United Nations

U.S. Participation in the Children's Fund Gao ID: NSIAD-89-204 September 27, 1989

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO assessed various aspects of the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), focusing on: (1) views of the United States and other major UNICEF donor countries on the effectiveness and efficiency of UNICEF programs; (2) UNICEF project monitoring and oversight; (3) UNICEF accounting practices and other financial information; and (4) the level of U.S. influence in UNICEF and the prospects for maintaining that level of influence.

GAO found that: (1) the Department of State and the Agency for International Development viewed UNICEF programs favorably and, like representatives of other major donor countries, believed that UNICEF had well-managed and effective field programs; (2) U.S. officials believed that UNICEF should collaborate more with other agencies and do more to help recipient governments sustain UNICEF programs; (3) there were program and project deficiencies at some UNICEF projects that could be resolved through improved UNICEF oversight; (4) while 1985 and 1986 audits showed significant problems with certain UNICEF financial practices, UNICEF took corrective actions and subsequent audit statements were acceptable and unqualified; (5) overall, other major donor countries expressed satisfaction with UNICEF programs, but one major donor country was concerned that UNICEF was expanding its programs to areas not directly related to women and children; and (6) the extent of U.S. influence over UNICEF may be declining, and two countries contributed more to UNICEF than did the United States in 1987.

Recommendations

Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.

Director: Team: Phone:


The Justia Government Accountability Office site republishes public reports retrieved from the U.S. GAO These reports should not be considered official, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Justia.