observed an increased level of activities at the national level focused on increasing transparency and opposing corruption, specifically within the past three to four years. A significant portion of activities observed can be directly associated with TAG and TAG-sponsored activities encouraged other media and institutions to openly discuss corruption and undertake activities to oppose corruption. An independent evaluation for the Economic Growth objective is Evaluation of the Economic Growth Technical Assistance (EGTA) program in the Philippines. The objectives were to contribute to continuing policy liberalization, and to assist in efforts geared towards increasing the degree of competition in the economy. The EGTA evaluation was carried out by a three person Development Associates team which concluded that EGTA made a very valuable contribution to the Philippine development effort and hoped a similar approach would continue to foster sound policy formation and implementation in the Philippines and be replicated elsewhere. These examples indicate the program is effective and achieving results in the five objective areas for these countries. Progress on these objectives will in turn, contribute towards enabling these countries to transition to the Development Country Category, and in turn progress towards graduating from U.S. development assistance.

Evidence: Independent evaluations carried out under the specific framework objectives include: Reproductive and Child Health, Nutrition and HIV/AIDS Program (RACHNA) in India Final Evaluation, June 2006; Maguindanao Child Survival Project in Philippines, Final Evaluation, March 2005; India "Watergy" Phase 1 Evaluation, September 2005; The Transparent Accountable Governance Program, An Evaluation, March - April 2004; and the Evaluation of Economic Growth and Technical Assistance, March 2004.