    Foreign Assistance: Enhanced Coordination and Better Methods to
    Assess the Results of U.S. International Basic Education Efforts
    Are Needed (30-MAR-07, GAO-07-523).

    Pub. L. No. 109-102, section 567, mandated that GAO analyze U.S.
    international basic education efforts overseas. In this report,
    GAO (1) describes U.S. agencies' basic education activities and
    how the agencies plan them; (2) examines U.S. coordination of
    basic education efforts among U.S. agencies, and with host
    governments and international donors; and (3) examines how U.S.
    agencies assess the results of their basic education programs. In
    conducting this work, GAO obtained and analyzed relevant
    agencies' documents and met with U.S. and foreign government
    officials and nongovernmental organizations, traveling to
    selected recipient countries.
    -------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
    REPORTNUM:   GAO-07-523
        ACCNO:   A67587
      TITLE:     Foreign Assistance: Enhanced Coordination and Better
    Methods to Assess the Results of U.S. International Basic
    Education Efforts Are Needed
         DATE:   03/30/2007
      SUBJECT:   Agency missions
    	     Education
    	     Federal funds
    	     Foreign aid programs
    	     Foreign governments
    	     Interagency relations
    	     Performance measures
    	     Program evaluation
    	     Schools
    	     Strategic planning
    	     International cooperation
    	     Development assistance programs
    	     Program goals or objectives

    ******************************************************************
    ** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
    ** GAO Product.                                                 **
    **                                                              **
    ** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
    ** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
    ** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
    **                                                              **
    ** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
    ** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
    ** document's contents.                                         **
    **                                                              **
    ******************************************************************
    GAO-07-523

         * [1]Report to Congressional Committees

              * [2]March 2007

         * [3]FOREIGN ASSISTANCE

              * [4]Enhanced Coordination and Better Methods to Assess the Results
                of U.S. International Basic Education Efforts Are Needed

         * [5]Contents

              * [6]Results in Brief
              * [7]Background

                   * [8]U.S. Agencies Fund International Basic Education-Related
                     Programs

                        * [9]USAID Funded the Vast Majority of International
                          Basic Education Programs

                   * [10]Special Initiatives Related to International Basic
                     Education

              * [11]State and USAID Recently Developed Strategic Planning Goals
                Relating to Basic Education; Other Agencies Support Basic
                Education- Related Activities to Achieve Agency- Specific Mission
                Goals

                   * [12]State and USAID Strategic Plan Includes Broad Education
                     Goals
                   * [13]State and USAID Have Implemented Basic Education
                     Activities That Align with Their Strategic Plans

                        * [14]State's Programs Target the Middle East and Muslim
                          Countries
                        * [15]USAID Programs Support Education Strategic
                          Objectives; Resources Correspond with U.S. Strategic
                          Priorities

                             * [16]USAID Programs Support Education Strategy
                             * [17]USAID Resources Directed at Strategic Partners
                               of U.S. Foreign Priorities

                   * [18]Other Agencies Conduct Basic Education-Related
                     Activities in Support of Their Missions

                        * [19]Department of Agriculture
                        * [20]Department of Defense
                        * [21]Department of Labor
                        * [22]The Peace Corps
                        * [23]Millennium Challenge Corporation

              * [24]Agencies Did Not Always Coordinate International Basic
                Education-Related Activities, Which Resulted in Some Missed
                Opportunities to Collaborate and Maximize Resources

                   * [25]The United States Lacked a Government-Wide Mechanism to
                     Coordinate International Basic Education Activities
                   * [26]Interagency Coordination in the Eight Countries We
                     Visited Varied

                        * [27]USAID and DOL Country Coordination
                        * [28]USAID and Peace Corps
                        * [29]USAID and DOD

                   * [30]The Level of U.S. Coordination with Host Governments and
                     Other Donors Varied

              * [31]Assessing Basic Education Programs' Quality Results Is
                Difficult

                   * [32]Most Agencies Use Output Measures to Assess Results

                        * [33]USAID's Process for Collecting and Using
                          Performance Measures

                   * [34]USAID Faces Challenges Assessing Quality-Related
                     Outcomes

                        * [35]Collecting Country-Level Data on Quality Remains a
                          Challenge for USAID
                        * [36]USAID Is Developing Methods to Better Measure
                          Improved Educational Quality

                   * [37]Other Agencies Measure Progress Related to Their
                     Respective Missions
                   * [38]State's Office of the DFA Is Planning to Address
                     Improving Interagency Coordination and Performance Measures
                     for All Foreign Assistance

                        * [39]DFA Plans to Improve Coordination of Foreign
                          Assistance, Including Basic Education
                        * [40]DFA Is Considering Methods for Measuring Program
                          Outcomes

              * [41]Conclusions
              * [42]Recommendations for Executive Action
              * [43]Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

         * [44]Scope and Methodology
         * [45]Recipient Countries of Activities Related to International Basic
           Education During Fiscal Year 2006
         * [46]Recipient Countries of USAID Basic Education Assistance, Funding
           Levels, and Selected World Bank's Indicators
         * [47]List of International Basic Education Projects Reviewed
         * [48]Analysis of the Performance Measures in Documentation for Selected
           International Basic Education Programs
         * [49]Comments from the Department of State

              * [50]GAO Comments

         * [51]Comments from the U.S. Agency for International Development
         * [52]Comments from the U.S. Department of Agriculture

              * [53]GAO Comments

         * [54]GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
         * [55]PDF6-Ordering Information.pdf

              * [56]Order by Mail or Phone

    Report to Congressional Committees

    March 2007

    FOREIGN ASSISTANCE

    Enhanced Coordination and Better Methods to Assess the Results of U.S.
    International Basic Education Efforts Are Needed

    Contents

    Tables

    Figures

    Abbreviations

    March 30, 2007 Letter

    The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy
    Chairman
    The Honorable Judd Gregg
    Ranking Minority Member
    Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs
    Committee on Appropriations
    United States Senate

    The Honorable Nita M. Lowey
    Chairwoman
    The Honorable Frank R. Wolf
    Ranking Minority Member
    Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs
    Committee on Appropriations
    House of Representatives

    Education contributes to the advancement of developmental goals worldwide
    as it impacts individual development, economic growth, poverty reduction,
    and democratic governance. According to the United Nations Educational,
    Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the international community
    has made progress in expanding access to basic education in the past 10
    years in every region of the world. However, in 2004, more than 77 million
    children worldwide, particularly those who live in rural areas and come
    from poor households, did not attend school. In addition, almost 780
    million adults--one in five worldwide--two-thirds of whom are women, lack
    minimum literacy skills.^1 In some countries, improved access to basic
    education has been achieved through increasing student to teacher
    ratios--a factor that can negatively impact the quality of education.
    According to the United States Agency for International Development
    (USAID), poor educational quality causes many children to repeat grades
    and eventually drop out of school, often before gaining basic education
    skills such as numeracy and literacy.^2

    Several U.S. agencies, primarily USAID, fund and implement basic
    education-related programs overseas, using nongovernmental organizations
    (NGOs),^3 private organizations, and education service providers (such as
    universities) to implement the programs in country. These efforts include
    programs aimed at improving primary education, secondary education,
    literacy training for adults or out-of-school adolescents, early childhood
    development, or training for teachers at any of these levels.^4 From
    fiscal years 2001 through 2006, USAID, the Departments of State (State)
    and Defense (DOD), and the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC)
    allocated^5 more than $2.2 billion to support U.S. international basic
    education-related efforts. During this same period, the Departments of
    Agriculture (USDA) and Labor (DOL) allocated an estimated more than $1
    billion to programs that included basic education as a component, along
    with support to other related aspects such as providing food to maternal
    health centers and providing job training for older children to combat
    child labor.

    As mandated in Pub. L. No. 109-102, section 567, this report provides an
    analysis of U.S.-funded international basic education programs.
    Specifically, this report (1) describes U.S. agencies' basic education
    activities and how the agencies plan these activities; (2) examines U.S.
    coordination of basic education efforts among U.S. agencies, and with host
    governments and international donors; and (3) examines how U.S. agencies
    assess the results of their basic education programs.

    In conducting our work, we analyzed strategic, budget, and programmatic
    documents describing U.S. international basic education programs and
    activities provided by State, USAID, USDA, DOD, DOL, the MCC, and the
    Peace Corps that covered fiscal years 2001 through 2006. In addition, we
    conducted audit work in Washington, D.C., as well as the Dominican
    Republic, Egypt, Honduras, Liberia,^6 Mali, Morocco, Peru, South Africa,
    and Zambia. We selected a nonprobability sample of foreign countries
    designed to ensure geographic diversity and representation of basic
    education programs from multiple U.S. agencies and international donors.^7
    We met with representatives from State, USAID, USDA, DOD, DOL, the MCC,
    and the Peace Corps; officials representing embassies and USAID missions
    in the countries visited; officials administering international basic
    education programs; and officials from foreign governments, NGOs, the
    United Nations (UN), and other international organizations. Furthermore,
    to assess U.S. mechanisms for monitoring U.S. activities, we analyzed key
    project agreement documents, performance reports, and evaluations for 40
    ongoing basic education projects in the eight countries visited. We
    performed our work from December 2005 through March 2007 in accordance
    with generally accepted government auditing standards. Appendix I provides
    a more detailed description of our scope and methodology.

    Results in Brief

    We identified seven U.S. agencies that support activities--in over 70
    countries from fiscal years 2001 through 2006--that are directly or
    indirectly related to increasing access to or improving the quality of
    basic education overseas. State and USAID have strategic goals specific to
    promoting improved education. The other five agencies conduct basic
    education-related activities in support of programs that address their
    broader mission goals. Basic education-related activities include, among
    other things, teacher training, student feeding, school construction, and
    efforts to raise awareness of the benefits of education. The State and
    USAID joint strategic plan for fiscal years 2004 to 2009 includes the
    broad goal of improving education globally, with a particular focus on the
    Muslim world, as well as support for programs to achieve the UN's
    Millennium Declaration Goal of universal primary education by 2015. The
    two agencies have implemented basic education activities that align with
    these plans. State, for example, through its Middle East Partnership
    Initiative (MEPI), supports activities that seek to improve access to
    basic education with a specific emphasis on girls and women in several
    North African and Middle Eastern countries and territories, while USAID
    supports various activities to increase access to and improve the quality
    of basic education and build the institutional capacity of host countries'
    basic education systems. The top recipients of USAID's basic education
    funding are predominately Muslim countries and countries of strategic
    interest to U.S. policy goals, including Afghanistan, Egypt, Ethiopia,
    Indonesia, and Pakistan. Several other U.S. agencies support basic
    education-related activities as part of their overall mission goals. For
    example, DOL supports education programs such as alternative school
    programs as a way to remove children from exploitative work, USDA provides
    school meals or take-home rations to students, and DOD constructs
    dormitories and schools to provide better access for children who have to
    travel long distances to attend classes.

    We found that agencies did not always coordinate in the planning or
    delivery of international basic education-related activities. From 2001 to
    2006, there was no government-wide mechanism to facilitate interagency
    collaboration and, as a result, we identified instances where agencies
    missed opportunities to collaborate and maximize U.S. resources. For
    example, USAID officials responsible for planning and managing USAID's
    basic education programs were not present at key DOL and USDA meetings at
    which the planning of overseas education-related activities were
    discussed, or were not aware of some agencies' basic education-related
    activities. In the eight countries we visited, we noted several instances
    where project implementers in the countries did not collaborate or take
    advantage of opportunities to maximize U.S. resources in areas in which
    they had similar objectives of improving the quality of education. For
    example, in several of these countries, DOL could have joined USAID's
    efforts to effect policy reforms directed at rural youth by using USAID's
    delivery mechanisms of radio and television programming, as well as
    printed materials to raise public awareness of child labor issues.
    Although State's Director of Foreign Assistance (DFA) has begun to address
    the issue of better coordinating all U.S. foreign assistance by bringing
    together core teams to discuss U.S. development priorities in each
    recipient country, it is unclear to what extent these efforts will be
    accepted and implemented by agencies whose foreign assistance programs are
    not under DFA's direct authority. In addition, we found that the level of
    U.S. coordination with host governments and other donors in the eight
    countries we visited also varied. We observed stronger coordination in
    countries with strong national commitments to education reform and formal
    donor working groups on education, as well as in those countries
    implementing activities in support
    of the World Bank's Education for All Fast Track Initiative.^8 We observed
    weaker coordination in countries that lacked a lead donor or host
    government commitment to convening donor meetings. Most donors that we
    interviewed acknowledged that further improvements in coordination could
    result in more efficient delivery of assistance. Without effective
    coordination, donors cannot easily monitor or assess the host government's
    progress toward achieving international goals, such as Education for All
    by 2015, one of State-USAID's strategic goals.

    While U.S. agencies we reviewed conduct basic education-related programs
    to achieve different goals, most collect and use output measures to assess
    and report on the results of their activities. Output measures are the
    direct products and services delivered by a program, such as numbers of
    schools built or children enrolled. USAID is the only agency with an
    education-specific goal of increasing access to quality basic education,
    and while USAID can measure education access through outputs such as the
    numbers of students enrolled in primary school programs, it does not, in
    many instances, measure education quality--a key goal of its programs.
    Outcome measures are the results of products and services provided, such
    as increased literacy and numeracy rates, which are indicators of improved
    education quality. Our analysis showed that USAID can report on some
    quality-related outcomes, such as primary school retention rates. However,
    it faces challenges in collecting valid and reliable data on student
    learning in areas such as math and reading. According to USAID and the
    UNESCO, student testing results are a good outcome measure of increased
    educational quality. To better assess its goal of improving access to
    quality education, USAID is developing a standardized test that could
    provide data on primary-level reading ability and would be comparable
    across countries. In addition, State's DFA plans to work toward developing
    methods to assess whether all foreign assistance programs are achieving
    their goals; however, these efforts are only in the early discussion
    phase. Without this information, agency officials cannot determine if the
    programs are achieving their strategic goals.

    This report contains several recommendations to the Secretary of State.
    Specifically, it recommends that the Secretary of State work with the
    heads of other U.S. executive agencies supporting international basic
    education-related activities in (1) improving interagency coordination of
    basic education efforts at headquarters in Washington and in recipient
    countries to facilitate better planning and allocation of U.S. resources
    and (2) developing a plan to identify indicators that would help U.S.
    agencies, to the extent practicable, track improvements in access to
    quality education.

    We received written comments on the draft of this report from State,
    USAID, and USDA (see apps. VI, VII, and VIII) indicating that they
    generally concurred with our recommendations. We also received technical
    comments on this draft from State, USAID, DOL, the MCC, and the Peace
    Corps, which we incorporated where appropriate.

    Background

    Basic education is defined in this report as all program efforts aimed at
    improving early childhood development, primary education, and secondary
    education, as well as training in literacy, numeracy, and other basic
    skills for adults or out-of-school youth. Basic education also includes
    efforts that facilitate and support such learning activities, including
    building host countries' institutional capacity to manage basic education
    systems and measure results, constructing and rehabilitating schools,
    training teachers, increasing parent and community involvement in schools,
    providing learning materials, and developing curricula.

    Education for All is a major goal of the international donor community. At
    Jomtien, Thailand, in March 1990, representatives of the global education
    community held the "World Conference on Education for All" and declared
    universal access to education as a fundamental right of all people. In
    April 2000, the "World Education Forum"^9 met in Dakar, Senegal, where
    delegates from 181 nations adopted a framework for action committing their
    governments to achieve quality basic education for all--including ensuring
    that by 2015, all children--especially girls, children in difficult
    circumstances, and those from ethnic minorities--have access to completely
    free primary education of good quality. The framework committed these
    nations to the attainment of six specific goals dealing with early
    childhood education, universal primary education, life-skills programs,
    adult literacy, gender disparities, and quality assurance. The United
    States supports this international commitment, as well as the UN's
    Millennium Development Goal--to achieve universal completion of primary
    school by 2015.

    U.S. Agencies Fund International Basic Education-Related Programs

    From fiscal years 2001 through 2006, USAID, State, DOD, and MCC allocated
    more than $2.2 billion to support U.S. international basic
    education-related efforts. See table 1 for these agencies' funding
    allocations specifically for basic education-related programs.

    Table 1: Agencies' Funding Allocations for Programs with International
    Basic Education-Related Activities

          Dollars in
           millions
            Agency       FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006  Total^d
    USAID^a            $161.6  $232.0  $339.2  $520.4  $413.0  $504.0 $2,170.3
    State^b                 0     0.8    14.7     8.9     2.8     2.0    $29.2
    DOD                   2.3     1.6     2.1     6.0     3.9     0.3    $16.2
    MCC                 N/A^c     N/A     N/A       0    12.9       0    $12.9
    Total^d            $163.9  $234.5  $356.1  $535.3  $432.6  $506.3 $2,228.6

    Source: U.S. agencies' data.

    Note: $0 indicates no allocated amounts. The Peace Corps is not included
    because it does not track funding by program sector.

    ^aFigures shown for USAID funding include funds transferred from State for
    USAID-implemented MEPI programs.

    ^bFigures shown for State's funding include funds for State-implemented
    MEPI programs.

    ^cN/A: not applicable because the MCC was not established until 2004.

    ^dTotals may not add due to rounding.

    During this same period, USDA and DOL allocated an estimated more than $1
    billion to programs that included a basic education component that
    supported their broader mission goals. For example, funding for USDA's
    Food for Education program includes basic education activities along with
    other components, such as providing maternal health centers. Similarly,
    DOL's funding for its programs to combat child labor combines basic
    education-related efforts and other activities, such as job training for
    older children and income generation opportunities for parents. In
    addition, the Peace Corps could not identify funding levels specific to
    basic education because it does not track funding by individual program
    sectors, rather by overall country programs. This is because volunteers
    sometimes implement projects in multiple program sectors. Furthermore,
    other than USAID, U.S. agencies do not have a standard, government-wide,
    formal definition of basic education or a requirement to report their
    funding of international basic education activities to a central U.S.
    government source. See table 2 for these agencies' funding allocations for
    programs with international basic education-related components.

    Table 2: Other Agencies' Funding Allocations for Programs with
    International Basic Education-Related Components That Support Broader
    Mission Goals

          Dollars in
           millions
            Agency       FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006  Total^a
    USDA               $178.3   $89.9   $93.1   $49.6   $89.7   $98.7   $599.3
    DOL                  81.0    77.5    80.1    75.9    72.3    53.6   $440.4
    Total^a            $259.3  $167.4  $173.2  $125.5  $162.0  $152.3 $1,039.6

    Source: U.S. agencies' data.

    ^aTotals may not add due to rounding.

    See appendix II for the countries receiving basic education-related
    assistance by implementing U.S. agency in fiscal year 2006.

    USAID Funded the Vast Majority of International Basic Education Programs

    From fiscal years 2001 through 2006, USAID funded the majority of U.S.
    international basic education programs, allocating more than $2.1 billion
    to implement programs in about 60 countries worldwide. USAID used
    appropriated funds designated by Congress for basic education and other
    supplemental appropriations.^10 In addition to the congressionally

    designated basic education funds,^11 USAID used other appropriated funds,
    including supplemental appropriations^12 and funding for MEPI activities,
    to fund basic education activities abroad. By region, Asia and the Near
    East received the highest level of USAID's allocated basic education funds
    at approximately $1 billion, followed by Africa at almost $750 million,
    Latin America and the Caribbean at around $272 million, and Europe and
    Eurasia at about $51 million. See figure 1 for a map of the 60 recipient
    countries of USAID's basic education funding, ranked by total basic
    education allocations from fiscal years 2001 through 2006.

    Figure 1: Recipient Countries of USAID Basic Education Assistance

    Special Initiatives Related to International Basic Education

    Since fiscal year 2001, the United States has launched several major
    education initiatives that direct missions to focus on specific types of
    basic education activities in certain regions, such as Africa, Latin
    America and the Caribbean, and the Middle East, to address educational
    challenges in those regions. Figure 2 summarizes these initiatives.

    Figure 2: Special Initiatives, Supported by the United States, Related to
    International Basic Education

    State and USAID Recently Developed Strategic Planning Goals Relating to
    Basic Education; Other Agencies Support Basic Education-Related Activities
    to Achieve Agency-Specific Mission Goals

    The State and USAID joint strategic plan for fiscal years 2004 to 2009
    includes the broad goal of improving education globally, with a particular
    focus on the Muslim world, as well as support for programs to achieve the
    United Nations' Millennium Declaration Goal of universal primary education
    by 2015. State and USAID have implemented basic education activities that
    align with these goals. Several other U.S. agencies support activities
    that directly or indirectly relate to increasing access to or improving
    the quality of international basic education.

    State and USAID Strategic Plan Includes Broad Education Goals

    State and USAID have strategic goals specific to promoting improved
    education. Although State and USAID have supported assistance activities
    relating to education for decades, neither agency had agency-wide
    strategies to guide these activities until early 2000. Moreover, State's
    September 2000 strategic plan only included references to improving
    education as part of the broader goal of promoting broad-based growth in
    developing and transitioning economies to raise standards of living,
    reduce poverty, and lessen disparities of wealth within and among
    countries. The State and USAID joint Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2004
    to 2009,^13 includes, for the first time for these agencies, education as
    a strategic goal. According to the strategic plan, State and USAID will
    promote improved education globally, with a particular focus on the Muslim
    world, as well as support the development goals of the UN's Millennium
    Declaration call for universal primary education by 2015. Working toward
    this UN goal, the plan calls for State and USAID to support programs that
    do the following:

    oPromote equal access to quality basic education. The strategy says that
    State and USAID would assist and encourage countries to improve their
    education policies, institutions, and practices in the classroom; give
    families and communities a stronger role in educational decision making;
    and focus their efforts on reducing barriers to education for girls.

    oImplement international education commitments. The strategy also states
    that both agencies will work with donor partners to implement the
    commitments made at the 2000 World Educational Forum in Dakar, the G-8^14
    Summits at Genoa and Kananaskis, and at the UN Conference on Financing for
    Development in Monterrey. In addition, the agencies are to help developing
    countries build their capacity to achieve the global Education for All
    initiative.

    State and USAID Have Implemented Basic Education Activities That Align
    with Their Strategic Plans

    Consistent with the joint strategic plan's education goals, State has
    implemented programs, mainly through MEPI, to target basic education in
    North Africa and the Middle East. As the largest provider of U.S. basic
    education assistance, USAID also supports activities that align with the
    joint strategic plan, as well as its 2005 education strategy that focuses
    on improving: (1) access to education, (2) quality of education, and (3)
    host governments' capacity to manage education efforts. In addition, USAID
    has allocated resources toward strategically important countries, as noted
    in both strategy documents.

    State's Programs Target the Middle East and Muslim Countries

    State generally supports education programs that align with the agency's
    broader foreign policy objectives such as promoting democracy and reform
    in the Muslim world. Primarily through MEPI, the agency supports
    international basic education activities aimed at increasing access to
    basic education, especially for girls and women, and improving the quality
    of basic education through teacher training, curriculum development, and
    community involvement in North African and Middle Eastern countries and
    territories. For example, through MEPI, State's Bureau of Near Eastern
    Affairs supports a "scholarships for success" program in Morocco to
    increase access to secondary schools for girls living in remote rural
    communities through the creation of girls' dormitories (see fig. 3). As an
    initiative directed by the administration, MEPI allocates resources for
    basic education programs in North African and Middle Eastern countries and
    territories. Under MEPI, basic education funds are allocated for country-
    specific and regional programs based on information from U.S. embassies
    and other U.S. agencies with regional programs that can identify areas of
    need, and through conversations with host governments. Between fiscal
    years 2001 and 2006, the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs allocated about
    $35 million in MEPI funding for 23 basic education-related projects in 11
    North African and Middle Eastern countries and territories. In addition to
    MEPI, during the same period, State's Bureau of Educational and Cultural
    Affairs funded one basic education project that allocated, in Indonesia, a
    total of $2.4 million in fiscal years 2004 and 2005 to fund multiyear
    scholarships for Indonesian teachers at the secondary and university level
    to study education in the United States.

    Figure 3: MEPI Supported Dormitory for Moroccan Middle School Girls

    USAID Programs Support Education Strategic Objectives; Resources
    Correspond with U.S. Strategic Priorities

    In the eight countries we visited, we found that USAID implemented
    programs that targeted the agencies' emphasized population of
    primary-level students and girls and aligned with its three main strategic
    objectives. USAID's resource allocations of top recipients of basic
    education funding from fiscal years 2001 through 2006 show consistency
    with U.S. priorities placed on strategic partner countries.

    USAID Programs Support Education Strategy

    Prior to 2005, USAID did not have an agency-wide education strategy and
    its education programming was generally guided over time by several agency
    strategies, policies, and operational directives. In April 2005, USAID
    issued an education strategy that prioritizes the broad education
    objective of increasing equitable access to quality education, with the
    more specific focuses on primary education and girls' education. The
    strategy directs that USAID focus on (1) increasing access to basic
    education, (2) improving the quality of basic education, and (3) building
    the institutional capacity of the host countries' basic education systems.
    This strategy also supports the broader State and USAID strategic goals of
    improving education globally with a particular emphasis on the Muslim
    world, as it emphasizes the importance of education in strategic
    countries, as well as implementing international education commitments,
    such as the Education for All by 2015 initiative.

    In the eight countries we visited, we found that USAID generally
    implemented programs that aligned with its three main strategic objectives
    and targeted the agencies' emphasized population of primary-level students
    and girls. According to USAID, as a matter of policy, USAID's efforts
    focus on increasing children's access to quality primary education because
    the quality and accessibility of primary education plays a critical role
    in determining whether children gain core skills, such as literacy and
    numeracy, and have a chance to gain further education.^15 In addition,
    USAID has a special focus on girls' education. Missions engaged in basic
    education are required to assess the extent of educational disadvantage
    faced by girls at the primary level in the host country and take further
    steps where this disadvantage is found to be significant. Seven of the
    eight missions we visited implemented projects to increase access and
    improve the quality of basic education for primary-school youth. However,
    USAID also recognizes the need for missions to have flexibility in
    planning and implementing programs, and taking into account both the
    conditions of the particular host countries and the activities of other
    donors in the country. For example, while the mission in Morocco continued
    to focus on girls' education, its basic education assistance shifted more
    toward middle schools, since the mission determined that high dropout
    rates among primary-school students were often due to the lack of access
    to quality secondary schools where those students would have continued
    with their education and because other donors were already investing
    significant resources into primary education in the country.

    Following are details about USAID's programs to support its three
    strategic goals: (1) increasing access to basic education, (2) improving
    the quality of basic education, and (3) building the institutional
    capacity of the host countries' basic education systems.

    oAccess: To increase access to basic education, USAID supports a wide
    range of programs, such as distance learning, girls' scholarships, and
    school construction, that increase the number of boys and girls who enter
    and remain in school, particularly underserved populations such as girls,
    the poor, children in rural areas, and out-of-school youth. To increase
    access, the agency often uses distance learning tools, such as radio,
    television, and other information and communication technologies, to
    deliver quality educational content to populations not accommodated by the
    traditional school system. Agency efforts to increase access to basic
    education also include, among other things, construction and
    rehabilitation of school facilities, girls' scholarships, and adult
    literacy programs. In six of the eight countries we visited (Egypt,
    Honduras, South Africa, Mali, Morocco, and Zambia), we found that missions
    implemented programs in support of this strategic goal. For example, in
    Egypt, Honduras, South Africa, and Zambia, USAID used distance learning
    programs, such as prerecorded lessons, to deliver educational content to
    preprimary, primary, and secondary school youth--particularly girls,
    children from rural areas, and poor children. In Egypt, Mali, Morocco,
    South Africa, and Zambia, USAID implemented scholarship programs for
    girls, while the mission in Egypt also supported the construction of
    primary schools to increase access and enrollment of girls in underserved
    communities. See figure 4 for an example of a USAID program aimed at
    increasing education access.

    Figure 4: Honduran Volunteer Teacher Using Prerecorded Interactive Compact
    Disk to Facilitate Seventh Grade Math Lesson

    oQuality: USAID also implements a wide array of programs to improve
    education quality. These programs are generally designed to improve
    teachers' subject matter knowledge and pedagogical skills, ensure the
    curriculum includes specific knowledge and skills relevant to students'
    lives, and provide learners with access to appropriate workbooks and other
    learning materials that complement and reinforce teachers' efforts.
    Typical forms of assistance include training teachers, along with
    technical assistance to strengthen the capacity of local teacher training
    institutions; promoting the adoption of teaching methods that involve
    students in the learning process; promoting improvements in curriculum
    content; helping host countries develop methods of student assessment; and
    providing learning materials, such as textbooks and portable libraries.
    All eight missions we visited implemented programs to improve quality,
    using a variety of the approaches described above. See figures 5 to 7 for
    examples of USAID projects aimed at improving education quality.

    Figure 5: USAID-Funded Primary School Teacher Training in South Africa

    Figure 6: Malian Teacher Demonstrating USAID-Funded Interactive Learning
    Method

    Figure 7: USAID-Funded Portable Library for Sharing Among Peruvian Rural
    Schools

    oCapacity building: USAID implements a wide variety of basic education
    programs to build host countries' institutional capacity to manage their
    basic education systems. Typical forms of assistance include training
    school principals in educational leadership and management; promoting the
    active participation by parents and parent associations in supporting
    school improvement; developing effective policy analysis units within
    education ministries; supporting the adoption and use of appropriate data
    and educational management information systems, as well as measures to
    enhance accountability and transparency in the use of public education
    funds; and the decentralization of educational decision making to local
    levels. All eight missions we visited implemented programs that either
    specifically focused on building the host countries' educational capacity
    or contained a capacity-building component. For example, in Zambia, USAID
    implemented a project to decentralize administration of the country's
    education management information systems. In Egypt, USAID implemented a
    project to support the country's decentralization efforts by rewarding
    schools and surrounding communities that are active in assessing their
    needs and successful in planning and implementing measures to improve
    education quality.

    Because many USAID programs simultaneously support multiple objectives,
    USAID could not provide a breakout of funding for its international basic
    education efforts by strategic objective, such as access or quality, or by
    program activity, such as teacher training. According to USAID, quality
    and access are interlinked in important ways, as when quality improvements
    lead to reduced grade repetition, accelerating children's progress through
    school and increasing access for subsequent students. Missions decide
    whether to concentrate their efforts on increasing access or improving
    quality and which program approaches to use based on their assessment of
    how they can achieve the most valuable results in light of country
    conditions. For example, in Mali, a country in which only about 50 percent
    of primary school-aged children are enrolled in school, USAID decided to
    focus its strategy on improving the quality of basic education based on
    the rationale that the greatest impediment to achieving universal access
    is the poor quality of education.

    USAID Resources Directed at Strategic Partners of U.S. Foreign Priorities

    USAID's resource allocations for basic education are consistent with USAID
    and State's efforts to more closely align foreign policy and development
    goals. According to USAID's April 2005 education strategy and USAID
    officials, the agency allocates resources based on the host country's
    needs, commitment, and overall development progress, while acknowledging
    the importance of geo-strategic states, such as some predominantly Muslim
    countries. USAID and State's joint strategic plan also states that their
    education programs will be particularly focused on Muslim countries
    following the September 11 attacks. For example, in Mali, a predominantly
    Muslim country, USAID implemented a girls' scholarship program in which it
    focused on girls in traditional, religious communities and also tried to
    engage local religious Muslim leaders in discussions on how the
    scholarship program would be structured and invited them to become members
    of the local management committee. We found that USAID has implemented
    programs to target strategic states; specifically, from fiscal years 2001
    through 2006, many of the top 10 recipient countries of USAID basic
    education assistance were strategic partners in achieving U.S. foreign
    policy objectives, including fighting the war against terrorism and
    promoting regional stability and democracy. Among these top 10 recipients
    were many predominantly Islamic countries, such as Afghanistan, Indonesia,
    Iraq, Jordan, and Pakistan, which did not receive any USAID basic
    education funding in fiscal year 2001, but received significant funding
    beginning in fiscal year 2002. These countries, along with Egypt and
    Ethiopia, all ranked among the top 10 recipients of basic education
    funding from fiscal years 2001 through 2006 and were all considered
    strategically important allies in the global war on terror, according to
    USAID officials and USAID and State operational plans. See appendix III
    for a list of recipient countries of USAID basic education funding from
    fiscal years 2001 through 2006 and selected educational indicators from
    the World Bank.^16

    USAID began basic education programs in the war-affected countries of Iraq
    and Afghanistan to support efforts to facilitate their transition to more
    stable, democratic, and productive states. In 2002, following the defeat
    of the Taliban, USAID started a basic education program in Afghanistan,
    which originally focused on four areas: textbook production and
    distribution, radio-based teacher training, accelerated learning for
    over-age and out-of-school students, and school construction and
    rehabilitation. USAID's current efforts in Afghanistan focus on improving
    the quality of the country's basic education system through teacher
    training. In May 2003, in the immediate aftermath of initial combat
    operations in Iraq, USAID program efforts supported the resumption of
    school through the rehabilitation of classrooms and the provision of
    educational materials. However, according to USAID officials, the
    mission's efforts faced many challenges due to attacks on teachers and
    schools. While the USAID mission in Iraq has rehabilitated 2,962 primary
    and secondary schools since the conflict began in 2003, the mission does
    not know whether these schools are currently operating due to the hostile
    security environment. USAID's basic education efforts in Iraq have also
    focused on improving the quality of Iraq's basic education system through
    training primary and secondary school teachers, building the education
    ministry's capacity to manage and reform its education system, and
    increasing access to basic education for out-of-school youth through an
    accelerated learning program. These basic education activities were funded
    through supplemental appropriations specifically for Iraq. USAID ended its
    basic education program in Iraq in 2005 due to a change in mission
    priorities. According to a USAID official, the mission's current
    priorities are focused on community stabilization, local governance,
    economic governance, national capacity development, and private sector
    development.

    Other Agencies Conduct Basic Education-Related Activities in Support of
    Their Missions

    In addition to State and USAID, several other agencies implement
    activities that directly and indirectly support increasing access to and
    improving the quality of basic education in support of programs that
    address their broader mission goals.^17 These agencies include USDA, DOD,
    and DOL, as well as the Peace Corps and MCC.

    Department of Agriculture

    USDA's Foreign Agricultural Service funds and administers basic
    education-related activities through the provision of food assistance as
    part of the agency's broader mission to create economic opportunity for
    American agriculture by expanding global markets and to support food
    security worldwide. The agency supports basic education by providing
    school meals or take-home rations to students overseas and by facilitating
    the sale of food commodities to support basic education programs in
    communities. USDA's efforts, which target low-income, food-deficit
    countries, particularly focus on girls since they tend to have much lower
    school attendance rates than boys in many of USDA's recipient countries.
    In fiscal year 2001, USDA's Foreign Agricultural Service administered the
    Global Food for Education Initiative (GFEI), a pilot program with the
    overall goal of contributing to universal education by using school meals
    to attract primary-school children to school, keep them attending once
    enrolled, and improve learning. Through the program, USDA donated U.S.
    agricultural commodities and associated technical and financial assistance
    to the World Food Program, 13 private voluntary organizations, and one
    national government (the Dominican Republic, see fig. 8). The
    organizations then used the commodities in 48 school feeding projects in
    38 developing countries. For example, in the Dominican Republic, USDA
    donated wheat and crude soybean oil, which were sold locally, with
    proceeds used to carry out community-based school feeding and educational
    improvement programs managed by local NGOs. In fiscal year 2003, the GFEI
    was continued under USDA's McGovern-Dole International Food for Education
    and Child Nutrition Program (Food for Education). The Food for Education
    (FFE) program also provides nutrition programs for pregnant women, nursing
    mothers, infants, and preschool children to sustain and improve the health
    and learning capacity of children before they enter school. USDA allocates
    basic education resources to low-income, food-deficit countries that are
    committed to universal education. From fiscal years 2001 through 2006,
    USDA allocated $599.3 million to implement the GFEI and the FFE program in
    42 countries worldwide.

    Figure 8: USDA's Global Food for Education Program in the Dominican
    Republic

    Department of Defense

    DOD funds basic education activities through its Overseas Humanitarian,
    Disaster, and Civic Aid (OHDACA) program, as part of the program's broader
    goal to achieve U.S. security objectives, improve DOD's access to areas
    not otherwise available to U.S. forces, build local capabilities and
    cooperative relationships with a host country's civil society, and provide
    basic humanitarian aid and services to populations in need. DOD supports
    increased access to basic education through its construction of primary
    and secondary school buildings and refurbishment of existing school
    facilities (see fig. 9) in all of the Combatant Commanders' areas of
    responsibility. According to one DOD command, it often uses the
    constructed school facilities as centers to manage and coordinate the
    Department's natural disaster response activities. Recipient countries of
    DOD humanitarian assistance are identified through DOD guidance and with
    input from in-country U.S. agencies on host countries' need. From fiscal
    years 2001 through 2006, DOD allocated $16.2 million to fund 232 basic
    education projects in 50 countries worldwide.

    Figure 9: Restroom in Kyrgyzstan Primary School Prior to and After DOD
    Refurbishment

    Department of Labor

    DOL's Bureau of International Labor Affairs (ILAB) funds and administers
    international child labor projects with basic education components as part
    of its broader strategic goal to remove or prevent children from
    exploitative child labor and provide affected children with education,
    training, or both. Through its international child labor projects, DOL
    supports basic education by developing formal and transitional education
    systems that encourage working children and those at risk to attend
    school; raising awareness on the importance of education for all children
    and mobilizing support for improved and expanded educational
    infrastructures; and strengthening national institutions and policies on
    education and child labor (see fig. 10). The ILAB uses two mechanisms to
    implement these projects: (1) the International Labor Organization's
    International Program on the Elimination of Child Labor (ILO-IPEC), which
    removes or prevents exploitative child labor and provides affected
    children with education or training or both, strengthens the ability of
    host countries to address child labor, and raises awareness on the hazards
    of child labor and the benefits of education; and (2) Child Labor
    Education Initiative (EI), which funds projects that promote access to
    quality basic education for children at risk or engaging in exploitative
    child labor. The Bureau allocates basic education resources to countries
    based on its assessment of where there are child labor needs going
    unaddressed, and where the agency will have the greatest impact. During
    fiscal years 2001 through 2006, the Bureau allocated $440.4 million to
    implement basic education activities in 77 countries worldwide.

    Figure 10: DOL-Funded Primary School in Bangladesh

    The Peace Corps

    The Peace Corps supports basic education through the activities of its
    volunteers who work at the local level with host country governments,
    NGOs, and communities on projects aimed at promoting sustainable
    development at the grassroots level and enhancing cross-cultural
    understanding. The Peace Corps provides volunteers to work in developing
    countries where they have been invited and determines which programs best
    address a host country's need by consulting with host country officials.
    Education is the Peace Corps' largest sector.^18 The volunteers' basic
    education projects include training and mentoring teachers in K-12
    schools, using radios to deliver educational content to HIV/AIDS orphans
    and vulnerable children, and strengthening preschool programs through
    teacher training and mentoring. For example, in Zambia, Peace Corps
    volunteers assist the country's Ministry of Education in implementing a
    primary school interactive curriculum, which is broadcast over the
    national radio to increase access to basic education in rural settings
    (see fig. 11). During fiscal year 2006, 2,674 Peace Corps volunteers
    provided educational assistance in 52 countries worldwide.^19

    Figure 11: Peace Corps Volunteers Using Interactive Radio Instruction in
    Teachers' Workshop in Zambia

    In addition, the Peace Corps supports basic education activities through
    its Small Project Assistance (SPA) program, which provides hundreds of
    small grants to volunteers' communities to increase the capabilities of
    local communities to conduct low-cost, grassroots, sustainable development
    projects. For example, in Morocco, Peace Corps volunteers used SPA funding
    to construct latrines to increase children's attendance, particularly
    girls. This program operates under the terms of an inter-agency agreement
    between USAID and the Peace Corps. In fiscal year 2005, 57 Peace Corps
    posts approved about $766,000 to support 354 different SPA education
    projects.

    Millennium Challenge Corporation

    MCC supports international basic education as part of its larger mission
    to reduce poverty through economic growth in developing countries that
    create and maintain sound policy environments. The MCC provides developing
    countries with monetary assistance--through compact agreements and
    threshold agreements^20--to support a variety of development projects,
    including basic education. For a country to be selected as eligible for an
    MCC assistance program, it must demonstrate a commitment to policies that
    promote political and economic freedom, investments in education and
    health, control of corruption, and respect for civil liberties and the
    rule of law by performing well on 16 different policy indicators. For
    example, in fiscal year 2005, the MCC allocated $12.9 million to Burkina
    Faso, through a threshold agreement to fund a USAID-implemented pilot
    project with the objective to improve access to, and improve the quality
    of, primary education for girls in 10 provinces that have historically
    achieved the lowest levels of girls' primary education completion rates.
    The project entailed the construction of "girl-friendly" schools with
    canteens and community-managed child care centers; provision of textbooks,
    supplies, and take-home rations; teacher training; mentoring; literacy
    training for women; merit awards for teachers; and a societal awareness
    campaign on the benefits of educating girls. MCC also plans to provide
    funding for the implementation of basic education activities in Mali,
    Ghana, and El Salvador.

    Agencies Did Not Always Coordinate International Basic Education-Related
    Activities, Which Resulted in Some Missed Opportunities to Collaborate and
    Maximize Resources

    We found that agencies did not always coordinate in the planning or
    delivery of international basic education-related activities. From fiscal
    years 2001 to 2006, there was no government-wide mechanism to facilitate
    interagency collaboration and, as a result, at the headquarters level we
    identified instances where agencies missed opportunities to collaborate
    and maximize U.S. resources. Further, in the eight countries that we
    visited, we noted several instances where agencies did not collaborate or
    take advantage of opportunities to maximize U.S. resources in areas in
    which they had similar objectives of improving the quality of education.
    In addition, we found that the level of U.S. coordination with host
    governments and other donors in the eight countries we visited also
    varied. Without effective coordination, donors cannot easily monitor or
    assess the host government's progress toward achieving international
    goals, such as Education for All by 2015, one of State-USAID's strategic
    goals.

    The United States Lacked a Government-Wide Mechanism to Coordinate
    International Basic Education Activities

    We found that, for international basic education-related activities that
    we reviewed, between 2001 and 2006 there was no government-wide
    coordination mechanism to facilitate interagency planning and delivery of
    U.S. basic education assistance. While some agencies met periodically to
    discuss and plan specific basic education activities--usually those
    involving joint- or multiagency agreements--these activities often did not
    include all cognizant officials or agencies responsible for planning or
    delivering basic education assistance. As a result, at the headquarters
    level, interagency coordination was mixed and resulted in some missed
    opportunities to collaborate on the planning of U.S. basic education
    assistance. The following are some examples:

    oDOD guidance calls for Combatant Commands to coordinate Humanitarian
    Assistance Program projects with other agencies at the country level
    before they are submitted to the Defense Security Cooperation Agency
    (DSCA), which then forwards the program descriptions to State for review
    and concurrence. However, staff we spoke to within USAID's Economic
    Growth, Agriculture, and Trade Bureau (EGAT), which manages USAID's basic
    education activities, were not aware of DOD humanitarian assistance
    projects.

    oUSDA calls annual meetings with USAID's Food for Peace Office, State, and
    Office of Management and Budget officials to discuss and coordinate
    upcoming projects for its McGovern-Dole International Food for Education
    Program. However, staff from USAID EGAT do not attend these meetings, even
    though some of USDA's school feeding activities coincide with USAID's
    basic education activities.

    oDOL officials provided several examples of efforts to coordinate programs
    with other agencies, including USAID and State. For example, DOL's Office
    of Child Labor, Forced Labor, and Human Trafficking (OCFT) convenes annual
    meetings with State and USAID to discuss its upcoming programs, including
    those related to DOL's Child Labor Education Initiative. Until 2004, USAID
    had an informal focal point who attended these meetings. After this focal
    point retired in early 2004, DOL sent a letter to USAID in April 2004
    requesting a formal point of contact. According to DOL officials, USAID
    never replied to this letter. Since then, although DOL has regularly
    requested the attendance of USAID desk officers and technical staff to
    brief them on its upcoming projects, those USAID staff did not always
    attend, and those that attended may not have been the most knowledgeable
    about existing basic education programs. Although one member of USAID EGAT
    attended the February 2007 coordination meeting, there is still no formal
    USAID focal point for these meetings. In addition, DOL copies State on
    letters to foreign governments regarding DOL programming in their
    countries.

    oPeace Corps officials stated that the agency does not coordinate
    programming priorities with USAID in Washington because programming is
    determined by host governments, in collaboration with the Peace Corps,
    once the agency is invited to serve in country.^21

    oBeyond USAID's implementation of the single MCC basic education program
    in Burkina Faso, coordination between MCC and USAID was characterized by
    USAID and MCC officials as minimal, namely because MCC is not organized
    around technical sectors. However, MCC officials said that they share
    proposals and lessons learned with other U.S. agencies.

    oState's coordination of basic education activities with USAID at the
    headquarters level occurred primarily through the MEPI program, in which
    USAID serves as an administrative partner and manages over one-third of
    MEPI's basic education programs. This coordination included formal and
    informal meetings to discuss the results of joint State and USAID
    strategic reviews of existing bilateral development assistance in the
    Middle East and North Africa and the identification of reform areas that
    were not being addressed by other U.S. agencies.

    We have previously reported on the importance of collaboration among
    executive agencies in maximizing performance.^22 Officials at all of the
    agencies that we reviewed agreed that coordination of basic
    education-related activities could be enhanced. USAID officials believe
    that annual meetings involving all of the U.S. agencies involved in
    international basic education would produce better U.S. policy coherence.
    However, USAID does not have the authority to formally convene such a
    meeting. In June
    2004, in response to a fiscal year 2005 congressional directive,^23 USAID
    informed State it would develop an agenda for such a meeting if State, as
    a cabinet-level agency, would convene it, but according to USAID, State
    has not yet convened an interagency meeting on international basic
    education. Although State's DFA has begun to address the issue of better
    coordinating all U.S. foreign assistance by bringing together core teams
    to discuss U.S. development priorities in each recipient country, it is
    unclear to what extent these efforts will be accepted and implemented by
    agencies whose foreign assistance programs are not under DFA's direct
    authority.

    Interagency Coordination in the Eight Countries We Visited Varied

    During our fieldwork, we found several examples of good coordination among
    U.S. agencies implementing basic education projects. Among these examples
    were the following:

    oIn South Africa, the Peace Corps provided USAID with a volunteer to
    support the implementation of a USAID distance learning project. The
    volunteer assisted in improving teacher training models and in utilizing
    program content, in addition to providing ongoing technical feedback to
    the project implementer on the function and efficiency of the project's
    media delivery system. Additionally, DOD and USAID cooperated to provide
    signs bearing the U.S. and South African flags for display at project
    sites, including schools.

    oIn Mali, USAID allocated SPA funding for the implementation of
    community-based projects in communities where Peace Corps volunteers were
    working. In addition, the Peace Corps provided USAID with one volunteer to
    assist in USAID's implementation of a girls' scholarship program in the
    northern region of the country. Also, the U.S. embassy purchased 750
    radios for listening groups in the northern region, and 200 of the radios
    were distributed directly to a USAID distance-training program for
    teachers.

    oIn Morocco, the Peace Corps has used SPA funding to construct a library,
    school latrines, and residential student housing.

    oIn Honduras, a regional DOL program seeking to provide educational
    opportunities to children engaged in, or at risk of, exploitative labor
    incorporated an existing USAID distance-learning program into its set of
    14 pilot projects. In the municipality of this particular pilot project,
    children, aged 13 to 16, were quitting school after the sixth grade in
    favor of working on the local coffee farms. The objectives of the local
    DOL implementer were to reduce the working hours of these children and
    provide them with an opportunity to complete their primary-level
    education. The USAID distance-learning program was particularly suited to
    these objectives, as it was capable of targeting children in seventh
    through ninth grade, was aligned with the national curriculum and
    certified by the Ministry of Education, came with predesigned materials,
    and could be tailored to fit participants' scheduling needs.

    oIn the Dominican Republic, USAID and USDA, along with the local host
    government, coordinated to provide school lunches in order to increase
    primary school student enrollment. Originally begun under the GFEI in
    2001, the program continued under USDA's FFE program in 2004. In addition
    to the school lunches, activities under this program included repairs to
    existing schools, renovation of buildings and water systems, health and
    nutrition workshops, deworming, vitamin distribution to supplement
    nutrition, and animal husbandry activities to supplement incomes.

    oIn Zambia, the Peace Corps supplied over 20 volunteers to work with the
    USAID-funded implementer of a radio-based, primary-level, distance
    learning program. The volunteers focused on mentoring and training school
    committees in leadership and school management, with the hope that
    communities will become better equipped to support and maintain their own
    learning institutions. The volunteers also assisted the implementer in
    piloting new educational initiatives.

    Despite these examples of good coordination, we also observed several
    instances where agencies, particularly USAID and DOL, missed opportunities
    to collaborate and maximize their program efforts. In some of the
    countries we visited, we found that USAID and DOL implementers of projects
    to increase children's access to basic education did not take advantage of
    opportunities to collaborate and leverage resources when coordination of
    activities would have been of mutual benefit. In several of these
    countries, DOL could have joined USAID's efforts to affect policy reforms
    directed at rural youth by using USAID's delivery mechanisms of radio and
    television programming as well as printed materials to raise public
    awareness of child labor issues. Likewise, USAID could have utilized the
    Student Tracking System developed by DOL to monitor enrollment and
    retention rates in its sponsored schools. Additional examples of
    coordination between USAID and other agencies follow.

    USAID and DOL Country Coordination

    Unlike USAID, which had education teams in the countries we visited to
    coordinate and manage implementation of its education-related activities,
    DOL does not have a physical presence in-country and attempts to
    coordinate through other means. Specifically, DOL coordinates as follows:

    oAfter holding their annual coordination meeting with USAID and State
    staff, DOL planners in Washington, D.C., communicate by cable activities
    planned for the fiscal year to State staff at overseas embassies. These
    cables list DOL's planned projects, their prospective countries, estimated
    funding amounts, and a deadline for when the project Requests for Proposal
    will be made public. Although DOL's fiscal years 2004 and 2005 cables do
    not mention coordination with USAID in-country, the fiscal year 2006 cable
    lists one USAID/EGAT staff member as an addressee and requests that the
    information be passed to the local USAID mission "where applicable."

    oDOL is represented in country by selected State embassy staff that it
    informs of its upcoming projects through cables. State representatives
    serving in these positions that we interviewed appeared to have general
    knowledge of DOL's basic education activities in-country but did not
    appear to have detailed project knowledge that would be required to
    coordinate effectively with USAID. This means that DOL must rely on either
    these State embassy staff or its project implementers to coordinate with
    the local USAID mission.

    oIn its Solicitation for Grant Applications for basic education projects,
    DOL informs potential applicants of ongoing USAID efforts and expects
    applicants to implement programs that complement, and do not duplicate,
    existing efforts.

    Despite these efforts, coordination between local USAID missions and DOL
    project implementers varied across the countries we visited. For example,
    in Honduras, DOL's implementer was collaborating with the USAID mission in
    country to adapt the mission's distance-learning program to a child labor
    project. However, in Peru, the USAID mission lost its institutional
    knowledge of an existing DOL program upon the departure of its education
    team leader. The remaining USAID education team remained unaware of this
    project until the DOL implementer briefed the new USAID education contact
    3 years into the project's implementation. Additionally, in Peru, the
    USAID mission was not aware of a public DOL Request for Proposal to
    conduct new basic education activities in country. In Morocco, USAID and
    the local DOL implementers were aware of each other's programs but did not
    directly coordinate beyond minimal information exchanges. By contrast, in
    South Africa, a DOL implementer was unaware that USAID was also conducting
    basic education activities in-country. Similarly, in Zambia, the local
    USAID mission knew of a DOL EI program in country, but was unaware that
    the ILO-IPEC program also operating in country was DOL-funded. The
    turnover of agency and implementer staff in overseas locations may lead to
    challenges in coordination efforts.

    USAID and Peace Corps

    In Morocco, the USAID mission's strategy stated that projects to create
    rural dormitories for girls may be implemented in partnership with Peace
    Corps volunteers who would assist with the community's management of the
    dormitories and development of after school programs. However, the Peace
    Corps and USAID senior staff we spoke with in country had not considered
    such an idea during the actual planning and implementation of the girls'
    scholarship program.

    USAID and DOD

    USAID and DOD almost missed an opportunity to coordinate their
    construction of school dormitories in Morocco. Prior to 1999, the local
    USAID mission did not know that DOD was implementing humanitarian
    assistance projects in Morocco. At the time, USAID's basic education
    program in country had concluded that one reason rural girls were dropping
    out of school before sixth grade was that the middle schools were too far
    away from their homes. According to USAID officials, parents had safety
    concerns about sending their daughters to attend school so far away and
    were reluctant to make the financial sacrifice of having their daughter
    finish primary school if she could not also attend secondary school.
    Subsequently, USAID and DOD coordinated with local communities to build
    school dormitories for middle school girls in three towns. According to
    the USAID officer responsible for coordinating this initiative, the
    coordination between USAID and DOD resulted in DOD building five
    dormitories.

    The Level of U.S. Coordination with Host Governments and Other Donors
    Varied

    Coordination between the United States, host governments, and donors
    varied in the countries we visited. Coordination was stronger in
    countries, such as Egypt, Mali, Zambia, and Honduras, that possessed a
    combination of strong host government commitment to education reform,
    formal donor-led working groups specifically for education, and systems of
    mutual accountability, such as the World Bank's Education for All-Fast
    Track Initiative. For example, in Egypt, the host government was working
    closely with international donors to develop a new National Strategic Plan
    for Education. Under the leadership of USAID, each donor had assumed
    responsibility for developing a portion of this plan. Additionally, the
    major education donors in Egypt met monthly to discuss division of
    responsibilities and upcoming efforts. We observed a similar situation in
    Mali, where the host government had allocated 30 percent of its budget
    toward education--60 percent of which went to basic education--and worked
    with donors to establish a framework through which the donors could invest
    in specific education sectors. These education donors in Mali held monthly
    meetings among themselves, as well as separate meetings with the host
    government, and collaborated on strategic planning, action plans, and
    common progress indicators, among other issues.

    At the time of our review, Mali, Zambia, and Honduras had also
    implemented, or were in the process of implementing, systems of mutual
    accountability associated with the World Bank's Education for All-Fast
    Track Initiative. The Initiative provides for mutual accountability, where
    international donors provide coordinated and increased financial and
    technical support in a transparent and predictable manner, while host
    governments commit to primary education reform through the development of
    national education strategies in concert with the donors. Donors in
    Honduras met monthly and pooled their funding to provide direct budget
    support to the education sector to accelerate progress. According to
    donors, the pooled funding gave donors a means to ensure that the host
    government continued to implement the national education strategy. They
    stated that this is very important in countries where there is frequent
    political turnover. Although USAID usually does not give funds directly to
    government institutions, in Zambia, the USAID mission provides some funds
    to the Ministry of Education to support policy reform. The USAID mission
    also participates in high-level meetings and contributes to the
    decision-making process.

    Coordination between the United States, host governments, and donors was
    weaker in countries lacking a lead donor or host government committed to
    coordinating donor assistance. This included the Dominican Republic,
    Morocco, South Africa, and Peru. For example, in recent years donors have
    sought to strengthen local ownership of the education reform process by
    assigning host governments a key role in the donor coordination process,
    according to USAID. However, governments in several countries we visited
    lacked the capacity or will to hold such meetings. In Peru, for example,
    officials from bilateral donors and the host government stated that the
    concentration of donor efforts in rural areas working with regional
    administrators had isolated those projects from the national government,
    which tended to view project schools as "donor schools" unconnected to the
    larger education system. According to these officials, the disconnect
    between the central government and the bilateral programs inhibited the
    expansion of these programs to other areas and threatened their long-term
    sustainability. Similarly, in South Africa, the host government Ministry
    of Education had not called a donor meeting in almost a year and was not
    aware of all ongoing donor activities in basic education. In Morocco, one
    donor was unaware of the details of USAID's basic education activities,
    and both agencies had independently developed their own matrices of other
    donors' basic education projects, neither of which were updated or
    complete. By contrast, the host government in the Dominican Republic did
    call high-level donor meetings but discouraged the donors from meeting on
    their own. None of these countries had strong, donor-led coordination
    groups, with the exception of Peru, where donors had formed a formal
    coordination group, as well as an informal group of three donors,
    including the United States, focusing on decentralizing the host
    government's education system.

    According to USAID, host government commitment, the development of sound
    education strategies, and effective donor coordination are essential to
    reforming basic education. Most donors we spoke to acknowledged that
    further improvements in coordination could result in more efficient
    delivery of assistance. Without good coordination, donors, including the
    United States, cannot easily monitor or assess host governments' progress
    toward achieving Education For All by 2015--which is a strategic goal
    shared by State and USAID.

    Assessing Basic Education Programs' Quality Results Is Difficult

    While U.S. agencies we reviewed conduct basic education-related activities
    to achieve different goals, most assess and report on the results of their
    activities by collecting and using output measures--or the direct products
    and services delivered by a program, such as numbers of schools built or
    children enrolled. While USAID can measure education access through
    outputs such as the numbers of students enrolled in primary school
    programs, it does not, in many instances, measure education quality, a key
    program outcome measure--or result of products and services provided, such
    as increased literacy rates. Our analysis showed that USAID can report on
    some outcomes such as primary school retention rates but faces challenges
    in collecting valid and reliable data on student learning in areas such as
    math and reading, which, according to USAID, provides the most direct
    outcome measure of increased educational quality. Furthermore, USAID
    cannot compare its program results between countries. To better assess its
    goal of improving education quality, USAID is developing a standardized
    test that could provide data on primary-level reading ability and would be
    comparable across countries. Other agencies measure progress in relation
    to their respective missions. In addition, State's Office of the Director
    of Foreign Assistance plans to work toward developing methods to assess
    outcomes of all foreign assistance; however, these efforts are only in the
    early discussion phase. Without this information, agency officials cannot
    determine if programs are achieving their strategic goals.

    Most Agencies Use Output Measures to Assess Results

    We have previously reported that both output and outcome measures are
    extremely valuable for determining success of federally funded programs.
    Table 3 shows the measures reported by U.S. agencies in their fiscal year
    2006 Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) performance and
    accountability reports.

    Table 3: Agency-Wide Reporting on Basic Education Activities

        USAID and      DOL             USDA             DOD^b           MCC
         State^a
    ostudents   ochildren    onumber of mothers, onumber of    Broad "Rate of
    enrolled in removed or   infants and         schools built Reform for
    primary     prevented    schoolchildren      or renovated  Investing in
    school      from         receiving daily     in Iraq,      People"
                   exploitive   meals and take-home Afghanistan,  calculated
    ostudents   work         rations through the and the Horn  through changes
    completing               McGovern-Dole       of Africa     in:
    primary     ocountries   International Food
    school      with         for Education                     ototal public
                   increased    Program                           expenditure on
    oadult      capacity to                                    health
    learners    combat child
    completing  labor                                          ototal public
    basic                                                      expenditure on
    education                                                  primary
                                                                  education

                                                                  oimmunization
                                                                  rates

                                                                  ogirls' primary
                                                                  education
                                                                  completion
                                                                  rates

    Source: FY 2006 Annual Performance and Accountability Reports.

    Note: Peace Corps' small-scale, individual volunteer activities in basic
    education do not lend themselves to systematic measurement, and are not
    addressed in the GPRA reporting.

    ^aState and USAID share a joint strategy with the same goal of increased
    access to quality basic education. State assigns responsibility for
    accomplishing this goal to USAID.

    ^bDOD does not have specific goals for, or report on the educational
    effects of its assistance.

    USAID's Process for Collecting and Using Performance Measures

    USAID works with its project implementers to establish project performance
    measures before an activity is approved. These measures vary according to
    the objectives of the specific activities. The implementers then collect
    information on the required measures and submit quarterly or annual
    reports detailing progress against those measures to technical officers at
    the local USAID mission. Missions are then required to submit annual
    reports summarizing the progress of their activities, which often contain
    both specific output and outcome measures. Some of these measures are
    input to the Annual Report Application (AR) system,^24 which currently
    serves as the repository of USAID performance data from all USAID
    missions. Information in the AR system is used in USAID headquarters to
    support strategic planning, budget preparation, and performance reporting
    requirements. To report on its agency-wide progress, USAID reports on
    students enrolled in primary school, students completing primary school,
    and adult learners completing basic education. These output measures have
    also been used to determine which education programs have not met, met, or
    exceeded their output objectives. Some of the programs that have exceeded
    these output objectives have been terminated. For example, the joint
    State-USAID Congressional Budget Justification for the 2007 budget request
    showed that India and South Africa had exceeded their program goals for
    basic education. These countries were eliminated from the list of
    countries proposed to receive basic education allocations in the 2008
    budget request.

    USAID Faces Challenges Assessing Quality-Related Outcomes

    USAID, the primary provider of U.S. basic education assistance, is the
    only agency to track progress toward an agency-wide, education-specific
    goal--promoting increased access to quality basic education. However,
    USAID faces challenges collecting data on student learning, such as levels
    of reading comprehension, and cannot compare the results between
    countries. As a consequence, USAID is unable to report on the overall
    results of its basic education activities on the quality of education,
    which can deny planners valuable information needed to prioritize and fund
    future programs. Prior GAO work on assessing performance measures for
    federally funded programs shows that both output and outcome measures are
    extremely valuable for determining program success. USAID has begun to
    address this issue by developing systematic methods to compare education
    quality across countries and working with donors to identify common
    indicators for assessing student learning. In addition, USAID is
    considering the development and administration of new tests to assess
    learning outcomes in a select number of countries.

    Collecting Country-Level Data on Quality Remains a Challenge for USAID

    According to USAID and UNESCO, testing of student achievement is a good
    measure of educational quality--particularly tests that assess learning in
    core subjects such as reading and basic mathematics. However, obtaining
    this type of data remains a challenge for various reasons. According to
    USAID, designing tools to assess student learning and, particularly,
    deciding on which methodology or standards to apply, can be time-consuming
    and expensive when done independently by USAID implementers and may also
    not be cost-effective given the objectives of a program. For example, a
    USAID official at one mission stated that a change in teacher practices
    resulting from a teacher training program would be significant in itself
    and that not all basic education interventions should be expected to
    result in improved student achievement. Poor host-country infrastructure,
    unfriendly geography, or both can also make systematic nationwide testing
    expensive and difficult. In countries where the USAID mission has the
    benefit of working with an existing national student examination, those
    exams may not test to existing international standards, and any changes to
    the national examination and its underlying curriculum can be politically
    sensitive. However, in some countries such as the Dominican Republic,
    teachers' unions can be resistant to the use of tests to evaluate student
    learning for fear that they will be held accountable for the results. Even
    if a national exam is successfully administered, the host government may
    not have the methodological expertise necessary to reliably compile and
    analyze the resulting statistics.

    We examined 40 basic education programs in the eight countries we
    visited--including both USAID basic education programs and DOL programs to
    combat child labor through the provision of quality primary education--and
    found that about half of the 40 programs utilized outcome performance
    measures, or the results of products and services. These included, among
    other things, increased student performance, improved instructional
    methods, and increased community participation. Not all of these outcome
    measures were related to education quality. For example, DOL projects
    contained outcome measures specific to child labor, such as media coverage
    and local awareness of child labor issues. Most of the programs that
    utilized outcome measures set baselines and targets for these measures.
    All 12 of the Department of Labor programs we examined reported outcome
    measures compared with approximately one-third of the 28 USAID programs
    that did so. The remaining 19 USAID programs did not use outcome measures.
    See appendix V for more details on our analysis.

    According to USAID and UNESCO, testing of student achievement is a good
    measure of educational quality. USAID programs aimed at improving
    educational quality varied in their measurement of student achievement.^25
    Several lacked means to fully gauge student performance. For example,

    oIn South Africa, one teacher training program could not monitor student
    achievement in its preservice training component due to insufficient
    funds, although the program's in-service component did contain student
    testing. In addition, a distance-learning program in one country province
    contained no means to assess teacher performance or student achievement,
    yet was planned to be expanded to a second province.

    oIn Zambia, a teacher training program contained output indicators
    mandated by the Africa Education Initiative and the President's Emergency
    Plan for AIDS Relief, such as the number of teachers trained, but these
    initiatives did not require an evaluation of teacher or student
    performance. The program independently added an additional measure to
    evaluate teachers on their implementation of the program materials and
    used student pass rates on the host-country's seventh grade graduation
    test as a substitute, or proxy, measure of student achievement. Such
    graduation tests are designed to identify students who will advance to the
    next phase of schooling but are not necessarily designed to provide data
    on trends in student learning.

    oIn Peru, Honduras, and the Dominican Republic, a regional Latin American
    teacher training program begun in 2002 did not require implementers to
    begin measuring impact on student performance until 2005.

    Other programs we examined, however, did have or were developing student
    assessment components, as follows:

    oIn Egypt, we observed perhaps the most extensive evaluation component for
    a program that was working closely with the host-government's Ministry of
    Education to develop tools for assessing student learning, teacher
    performance, and school management capacity nationwide. The student
    learning assessment tool specifically measured critical thinking capacity,
    problem solving skills, and subject matter knowledge in Arabic, science,
    and math.

    oIn Honduras, one program was developing primary school learning standards
    to strengthen the host government's national student testing process.
    Additionally, according to USAID, one distance learning program is
    developing standardized testing to monitor variations in student
    achievement.

    oIn the Dominican Republic, a similar program was developing test
    instruments and analytical techniques to build the evaluation capacity of
    the host government's educational system.

    oIn Peru, one pilot program conducted student testing solely in its
    sponsored schools specifically to demonstrate the effectiveness of the
    program to the host government's Ministry of Education.

    USAID Is Developing Methods to Better Measure Improved Educational Quality

    In the absence of an indicator to illustrate improved quality across
    countries, USAID uses primary school completion rates as a proxy measure
    in its agency-wide reporting. However, USAID acknowledges that completion
    rates do not directly correlate to educational quality. As described
    earlier, according to USAID and UNESCO, testing of student achievement is
    a good measure of educational quality. However, while national
    examinations may exist in certain countries, the curricula these tests are
    based on vary widely in their subject matter and academic standards.
    Additionally, very few developing countries incorporate existing
    international standards for student learning in their testing. These
    factors prevent meaningful comparisons of educational quality between
    countries, which could inform funding and programmatic decisions at the
    headquarters level.

    For fiscal year 2005, USAID's Bureau for Policy and Program Coordination
    (PPC) began collecting data to better allow USAID to find an appropriate
    indicator to measure quality outcomes of its basic education programs. The
    information that USAID began collecting in its annual reporting system
    database included, to the extent available, results of host country
    national-level testing systems and USAID attempts to measure learning
    achievement. However, this information was never fully analyzed, and
    USAID's database for the information will be terminated in fiscal year
    2007, and replaced by a new joint State-USAID performance measures
    database called the Foreign Assistance Coordination and Tracking (FACT)
    system, which will be managed by the DFA. According to DFA officials, the
    FACT system is meant to primarily contain numerical output indicators
    common across State and USAID missions and not include the
    mission-specific outcome indicators contained in USAID's former annual
    reporting system. These indicators contained in the FACT system will be
    used to develop policy priorities, assess performance, and inform resource
    decisions.

    USAID, independent of the DFA process, began a new initiative in September
    2006 to develop a better measure of educational quality across countries
    through the development of new testing instruments. These instruments are
    designed to provide data on primary-level reading comprehension comparable
    across countries. This project grew out of a World Bank Initiative in Peru
    that developed a Spanish-language reading comprehension test. USAID is
    attempting to build on the World Bank's success by developing a simple
    screening instrument, which can provide general information on literacy
    within a given community, and an in-depth assessment instrument intended
    to provide cross-country comparisons of the degree of reading skill
    acquisition, determination of the grade at which a country's education
    system is able to impart the capacity to read, and identification of the
    specific areas of weakness. According to the contract for the instruments,
    performance data provided by the new tests should permit comparison across
    countries and the tracking of changes in performance over time and should
    also be adaptable across languages and cultures to the degree possible.
    USAID plans to field test the instruments in English, Spanish, or French
    and is in negotiations with two host governments to begin pilot testing.
    USAID plans for the contract implementer to submit a report on the pilot
    tests' results and their implications by September 30, 2007. According to
    one USAID official, it is expected that these new instruments, if
    successful, will allow USAID to better measure and compare educational
    quality across countries where it conducts basic education activities.
    USAID has also initiated discussion with other Education for All-Fast
    Track Initiative donors on how donors can assess the collective impact of
    their basic education assistance on learning outcomes.

    Additionally, in an effort to collect better data on education quality,
    USAID's Education Office is considering the development and administration
    of new tests to assess learning outcomes in 10 countries over 12 months.
    The goal is to produce an assessment that will better demonstrate the
    impact of projects to improve educational quality, but that can be adapted
    by different missions facing different educational circumstances. The
    proposal recommends identifying two or three countries from each of the
    new foreign assistance categories,^26 with representatives from Africa,
    Asia, and Latin America. The tests would cover literacy and mathematics
    and target fourth and eighth grade students, but would be adjustable for
    different grades and ages. The 12-month activity would cover initial
    development, and country applications would occur through mission buy-in
    into the activity. Although the primary purpose of this assessment would
    not be to directly compare different programs or countries with respect to
    what students know, the proposal estimates that, for cost-effectiveness,
    likely two-thirds of the test materials would be portable across
    countries, with the remaining items unique to local circumstances.

    Other Agencies Measure Progress Related to Their Respective Missions

    While USAID, as noted earlier, is the only agency to track progress toward
    an education-specific goal, other agencies track progress related to their
    agency-specific missions or do not address their basic education
    activities in their agency-wide performance reporting because these
    activities are not directly related to their overall agency objectives.^27
    For example, agencies track progress as follows:

    oDOL and USDA report performance measures related to their particular
    agency objectives. For example, DOL primarily uses education activities as
    a mechanism for alleviating child labor and reports on children removed or
    prevented from exploitive work. USDA reports on the number of
    beneficiaries of its school lunch program. Both of these measures are tied
    to enrollment and attendance rates collected at the project-level and are,
    therefore, related to educational access. DOL programs include
    project-level quality indicators, such as primary school completion rates.

    oThe MCC initially reported a single "rate of reform" measure based on
    multiple outcome-based health and education-related indicators, including
    total public expenditure on primary education and girls' primary education
    completion rates. MCC now breaks these individual indicators to compare
    performance among countries with threshold programs and compacts, as well
    as to determine the eligibility of countries for MCC assistance.

    oDOD provides basic humanitarian aid and services to avert political and
    humanitarian crises, as well as promote democratic development and
    regional stability. It collects information on how many projects it has
    funded and their costs, but does not address the educational impact of
    these projects. A DOD official stated that he would like to see the
    Humanitarian Assistance Program begin to measure its impact on countering
    terrorism, promoting goodwill, stabilizing the country, and increasing
    economic growth.

    oAlthough the Peace Corps tracks the number and location of its
    volunteers, it does not assess the impact of its basic education
    activities because, according to Peace Corps officials, these activities
    are too small in scale to be suitable for such monitoring.

    State's Office of the DFA Is Planning to Address Improving Interagency
    Coordination and Performance Measures for All Foreign Assistance

    In January 2006, the Secretary of State appointed a DFA and charged him
    with directing the transformation of the U.S. government's approach to
    foreign assistance and ensuring that foreign assistance is used as
    effectively as possible to meet broad foreign policy objectives.^28
    Specifically, the DFA:

    ohas authority over all State and USAID foreign assistance funding and
    programs, with continued participation in program planning,
    implementation, and oversight from the various bureaus and offices within
    State and USAID, as part of the integrated interagency planning,
    coordination, and implementation mechanisms;

    ohas created and directed, through a foreign assistance framework,
    consolidated policy, planning, budget, and implementation mechanisms and
    staff functions required to provide umbrella leadership to foreign
    assistance;

    oplans to develop a coordinated U.S. government foreign assistance
    strategy, including multiyear, country-specific assistance strategies and
    annual country-specific assistance operational plans; and

    oplans to provide guidance to foreign assistance delivered through other
    agencies and entities of the U.S. government, including MCC and the Office
    of the Global AIDS Coordinator.

    According to a DFA official, the DFA's office spent its first year
    developing the foreign assistance framework, preparing the proposed 2008
    consolidated State and USAID budget, and providing guidance for country
    teams to develop operational plans. The foreign assistance framework
    includes five objectives: (1) peace and security, (2) governing justly and
    democratically, (3) investing in people, (4) economic growth, and (5)
    humanitarian assistance. Basic education falls under the objective of
    investing in people. According to a State official, the new budget and
    planning process is intended to give the Secretary of State the ability to
    evaluate the effectiveness of foreign assistance to improve effectiveness,
    impact, and efficiency through better coordination, at every level.
    Looking forward, the DFA is examining ways to improve (1) coordination of
    foreign assistance, including basic education and (2) measurement of
    program outcomes.

    DFA Plans to Improve Coordination of Foreign Assistance, Including Basic
    Education

    While the DFA has begun to address the issue of better coordinating all
    U.S. foreign assistance by bringing together core teams to discuss U.S.
    development priorities in each recipient country, it is unclear to what
    extent these efforts will be accepted and implemented by agencies whose
    foreign assistance programs are not under DFA's direct authority.
    According to DFA officials, during the first phase of coordination
    efforts, USAID, State, and DOD (as an implementing partner of certain
    USAID and State programs) have been meeting to discuss coordination of
    assistance. The DFA plans to engage other agencies such as USDA and DOL in
    the coordination discussions. However, DFA officials stated that there is
    no requirement for other agencies to participate in these dialogues.

    DFA Is Considering Methods for Measuring Program Outcomes

    DFA acknowledges the need for outcome measures to better describe the
    impact of basic education, as well as other foreign assistance areas.
    According to a DFA official, developing outcome indicators for all
    assistance programs is difficult because of the differing program
    objectives those programs may possess. For example, some programs may meet
    the political objectives of the United States, while others may meet
    purely development objectives. DFA plans to use as many outcome measures
    as possible generated by third parties, such as World Bank statistics and
    UNESCO literacy rates. Also, DFA plans for missions to submit "Foreign
    Assistance Reports" back to Washington, which would combine their FACT
    data with locally generated outcome measures to demonstrate the cumulative
    effects of their programs. However, this process and the outcome measures
    it might contain have not been developed, and DFA does not currently have
    a timetable for implementing these initiatives. Although an agency can use
    outputs, outcomes, or some combination of the two to reflect the agency's
    intended performance, the GPRA is clearly outcome-oriented and thus an
    agency's performance plan should include outcome goals whenever
    possible.^29 DFA officials acknowledged that the new performance reporting
    system as it currently stands will not report the outcome results of basic
    education programs to managers in headquarters.

    Conclusions

    Without a government-wide mechanism to systematically coordinate all
    agency efforts in basic education at the headquarters level, agencies'
    programs may not maximize the effectiveness of U.S. assistance. The new
    State DFA efforts to implement a country-wide program planning and
    budgeting process, which is designed to better manage the delivery of
    foreign assistance, may improve coordination of basic education programs
    at the country level, but this process is still evolving, and it is yet to
    be determined what impact these efforts will have on future strategic
    planning of education-related assistance. Moreover, having reliable and
    systematic methods to determine if basic education programs are meeting
    their goals could help better inform U.S. agencies' decisions regarding
    the planning and execution of basic education-related assistance. Although
    the DFA plans to work toward developing methods to assess outcomes of all
    foreign assistance, these efforts are only in the early discussion phase.

    Recommendations for Executive Action

    To enhance efforts to coordinate and better assess the results of U.S.
    international basic education-related activities, we are making three
    recommendations:

    oto improve interagency coordination of basic education efforts at
    headquarters in Washington, we recommend that the Secretary of State work
    with the heads of executive branch agencies responsible for international
    basic education-related assistance to convene formal, periodic meetings at
    the headquarters level amongst cognizant officials;

    oto improve interagency coordination in recipient countries, we recommend
    that the Secretary of State direct the relevant countries' Ambassadors to
    establish a mechanism to formally coordinate U.S. agencies' implementation
    of international basic education-related activities in the relevant
    country; and

    oto better assess the results of U.S. basic education assistance, we
    recommend that the Secretary of State, through the DFA, work with USAID
    and to the extent practicable, with other U.S. agencies providing basic
    education related-assistance to develop a plan to identify indicators that
    would help agencies track improvements in access to quality education.
    Indicators could include:

    ooutput measures, such as the numbers of U.S. programs designed to improve
    curriculum and teacher training, and to develop and validate student
    tests; and

    ooutcome measures, such as literacy and numeracy assessments of student
    achievement.

    Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

    We provided a draft of this report to State, USAID, USDA, DOD, DOL, MCC,
    and the Peace Corps. We obtained written comments on the draft of this
    report from State, USAID, and USDA (see apps. VI, VII, and VIII). State
    generally concurred with our recommendations and noted that its Office of
    the Director of U.S. Foreign Assistance is in the process of developing
    mechanisms to ensure coordination of U.S. assistance programs with other
    federal agencies, implementers, and stakeholders. In addition, State's
    Office of the Director of U.S. Foreign Assistance is working with USAID,
    State, and others in the international community to develop appropriate
    measures for learning outcomes. We agree that these are positive steps
    toward improving the coordination of U.S. supported basic education
    programs and the ability to measure whether basic education programs
    abroad are achieving their goals, and we encourage State to continue to
    work with the heads of executive agencies to this end. USAID concurred
    with our recommendations and agreed with the need for greater U.S.
    government coordination and that more needs to be done in the areas to
    improve education outcomes in country and to better understand the impact
    of U.S. support to basic education. USDA concurred with our
    recommendations and indicated that it will work with the Department of
    State in the manner which the report recommends. We also received
    technical comments on this draft from State, USAID, DOL, MCC, and the
    Peace Corps, which we incorporated where appropriate.

    We are sending copies of this report to appropriate Members of Congress,
    the Secretaries of the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Labor, and
    State, as well as the Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International
    Development, the Director of the Peace Corps, and the Chief Executive
    Officer of the Millennium Challenge Corporation. We also will make copies
    available to others upon request. In addition, this report will be
    available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov .

    If you or your staff has any questions concerning this report, please
    contact me at (202) 512-4128 or fordj@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 IX.

    Jess T. Ford
    Director, International Affairs and Trade

    Appendix I
    Scope and Methodology

    To describe U.S. agencies' basic education activities and how the
    activities are planned, we obtained and analyzed strategic, budget, and
    programmatic documents for fiscal years 2001 through 2006 from the
    Departments of Agriculture (USDA), Defense (DOD), Labor (DOL), and State
    (State), as well as the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), the United
    States Agency for International Development (USAID), and the Peace Corps.
    The documentation included, when available, strategic plans at the
    mission, country, regional, and global levels. We also interviewed program
    officials and requested data from these agencies in Washington, D.C., to
    identify the types of basic education-related activities, the recipient
    countries of these activities, and the estimated funding levels of the
    programs. These included educational activities that corresponded to
    USAID's definition of basic education, such as primary education,
    secondary education, early childhood development, and adult literacy.
    These activities also included those implemented under special or
    administration-directed initiatives related to basic education. We
    assessed the reliability of the funding data by reviewing existing
    information about the data and the system that produced them and
    interviewing agency officials knowledgeable about the data. USDA and DOL
    did not disaggregate funds specifically allocated to the basic education
    components of their larger programs. We found all agencies' data
    sufficiently reliable for representing the nature and extent of their
    program funding and activities. We did not assess the reliability of the
    World Bank's selected indicator data because they were used for background
    purposes only.

    To learn about the implementation of international basic education
    assistance overseas, we observed ongoing program activity in the following
    eight countries: Dominican Republic, Egypt, Honduras, Mali, Morocco, Peru,
    South Africa, and Zambia.^1 We selected a nonprobability sample of foreign
    countries designed to ensure geographic diversity and representation of
    basic education programs from multiple U.S. agencies and international
    donors. In addition to geographic diversity and representation of multiple
    agencies and international donors, our sample was designed to include
    countries that implement special or administration-directed initiatives
    related to basic education. In the countries, we met with representatives
    from State, USAID, USDA, DOD, DOL, the MCC, and the Peace Corps; officials
    representing embassies and USAID missions in the countries visited;
    officials administering international basic education programs; and
    officials from foreign governments, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs),
    the United Nations (UN), and other international organizations. Within
    each country, we examined all U.S. agency basic education activities
    ongoing at the time of our visit and discussed these activities with
    relevant agency officials.

    To determine the mechanisms the United States uses to coordinate national
    and international basic education assistance, we analyzed agency
    coordination documents and interviewed relevant U.S. agency, host
    government, and international donor officials in our eight sample
    countries. Documentation we examined included e-mails, meeting minutes,
    memoranda of understanding, policy agendas, host government education
    sector strategies, and other supplemental documentation. We met with
    officials from State, USAID, USDA, DOL, DOD, the Peace Corps, and the MCC
    in Washington, D.C., to discuss interagency coordination at the
    headquarters level. In each of our eight sample countries, we discussed
    coordination of international basic education assistance with relevant
    officials from U.S. agencies, U.S. program implementers, host countries'
    Ministries of Education, and international donors with basic education
    programs in-country.

    To evaluate how U.S. agencies monitor and assess the results of their
    international basic education programs, we obtained and examined
    contractual and monitoring and evaluation documents for each of the basic
    education projects we visited. For each ongoing project, we interviewed
    officials from the implementing organizations, as well as any U.S. agency
    official(s) monitoring the implementer's progress. In our interviews, we
    discussed project monitoring, data baselines, and progress indicators. We
    supplemented these interviews with a review of reporting documentation
    associated with 40 of the basic education projects we discussed with
    program implementers. This sample included all ongoing projects that we
    visited in our eight sample countries. The documentation that we reviewed
    included the contracts, cooperative agreements, statements of work
    (program descriptions), performance monitoring plans, and monitoring
    reports for the 40 projects. Furthermore, to describe USAID's process for
    collecting and using performance measures, we interviewed USAID officials
    and analyzed agency documents. To describe the new planning process for
    foreign assistance and its impact on collecting indicator data, we
    interviewed State and USAID officials and analyzed relevant documentation.

    To determine the extent to which the projects had outcome measures, used
    baselines, and set targets, we identified and analyzed the performance
    measures in the programs' documentation. We coded performance measures as
    outcomes if they were linked to program objectives and had clearly
    reported results. We also assessed whether the outcome measures we
    identified established clear baselines and set targets. To ensure accuracy
    in our coding, two coders independently reviewed the program documentation
    and met to reconcile any initial differences in their coding. In addition,
    another staff member independently reviewed the coding decisions.

    Although the findings from our site visits in each country and our review
    of ongoing basic education projects are not generalizable to the
    population of basic education programs, we determined that the selection
    of the countries and programs reviewed was appropriate for our design and
    objectives.

    We conducted our fieldwork in Washington, D.C., and in the Dominican
    Republic, Egypt, Honduras, Liberia, Mali, Morocco, Peru, South Africa, and
    Zambia from December 2005 to March 2007 in accordance with generally
    accepted government auditing standards.

    Appendix II
    Recipient Countries of Activities Related to International Basic Education
    During Fiscal Year 2006

    Legend

    N/A=Countries that are not eligible for MCC funding

    Source: U.S. agencies' data.

    Note: Some of USAID's regional activities are not included.

    ^aFast Track Initiative countries.

    Appendix III
    Recipient Countries of USAID Basic Education Assistance, Funding Levels,
    and Selected World Bank's Indicators

    Legend

    N/A=Data not available

    Source: USAID data from the Annual Report System and World Bank's World
    Development Indicators data from
    [58]http://devdata.worldbank.org/dataonline/ .

    Note: Funding figures include those allocated directly to USAID missions
    in country. Funding does not include regional funding, which may
    distribute basic education funds to countries through headquarters.

    Appendix IV
    List of International Basic Education Projects Reviewed

    Source: U.S. agencies' data.

    ^aFunding covers global or regional projects.

    ^bFunding amounts represent the approximate distribution of scholarship
    funds across countries.

    ^cFunding amounts only cover the basic education component of the project.

    Appendix V
    Analysis of the Performance Measures in Documentation for Selected
    International Basic Education Programs

    We studied 40 programs from the eight countries visited during fieldwork.
    The programs had multiple performance measures and often included a mix of
    outcome and output measures. We identified measures using criteria that
    required them to be clearly identified as performance measures, have
    clearly reported results, and be clearly linked to program objectives. See
    appendix I for more details about how the programs were selected for study
    and about the methodology we used to analyze their measures. Table 4 below
    shows the type of measures contained in the programs we examined. Table 5
    shows the characteristics of the outcome measures being used by the
    programs, and Table 6 shows how these outcome measures were used.

    Table 4: Performance Measures in the Programs Selected

                                   Disposition                             Number
    Programs with outcome measures                                          21
    Programs without outcome measures but with output measures              10
    Programs with no clear performance measures reporteda                    6
    Programs early in implementation with no clearly reported                3
    performance measures
    Total number of programs reviewed                                       40

    Source: GAO analysis of USAID and DOL project documentation.

    ^aSome of these programs did list activities or provide descriptions of
    their progress; however, these activities did not meet our criteria for
    clearly identified performance measures that linked to objectives.

    Table 5: Characteristics of the Outcome Measures

                            Disposition                                    Number
    Programs that used quantitative measures                                21
    Programs that set baselines                                             14
    Programs that set targets                                               18

    Source: GAO analysis of USAID and DOL project documentation.

    Note: We analyzed the 21 programs that we identified as having clear
    outcome measures. Many programs had multiple outcome measures. For this
    analysis, we determined that the program had outcome measures that were
    quantitative, or set baselines or targets, if any one of their outcome
    measures had that characteristic. See appendix I for more details about
    how we selected the programs and the methodology we used to analyze the
    measures.

    Table 6: Programs' Use of Outcome Measures

                                   Disposition                             Number
    Programs with measures that addressed access issues                     16
    Programs with measures that addressed capacity issues                   15
    Programs with measures that addressed quality issues                    12
    Programs with measures that addressed access, capacity, and quality      8
    issues

    Source: GAO analysis of USAID and DOL project documentation.

    Note: This analysis was conducted of the 21 programs that we identified as
    having clear outcome measures. We analyzed the measures according to
    whether they followed USAID's criteria for access, quality, and capacity.
    Many programs had multiple outcome measures. For this analysis, we
    determined that the program had outcome measures that addressed access,
    capacity, or quality if any one of their outcome measures had that
    characteristic. As a result, programs can have measures that address more
    than one dimension; for example, as stated above, eight programs had
    measures that addressed access, capacity and quality issues. See appendix
    I for more details about how the programs were selected for study and
    about the methodology we used to analyze their measures.

    Appendix VI
    Comments from the Department of State

    The following are our comments on the Department of State's letter dated
    March 26, 2007.

    GAO Comments

    1.State said that its Office of the Director of U.S. Foreign Assistance
    over the past year has undertaken a process to ensure the kind of
    coordination necessary for coherent U.S. government assistance programs in
    all areas, including basic education. Also, State said that its experience
    to date has demonstrated willingness by other federal agencies such as the
    Department of Defense, U.S. Trade Representatives, and the Millennium
    Challenge Corporation to work with us within the Foreign Assistance
    framework. In addition, the fiscal year 2008 operational planning process
    is expected to be the first year wherein there is full participation by
    other agency implementers and stakeholders. At the time of our review,
    some of the other agency officials that we met with in Washington said
    that their respective agencies have not yet been invited to participate in
    such coordination efforts. Therefore, we believe that State should
    continue towards this end to improve coordination, both at the
    headquarters and in recipient countries, among all agencies involved in
    international basic education-related activities.

    2.State said that USAID, State, and others in the international community
    are working together to try to develop appropriate measures for learning
    outcomes that would address the question of whether a quality education is
    being provided.  Also, State noted that its Office of the Director of U.S.
    Foreign Assistance is building on the long history and best practices that
    USAID and other agencies have accumulated from many years of performance
    management and thorough evaluation. Our report notes the efforts of State,
    USAID, and the international community in this regard and that these
    efforts have just begun. However, we maintain that a plan should be
    developed to better guide these efforts to help agencies track
    improvements in the access to quality education.

    Appendix VII
    Comments from the U.S. Agency for International Development

    Appendix VIII
    Comments from the U.S. Department of Agriculture

    The following are our comments on the Department of Agriculture's letter
    dated March 22, 2007.

    GAO Comments

    1.We deleted the statement that "USDA. . . can not disaggregate the amount
    of funds allocated specifically for basic education related activities."
    from the report. Also, in the report we explain that USDA funding
    allocations include basic education components that support its broader
    mission goals and provide examples accordingly.

    2.We acknowledge USDA's coordination efforts with State, USAID, and the
    Office of Management and Budget as a good example of interagency
    coordination.

    Appendix IX
    GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

    GAO Contact

    Jess Ford, (202) 512-4128, fordj@gao.gov

    Staff Acknowledgments

    In addition to the individual named above, Zina Merritt, Assistant
    Director; Virginia Chanley; Martin de Alteriis; Harriet Ganson; Emily
    Gupta; David Hancock; Victoria Lin; Grace Lui; Grant Mallie; Patricia
    Martin; Deborah Owolabi; and Anne Welch made key contributions to this
    report. The team benefited from the expert advice and assistance of Joseph
    Carney, Elizabeth Curda, Joyce Evans, Etana Finkler, Bruce Kutnick, Jena
    Sinkfield, and Cynthia Taylor.

    (320399)

    www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-523 .

    To view the full product, including the scope
    and methodology, click on the link above.

    For more information, contact Jess T. Ford at (202) 512-4128 or
    fordj@gao.gov.

    Highlights of [61]GAO-07-523 , a report to congressional committees

    March 2007

    FOREIGN ASSISTANCE

    Enhanced Coordination and Better Methods to Assess the Results of U.S.
    International Basic Education Efforts Are Needed

    Pub. L. No. 109-102, section 567, mandated that GAO analyze U.S.
    international basic education efforts overseas. In this report, GAO (1)
    describes U.S. agencies' basic education activities and how the agencies
    plan them; (2) examines U.S. coordination of basic education efforts among
    U.S. agencies, and with host governments and international donors; and (3)
    examines how U.S. agencies assess the results of their basic education
    programs. In conducting this work, GAO obtained and analyzed relevant
    agencies' documents and met with U.S. and foreign government officials and
    nongovernmental organizations, traveling to selected recipient countries.

    [62]What GAO Recommends

    GAO recommends that the Secretary of State work with the heads of other
    U.S. executive agencies in (1) improving interagency coordination of basic
    education efforts at headquarters in Washington and in recipient countries
    and (2) developing a plan to better assess the results of basic education
    programs, especially those programs aimed at increasing educational
    quality. We received written comments from State, USAID, and USDA
    indicating that they generally concurred with our recommendations. We also
    received technical comments, which we incorporated where appropriate.

    Several U.S. agencies--the Departments of Agriculture (USDA), Defense
    (DOD), Labor (DOL), and State, as well as the Millennium Challenge
    Corporation (MCC), U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and
    the Peace Corps--support basic education activities overseas. State and
    USAID have strategic goals specific to promoting improved education.
    Several other U.S. agencies support basic education-related activities as
    part of programs that address their broader mission goals. For example,
    DOL supports alternative school programs as a way to remove children from
    exploitative work, USDA provides school meals or take-home rations to
    students, and DOD constructs dormitories and schools to provide better
    access for children who have to travel long distances to attend classes.

    GAO found that agencies did not always coordinate in the planning or
    delivery of basic education-related activities. From 2001 to 2006, there
    was no government-wide mechanism to facilitate interagency collaboration
    and, as a result, GAO identified instances where agencies missed
    opportunities to collaborate and maximize U.S. resources. In addition, GAO
    found that the level of U.S. coordination with host governments and other
    donors in the eight visited countries varied. Without effective
    coordination, donors cannot easily monitor or assess the host government's
    progress toward achieving international goals, such as Education for All
    by 2015, one of State-USAID's strategic goals.

    While U.S. agencies GAO reviewed conduct basic education-related programs
    to achieve different goals, most collect and use output measures, such as
    the numbers of schools built or children enrolled, to assess and report on
    results. USAID is the only agency with an education-specific goal of
    increasing access to quality basic education. However, in many instances,
    USAID faces challenges in collecting valid and reliable data needed to
    measure improvements in education quality. Without this information,
    agency officials cannot fully determine if the programs are achieving
    their strategic goals.

    GAO's Mission

    The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
    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 GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ). Each weekday, GAO posts
    newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To
    have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to
    www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."

    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

    Congressional Relations

    Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 U.S.
    Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 Washington,
    D.C. 20548

    Public Affairs

    Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800
    U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
    Washington, D.C. 20548

    References

    Visible links
      61. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-523
    *** End of document. ***