Foreign Assistance
Middle East Partnership Initiative Offers Tools for Supporting Reform, but Project Monitoring Needs Improvement Gao ID: GAO-05-711 August 8, 2005In December 2002, the U.S. Department of State (State) established the Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI) to promote democracy in the Middle East and North Africa. MEPI provides assistance for political, economic, and educational reform and women's empowerment. In fiscal years 2002-2004, State and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) reviewed U.S. bilateral economic assistance programs in the region to ensure they were aligned with the new U.S. policy focus on promoting democracy and reform. In this report, GAO (1) describes MEPI's structure for managing projects and allocating funding, (2) examines MEPI's uses of the reviews, and (3) evaluates MEPI's project monitoring.
MEPI has worked with U.S. embassies, USAID headquarters in Washington, D.C., and USAID missions overseas to manage projects and obligate funding. In turn, MEPI and its partners have negotiated agreements with nongovernmental organizations, the private sector, and other U.S. agencies to implement the projects. MEPI has obligated about 45 percent of the $129 million that it received for fiscal years 2002-2003, and its partners have obligated the remainder. MEPI used the State and USAID reviews of existing U.S. bilateral economic assistance programs in the Middle East and North Africa in two ways. First, in response to the reviews, MEPI targeted reform activities in the Middle East and North Africa that were not being addressed by other U.S. agencies. For example, responding to the reviews' finding that little progress had been made in supporting women's political involvement, MEPI provided funds to assist women candidates. Second, MEPI shaped its strategy in response to the reviews, particularly regarding the need to monitor projects' short-term results and hold project implementers accountable for project performance. Despite its strategic emphasis on monitoring projects' performance, MEPI's monitoring has been limited by unclear communication of roles and responsibilities and a lack of complete project information. MEPI has acknowledged these deficiencies and begun to address them; in July 2005, State and USAID agreed on a framework for project monitoring roles and responsibilities. Without the ability to evaluate its projects' performance with certainty and access to complete information, MEPI's capacity to meet its strategic goals of producing tangible results and making results-based decisions is limited.
RecommendationsOur 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:GAO-05-711, Foreign Assistance: Middle East Partnership Initiative Offers Tools for Supporting Reform, but Project Monitoring Needs Improvement
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-05-711
entitled 'Foreign Assistance: Middle East Peace Initiative Offers Tools
for Supporting Reform, but Project Monitoring Needs Improvement' which
was released on September 7, 2005.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Congressional Requesters:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
August 2005:
Foreign Assistance:
Middle East Peace Initiative Offers Tools for Supporting Reform, but
Project Monitoring Needs Improvement:
GAO-05-711:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-05-711, a report to congressional requesters:
Why GAO Did This Study:
In December 2002, the U.S. Department of State (State) established the
Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI) to promote democracy in the
Middle East and North Africa. MEPI provides assistance for political,
economic, and educational reform and women‘s empowerment. In fiscal
years 2002-2004, State and the U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID) reviewed U.S. bilateral economic assistance
programs in the region to ensure they were aligned with the new U.S.
policy focus on promoting democracy and reform. In this report, GAO (1)
describes MEPI‘s structure for managing projects and allocating
funding, (2) examines MEPI‘s uses of the reviews, and (3) evaluates
MEPI‘s project monitoring.
What GAO Found:
MEPI has worked with U.S. embassies, USAID headquarters in Washington,
D.C., and USAID missions overseas to manage projects and obligate
funding. In turn, MEPI and its partners have negotiated agreements with
nongovernmental organizations, the private sector, and other U.S.
agencies to implement the projects. MEPI has obligated about 45 percent
of the $129 million that it received for fiscal years 2002-2003, and
its partners have obligated the remainder.
MEPI used the State and USAID reviews of existing U.S. bilateral
economic assistance programs in the Middle East and North Africa in two
ways. First, in response to the reviews, MEPI targeted reform
activities in the Middle East and North Africa that were not being
addressed by other U.S. agencies. For example, responding to the
reviews‘ finding that little progress had been made in supporting
women‘s political involvement, MEPI provided funds to assist women
candidates. Second, MEPI shaped its strategy in response to the
reviews, particularly regarding the need to monitor projects‘ short-
term results and hold project implementers accountable for project
performance.
Despite its strategic emphasis on monitoring projects‘ performance,
MEPI‘s monitoring has been limited by unclear communication of roles
and responsibilities and a lack of complete project information. MEPI
has acknowledged these deficiencies and begun to address them; in July
2005, State and USAID agreed on a framework for project monitoring
roles and responsibilities. Without the ability to evaluate its
projects‘ performance with certainty and access to complete
information, MEPI‘s capacity to meet its strategic goals of producing
tangible results and making results-based decisions is limited.
MEPI‘s Area of Operations:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that, to improve project monitoring, the Secretary of
State ensure that MEPI managers (1) clearly delineate, document, and
communicate monitoring roles and responsibilities; (2) systematically
obtain, maintain, and communicate complete information on all MEPI
projects; and (3) regularly assess progress in these areas. State and
USAID agreed with GAO‘s recommendations. State disagreed with the
extent of our finding that it could not with certainty evaluate its
projects‘ performance. However, State said that it intends to improve
its monitoring of MEPI projects.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-711.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact David Gootnick at (202)
512-3149 or dgootnick@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
MEPI and Administrative Partners Have Overseen Activities and Obligated
Funding:
Reviews Identified New Reform Opportunities and Helped Shape MEPI's
Strategy:
Reviews Have Helped Shape MEPI's Results-Based Strategy:
Unclear Roles and Responsibilities and Incomplete Information Have
Inhibited MEPI's Project Monitoring:
Conclusion:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: The Office of Middle East Partnership Initiative's
Organizational Structure:
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of State:
GAO Comments:
Appendix IV: Comments from the U.S. Agency for International
Development:
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Figures:
Figure 1: MEPI's Area of Operations:
Figure 2: MEPI Reform Pillars and Reform Goals:
Figure 3: MEPI Budget, Fiscal Years 2002-2005:
Figure 4: MEPI's Relationships with Administrative Partners and Project
Implementers:
Figure 5: Obligation of Fiscal Years 2002-2003 Funds by MEPI and
Administrative Partners:
Figure 6: Funding Obligations within MEPI's Area of Operations, Fiscal
Years 2002-2003:
Figure 7: Moroccan Products for Export:
Figure 8: MEPI Mother-Child Home Education Program Participants in
Bahrain:
Figure 9: Bahraini Participants in U.S. Business Internships for Young
Arab Women:
Abbreviations:
MEPI: Middle East Partnership Initiative:
MOA: memorandum of agreement:
NEA: Department of State's Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs:
NGO: nongovernmental organization:
OIG: Office of Inspector General:
USAIDU.S. Agency for International Development:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
August 8, 2005:
The Honorable Tom Davis:
Chairman:
Committee on Government Reform:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Christopher Shays:
Chairman:
Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats, and International
Relations:
Committee on Government Reform:
House of Representatives:
According to the United Nations, many Middle Eastern and North African
countries face enormous deficits of human development, including
limited political and personal freedoms and low economic growth.
Because of concern that these issues could sharpen extremism and
increase the risk of terrorist activities originating from an already
unstable region, the U.S. government has shown a growing interest in
improving socioeconomic and political conditions in the region. In
December 2002, the U.S. Department of State (State) announced the
establishment of the Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI) as a
presidential initiative to support the administration's new policy of
promoting democracy and reform in the Middle East and North Africa.
MEPI, which has received about $293 million for fiscal years 2002-
2005,[Footnote 1] provides assistance in four reform areas, or pillars-
-political, economic, and educational reform and women's
empowerment.[Footnote 2]
In 2002, at the request of the Deputy Secretary of State, State and the
U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) undertook reviews of
existing U.S. bilateral economic assistance programs in the Middle East
and North Africa[Footnote 3] to ensure that they reflected the U.S.
government's new policy emphasis on promoting democracy and reform.
These reviews were conducted for Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, the West Bank
and Gaza, and Yemen. According to State officials, State initiated an
interagency process to develop MEPI's strategy, objectives, and goals,
including the objective of providing close monitoring of
projects[Footnote 4] to achieve tangible results and to facilitate
results-based management decisions. In this report, we (1) describe
MEPI's structure for overseeing projects and obligating funds,[Footnote
5] (2) examine MEPI's uses of the reviews of U.S. bilateral economic
assistance in the region, and (3) evaluate MEPI's monitoring of its
projects.
We examined reviews and supporting documentation provided by the State
Department and USAID and reviewed documents describing MEPI and USAID
activities and funding mechanisms. We also analyzed project agreement
documentation and project performance reports for 25 MEPI-and USAID-
administered projects, representing MEPI's four reform pillars, that we
selected on the basis of their funding amount and their country-
specific or regionwide status.[Footnote 6] Although our audit generally
covered MEPI activities from December 2002 through May 2005, in
reviewing MEPI's budget information and project monitoring, we focused
on data for fiscal years 2002-2003 because the data for those years
were most complete.[Footnote 7] In addition, we conducted structured
interviews with representatives of some of MEPI's implementing
organizations. We also conducted interviews with officials at State and
USAID headquarters in Washington, D.C.; officials representing
embassies and USAID missions in 9 of the 14 MEPI countries; and
officials administering MEPI programs in the territories of West Bank
and Gaza.[Footnote 8] To assess MEPI's mechanisms for monitoring its
activities, we focused on relevant areas of MEPI's management control
system, including (1) roles and responsibilities of MEPI staff and
administrative partners[Footnote 9] in Washington, D.C., and overseas
and (2) information flow. We performed our work in the United States,
Bahrain, Egypt, Germany, and Morocco from July 2004 through May 2005 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Appendix I provides a more detailed description of our scope and
methodology.
Results in Brief:
MEPI has worked with U.S. embassies, USAID headquarters in Washington,
D.C. (USAID/Washington), and USAID missions overseas to oversee
projects and obligate funds for fiscal years 2002-2003. In turn, MEPI
and these U.S. government entities have negotiated agreements with
nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), the private sector, and other
U.S. agencies to implement the projects. MEPI funds have been obligated
as follows:
* MEPI has directly obligated about 45 percent of the approximately
$129 million that it received for fiscal years 2002-2003, with 33
percent going to NGOs and the private sector and 12 percent to U.S.
government implementers.
* The embassies have obligated about 1 percent of the 2002-2003 funds
through MEPI's small-grants program, awarding short-term grants of up
to $25,000 to local organizations to build their capacity.
* USAID/Washington has obligated about 40 percent of the 2002-2003
funds, including funding for many of MEPI's largest projects, primarily
through preexisting agreements between the U.S. government and
implementing organizations.
* USAID missions have obligated about 15 percent of MEPI's 2002-2003
funds.
According to the State Department, the reviews of bilateral assistance
programs in the Middle East and North Africa were used to identify new
reform opportunities for MEPI to target and to shape MEPI's strategy.
* In response to the reviews as well as other U.S. entities' input,
MEPI targeted reform activities in the Middle East and North Africa
that were not being addressed by other U.S. agencies. For example,
responding to the reviews' observation that little progress had been
made in political reform, especially regarding women's political
participation, MEPI provided funds to assist with elections and help
women candidates.
* In response to the reviews--in particular, a review of the USAID/
Egypt mission in fiscal years 2002-2003--MEPI officials included the
close monitoring of projects as a primary objective of MEPI's strategy.
According to State officials, the 2002-2003 review noted that USAID/
Egypt did not monitor its projects closely or frequently enough to
obtain the performance information needed for short-term results-based
funding decisions. In response, MEPI specified in its September 2004
project monitoring and management plan that all project agreements
should include benchmarks and performance goals based on pillar-
specific objectives and that MEPI staff should monitor project
development and implementation.
Unclear communication of monitoring roles and responsibilities and a
lack of complete project information have limited MEPI's ability to
provide the project monitoring needed to measure results. MEPI has not
clearly communicated the roles and responsibilities of its
administrative partners for project monitoring, and many MEPI projects
have not received the intended level of monitoring. Officials from 9 of
the 14 U.S. embassies supporting MEPI projects stated that they were
uncertain of their roles and responsibilities for monitoring MEPI
projects and that MEPI had not yet specified their monitoring duties.
Further, USAID mission officials in one country that we visited stated
that they were not monitoring some USAID-administered MEPI projects
because they had not been instructed to do so. On July 14, 2005, MEPI
signed an agreement with USAID that established a framework for the
roles and responsibilities, including monitoring, of MEPI and USAID
officials in Washington and in the region. In addition, although MEPI
was seeking to acquire software that would facilitate the tracking of
project performance, MEPI's ability to monitor performance was limited
by (1) a lack of baseline information, (2) inconsistency among
projects' performance reporting requirements, (3) unverified project
information, (4) inconsistent communication of project information, (5)
incomplete project records, and (6) lack of access to project
information.
To bolster MEPI's ability to monitor and evaluate project performance,
and to help ensure that it achieves its goals of producing tangible
results and making results-based decisions, we are recommending that
the Secretary of State ensure that MEPI managers clearly delineate,
document, and communicate roles and responsibilities for monitoring;
that they systematically obtain, maintain, and communicate complete
information about all MEPI projects; and that they monitor progress in
this regard.
State and USAID agreed with our recommendations. State disagreed with
the extent of our finding that it could not with certainty evaluate its
projects' performance, but it did not point out specific aspects of
that finding with which it disagreed. State's comments acknowledged our
recommendations regarding bolstering its ability to monitor and
evaluate project performance. State's comments laid out general steps
that, if taken, would help ensure more comprehensive project
monitoring, including steps to guarantee complete and accurate project
information. State and USAID also provided technical comments that we
incorporated as appropriate.
Background:
From the 1950s through 2001, U.S. bilateral economic assistance to the
Middle East and North Africa focused primarily on promoting regional
stability by providing funding for large bilateral military and
economic programs, chiefly in Egypt, Israel, and Jordan, and by
fostering development. In December 2002, the State Department announced
the creation of MEPI, which has expanded U.S. assistance to other
countries in the region and includes programs focused on democracy and
reform. Figure 1 shows MEPI's area of operation.[Footnote 10]
Figure 1: MEPI's Area of Operations:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
According to the administration, MEPI comprises a new approach to
foreign assistance for the region, aimed at linking Arab, U.S., and
global private-sector businesses, NGOs, civil society elements, and
governments to develop innovative policies and programs that support
reform in the region. MEPI is also an important element of the
administration's counterterrorism and public diplomacy strategies. MEPI
projects are organized under its four reform pillars (see fig. 2).
Figure 2: MEPI Reform Pillars and Reform Goals:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
MEPI's budget of $293 million for fiscal years 2002-2005 was derived
from supplemental appropriations and annual foreign operations
legislation. [Footnote 11] Figure 3 shows MEPI's budget for fiscal
years 2002-2005.
Figure 3: MEPI Budget, Fiscal Years 2002-2005:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Numbers do not sum to $293 million because of rounding.
[End of figure]
The Office of Regional Affairs within State's Bureau of Near Eastern
Affairs (NEA) in Washington, D.C., administered MEPI activities during
MEPI's first 6 months. The office worked with USAID, which managed the
long-standing bilateral economic assistance programs in the Middle East
and North Africa, to implement most of its initial projects. The office
also worked with the embassies in the region to implement projects
funded through small grants. In June 2003, State established the Office
of the Middle East Partnership Initiative within NEA to manage MEPI
policy and projects and work closely with agencies across the U.S.
government. The Deputy Secretary of State serves as Coordinator for
MEPI. In August 2004, MEPI set up two regional offices in Tunisia and
the United Arab Emirates. (See app. II for more details of MEPI's
organizational structure as of May 2005.)
In fiscal years 2002-2004, State and USAID formally reviewed existing
bilateral economic assistance programs in the Middle East and North
Africa.[Footnote 12]
* From June 2002 to May 2003, State and USAID jointly conducted an in-
depth review of U.S. bilateral assistance to Egypt, one of USAID's
largest programs, including assessing the programmatic and financial
data for the seven strategic objectives in USAID/Egypt's program.
* From September to December 2003, State and USAID conducted an
abbreviated review of USAID's program in West Bank and Gaza.
* In 2003, State participated in USAID's periodic strategy reviews of
its programs in Jordan, Morocco, and Yemen.
In 2003 and 2004, State also considered information from U.S. embassies
and from other U.S. government agencies with programs in the region to
identify areas where MEPI could provide assistance.[Footnote 13] During
this period, MEPI staff responsible for each of MEPI's four reform
pillars organized meetings with the other U.S. government agencies. In
addition, State relied on several secondary sources to supplement the
information received from formal reviews of USAID programs and input
from embassies and other U.S. government agencies. Finally, State
officials met with donors such as the World Bank and the European Union
to learn about their activities in the region.
State and USAID have used the reviews of existing U.S. bilateral
economic assistance programs, as well as information obtained from
other U.S. entities providing assistance in the region, to realign many
existing programs, strategic plans, and coordination mechanisms to
conform to the new U.S. policy of promoting democracy and reform in the
Middle East and North Africa.
MEPI and Administrative Partners Have Overseen Activities and Obligated
Funding:
In fiscal years 2002-2003, MEPI and its administrative partners--U.S.
embassies, USAID/Washington, and USAID missions--oversaw MEPI projects.
MEPI and its administrative partners also obligated MEPI funds, with
MEPI obligating about 45 percent of its fiscal years 2002- 2003 funding
and its administrative partners obligating the remainder.
MEPI Directly Oversaw Some Projects and Used Administrative Partners to
Oversee Others:
MEPI oversaw some of its projects directly in fiscal years 2002-2003
and partnered with U.S. embassies, USAID/Washington, and USAID missions
to oversee other projects. (See fig. 4.) MEPI and its administrative
partners negotiated agreements with NGOs, the private sector, and other
U.S. government entities to implement more than 100 projects.[Footnote
14]
Figure 4: MEPI's Relationships with Administrative Partners and Project
Implementers:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
MEPI and Administrative Partners Have Obligated 2002-2003 Funds:
MEPI and its administrative partners have obligated the $129 million
that MEPI received for fiscal years 2002 and 2003. MEPI has directly
obligated about 45 percent of the funds; MEPI's administrative partners
have obligated the remainder (see fig. 5).
Figure 5: Obligation of Fiscal Years 2002-2003 Funds by MEPI and
Administrative Partners:
[See PDF for image]
Note: According to State and USAID officials, USAID obligations in
fiscal year 2004 decreased to approximately 15 percent of total MEPI
funds.
[End of figure]
* MEPI: MEPI has obligated about 45 percent ($58 million) of its 2002-
2003 funds directly to NGOs, the private sector,[Footnote 15] and U.S.
government entities.
* NGOs and the private sector: MEPI has obligated 33 percent ($42.8
million) of the funds in various grants directly to American or locally
based NGOs or private companies. According to MEPI, these grants are
intended to support innovative ideas that can be implemented quickly to
produce concrete results, such as increasing women's political
participation. MEPI officials say that they would like to obligate more
MEPI resources directly, but they acknowledge that such a shift would
require MEPI staff to shoulder a significant administrative burden in
monitoring these projects.
* U.S. government implementers: Through interagency acquisition
agreements, MEPI has obligated about 12 percent ($15.2 million) of its
2002-2003 funds to U.S. government entities with specific expertise in
the areas of reform that MEPI supports. These entities implement
projects, such as the Department of the Treasury's technical assistance
project to develop expertise in surplus and debt management in Algeria.
* U.S. embassies: Embassies have obligated about 1 percent ($1.4
million, or $100,000 per country) of MEPI's 2002-2003 funds through its
small-grants program. A central objective of the program is to build
the capacity of local organizations, such as the Ibn Khaldun Center,
which, among other things, introduces concepts of economic opportunity
to young women in two of Egypt's rural and urban areas to enable them
to improve their living conditions. The embassies use the funds to
award local organizations small, short-term grants of up to
approximately $25,000. The MEPI office approves all small-grant
decisions, and embassy staff perform grant administration.
* USAID/Washington: USAID/Washington has obligated about 40 percent
($50.8 million) of MEPI's fiscal years 2002-2003 funds, including
funding for many of MEPI's largest projects. According to USAID and
MEPI officials, many of these projects have been implemented through
preexisting cooperative or contractual agreements between the U.S.
government and U.S. NGOs or contractors.
* USAID missions: USAID missions have obligated about 15 percent ($18.7
million) of MEPI's 2002-2003 funds, according to budget data provided
by USAID and MEPI. These funds have been used to complement USAID's
existing efforts, such as civil society capacity building and local
political party training.
Figure 6 shows the obligation of MEPI funds to Middle Eastern and North
African countries and West Bank and Gaza in fiscal years 2002-2003.
Figure 6: Funding Obligations within MEPI's Area of Operations, Fiscal
Years 2002-2003:
[See PDF for image]
Note: This graph represents funding for projects in individual
countries as well as the West Bank and Gaza, but it does not show
funding for small grants or for regionwide and multicountry projects.
MEPI funding to Israel is not shown, because MEPI funds only small
grants to Arab-Israelis in that country. Regionwide and multicountry
funding accounted for a majority of total MEPI funding obligated in
fiscal years 2002-2003. Amounts shown are State Department estimates.
[End of figure]
Reviews Identified New Reform Opportunities and Helped Shape MEPI's
Strategy:
According to State, the reviews of U.S. bilateral economic assistance
have been used to (1) identify new reform areas that were not
previously addressed and (2) develop a results-based strategy for
implementing and evaluating the performance of MEPI activities.
Reviews and Other Information Have Led MEPI to Target New Reform
Opportunities:
Responding to the reviews of U.S. bilateral economic assistance in the
region, as well as information provided by other U.S. entities, MEPI
has initiated reform activities that were not being addressed by U.S.
agencies in the region, including countries where USAID does not
operate. For example:
* Political reform: The reviews found that in many countries where MEPI
operates, little progress had been made in political reform, including
women's political involvement. In response, MEPI has provided funds to
help increase the number of women candidates and assist them through
activities such as improving their media presentation techniques.
* Economic reform: The reviews revealed that although limited
assistance was being provided to increase trade capacity within the
region, U.S. agencies were not addressing the need to increase the
access and capacity of small and medium-sized enterprises in countries
such as Morocco. Regionally, MEPI has supported a program that aims to,
among other things, increase managerial and entrepreneurial skills in
several countries. MEPI also funds efforts to teach business people and
managers of small and medium-sized enterprises how to take immediate
advantage of U.S. bilateral free trade agreements by initiating export
sales, acquiring new technology, and developing joint ventures and
other strategic alliances with U.S. firms (see fig. 7).
Figure 7: Moroccan Products for Export:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
* Educational reform: U.S. agencies operating in the region identified
gaps in education for the impoverished and for students in primary and
secondary grade levels. MEPI funds implementers that provide Arabic
books for elementary school children in Jordan, Lebanon, and Bahrain
and teach Bahraini mothers and preschool-age children living in
poverty. (See fig. 8.)
Figure 8: MEPI Mother-Child Home Education Program Participants in
Bahrain:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
* Women's empowerment: U.S. agencies identified the lack of gender
equity as an impediment to reform in the region. To create more
opportunities for women, MEPI funds projects that provide young women
from the Middle East and North Africa unique opportunities to learn
management and business skills in the classroom and while working for
U.S. companies. (See fig. 9.)
Figure 9: Bahraini Participants in U.S. Business Internships for Young
Arab Women:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Reviews Have Helped Shape MEPI's Results-Based Strategy:
The 2002 and 2003 reviews of U.S. bilateral economic assistance in the
Middle East and North Africa have significantly influenced MEPI
officials' development of MEPI's results-based strategy, including the
objective of providing close monitoring of MEPI projects. In
particular, according to State, the comprehensive USAID/Egypt review
cited weaknesses in USAID/Egypt's mission performance monitoring system
that limited the mission's ability to strategically reallocate
resources away from programs that were not achieving their
objectives.[Footnote 16] According to one of the review's principal
authors, USAID/Egypt did not monitor its projects closely or frequently
enough to obtain the performance information needed. State recommended
that USAID make changes to the performance monitoring system, including
engaging consultants and producing more rigorous, succinct, and
integrated qualitative and quantitative measurements of performance at
all levels of activity.
MEPI officials told us that these observations made MEPI management
aware of the need to monitor projects' short-term performance and hold
project implementers accountable for results. MEPI's September 2004
project monitoring and management plan indicates that all project
agreements should include benchmarks and performance goals that reflect
the results MEPI hopes to attain, based on pillar-specific objectives.
The plan also states that, to prevent negative impacts on project
outcomes, staff should ensure that project implementers are on the
right track at all stages of project development and implementation.
However, neither MEPI's general strategy nor its monitoring and
management plan provides specific guidance regarding project
monitoring.
Unclear Roles and Responsibilities and Incomplete Information Have
Inhibited MEPI's Project Monitoring:
MEPI's ability to monitor the performance of its projects and measure
results has been limited by (1) unclear communication of monitoring
roles and responsibilities and (2) a lack of complete project
information.
Unclear Communication of Roles and Responsibilities Has Limited Project
Monitoring:
MEPI has not clearly communicated roles and responsibilities for
project monitoring in accordance with federal standards for management
control,[Footnote 17] and as a result, not all projects have received
the level of monitoring needed to measure results. According to MEPI
officials, MEPI project monitoring responsibilities generally would
include participation in project activities, regular review and
assessment of implementer performance reports, and regular feedback to
implementers on project performance. However, we found that some MEPI
administrative partners, particularly those overseas, have been
confused about their roles and responsibilities for project monitoring
and that some MEPI activities have been monitored sporadically or not
at all. Officials from 9 of the 14 U.S. embassies supporting MEPI
projects stated that they were uncertain of their roles and
responsibilities for monitoring MEPI projects and that MEPI had not yet
specified their monitoring duties. USAID/Washington officials told us
that USAID mission staff were expected to assist USAID/Washington in
monitoring MEPI projects that it administers. However, USAID mission
officials in Rabat, Morocco, told us that MEPI projects administered by
USAID/Washington were not being monitored and that they had not
received instructions for monitoring these projects. Officials at
USAID/Washington acknowledged that it had not performed many of its
monitoring duties in the field and stated that USAID/Washington is
currently working to ensure better communication and provide
instructions to the missions regarding their support of project
monitoring. In addition, MEPI and USAID officials in Washington, D.C.,
as well as MEPI regional office, embassy, and USAID mission office
staff, said that they were uncertain of the role that the MEPI regional
offices would play in monitoring MEPI projects. Although MEPI officials
generally expect that regional office staff will lead the monitoring of
projects that MEPI directly administers, currently only one of MEPI's
two regional offices has a monitoring specialist on staff.
In April 2004, the Department of State's Office of Inspector General
(OIG) expressed concern that MEPI was communicating inconsistent
priorities and causing confusion among a number of embassies. MEPI and
USAID officials in Washington, D.C., acknowledged that confusion exists
regarding roles and responsibilities for project monitoring. MEPI
officials stated that they were still defining, and working toward
agreement with USAID and other parties regarding, MEPI and its
administrative partners' respective roles and responsibilities. MEPI
officials also stated that on July 14, 2005, they signed an addendum to
an October 2004 memorandum of agreement (MOA), establishing a framework
for project management roles and responsibilities--including
monitoring--of MEPI and USAID officials in Washington and in the Middle
East and North Africa.
Incomplete Information Has Limited Project Monitoring:
MEPI's monitoring of project performance, in accordance with federal
standards for management control,[Footnote 18] has been limited by (1)
a lack of baseline information, (2) inconsistency among projects'
performance reporting requirements, (3) unverified project information,
(4) inconsistent communication of project information, (5) incomplete
project records, and (6) lack of access to project information.
* Lack of baseline information: Our examination of a selected sample of
MEPI project documents showed that for most of these projects, MEPI
lacked baseline information against which to measure their performance.
According to MEPI's strategy, baseline data are necessary for measuring
future progress on its projects, and MEPI officials told us that it was
important to establish these measurements at the beginning of each
project as the basis for determining project performance. However, of
the project agreements we received from MEPI and USAID for the 25
projects in our selected sample, only three project agreements
contained a requirement to establish a baseline, and none of the
projects reported baseline measurements. MEPI officials told us that
they were aware that they had not required baseline measurement in all
of their project agreements but said that they planned to do so in
future agreements.
* Inconsistent reporting requirements: MEPI project agreements do not
consistently require that implementers report on quantitative,
measurable performance indicators. As a result, some implementing
organizations report general project information instead of the
measurable indicators of performance that MEPI has stated are needed to
manage a results-based program. According to one MEPI official, some of
the reports are therefore too vague to be useful in monitoring project
performance. In our selected sample of 25 projects, a substantial
majority of the performance indicators required in project agreements
were qualitative in nature rather than the quantitative indicators of
project performance that MEPI has stated are necessary for managing
MEPI as a results-based program. Further, a February 2005 report by
USAID's OIG reported that 6 of 17 USAID/Morocco MEPI projects did not
have indicators to measure project performance.[Footnote 19] One MEPI
official told us that they sometimes negotiate requirements for
additional indicators informally over the telephone and in e-mail after
signing a project agreement. However, these informally negotiated
requirements are not formally documented, readily available, or tracked
by MEPI or the implementers. MEPI officials said that they are seeking
to acquire grant-tracking software that would facilitate the
documenting of agreed-on indicators and closer monitoring of
implementers' reporting on these indicators.
* Unverified project information: MEPI's ability to verify the
information reported in implementers' quarterly reports and to provide
detailed performance feedback to implementers has been limited, because
MEPI and its administrative partners have not consistently observed
project activities. In the sample we analyzed, only 8 of the 19
implementers we interviewed said that MEPI and its administrative
partners had made on-site visits to discuss and observe project
activities. According to embassy, MEPI, and USAID mission staff, they
often do not have time to monitor MEPI projects, including visiting or
observing project activities, because of conflicting demands on staff
time. USAID OIG's February 2005 report stated that, primarily because
of limited resources, the USAID/Morocco mission had not validated the
performance data reported by implementers.
* Inconsistent communication of project information: MEPI has
inconsistently communicated project information, particularly to
embassies and USAID missions overseas. Overseas embassy and USAID
officials stated that MEPI had not always informed them of important
project information, including when new projects were to begin in their
country of operation. USAID'S OIG February 2005 report noted that MEPI
and USAID/Washington had not always notified USAID/Morocco when they
awarded regional activities taking place within the country. As a
result, in some cases, embassy officials have had little or no
knowledge of some of the implementer's activities. Officials from two
embassies and one USAID mission told us that MEPI project implementers
had arrived in country expecting embassy and USAID assistance, although
the embassies and USAID missions had received little or no prior notice
of the projects' start or the implementers' needs. In another example,
in one country we visited, we arrived expecting to meet with a
particular project implementer but found that embassy officials there
were unaware of the project or the implementer's operations in country.
Further, when embassies have communicated with MEPI, MEPI has not
always been responsive. Three embassies stated that, since MEPI's
inception, MEPI had provided no response or guidance in response to
their regular reports on MEPI activities. However, according to MEPI
officials, embassies have not always responded to MEPI's
communications. For example, according to one senior MEPI official,
after the summer 2003 awarding of small grants through the embassies,
the majority of embassies administering MEPI projects did not respond
to December 2003 requests from MEPI for basic evaluative descriptions
of the projects the embassies were administering. According to this
senior official, the embassies' failure to respond to MEPI resulted, in
some cases, in MEPI's lacking records of actual activities conducted
and descriptions of successes and lessons learned.
* Incomplete project records: MEPI and USAID have not maintained
complete records for all of the projects that they administer, which
has limited their ability to monitor project performance. We found gaps
in records that the MEPI office in Washington, D.C., maintained for the
projects that it administered. For example, in our selected sample of
25 projects, MEPI's files for fiscal year 2003 projects that it
administered directly contained 44 percent of quarterly reports that
project implementers were to have submitted. MEPI officials said that
the grant-tracking software they sought to acquire would enable them to
track the submission of implementers' quarterly reports. Without such
software, the MEPI office has managed project data on Excel
spreadsheets and office calendars, using the incomplete copies of
quarterly reports that it has maintained since the program's inception.
MEPI officials in the past have asked implementers to provide copies of
records missing from their files. In addition, we found that USAID had
incomplete records for the projects that it administers for MEPI. For
example, in our selected sample, USAID's files for the fiscal year 2003
projects that it administered contained 63 percent of MEPI project
agreements with implementers and 62 percent of the quarterly reports
that project implementers were to have submitted. USAID officials
stated that their records were scattered in many locations--in the
various bureaus in Washington, D.C., that administer MEPI
projects[Footnote 20] and at USAID missions in the Middle East and
North Africa. In other cases, USAID has had to obtain copies of the
records from the implementing organizations themselves.
* Lack of access to project information: MEPI has lacked ready access
to information on USAID-administered MEPI projects, which has limited
its ability to monitor those projects' performance. According to MEPI's
strategy and officials, MEPI is responsible for ensuring the
performance of all projects that it funds, including those administered
by USAID. However, MEPI and USAID have maintained separate performance
and financial records, and MEPI and USAID officials stated that prior
to the July 2005 signing of the MOA addendum regarding monitoring roles
and responsibilities, they had not reached agreement on the sharing of
these records. Further, USAID officials stated that USAID has not
maintained records for MEPI projects separately from its records for
non-MEPI-funded projects. Some USAID implementers responsible for
implementing MEPI projects have included MEPI performance reporting in
their general reporting on the region, making USAID's extraction of
information on MEPI projects more difficult and time consuming. MEPI
and USAID officials said that they expected the recently signed
addendum to the 2004 MOA to facilitate the sharing of performance and
financial information.
Conclusion:
In accordance with the U.S. foreign policy of promoting democracy and
reform in the Middle East and North Africa , State established MEPI to
design and fund projects supporting political, economic, and
educational reform and the empowerment of women. However, despite
MEPI's strategic emphasis on monitoring projects' performance, a
failure to clearly communicate roles and responsibilities and a lack of
complete project information have hampered MEPI's monitoring of its
projects. In July 2005, subsequent to receiving our preliminary
findings regarding the need to communicate project monitoring roles and
responsibilities to its administrative partners, State finalized an
agreement with USAID that establishes a framework for roles and
responsibilities and coordination between the agencies. Although these
guidelines represent progress in clarifying roles and responsibilities,
it remains essential that specific monitoring duties be established
for, and communicated to, all parties involved in each MEPI project.
Without the ability to evaluate its projects' performance with
certainty, and lacking access to complete information, MEPI's capacity
to meet its strategic goals of producing tangible results and making
results-based decisions is limited.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To bolster MEPI's ability to monitor and evaluate project performance,
and to help ensure that MEPI achieves its goals of producing tangible
results and making results-based decisions, we are making three
recommendations to the Secretary of State. We recommend that the
Secretary of State ensure that MEPI managers:
* clearly delineate, document, and communicate roles and
responsibilities for project monitoring;
* systematically obtain, maintain, and communicate complete information
regarding all MEPI projects, including performance and financial data;
and:
* regularly assess MEPI's progress in communicating roles and
responsibilities and obtaining, maintaining, and communicating key
information.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report to the Secretary of State and the
Administrator of USAID for their review and comment. Both officials
provided written responses, which we have printed in appendixes III and
IV. State and USAID also provided technical comments that we
incorporated as appropriate.
Although State and USAID agreed with our recommendations, State
disagreed with the extent of our finding that it could not with
certainty evaluate its projects' performance; however, it did not point
out specific aspects of that finding with which it disagreed. State's
comments acknowledged our recommendations regarding bolstering its
ability to monitor and evaluate project performance. In its comments,
State said that its July 2005 agreement with USAID regarding project
management should improve the management, information flow,
documentation, and monitoring of USAID-administered MEPI projects. In
addition, State said that it would implement a monitoring and
evaluation timetable for every project, identify projects that require
on-site monitoring in the next year and assign responsibility to the
appropriate MEPI action offices.
State's comments also laid out other general steps that, if taken,
would help ensure more comprehensive project monitoring, including two
steps to guarantee complete and accurate project information: (1)
ensuring that files on every project are complete and (2) implementing
an integrated grants and project management database system. In
addition, State said that it would provide ongoing training in grants
and project management for staff both in MEPI Washington and at MEPI
regional offices and engage outside consultants to provide project
monitoring support where necessary.
State did not comment on our recommendation that it monitor progress on
clearly delineating, documenting, and communicating roles and
responsibilities for monitoring and systematically obtaining,
maintaining, and communicating complete information about all MEPI
projects.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days
from the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies of this
report to interested congressional committees and to the Secretary of
the State and the Administrator of USAID. We also will make copies
available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be
available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
contact me at 202-512-4128 or gootnickd@gao.gov. Contact points for our
Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on
the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to
this report are listed in appendix IV.
Signed by:
David Gootnick:
Director International Affairs and Trade:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
In this report, we (1) describe MEPI's structure for administering
projects and obligating funds, (2) examine MEPI's uses of the reviews
of U.S. bilateral economic assistance in the region, and (3) evaluate
MEPI's monitoring of its projects.
To describe the administration of MEPI projects and obligation of MEPI
funding, we examined budget and programmatic documentation provided by
State and USAID. This documentation included information on funding
levels and project administration for fiscal year 2002 and 2003
projects. We also interviewed State and USAID officials familiar with
MEPI budget and project administration, in particular for fiscal years
2002 and 2003. Although our audit generally covered MEPI activities
from December 2002 through May 2005, in reviewing MEPI's budget
information and project monitoring, we focused on data for fiscal years
2002-2003, because they were the most complete data that MEPI could
provide.
To describe MEPI's uses of the 2002-2004 reviews of U.S. bilateral
economic assistance to the region, we examined (1) State's and USAID's
joint reviews of programs in Egypt and West Bank and Gaza; (2) USAID's
reviews of democracy and governance for Algeria, Bahrain, Jordan,
Morocco, Tunisia, and Yemen; and (3) other supplemental information
provided by U.S. embassies and USAID missions in the region, including
mission performance plans and USAID country strategies. We also
conducted interviews with officials at State and USAID headquarters in
Washington, D.C.; officials representing embassies and USAID missions
in 9 of the 14 MEPI countries; and officials administering MEPI
programs in the territories of West Bank and Gaza.
To assess MEPI's mechanisms for monitoring its activities, we obtained
information from MEPI on all of its fiscal year 2003 projects,
including information on each project's pillar, MEPI partner,
implementing organization, funding level, project location, and project
type (country-specific or regionwide). From this information, we
selected a nonprobability sample[Footnote 21] of 25, or approximately
34 percent, of the 73 MEPI projects funded in fiscal year 2003. This
sample also represented about 63 percent of MEPI's $100 million in
fiscal year 2003 project funding. We used the sample to examine project
monitoring performed by MEPI and its administrative partners and
reports provided by project implementers. Our sample included
regionwide projects and projects from the countries we would be
visiting, projects with the highest funding levels for fiscal year
2003, projects administered both by MEPI and USAID, and projects from
each of the four MEPI pillars.
The documentation that we reviewed included project proposals, project
agreements, scopes of work and work plans, and quarterly reports for
the 25 projects. Our analysis of these documents clarified the nature
of MEPI's monitoring and reporting requirements and supplemented and
validated information that we obtained through interviews. We developed
a structured interview instrument to systematically collect data on the
25 projects, which included questions on implementer reporting
requirements, the use of performance baselines and indicators, and
feedback and verification by MEPI and its administrative partners. We
analyzed the interview data by developing categories for each relevant
response, using the categories to code the data, and tallying the codes
to obtain the number of projects to which each response was applicable.
We also interviewed officials from MEPI, USAID, U.S. embassies, and
implementing organizations in the United States, Bahrain, Egypt, and
Morocco regarding MEPI project monitoring. We selected these MEPI-
participating countries because (1) Bahrain is a high-income country
and does not have a traditional U.S. bilateral assistance program; (2)
Egypt, a lower-middle-income country, is one of the largest recipients
of U.S. bilateral development funding; and (3) Morocco, a lower-middle-
income country, was the largest recipient of fiscal year 2003 MEPI
funding. We also traveled to Germany during a MEPI regional conference,
where we met with embassy and USAID officials responsible for project
monitoring in 8 of the 14 MEPI countries and in the West Bank and Gaza.
In addition, we used U.S. government internal control standards to
assess relevant areas of MEPI's management control system that affected
project monitoring, including (1) roles and responsibilities of MEPI
staff and administrative partners in Washington, D.C., and overseas and
(2) information flow.
We conducted our fieldwork in Washington, D.C., and in Bahrain, Egypt,
Germany, and Morocco from July 2004 to May 2005 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: The Office of Middle East Partnership Initiative's
Organizational Structure:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of State:
Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear at the
end of this appendix.
United States Department of State:
Assistant Secretary and Chief Financial Officer:
Washington, D.C. 20520:
Ms. Jacquelyn Williams-Bridgers:
Managing Director:
International Affairs and Trade:
Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001:
JUL 22 2005:
Dear Ms. Williams-Bridgers:
We appreciate the opportunity to review your draft report, "FOREIGN
ASSISTANCE: Middle East Partnership Initiative Offers Tool for
Supporting Reform, but Project Monitoring Needs Improvement," GAO Job
Code 320287.
The enclosed Department of State comments are provided for
incorporation with this letter as an appendix to the final report.
If you have any questions concerning this response, please contact
Alina Romanowski, Director, Office of the Middle East Partnership
Initiative, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, at (202) 776-8570.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Sid Kaplan (Acting):
cc: GAO - Addison Ricks;
NEA - Barbara Simpson;
State/OIG - Mark Duda:
Department of State Comments on GAO Draft Report Foreign Assistance:
Middle East Partnership Initiative Offers for Supporting Reform, but
Project Monitoring Needs Improvement (GAO-05-711, GAO Code 320287):
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on your draft report entitled
Foreign Assistance: Middle East Partnership Initiative Offers for
Supporting Reform, but Project Monitoring Needs Improvement.
Immediately after September 11, 2001 the President recognized that
success in the global war on terrorism would require addressing the
root causes of terrorism, particularly non-democratic governance,
corruption, poor education systems, lack of economic opportunities,
lack of political freedom, and discrimination against women in all
fields. To address these root causes, and to advance democracy in the
Middle East and North Africa, the Secretary of State created the Middle
East Partnership Initiative (MEPI) in December 2002. MEPI advances the
dialogue between the United States and the governments and peoples of
the Middle East and North Africa by charting new policies and
supporting programs that work towards political, economic, and
education reform, and women's empowerment. Since 2002) MEPI has funded,
in 15 countries of the Middle East and North Africa, 225 programs that
support the goals of full political participation, basic freedoms, good
governance, the creation of economic opportunities and open economic
systems, education systems that teach critical thinking skills and that
are open to all, and the full empowerment of women. These programs
support both systemic and institutional change and the community of
reformers within and outside of government. MEPI has supported more
than 70 civil society organizations in opening and extending the
political space in their home countries.
The Department of State welcomes the GAO report on the Middle East
Partnership Initiative (MEPI) and endorses its main findings. Over the
past nine months, the staff of the MEPI office in the Department's
Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs (NEA/PI) worked closely with the GAO
team to assist in the latter's efforts to evaluate our progress in
developing this critical Presidential initiative. We are grateful for
the cooperative relationship that resulted between the GAO team and
NEA/PI, as well as the candid exchange of information between the GAO
team and MEPI action officers in the field, both at the MEPI regional
offices in Tunis and Abu Dhabi and at the U.S. embassies visited by GAO
inspectors.
We concur with the GAO's conclusion that the Department of State has
effectively launched MEPI reform programs throughout the Middle East in
all four of the substantive areas identified by the President's Freedom
Agenda. While many of these programs are country-specific, many others
are regional, incorporating participants from several different
countries. Some are multi-million dollar flagship programs, many others
are smaller programs established under MEPI's rapid response grants,
and numerous others are local reform projects undertaken through MEPI's
small grants program, which is administered directly by U.S. embassies
and consulates in the region. All of these programs are results-
oriented and focused on promoting dynamic and structural reform. As the
GAO report correctly concludes, we have undertaken thorough reviews of
existing bilateral economic assistance programs in the NEA region and
used the results to tailor MEN programs to the reform needs in each
country and to target areas and countries not being addressed by other
U.S. agencies. For this reason, many MEPI programs are taking place in
countries in which there is no the U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID) mission or programs.
The report accurately recognizes that NEA/PI has established effective
partnerships with other bureaus at State, with other U.S. government
agencies, and with a wide range of non-governmental organizations
(NGO's), including the private sector, to carry forward the work of
this initiative.
The Department of State disagrees with the extent of GAO's finding that
MEPI cannot with certainty evaluate its projects' performance. As
referenced in the report, NEA/PI has developed an official five-phase
project monitoring and management plan that is integrated into all
projects directly managed by NEA/PI. This process includes: projects
designed with performance indicators, benchmarks, and monitoring and
evaluation plans; desk monitoring; on-site monitoring; and quarterly
performance evaluations. NEA/PI's commitment to this hands-on
management and monitoring has, for example, resulted in a shift in the
way we do business with USAID. In too many cases, after our first year
of operations, it became clear that utilizing USAID mechanisms
complicated our ability to monitor results directly. We have,
therefore, significantly reduced the percentage of MEPI funds
programmed through USAID. From a high of 55 percent of funds obligated
through USAID in FY 2002-FY 2003, we are now only obligating 13 percent
of FY 2004-FY 2005 funds through USAID. This approach gives MEPI
greater flexibility, oversight, and accountability and allows for a
more dynamic response to reform developments in the region.
NEA/PI acknowledges the GAO recommendations that we find ways to
continue improving the monitoring and evaluation of project
performance, particularly for those projects directly managed by other
agencies, both by more clearly delineating roles and responsibilities
for monitoring and maintaining more complete information on performance
and financial data for each MEPI- sponsored program. Toward that goal,
as a complement to the MOA signed between NEA/PI and USAID in October
2004, we concluded an addendum in July 2005 establishing Administrative
Service Requirements and Coordination Guidelines to provide a specific
framework for the roles and responsibilities of NEA/PI and USAID for
MEPI programs administered through USAID mechanisms. This agreement
should improve the management, information flow, documentation and
monitoring of USAID-implemented MEPI programs.
NEA/PI is also taking the following steps to ensure continued
comprehensive program monitoring and evaluation:
* ensuring that files on every project are complete to allow for the
most effective periodic reviews of the status of activities and the
success/shortcomings of each project;
* implementing a monitoring/evaluation timetable for every project that
identifies which projects require on-site monitoring in the next year
and assigns responsibility to the appropriate MEPI action office;
* providing ongoing training in grants and project management for staff
both in NEA/PI and at MEPI regional offices;
* engaging outside consultants to provide project monitoring/evaluation
support, where necessary; and:
* implementing an integrated grants and program management database
system.
As the GAO report illustrates, MEPI, in just two years of existence,
has become an important and high-profile U.S. foreign policy effort for
promoting reform and democracy in this critical region of the world. We
have also undertaken to redirect existing U.S. government assistance
programs to ensure our resources are effectively promoting freedom and
reform. We look forward to continuing to develop innovative, effective
and meaningful assistance programs in this regard.
The following are our comments on the Department of State's letter
dated July 22, 2005.
GAO Comments:
1. State commented that it agreed with GAO's conclusion that the
Department of State has effectively launched MEPI reform programs.
However, GAO did not audit the effectiveness of MEPI projects and did
not present such a conclusion in this report.
2. State commented that our report recognized that MEPI had established
effective partnerships with other bureaus at State, with other U.S.
government agencies, and with a wide range of nongovernmental
organizations (NGOs), including the private sector. However, our report
did not present such a conclusion. Our report describes rather than
assesses the relationships between MEPI and other U.S. government and
nongovernment entities.
3. State said that it disagreed with the extent of our finding that
MEPI cannot with certainty evaluate its projects' performance, but it
did not specify aspects of that finding with which it disagreed.
State's comments acknowledged our recommendations regarding bolstering
its ability to monitor and evaluate project performance and laid out
general steps that, if taken, would help ensure more comprehensive
project monitoring. For example, State said that it would ensure the
completion of every project's files, to allow for periodic reviews of
activity status and project outcomes and shortcomings; engage outside
consultants to provide project monitoring and evaluation support, where
necessary; and implement an integrated grants and program management
database system. In addition, State pointed out that, subsequent to
receiving our preliminary findings in May, it finalized, on July 14,
2005, an addendum to an October 2004 memorandum of agreement (MOA) with
USAID on USAID's administration of MEPI projects. This MOA addendum
establishes a framework for roles and responsibilities and coordination
between State and USAID. In its comments, State said that this
agreement should improve the management, information flow,
documentation, and monitoring of USAID-administered MEPI projects.
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Comments from the U.S. Agency for International
Development:
U.S. AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT:
July 21, 2005:
Mr. David Gootnick:
Director:
International Affairs and Trade:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Mr. Gootnick:
I am pleased to provide the U.S. Agency for International Development's
(USAID) response to the GAO report entitled Middle East Partnership
Initiative Offers Tool For Supporting Reform, but Project Monitoring
Needs Improvement (GAO-05-711). Since the inception of the Middle East
Partnership Initiative (MEPI) in 2002, USAID has worked closely and
will continue to work closely with the State Department's Near East
Asia Bureau as a partner in advancing reform efforts and promoting
freedom and democracy in the Middle East region. And, as noted in the
report, we have carefully evaluated our country programs and realigned
resources to address the most pressing reform issues.
USAID agrees with the report's primary recommendations that a clearer
delineation of roles and responsibilities is needed between MEPI and
its partners as well as improved collection and maintenance of
performance and financial information. It is important to note that we
have recently finalized guidelines that outline roles and
responsibilities to ensure improved coordination and communication
between the Department of State and USAID in the implementation of MEPI
activities. We are working with our missions in the Middle East to
ensure the effective implementation, monitoring and evaluation of MEPI
activities. To this end, USAID is using resources recently received
from the Department of State to support the administration of MEPI
activities. These resources are essential for USAID to effectively and
responsibly manage and oversee MEPI-funded activities.
USAID believes that many of the management challenges raised in the
report highlights the difficulties for the U.S. government in carrying
out similar but separate foreign assistance programs. This requires
substantial coordination among U.S. government agencies as we move
forward with the collective objective of promoting reform in the Middle
East region.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the GAO report and for the
courtesies extended by your staff in the conduct of this review.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
John Streufert:
Acting Assistant Administrator:
Bureau for Management:
[End of section]
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
David Gootnick (202) 512-3149:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the individual named above, Zina Merritt (Assistant
Director) as well as David Dornisch, Suzanne Dove, Reid Lowe, Grace
Lui, and Addison Ricks made key contributions to this report.
FOOTNOTES
[1] MEPI's budget is authorized for a period of 2 consecutive fiscal
years. The funds must be obligated within this period and spent within
5 years after the end of the second fiscal year.
[2] MEPI operates in Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait,
Lebanon, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, the United Arab
Emirates, the West Bank and Gaza, and Yemen.
[3] These programs included those operated by USAID in Egypt, Jordan,
Lebanon, Morocco, the West Bank and Gaza, and Yemen.
[4] Performance monitoring is the periodic tracking of selected
measures of project performance and the regular reporting of these
measures to managers and other specified audiences. Objective
information is thus provided to managers and policymakers to improve
decision making and strengthen performance and accountability. [See J.
S. Wholey, H. P. Hatry, and K. E. Newcomer, Handbook of Practical
Program Evaluation, 2nd ed. (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2004), p. 99.]
[5] In this report, "obligating funds" refers to the awarding of MEPI
funds by MEPI and its administrative partners (i.e., embassies; USAID
headquarters in Washington, D.C.; and USAID missions overseas).
[6] Although our selection of MEPI projects covered 63 percent of total
project funding for fiscal year 2003, these results cannot be projected
to all MEPI projects. For more information, see appendix I.
[7] We determined that the budget data were sufficiently reliable for
the purposes of this audit.
[8] We conducted interviews with U.S. officials who administer programs
in Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Morocco, the United
Arab Emirates, the West Bank and Gaza, and Yemen. (MEPI assistance to
Gaza and to Arab-Israelis in Israel is supported by the U.S. Embassy in
Israel; projects in the West Bank are supported by the U.S. Consulate
in Jerusalem.)
[9] In this report, "administrative partners" refers to U.S. government
entities--embassies, USAID headquarters, and USAID missions--to which
MEPI has delegated project administration responsibilities.
[10] Although Iraq is not included in MEPI's area of operation and MEPI
currently has no plans to implement projects in Iraq, MEPI has provided
funding for Iraqi citizens to attend several regional training
programs.
[11] In fiscal year 2002, MEPI received an initial $29 million of
fiscal year 2002 funding, of which $20 million came from an emergency
supplemental appropriation, $5 million from the U.S.-Middle East
Democracy Fund, and $4 million from the U.S.-North African Economic
Partnership. In fiscal year 2003, MEPI received a total of $100
million, $90 million of which came from an emergency supplemental
appropriation, $4 million from the U.S.-Middle East Democracy Fund, $3
million from the U.S.-North African Economic Partnership, and $3
million reprogrammed within Economic Support Fund. In fiscal year 2004,
MEPI received a $90 million appropriation, which was reduced to $89.4
million after the rescission (P.L. 108-199). In fiscal year 2005, MEPI
received $75 million, which was reduced to $74.4 million after the
rescission (P.L. 108-447).
[12] In support of this effort, from June 2003 to February 2004, USAID
conducted reviews of democracy and governance in Algeria, Bahrain,
Jordan, Morocco, Tunisia, and Yemen. In addition, USAID organized
technical workshops on rule of law, parliamentary strengthening, and
political parties and elections and commissioned a report on Morocco's
technical assistance needs for the negotiation and implementation of
its Free Trade Agreement with the United States.
[13] These agencies included, among others, USAID and the Departments
of Agriculture, Commerce, Education, and the Treasury.
[14] The U.S. government entities that implement MEPI projects include
the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Labor, and the
Treasury; Customs and Border Protection; the Environmental Protection
Agency; the Food and Drug Administration; and the Patent and Trademark
Office.
[15] MEPI has distributed funding to NGOs and the private sector
through cooperative agreements and various grants. Applications for
continuation grants funded under these awards beyond the initial budget
period are considered on a noncompetitive basis for an additional year,
subject to availability of funds, satisfactory progress of the grantee,
and a determination that continued funding would be in the best
interest of the U.S. government.
[16] State reported the results of the State-USAID review of USAID/
Egypt's assistance program to Congress in May 2004, in accordance with
the directive issued by the House Committee on Appropriations report
accompanying the 2003 Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related
Programs Appropriations Bill. H.R. Rep. No. 107-663, at 43 (2002).
[17] According to federal management control standards, organizations
should clearly communicate key areas of authority and responsibility.
See GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/
AIMD-00-21.3.1 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 1, 1999) and Internal Control
Management and Evaluation Tool, GAO-01-1008G (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 1,
2001).
[18] Federal management control standards require the maintenance and
communication of relevant, reliable, and timely project performance and
financial data. See GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 and GAO-01-1008G.
[19] USAID Office of Inspector General, Audit of USAID/Morocco's
Management of Activities Under the Middle East Partnership Initiative,
6-608-05-001-P (Cairo, Egypt: 2005).
[20] USAID's Bureau for Asia and the Near East; Bureau for Democracy,
Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance; and the Bureau for Economic
Growth, Agriculture, and Trade administer MEPI projects at USAID.
[21] The limitations of a nonprobability sample are that results cannot
be used to generalize to a population, because some elements of the
population being studied have no chance or an unknown chance of being
selected as part of the sample.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office
441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director,
NelliganJ@gao.gov
(202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office,
441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
