Foreign Assistance: Private Voluntary Organizations' Contributions and
Limitations (Chapter Report, 12/15/95, GAO/NSIAD-96-34).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed private voluntary
organizations' (PVO) role in delivering federally-funded foreign
assistance, focusing on the: (1) implications of increasing PVO role in
delivering assistance; (2) success of PVO projects in achieving their
objectives; and (3) extent to which PVO are dependent on U.S. government
funding.

GAO found that: (1) PVO focus on various foreign development needs,
complement traditional government-to-government assistance, and can be a
mechanism to strengthen indigenous community-level organizations; (2)
although PVO have effectively carried out community-based development
projects, most lack experience in working with foreign governments on
economic policy reforms needed to aid long-term development; (3) 20 of
the 26 PVO projects reviewed are progressing toward their goals through
good project design, competent in-country staff, and local
participation; (4) PVO are increasingly using local groups to carry out
projects to increase local development capacity; (5) while PVO have
improved accountability for U.S. foreign assistance funds, they still
must provide increased amounts of direct foreign aid to remove the
accountability mechanism from foreign assistance programs; and (6)
federal funding for PVO declined from 42 to 29 percent between 1982 and
1992.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  NSIAD-96-34
     TITLE:  Foreign Assistance: Private Voluntary Organizations' 
             Contributions and Limitations
      DATE:  12/15/95
   SUBJECT:  Cost sharing (finance)
             Foreign economic assistance
             Volunteer services
             Foreign governments
             Federal aid to foreign countries
             International relations
             Developing countries
             Non-government enterprises
             International cooperation
IDENTIFIER:  Soviet Union
             Ecuador
             Ghana
             Honduras
             Indonesia
             Nepal
             Niger
             Romania
             Thailand
             AID Project HOPE
             
**************************************************************************
* This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a GAO        *
* report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles,       *
* headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major divisions and subdivisions *
* of the text, such as Chapters, Sections, and Appendixes, are           *
* identified by double and single lines.  The numbers on the right end   *
* of these lines indicate the position of each of the subsections in the *
* document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the page       *
* numbers of the printed 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.                                          *
*                                                                        *
* A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO Document    *
* Distribution Facility by calling (202) 512-6000, by faxing your        *
* request to (301) 258-4066, or by writing to P.O. Box 6015,             *
* Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015. We are unable to accept electronic orders *
* for printed documents at this time.                                    *
**************************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Report to the Ranking Minority Member, Committee on International
Relations, House of Representatives

December 1995

FOREIGN ASSISTANCE - PRIVATE
VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATIONS'
CONTRIBUTIONS AND LIMITATIONS

GAO/NSIAD-96-34

Foreign Assistance

(711046)


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  CARE - Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere, Inc. 
  GAO - General Accounting Office
  INGO - indigenous nongovernmental organization
  P.L.  - Public Law
  PVO - private voluntary organization
  USAID - U.S.  Agency for International Development

Letter
=============================================================== LETTER


B-262233

December 15, 1995

The Honorable Lee H.  Hamilton
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on International Relations
House of Representatives

Dear Mr.  Hamilton: 

This report responds to your request that we study (1) private
voluntary organizations' role in delivering U.S.  Agency for
International Development-funded foreign assistance; (2) potential
issues and implications of increasing their role in delivering
assistance, including accountability issues; (3) the success of their
projects in achieving their objectives; and (4) the extent to which
these organizations are dependent on U.S.  government funding. 

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of State, the
Administrator of the U.S.  Agency for International Development, and
appropriate congressional committees.  We will also make copies
available to other interested parties upon request.  Please contact
me at (202) 512-4128 if you or your staff have any questions
concerning this report.  Major contributors to this report are listed
in appendix VII. 

Sincerely yours,

Benjamin F.  Nelson
Director, International Relations and
 Foreign Trade


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
============================================================ Chapter 0


   PURPOSE
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:1

In response to budget constraints and concerns about effectiveness,
major donors, including the United States, are reassessing their
foreign aid programs and strategies.  The method of delivery is one
of the prime areas being reexamined.  While most U.S.  foreign aid is
still delivered on a government-to-government basis, the current
administration has pledged to increase the percentage of U.S. 
assistance being channeled through nongovernmental organizations over
the next 5 years.  Some proposals in the Congress have recommended
that U.S.  development assistance be channeled through
nongovernmental organizations, including private voluntary
organizations (PVO).  Support for a greater PVO role in delivering
assistance seems to stem from (1) general disappointment with the
results of over 40 years of government-to-government assistance and
(2) a perception that private organizations are better able to
identify development needs and deliver help. 

At the request of the former Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs
Committee, GAO undertook a study to examine some of the questions and
issues that policymakers may want to consider as they debate the
future role of PVOs in delivering U.S.  development assistance. 
Specifically, this report provides an analysis of (1) PVOs' role in
delivering U.S.  foreign assistance and potential issues and
implications of increasing PVOs' role in delivering assistance,
including accountability issues; (2) 26 PVO projects in 8 countries
in 4 geographic regions and whether they were achieving their
objectives; and (3) the extent to which U.S.  PVOs are dependent on
U.S.  government funding. 


   BACKGROUND
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:2

While other agencies also work with PVOs, the majority of U.S. 
government resources PVOs receive for relief and development come
through the U.S.  Agency for International Development (USAID). 
USAID works with PVOs that are nonprofit, tax-exempt organizations
involved in relief and development assistance overseas.  PVOs are
"private" in that a portion of their resources comes from private
sources and "voluntary" in that they receive voluntary contributions
from the general public.  USAID considers labor and family planning
organizations and cooperatives to be PVOs for its purposes; however,
universities, colleges, and churches engaged exclusively in religious
activities are not considered PVOs.\1 Among the best-known PVOs are
Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere Inc.  (CARE),
Catholic Relief Services, and Save the Children.  U.S.-based PVOs
often work with indigenous governmental and nongovernmental
organizations to implement projects. 

PVOs received support valued at about $1.7 billion from the U.S. 
government in 1993.\2 This report focuses on the $813.4 million of
that amount that USAID provided for development.  The remaining
support, including commodities, was provided by other U.S. 
government agencies.  As of October 1994, 419 PVOs were registered
with USAID.  Their revenues ranged from about $5,000 per year to over
$650 million.  USAID supports PVO activities in countries in Africa,
Latin America, Asia, the Middle East, Eastern Europe, and the former
Soviet Union. 


--------------------
\1 Universities, colleges, accredited degree-granting institutions,
private foundations, organizations engaged solely in research or
scientific activities, and churches or other organizations engaged
exclusively in religious activities are not eligible to register as
PVOs. 

\2 PVOs received support in the form of grants, contracts, U.S. 
government-owned excess property, ocean freight subsidies, and Public
Law 480 donated food. 


   RESULTS IN BRIEF
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3

The PVO community encompasses organizations of varying sizes,
missions, geographic focuses, and capabilities.  They work in many
different development areas, including health, environment, and
microenterprise development to address varied development needs. 
PVOs serve as a complement to traditional government-to-government
assistance and can be a mechanism to strengthen indigenous
community-level organizations. 

While PVOs have demonstrated that they are generally effective in
carrying out community-based development projects, most have not had
wide experience in working with governments and institutions on
sectoral and macroeconomic policy reforms necessary to create an
environment favorable to development, although some PVOs have begun
to expand their activities into these areas. 

Twenty of the 26 PVO projects GAO reviewed were making progress
toward their objectives.  Good project design, competent in-country
staff, and local participation were factors common to the most
successful projects.  PVOs are increasingly using local groups to
carry out projects, rather than doing projects with their own staffs,
which should increase the local capacity for development.  Most
projects GAO reviewed included local capacity building--which is
critical to long-term development and sustainability. 

Accountability for USAID assistance funds has been a continuing
concern.  Over the last decade, USAID has encouraged and assisted
PVOs to improve their program and financial management systems. 
While there is evidence of improved accountability in the PVO
community, providing increased amounts of foreign aid directly
through PVOs or through a foundation, as suggested in some reform
proposals, would remove a key accountability mechanism from the U.S. 
foreign assistance programs. 

Although some individual PVO projects may be funded entirely by
USAID, PVOs, as a group, have become less dependent on U.S.  funding. 
Federal funding as a share of total funding for PVOs receiving
federal support dropped from 42 percent to 29 percent between 1982
and 1992, the last year for which such data was available at the time
of our analysis.  U.S.  funding for PVOs has increased, but private
resources have increased faster. 


   PRINCIPAL FINDINGS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4


      THE PVO COMMUNITY AND ITS
      DEVELOPMENT NICHE
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4.1

The PVO community comprises a very diverse group of
organizations--small and large, new and mature--with varying missions
and capabilities.  Some focus on a single development issue, such as
child health, or a single geographic region, while others have very
broad missions that include work worldwide in sectors such as
agriculture, health, education, democracy, and population.  For
example, CARE, one of the largest PVOs, conducts relief and
development activities in over 40 countries in the areas of health,
nutrition, natural resources management, and agriculture, among
others.  In contrast, the National Telephone Cooperative
Association's activities are generally restricted to technical
assistance and training for development of rural telephone
cooperatives, mainly in Poland and Bulgaria. 

PVOs generally undertake relatively small, community-based,
labor-intensive projects, often working with the most difficult to
reach populations.  In general, PVOs have not been involved in
advocating changes in national government or sectoral policy that
affect the economic and social climate for development, although some
PVOs and indigenous nongovernmental organizations have begun to
undertake activities in policy reform.  Some PVOs believe that
espousing governmental change would be seen as a political threat and
reduce their ability to work in some countries.  In addition, PVOs
value their independence of action, and some believe that close
associations with governments could limit their freedom to pursue
their missions.  Some PVOs coordinate U.S.  volunteers, primarily to
deliver technical assistance or specialized services, such as medical
care. 

In response to historical concerns about waste and abuse, USAID and
the PVO community have worked together to improve the quality of
oversight and accountability for development assistance funds.  USAID
has taken measures to help PVOs and indigenous nongovernmental
organizations strengthen their institutional capacity, and current
auditing requirements have led PVOs to make investments to improve
accountability.  However, findings from recent audits of PVO
activities suggest that problems still remain.  For example, a recent
USAID Inspector General audit of PVOs in the West Bank and Gaza
concluded that some PVOs needed to improve in the areas of program
monitoring, financial management, and record-keeping to manage
U.S.-donated commodities. 


      MOST PVO PROJECTS MEET
      OBJECTIVES AND INVOLVE LOCAL
      PARTICIPATION
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4.2

Of the 26 projects GAO reviewed in 8 countries, 20 were achieving all
or most of the expected activities.  In two cases, the PVO was having
difficulty in implementing its plans, and in the remaining four
cases, project objectives were not stated in measurable terms so
progress toward goals could not be assessed.  Good project design,
competent PVO staff, experience in the country and sector, and
project objectives supported by the intended beneficiaries were the
key factors in project success.  GAO did not observe a correlation
between PVO size, geographic region, or sector and project success. 
Many PVOs now work with or through local indigenous governmental or
nongovernmental organizations to deliver assistance, providing them
with the technical assistance to design and carry out development
projects.  Twenty-two projects GAO reviewed actively addressed
increased local participation and improved development capacity
through project activities. 


      FINANCIAL DEPENDENCY ON U.S. 
      FUNDING HAS DECREASED
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4.3

The total amount of federal funding going to registered PVOs
increased about 41 percent between 1982 and 1992--from $1.07 billion
to
$1.51 billion.  However, the portion of total PVO resources comprised
of federal funding dropped from 42 percent in 1982 to 29 percent in
1992.  This was due, in part, to the almost doubling of the number of
PVOs receiving federal funds and the relatively smaller increase in
federal funding for PVOs.  Of the 384 PVOs registered with USAID in
1992, 231
(60 percent) received federal funding in that year compared to 126
(88 percent) of the 144 PVOs registered in 1982.  In 1992, CARE and
Catholic Relief Services received the largest amounts of federal
funding among PVOs--$258.3 million and $221.2 million, respectively. 
The 20 PVOs receiving the largest amount of federal funding received
about two-thirds of the total amount in 1992. 


   RECOMMENDATIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:5

GAO is making no recommendations. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:6

GAO received comments on a draft of this report from USAID,
InterAction
(a PVO membership organization), and Catholic Relief Services.  Their
letters are published in appendixes IV, V, and VI, respectively. 
Specific comments as to language or updated information have been
incorporated as appropriate.  USAID and InterAction expressed general
agreement with the basic message of the report.  However, all three
organizations expressed concern that the draft did not give
appropriate recognition of improvements that the PVO community has
made in accountability systems, with support from USAID.  USAID was
concerned that the discussion of PVO accountability did not include
recent efforts to improve financial, management, and evaluation
practices.  InterAction said that the draft did not acknowledge
accountability standards presently required of PVOs by the Office of
Management and Budget.  Catholic Relief Services' comments emphasized
the diversity of the PVO community and the difficulty in drawing
broad generalizations about PVOs' accountability and capacity to put
increased funds to effective use.  GAO has modified the report to
present a fuller discussion of improvements in PVO accountability
systems over the last decade.  InterAction and Catholic Relief
Services concurred with GAO's treatment of their comments. 

InterAction also said it was pleased with the generally positive
nature of the report but expressed concern about the lack of
comparison of PVOs' performance with other potential mechanisms for
delivering foreign assistance, such as contractors and universities. 
Such a comparison was outside the scope of this review. 


INTRODUCTION
============================================================ Chapter 1

Since the 1940s, the U.S.  government has assisted private voluntary
organizations' (PVO)\1 overseas activities.  After World War II, as
PVOs responded to emergency needs in Europe, the U.S.  government
began donating excess property and supplies and financing shipping
costs to assist PVOs' efforts.  The Congress authorized donations of
commodities in 1954.  Public Law (P.L.) 480,\2 as amended, authorized
commodity donations to voluntary agencies for distribution overseas
to meet emergency and nonemergency food needs.  Although still
heavily involved in the provision of emergency assistance overseas,
since the mid-1960s PVOs have gradually shifted their emphasis from
charitable relief to development activities. 

The PVO community is comprised of diverse organizations from the
traditional voluntary relief and development agencies to family
planning organizations, labor institutes, and cooperatives.  PVOs
range from organizations with budgets of a few thousand dollars and
narrow objectives, such as the Pan-American Association of Eye Banks,
to large operations with worldwide programs and multimillion dollar
budgets, such as the Cooperative for Assistance and Relief
Everywhere, Inc.  (CARE) and Catholic Relief Services. 

Literature on PVOs' development activities describes some of the
qualities that PVOs exhibit: 

  familiarity with local populations and ability to work with the
     poor at the community level,

  innovation in approaches and flexibility in responding to
     development needs,

  lower cost compared to government-to-government aid programs,

  staff dedicated to the PVOs' mission and willing to work under
     difficult conditions,

  long-term commitment to development, and

  ability to work with INGOs to strengthen local development
     capabilities. 

Additionally, development literature suggests that PVOs are generally
weak in the areas of strategic planning, realistic planning for
sustainability, and working with each other on common goals. 


--------------------
\1 In this report, the term "private voluntary organization" is used
to refer to U.S.-based nongovernmental organizations working in
development abroad.  Organizations based and operating within a
developing country are referred to as "indigenous nongovernmental
organizations (INGO)."

\2 The Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954,
Public Law 83-480
(7 U.S.C.  1691, et seq.). 


   EVOLUTION OF U.S.  APPROACH TO
   DEVELOPMENT
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:1

Since the United States began providing foreign aid, its approach to
development has changed several times.  During the 1960s, the U.S. 
Agency for International Development (USAID) undertook large
infrastructure projects such as dams and road construction.  Then, in
the early 1970s, USAID gave priority to addressing the basic human
needs of the populations of developing countries.  In the 1980s,
USAID took a more macroeconomic approach to development, emphasizing
economic growth through policy reform and a stronger private sector. 
None of the approaches proved to be the panacea for development
problems.  USAID's current approach involves both macroeconomic
reforms (legal, policy, and regulatory) and direct assistance to the
poor in developing countries--to help them take advantage of economic
and development opportunities.  Thus, USAID has increasingly relied
on PVOs to provide direct assistance while it focuses on macrolevel
reforms through policy dialogue.  In early 1995, USAID announced
plans to increase the proportion of resources that it channels
through nongovernmental organizations, including PVOs.  Other recent
proposals have advocated providing development assistance through a
foundation that would distribute funds to PVOs and other
nongovernmental organizations. 

Although its record of success has been mixed, USAID has access to
developing countries' governments and the technical expertise to
assist them in such areas as policy analysis, sectoral reform,
privatization, national programming, and structural adjustment.  On
the other hand, PVOs have demonstrated that they have a comparative
advantage in providing direct assistance to meet varied development
needs--often in areas underserved by governments. 


   U.S.  GOVERNMENT'S SUPPORT TO
   PVOS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:2

In 1993, the U.S.  government provided about $1.7 billion of aid
through PVOs, including $414 million in food commodities and freight. 
PVOs received $813 million from USAID in grants and contracts.  Other
U.S.  government agencies provided another $439 million to PVO
programs.  For example, the Department of State contributes to PVOs
for refugee assistance and the Department of Agriculture contributes
surplus commodities for humanitarian assistance.\3

PVOs and INGOs must register with USAID to receive grants for
development assistance activities directly from USAID.  As of October
1994, 419 PVOs were registered with USAID.  To be registered, a PVO
or INGO must, among other requirements, be

  a nonprofit and nongovernmental entity receiving funds from private
     sources;

  voluntary in that it receives voluntary contributions of money,
     staff time, or in-kind support from the public; and

  engaged in or anticipating becoming engaged in voluntary charitable
     or development assistance operations overseas of a nonreligious
     nature, which are consistent with the purposes and objectives
     set forth in the Foreign Assistance Act and P.L.  480. 

USAID both supports PVOs' independent activities and uses PVOs as
intermediaries to carry out projects that USAID initiates in keeping
with its own priorities.  The Office of Private and Voluntary
Cooperation, in the Bureau for Humanitarian Response, is the focal
point for USAID work with PVOs, although other offices within
USAID--including regional bureaus; the Bureau for Global Programs,
Field Support and Research; the Office of Foreign Disaster
Assistance, and the Office of Food for Peace--also work directly with
PVOs.  In countries where USAID maintains missions, PVOs can apply to
the missions for funding for specific development projects in the
host country.  In addition to programs that are specifically
restricted to registered PVOs, PVOs may also compete for other grants
and contracts awarded by missions and USAID/Washington, D.C.,
bureaus. 


--------------------
\3 Dollar figures cited here are based on annual financial reports
submitted by registered PVOs to USAID.  They do not correspond
directly to USAID budget information. 


   OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND
   METHODOLOGY
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:3

The objectives of our review were to examine (1) PVOs' role in
delivering USAID-funded foreign assistance; (2) potential issues and
implications of increasing their role in delivering assistance,
including accountability issues; (3) the success of their projects in
achieving their objectives; and (4) the extent to which these
organizations are dependent on U.S.  government funding.  We employed
a combination of methods to address these issues, including (1) an
extensive review of development literature to document the role PVOs
play in the development spectrum (see selected bibliography), (2)
discussions with U.S.  and foreign government officials and PVO
representatives, (3) case studies of selected projects in eight
countries, (4) a collection of descriptive data on PVOs and their
projects within each case study country, and (5) an analysis of
financial data on PVO resources. 

For the case studies, we selected eight countries:  Ecuador, Ghana,
Honduras, Indonesia, Nepal, Niger, Romania, and Thailand.  We
selected these countries on the basis of the following criteria:  (1)
geographic balance, (2) size and diversity of PVO programs, and (3)
whether PVOs used food aid in the country.\4 We used a structured
data collection instrument to collect basic descriptive data on PVO
and INGO activities between 1991 and 1994. 

To review the success of PVOs in meeting their objectives and
enhancing sustainable development, we conducted 26 case studies,
including at least 2 projects in each country carried out by
different PVOs in different development sectors.  We used project
design, implementation, and evaluation documentation; on-site
observations of projects; and extensive interviews with USAID, PVO,
and host government officials to assess projects as more or less
successful relative to the projects' success in meeting their
objectives, including developing local capacity. 

To determine the degree to which projects met their objectives, we
considered factors such as whether (1) projects were meeting
agreed-upon measurable benchmarks or indicators within agreed costs
and time frames and (2) outcomes achieved project goals.  In many
cases, indicators were not quantifiable, so we based our judgment on
on-site observations of projects and interviews with USAID and PVO
officials about intended project outcomes.  We supplemented the
fieldwork undertaken specifically to answer this request with
information generated in the course of our other work in the last 3
years, including reports on P.L.  480 titles II and III and PVOs'
role in food aid.\5

To assess the degree to which PVOs depend on federal funding, we
examined data on private and federal funding published in Voluntary
Foreign Aid Programs, an annual publication of USAID's Bureau for
Humanitarian Response.  We analyzed the data from 1982 to 1992, the
last year for which complete information was available, after
converting dollar amounts into constant 1992 dollars.  We did not
independently verify the published information, although we worked
with USAID to resolve apparent errors in the data. 

We performed our work from November 1993 through April 1995 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 


--------------------
\4 We issued a separate report on PVO's food aid activities in
Honduras, Ghana, and Indonesia:  Food Aid:  Private Voluntary
Organizations' Role in Distributing Food Aid (GAO/NSIAD-95-35, Nov. 
23, 1994). 

\5 Food Aid:  Management Improvements Are Needed to Achieve Program
Objectives (GAO/NSIAD-93-168, July 23, 1993) and Food Aid:  Private
Voluntary Organizations' Role in Distributing Food Aid
(GAO/NSIAD-95-35, Nov.  23, 1994). 


THE PVO COMMUNITY
============================================================ Chapter 2

PVOs, as a group, work in many different sectors--from providing
health services to pollution control to microenterprise development. 
They often work in remote areas where governments cannot or do not
provide services.  Some PVOs use U.S.  volunteers to deliver
technical services or assistance to developing countries. 


   PVO ACTIVITIES ADDRESS VARIED
   DEVELOPMENT NEEDS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:1

PVOs sponsor projects in many different sectors, including
agriculture, education, environment, health and child survival, and
small-enterprise development, designed to address the many needs of
people in developing countries.  Almost 30 percent of 274
USAID-funded PVO and INGO projects operating in the 8 countries in
our review\1 included health activities.  Natural resources
management, private sector development, and democracy were the next
most frequently addressed issues--about 15 percent of projects
addressed each of these issues.  Other projects focused on labor,
agriculture, and education, among other sectors.  In several cases,
PVO projects provided services in areas not served by the host
government. 

The 26 projects we examined in detail represent the diverse areas of
needs PVOs try to address.  For example, one of the USAID-supported
PVO projects addressed health and nutritional needs of children in
Ghana.  In Romania, several projects focused on the needs of
institutionalized and orphaned children, while another PVO worked
with state-owned enterprises to abate pollution.  Projects in Nepal,
Honduras, and Thailand sought to increase economic opportunities for
women who traditionally have few opportunities for economic
advancement--two by providing credit and technical assistance to
microenterprises owned by women or employing women and one by
providing scholarships to girls so they could continue their
schooling.  (See fig.  2.1 for a project supported by CARE in
Thailand.) In Ghana, we examined a PVO agroforestry project.  In
Honduras and Indonesia, our sample included PVO projects to help
communities to build water and sewer systems. 

   Figure 2.1:  Silk Production in
   Microenterprise Project
   Supported by CARE in Thailand

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

PVO food aid projects we visited in Ghana, Honduras, and Indonesia
either directly distributed food to beneficiaries or sold commodities
to generate funds for development projects.  Direct feeding projects
included mother-child health projects that targeted malnourished
children and pregnant or lactating women and school feeding projects
in poor regions.  Food-for-work projects are generally assumed to be
self-targeting to the poorest because the work is generally difficult
and the wages low.  (See figs.  2.2 and 2.3 for food-for-work
projects in Honduras and Ghana.)

   Figure 2.2:  CARE Sewer
   Infrastructure Improvement
   Food-for-Work Project in
   Honduras

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure 2.3:  Well Built in
   Ghana Food-for-Work Project
   Sponsored by the Adventist
   Development and Relief Agency

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

PVOs often conducted projects in remote areas not adequately served
by the governments of developing countries.  For example, in Ecuador,
Catholic Relief Services and Project HOPE conducted child survival
projects that provided immunizations and education on hygiene and
nutrition to rural areas.  (See fig.  2.4 for a child survival
project in Ecuador.) In Niger, Africare provided training for
community health workers in Diffa, an isolated area more than 900
kilometers from Niamey, the capital of Niger.  Save the
Children/Honduras and CARE in Indonesia were assisting in
construction of water and sewer systems in remote areas.  (See fig. 
2.5 for a water system project in Honduras.) In Nepal, PVOs provide
most medical services.  USAID officials told us that PVOs fill
critical voids in health and community development. 

   Figure 2.4:  A Child Survival
   Project, including Growth
   Tracking, Conducted by Project
   HOPE, in Ecuador

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure 2.5:  Save the
   Children's Remote Water System
   Project in Honduras

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


--------------------
\1 Documentation was available for 274 USAID-funded projects. 


   SOME PVOS USE AMERICAN
   VOLUNTEERS TO PROVIDE TECHNICAL
   ASSISTANCE TO DEVELOPING
   COUNTRIES
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:2

About 15 percent of PVOs registered with USAID in 1993 used American
volunteers in their overseas programs, according to information
contained in USAID's report on voluntary foreign assistance.  Some
PVOs coordinate volunteer service abroad to provide specialized
services or technical assistance not available in developing
countries, which, according to these PVOs, would be costly to provide
through contractors.  For example, health sector PVOs, such as
Operation Smile International and Project ORBIS International,
coordinate medical volunteers to provide medical care and train
health workers.  The Farmer-to-Farmer program in the former Soviet
Union and worldwide included 8 PVOs and cooperatives and the Peace
Corps that coordinated over 1,300 volunteer assignments to provide
expertise on agricultural production and processes in over 60
developing countries worldwide and expected to field about 1,700
volunteers to the newly independent states of the former Soviet
Union.\2 The International Executive Service Corps and Volunteers in
Overseas Cooperative Assistance recruit volunteers to provide
consulting services to private sector businesses in developing
countries.  According to information supplied by the International
Executive Service Corps, it delivered almost 75,000-person days of
assistance in 1994 through its offices in 50 countries at an average
cost of $439 per day.  According to PVO representatives, volunteers
are generally well received by the citizens of the developing country
because they are viewed as experts who volunteer their time and are
not perceived as having the political agendas sometimes associated
with bilateral assistance or the profit motive of contractors.  (See
fig.  2.6 for a volunteer project in Romania.)

   Figure 2.6:  Volunteers in
   Overseas Cooperative Assistance
   Volunteer Assists Farmers on
   Seed Marketing Project in
   Romania

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Source:  Volunteers in Overseas
   Cooperative Assistance.

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

However, the use of volunteers presents potential problems.  For
example, lack of language skills and cultural sensitivity on the part
of volunteers and inability to adapt to living conditions in
developing countries have limited the success of some volunteer
experiences.  Project evaluations and USAID and PVO officials noted
that clear expectations on the parts of both the volunteers and the
recipients of their services are critical to the success of the
visit.  They also stressed the importance of an in-country structure
to (1) identify specific needs so that volunteers with appropriate
skills can be found and (2) continue contact with recipients of the
assistance to facilitate implementation of volunteers'
recommendations. 


--------------------
\2 The Congress created the Farmer-to-Farmer program in 1985 to
promote person-to-person exchange of agricultural knowledge to assist
indigenous farmers in low-income countries.  The program, funded with
U.S.  Department of Agriculture (P.L.  480) resources, has been
expanded since then to over 60 countries, including the newly
independent states of the former Soviet Union. 


   PVOS' ORIENTATION, STRATEGY,
   AND LIMITATIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:3

While a few PVOs have begun to work with governments of developing
countries on policy reforms, many believe they have a humanitarian
mission and would prefer to focus on person-to-person aid rather than
work with large institutions.  PVOs have a comparative advantage in
being able to work directly with the poor, or with organizations that
represent the poor, than major donors can.  Some PVOs prefer not to
interact with host governments and, as outside entities, may not have
access or leverage within a country's government.  In addition, many
PVOs do not want to be seen as linked too closely to the U.S. 
government.  Thus, providing economic assistance exclusively through
nongovernmental organizations could limit the degree to which the
United States can use such aid to achieve foreign policy interests
other than supporting democratic development.  In addition,
channeling U.S.  aid exclusively through PVOs also seems inconsistent
with the current view of many U.S.  government leaders that there
should be a close link between the provision of U.S.  assistance and
specific U.S.  foreign policy interests.  Former foreign policy
officials testified before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations
in March 1995 that "bilateral foreign assistance programs should be
directly related to specific, identifiable U.S.  foreign policy
interests."


   ACCOUNTABILITY ISSUES
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:4

Currently, the Congress looks to USAID to ensure that U.S. 
assistance is used efficiently and effectively.  In recent years,
USAID has encouraged PVOs and INGOs to develop stronger financial
management skills that would help ensure accountability for
resources.  Regulations requiring external audits, such as Office of
Management and Budget Circulars A-110 and A-133, have also led PVOs
to focus on improving financial management systems.  USAID and
InterAction believe the PVO community generally has taken seriously
its responsibility to improve financial and program management.\3
However, some PVOs and particularly INGOs still have difficulties in
meeting U.S.  accountability standards.  For example, USAID's
Inspector General recently reviewed PVO activities in the West
Bank/Gaza and found that while PVOs generally had the capability to
implement USAID programs, two of the six needed to improve program
monitoring, two needed to improve financial management, and four did
not maintain adequate inventory records of USAID-funded
commodities.\4 Additionally, a recent audit of a PVO project in El
Salvador discovered that funds had been misappropriated through false
village banks and dummy loans.  As of September 1995, $118,000 in
USAID funds had not been recovered.  The PVO reported that the USAID
mission, the PVO, and the INGO have been working closely to address
weaknesses that were exposed once the problem was discovered. 
Providing assistance funds directly to PVOs or through a foundation,
as suggested in some of the reform proposals, would eliminate a key
accountability mechanism from the U.S.  foreign assistance program,
and the Congress would have to accept more risk and less
accountability for funds expended. 


--------------------
\3 In responding to a draft of this report, InterAction, a membership
organization representing a large network of PVOs, cited its PVO
standards as evidence of the community's emphasis on accountability. 
The standards, by which member PVOs must agree to abide as a
condition for membership, set standards for governance, management
practices, and financial reporting, among others. 

\4 Audit of USAID West Bank/Gaza and PVO Recipients' Capability to
Implement USAID Programs (Report No.  6-294-95-008, July 1995). 
Regional Inspector General for Audit, Cairo, Egypt. 


PROJECTS GENERALLY ACHIEVING
OBJECTIVES
============================================================ Chapter 3

We used criteria from development literature as the basis for our
detailed assessment of 26 PVO projects:  (1) progress toward meeting
objectives and (2) building local capacity.  While all projects
experienced some unanticipated challenges in implementation, 20 of
the 26 projects were making progress toward meeting all or most of
their objectives.  These projects resulted in accomplishments such as
construction of water systems, improved provision of health care, and
increased incomes for participants.  Two projects were having major
difficulties in attaining their objectives due to design or
implementation problems.  We were unable to assess the progress of
four projects because their objectives and associated PVO or USAID
evaluations were too general.  We found no correlation between the
size, geographic region, or sectoral emphasis of a PVO and its
ability to achieve project objectives.  In recent years, PVOs have
begun working extensively with local groups that carry out projects,
offering technical assistance and training to build institutional
capacity designed to increase local capacity, rather than doing the
projects with their own staffs.  Most projects we reviewed included
some activities designed to improve local capacity.  (App.  I
contains the details of our
26 case studies.)


   PVO PROJECTS GENERALLY
   ACHIEVING MOST PROJECT
   OBJECTIVES
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:1

The 20 projects in our case study that were making progress toward
their objectives reflected a combination of the factors identified in
development literature as being necessary for successful projects: 
good design and clear objectives, experience in the country and the
development sector, qualified management and staff, and local
participation.  The following examples illustrate some of these
factors: 

  In Nepal, a $328,000 female education scholarship project sponsored
     by the Asia Foundation used a tested design and had local
     participation through its INGO partner, which had strong
     leadership that found creative solutions to problems the project
     encountered.  As a result of the project, girls' school
     attendance increased in every district where the project was
     implemented. 

  USAID provided Katalysis $1.75 million to strengthen local INGOs in
     three countries, including Honduras.  In Honduras, the INGO
     partner conducted projects aimed at increasing participants'
     incomes.  Katalysis provided technical assistance for the INGO
     in a wide range of areas such as long- range planning,
     information management systems, and fund raising.  The PVO had
     good project design, which included local input and clear
     objectives, and had capable staff.  The INGO ultimately designed
     and carried out a project that increased incomes of
     beneficiaries. 

  In Ecuador, USAID provided $1.5 million to Project HOPE to develop
     a community health model with the goal of reducing sickness and
     death in children and women of childbearing age.  The PVO had
     expertise in the sector and prior work in the country.  The
     project had good management and design, and active community
     participation.  The project was effective in increasing
     participation and extending health care coverage.  (Fig.  3.1
     shows a parade and banner advertising diarrhea prevention and
     treatment.)

   Figure 3.1:  World Health Day
   Parade Sponsored by Project
   HOPE in Ecuador

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

  In Indonesia, USAID provided about $2.05 million in food aid to
     CARE to be sold to fund a pilot rural water and sanitation
     project.  The project's objectives were to increase access and
     use of water and sanitation facilities among villages in rural
     Indonesia and demonstrate that rural communities could develop
     and self-finance improved facilities.  The PVO used proven
     technical approaches and the design included measurable
     objectives.  Rather than working with an INGO, CARE employed
     local staff to work directly with the communities to plan and
     carry out the construction of water systems, including designing
     and building the appropriate system.  (Fig.  3.2 shows the
     resulting water reservoir that is filled by gravity from a
     spring 400 meters away.) The communities agreed to take
     responsibility for sustaining the improvements.  An outside
     evaluation of the program concluded that CARE's approach was
     successful in creating sustainable water sanitation systems. 
     Beneficiaries of the project in one village told us that the
     incidence of cholera had decreased since the system was built
     and that villagers could spend the 2 hours a day they had spent
     hauling water on more productive activities. 

   Figure 3.2:  Concrete Water
   Reservoir Built by CARE in
   Indonesia

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


   PVOS FACE DIFFICULTIES IN
   ACHIEVING PROJECT OBJECTIVES
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:2

The projects that were having the most difficulties suffered from
poor design, inadequate project management, and lack of participation
by the local community.  The following describes some of the problems
evident in the projects we examined: 

  In Romania, USAID contributed $200,000 to a $1.02 million World
     Vision health care project to improve the delivery of primary
     health care services.  The project was delayed almost a year due
     to internal management problems and difficulties in recruiting
     suitable staff.  Further, the PVO met with difficulties in
     working with Ministry of Health officials because of changes in
     leadership there.  A mid-term evaluation concluded that the
     achievements of the project at that date were mixed and could
     not always be clearly linked to project goals or to activities
     carried out.  The final evaluation of the program, conducted
     after our fieldwork, noted that the conditions we observed had
     changed and the project achieved its objectives.  The evaluation
     cited accomplishments in improving health knowledge, attitudes,
     and behaviors. 

  In Niger, USAID provided Africare $1.8 million for a project to
     train community health workers in child survival techniques such
     as oral rehydration, growth monitoring, and nutrition.  The
     project was delayed over 6 months due to difficulties in
     recruiting project personnel.  The project design was flawed in
     that it was not integrated into the Ministry of Health's
     program, so no local level officials took responsibility. 
     Further, although Ministry of Health nurses were trained, the
     nurses refused to train village health workers unless they
     received additional pay to ensure their cooperation.  When USAID
     and the PVO were unwilling to provide additional pay, project
     activities were slowed.  Supervision of project personnel and
     monitoring of field activities were inadequate, and Peace Corps
     volunteers working with the project complained that the PVO did
     not provide them adequate guidance.  There was little community
     participation in the village health program the project set up. 
     Africare stated that the problems identified in the draft had
     been addressed and that the project is now an integral part of
     Ministry of Health activities. 

PVO projects are not immune to some of the traditional problems in
development, including difficulties identifying and retaining
qualified staff and lack of support from local and national
governments, as the following examples show: 

  In Ecuador, Catholic Relief Services had difficulties implementing
     its infant growth monitoring activities because the
     beneficiaries could not read and were unable to keep accurate
     records. 

  In Romania, USAID provided Project Concern International $1 million
     to (1) train Romanians in obstetric and neonatal health care and
     (2) establish a model facility for institutionalized adolescents
     who can be assisted to function independently.  The project
     successfully renovated a facility (see fig.  3.3) and trained
     staff for a transitional living center to teach handicapped
     adolescents independent living and job skills.  However, the PVO
     encountered resistance from Romanian institutions that were
     reluctant to release adolescents into the private center.  At
     the time of our visit, only 6 children lived at the center
     designed and staffed to accommodate 40 residents.  Project
     Concern was working with the Romanian government and
     institutional officials to resolve such problems. 

   Figure 3.3:  Home Restored by
   Project Concern International
   to Be a Group Home for Mildly
   Handicapped Adolescents in
   Romania

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


   LOCAL PARTICIPATION EVIDENT IN
   SOME PROJECTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:3

One concern about development projects is their sustainability. 
Sustainability is often affected by the level of local participation
in planning and carrying out project activities.  USAID has
encouraged PVOs to work closely in implementing projects with local
counterpart organizations, including national and local governments
and INGOs, to strengthen the in-country development capacity.  Those
projects that respond to the development priorities of the intended
beneficiaries have been shown to have the best prospects for
sustainability, according to development literature.  Since
strengthening local capacity is fundamental to a country's long-term
social and economic development, we examined the extent to which
local persons and groups were involved in planning and carrying out
project activities.  Of the 241 projects in our inventory for which
the information was available, 146 (61 percent) involved one or more
INGOs.  INGOs were project implementors in at least one-third of the
projects.  For example, Private Agencies Collaborating Together
provided technical assistance to local organizations that worked
directly with street children in Thailand.  In Indonesia, the
National Cooperative Business Association supported local
cooperatives in export-oriented businesses in furniture and spices
(see fig.  3.4). 

   Figure 3.4:  National
   Cooperative Business
   Association Furniture
   Cooperative Project in
   Indonesia

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Efforts to involve INGOs in planning and carrying out projects were
apparent in most of the 26 projects we reviewed in detail. 
Twenty-one projects involved at least one local governmental or
nongovernmental organization in carrying out activities.  Five
projects focused specifically on strengthening INGOs, primarily by
providing technical assistance and training to local organizations. 
Three projects focused on strengthening some aspect of the developing
countries' government service delivery mechanisms.  For example, in
Ecuador, Project HOPE worked with the Ministry of Health to train
community health workers, and in Romania, World Vision worked with
the Ministry of Health to improve primary health strategies and
service delivery.  In Honduras, CARE worked with the Ministry of
Education on a school feeding program that included daily meals to
nearly 298,000 poor children at 3,743 schools.  Others worked
directly with community groups, in some cases organizing residents
for a particular purpose.  Beneficiaries of assistance, including
community groups, were more likely to be involved in implementing
projects and adapting existing designs to local conditions than they
were to be involved in the design process. 

One project we examined in Ghana demonstrates the need for local
involvement in planning and designing projects.  In this case, USAID
provided the Adventist Development and Relief Agency about $459,000
in fiscal year 1993 in food commodities and cash grants to support a
project to establish self-financing nurseries to grow and sell
seedlings that villagers would plant for later harvest and sale. 
However, the project did not have local participation in design and
did not take into account key environmental and economic factors,
including lack of demand for seedlings.  The project, according to an
independent evaluation, was "conceptualized, was designed, and is
managed by outsiders (both expatriate and Ghanaian) to funnel into
villages a commodity (wood trees) that was and is low on the scale of
locally perceived priorities." While the project set up the nurseries
and trained local staff paid with donated food, the lack of demand
for seedlings made it unlikely that the nurseries could be
self-sustaining.  Further, the Peace Corps workers that had initially
set up and managed the nurseries were supposed to turn management
responsibilities over to the beneficiaries.  However, no time period
was set for a phase over of responsibilities and, according to an
outside evaluator, there was no clearly defined withdrawal scenario
in project documents.  According to project evaluations, no nurseries
had been turned over to local management 3 years after the project
started.  USAID and the PVO have informed us that the problems
identified during our fieldwork have been addressed and that the
project is showing positive results.  The PVO hopes to turn
management of the project over to local workers beginning in 1996. 

During our fieldwork, USAID officials in Washington and the field
noted that some PVOs have been more successful than others in
developing INGOs and turning over direct service activities to the
local organizations.  According to USAID officials, PVOs that have
developed expertise in and networks for charitable service delivery
in particular countries have tended to move less quickly toward
working with INGOs than PVOs that see their role as enabling INGOs to
serve their local communities. 


PVOS ARE LESS DEPENDENT ON
GOVERNMENT FUNDING
============================================================ Chapter 4

Despite their status as private, nongovernmental organizations, many
PVOs receive significant amounts of federal funding.  However, we
found that PVOs generally are less dependent on government funding
than they were a decade or more ago--although some individual PVO
in-country projects are funded entirely by USAID.  While federal
spending on PVOs has increased in absolute terms since 1982, the
percentage of total PVO resources coming from the federal government
has decreased 13 percent (for PVOs that receive federal funds), from
42 percent in 1982 to 29 percent in 1992.\1 This is because private
donations have increased at a much faster rate than federal funding. 

PVOs must be registered with USAID to receive direct funding for
purposes other than disaster assistance.  In 1992, 231 registered
PVOs received federal funding--an 83-percent increase from the 1982
total of 126.  To qualify for development assistance funding, PVOs
must show a minimum level of private funding (20 percent).  This
"privateness" calculation represents PVOs' total resources and not
their contributions to the costs of specific projects. 


--------------------
\1 All dollar figures reported in this chapter have been converted to
constant 1992 dollars.  The analysis concerns PVOs' total programming
(both domestic and international), since the financial data we
analyzed combined income for all PVO programs, including both
emergency and nonemergency activities.  However, the same data set
reported that most PVO expenses were for overseas programs.  In 1992,
about 62 percent of PVOs' total expenditures was for international
programs; 27 percent for domestic programs; and the remainder for
administrative, management, and fund-raising costs. 


   PVOS RELY INCREASINGLY ON
   PRIVATE DONATIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:1

Our analyses of data for PVOs that receive federal funding show that
reliance on government funding declined for many federally-supported
PVOs between 1982 and 1992.  Total private funding for PVOs receiving
federal funds grew from $1.3 billion in 1982 to $3.4 billion in 1992
(in constant 1992 dollars), a 160-percent increase.  In contrast,
federal funding for PVOs fluctuated over this period--dropping to a
low of $0.9 billion in 1984 and peaking at $1.5 billion in 1992, a
41-percent increase from the 1982 level of $1.07 billion (see fig. 
4.1).  The median level of private funding for PVOs that received
federal funding more than doubled, growing from $1.3 million in 1982
to $2.7 million in 1992, after peaking at $3.4 million in 1989. 
Appendix II shows the distribution of PVOs by levels of federal
funding from 1982 to 1992, and appendix III shows PVOs' federal
funding as a share of total funding in 1982 and 1992. 

   Figure 4.1:  Total Private and
   Federal Funding to Federally
   Funded U.S.  PVOs, 1982 to 1992
   (in constant 1992 dollars)

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

\a Private funding includes private contributions, private revenue,
and donations of goods and services.  It excludes funding from other
governments and international organizations. 

\b Federal funding includes U.S.  government grants and contracts,
excess property, P.L.  480 commodities and freight, and USAID
freight. 

While federally supported PVOs received a median of 36 percent of
their total support from federal sources in 1982, in 1992 they
received
23 percent.  The median amount of federal funding, in constant 1992
dollars, for PVOs that received any federal funding decreased 31
percent, from $929,487 to $639,136 after peaking at $1.5 million in
1986\2 (see
fig.  4.2).  This decline was partly due to the increase in the
number of PVOs that received federal funding and the relatively
smaller increase in federal funding for PVOs. 

   Figure 4.2:  Median Levels of
   Federal Funding to U.S.  PVOs
   that Received Federal Funding,
   1982 to 1992

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

A smaller percentage of PVOs depended on government funding for a
substantial portion of their resources in 1992 than in 1982.  In
1982, the 44 percent that received federal funding received at least
half of their total funding from government sources; in 1992, only 24
percent did.  Similarly, the proportion of PVOs that received 80
percent or more of their funding from the government declined from 22
percent to 10 percent (see fig.  4.3).  However, some PVOs still
received a large percentage of their resources from the U.S. 
government.  For example, Catholic Relief Services and CARE have
consistently received the largest amounts of federal support among
PVOs, much of it in the form of food aid.  Catholic Relief Services
received 69 percent of its total revenues from the U.S.  government
in 1982 and 76 percent in 1992.  Catholic Relief Services pointed out
that if food aid is deducted from the 1992 figures, the percentage of
U.S.  government resources would be reduced from 76 percent to 38
percent.  CARE also received significant U.S.  support--60 percent of
its 1992 revenues came from the U.S.  government, although this is a
decrease from 78 percent in 1982. 

   Figure 4.3:  Proportions of
   PVOs Relying on Federal Funding
   for 80 Percent or More, 50 to
   79 Percent, and Less Than
   50 Percent of Their Resources,
   1982 to 1992

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Total resources for PVOs that received federal funding grew from a
median of $3.6 million in 1982 to $5.2 million in 1992 (in constant
1992 dollars), peaking in 1986 at $7.3 million.  In 1992, five PVOs
had resources totaling over $200 million, and all of them received
federal funding.  Three of these PVOs were also the largest PVOs in
1982. 

The share of total federal funding going to the top 5 percent of
federally funded PVOs decreased from about 71 percent in 1982 (when 6
PVOs received $762.4 million) to about 59 percent in 1992 (when 11
PVOs received $893.6 million).  The 5 percent of PVOs that got the
smallest amounts of federal funding received less than $12,800 each
in 1982 and less than $10,850 in 1992, or 0.005 and 0.006 percent of
federal funding in the respective years.  In addition, 153 registered
PVOs did not receive any federal funding in 1992, compared to 18 in
1982. 


--------------------
\2 Due to the large increase in the number of registered PVOs that
did not receive any federal funding, the median level of federal
funding for all PVOs decreased even more dramatically--from $726,517
in 1982 to $60,244 in 1992. 


   PVO COST-SHARING REQUIREMENTS
   CHANGED
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:2

The preceding data on PVOs' total financial resources provides a view
of decreasing financial dependence on the U.S.  government, but it is
also necessary to examine how PVOs work with USAID on specific
projects to understand the issue of dependency.  Although virtually
all PVOs have some private resources, PVOs must make choices about
how much of their private funding to devote to USAID projects and how
much to spend on self-determined, self-supported activities. 

Until July 1994, USAID generally required PVOs to contribute at least
25 percent toward the costs of PVO projects supported through USAID
grants.\3 This cost-sharing requirement was meant to ensure that PVOs
were committed to their USAID-funded projects and to enhance the
likelihood that project activities and benefits would be sustained
after USAID funding ends.  The requirement was also seen as a means
of mobilizing additional funding for projects and a mechanism to
prevent PVO financial and programmatic dependence on USAID.  However,
PVO officials told us that cost sharing at the 25-percent level was
often difficult on large dollar-value projects, especially for
smaller PVOs.  For example, a $2 million USAID project might require
a $500,000 contribution from the grantee.  In addition, because PVOs
did not always want to use private resources to meet USAID's
priorities, USAID's choice of PVO partners was sometimes limited. 
Because of these problems, USAID changed its policy to encourage, but
not require, cost sharing for these grants. 

USAID's new policy allows more flexibility in determining the
cost-sharing level:  it encourages the "largest reasonable and
possible" level of cost sharing without specifying any minimum.  This
policy change makes USAID treatment of PVOs more consistent with its
treatment of other grantees, such as universities and other nonprofit
organizations, which are not required to make any minimum level of
financial contribution to USAID-funded projects.  USAID stated that
the purpose of the revision of the cost-sharing policy was to
standardize and streamline policy and process, not to eliminate
USAID's preference for PVOs' 25-percent contributions to USAID
activities.  USAID stated it does not expect overall PVO
contributions to USAID activities to lessen as a result of this
policy. 


--------------------
\3 The requirement applied primarily to USAID funding that was
reserved exclusively for PVOs.  However, under USAID's matching grant
program, PVOs were and are still required to contribute at least 50
percent of program costs. 


CASE STUDY PROJECTS
=========================================================== Appendix I

              Private                     USAID funding/
Project/      voluntary                   life of
sector        organization  Objectives    project         Comments
------------  ------------  ------------  --------------  ----------------------
Ecuador
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Health/       Catholic      Improve       Grant I:        At the second phase
child         Relief        child health  $610,601/       mid-term evaluation,
survival      Services      and           1985-92         the projects had
                            nutrition.                    established health
                                          Grant II:       programs in about 90
                                          $400,000/       of the 120 target
                                          1992-95         communities and
                                                          reduced the incidence
                                                          of diarrheal disease
                                                          in target communities,
                                                          although only about
                                                          half of the potential
                                                          beneficiaries
                                                          participated in the
                                                          mothers' meeting
                                                          through which services
                                                          were provided.
                                                          Sustainability was
                                                          made questionable by
                                                          weak commitment from
                                                          the Ministry of
                                                          Health, among other
                                                          factors. The project
                                                          involved community
                                                          organizations, but it
                                                          had difficulty
                                                          retaining trained
                                                          community volunteers.

Health/       Project HOPE  Improve       Grant I:        The project worked in
child                       health of     $750,000/       about half of the
survival                    children and  1989-93         planned communities
                            women of                      and had trained 90 of
                            fertile age.  Grant II:       the planned 200
                                          $780,000/       Ministry of Health
                                          1992-95         nurses. The Ministry
                                                          of Health's inability
                                                          to support the
                                                          project, due in part
                                                          to financial
                                                          difficulties, hampered
                                                          achievement of
                                                          vaccination goals.
                                                          Baseline data was
                                                          unavailable to track
                                                          progress on some
                                                          health and nutritional
                                                          indicators. The
                                                          private voluntary
                                                          organization's (PVO)
                                                          close relationship
                                                          with Ministry of
                                                          Health and use of the
                                                          community health model
                                                          increased prospects
                                                          for sustainability.
                                                          Developing local
                                                          capacity was a
                                                          priority.

Trade and     Internationa  Promote       $675,000/       The project conducted
investment    l Executive   private       1991-94\a       industry surveys,
              Service       sector                        sponsored business
              Corps         investment                    seminars, and provided
                            and provide                   technical assistance
                            technical                     to three indigenous
                            assistance                    nongovernmental
                            to small and                  organizations (INGO)
                            medium-                       and several small
                            sized                         businesses; however,
                            enterprises.                  changes in project
                                                          design made it
                                                          impossible to measure
                                                          outputs against the
                                                          original project
                                                          objectives.
                                                          Beneficiaries were
                                                          involved in
                                                          determining their
                                                          needs for technical
                                                          assistance and in
                                                          implementing
                                                          recommendations.


Ghana
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
School        Catholic      Improve       Food aid        The project
feeding,      Relief        health and    valued at       distributed food to
mother-       Services      nutrition of  $2.57 million   about 160,000
child                       rural         and freight     beneficiaries in 1990,
health,                     Ghanaian      costs of        the last year for
farmer                      families and  $1.4 million    which information was
training,                   other needy   in fiscal year  available, and its
and relief                  persons and   1994            food incentive program
                            promote                       increased girls'
                            literacy                      attendance by 9
                            among                         percent at target
                            school-aged                   schools. The project
                            children.                     did not have plans for
                                                          sustainability without
                                                          the donated
                                                          commodities.
                                                          Beneficiaries and some
                                                          local organizations
                                                          were involved in
                                                          carrying out the
                                                          project.

Food for      Adventist     Improve       Total support   At the time of our
work/         Development   nutrition,    of              review, the project
natural       and Relief    provide       $5.31 million/  operated 36 mother-
resources     Agency        employment,   fiscal years    child health centers,
and relief                  and protect   1992-94         provided materials for
                            natural                       construction of 20
                            resources.                    wells,
                                                          10 schools, and toilet
                                                          facilities and about
                                                          1.7 million seedlings
                                                          were planted through
                                                          food-for-work
                                                          projects. The
                                                          community forestry
                                                          component of the
                                                          project established 16
                                                          nurseries to produce
                                                          seedlings since
                                                          activities began in
                                                          1988. The food-for-
                                                          work tree planting
                                                          component was not
                                                          sustainable without
                                                          commodities for
                                                          payment of laborers.
                                                          The financial self-
                                                          sufficiency objective
                                                          of the nursery project
                                                          component was not
                                                          achieved due in part
                                                          to lack of demand for
                                                          seedings.
                                                          Beneficiaries were
                                                          involved in project
                                                          implementation but not
                                                          in designing the
                                                          project components and
                                                          had not taken on
                                                          project
                                                          responsibilities. The
                                                          PVO stated that, since
                                                          our fieldwork, the
                                                          demand for seedlings
                                                          has increased and that
                                                          the project is
                                                          reaching its
                                                          objectives.

Microenterpr  Technoserve   Increase      Total support   The project
ise                         incomes and   of $664,000/    established 27 rural
development                 food          1993-97         agricultural
                            security by                   enterprises and
                            assisting                     cooperatives and
                            rural small                   provided training and
                            businesses                    technical assistance
                            and                           to 29,700
                            promoting                     beneficiaries,
                            nontradition                  resulting in increased
                            al exports.                   rural productivity and
                                                          incomes. The project
                                                          relied on outside
                                                          funding for training
                                                          and equipment; plans
                                                          to establish a trust
                                                          fund to support
                                                          continued project
                                                          activities met with
                                                          unanticipated
                                                          problems, such as
                                                          currency depreciation,
                                                          changes in the
                                                          availability and price
                                                          of wheat, and
                                                          competing Ghanaian
                                                          subsidy programs.
                                                          Beneficiaries were
                                                          involved in managing
                                                          rural businesses based
                                                          on business plans
                                                          drawn up with PVO
                                                          assistance.


Honduras
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Food for      CARE          Improve       Food aid        This pilot project
work                        infrastructu  valued at       completed 20 of 21
(municipal                  re in poor    $380,000 and    planned drainage,
infrastructu                urban areas.  freight costs   potable water, and
re)                                       of $89,700/     latrine projects in
                                          1994            the last year for
                                                          which full data was
                                                          available;
                                                          municipalities'
                                                          failure to provide
                                                          agreed inputs caused
                                                          some implementation
                                                          problems.
                                                          Municipalities were
                                                          involved in planning
                                                          and building
                                                          infrastructure but did
                                                          not have a strong
                                                          resource basis for
                                                          sustainability, and
                                                          the PVO had not yet
                                                          made maintenance
                                                          plans. The project
                                                          developed local
                                                          capacity by training
                                                          community leaders and
                                                          municipal personnel in
                                                          organization and
                                                          technical skills and
                                                          by involving
                                                          communities in project
                                                          decisions,
                                                          construction, and
                                                          evaluation.

Housing and   Cooperative   Improve       Food aid        It appears that the
sanitation    Housing       housing and   valued at       project exceeded
              Foundation    sanitation    $410,000 with   targets for making
                            through       freight costs   loans to low-income
                            loans and     of $22,500/     persons but fell short
                            assistance    1994            of goals for community
                            to poor                       improvement loans
                            families.                     during the period of
                                                          USAID funding;
                                                          however, data was
                                                          incomplete to compare
                                                          project objectives to
                                                          outcomes. Similar loan
                                                          activities begun under
                                                          a previous USAID grant
                                                          to the PVO have
                                                          continued through a
                                                          revolving loan
                                                          mechanism since USAID
                                                          funding ended in 1990.
                                                          The PVO developed
                                                          local capacity by
                                                          providing funding and
                                                          technical assistance
                                                          to INGO project
                                                          implementors.

School        CARE          Improve       Food aid sold   The project fed about
feeding,                    health and    for local       99 percent of targeted
mother-                     nutrition of  equivalent of   300,000 school
child health                mothers and   $1.8 million/   children and 85
                            children and  1994-96         percent of mother-
                            improve                       child health program
                            school                        beneficiaries in 1993,
                            attendance.                   but progress toward
                                                          objectives of reducing
                                                          malnutrition and
                                                          infant mortality was
                                                          not systematically
                                                          documented. The
                                                          government of Honduras
                                                          contributed to the
                                                          project, but it does
                                                          not have the resources
                                                          to continue the same
                                                          level of feeding
                                                          without donor
                                                          assistance. The PVO
                                                          worked closely with
                                                          government agencies to
                                                          train them to
                                                          administer the
                                                          project, with mixed
                                                          success; communities
                                                          were involved in
                                                          project
                                                          implementation.

Health/       Save the      Improve       Funding         The PVO was on
water and     Children      health by     provided as     schedule to complete
sanitation                  extending     host-country    77 water systems and
                            water and     grant:          5,800 latrines by the
                            sewer         $700,000/       end of the grant
                            services      1990-95         period. The project
                            into rural                    planned for
                            areas.                        maintaining water
                                                          systems through user
                                                          fees, although
                                                          collection was
                                                          problematic for some
                                                          communities. The PVO
                                                          worked with
                                                          communities to form
                                                          organizations to build
                                                          and maintain water
                                                          systems.

INGO          Katalysis     Strengthen    $1.75 million   The PVO strengthened
development,                INGO's        for three       its INGO partner
credit/                     management    Latin American  through training and
microenterpr                and planning  countries/      technical assistance
ise                         abilities to  1991-93         in planning and
                            assist                        management systems and
                            women's                       project design and
                            businesses.                   implementation, and
                                                          the INGO undertook
                                                          program activities
                                                          that resulted in new
                                                          enterprises being
                                                          created and
                                                          establishment of 27
                                                          community banks. The
                                                          INGO, however, still
                                                          relied on grant funds
                                                          from the PVO. The
                                                          project had a strong
                                                          relationship with the
                                                          INGO and involved it
                                                          in project design and
                                                          implementation.

Indonesia

Health/       CARE          Improve       Food aid        This project,
water and                   health by     valued at       supported by
sanitation                  extending     $2 million      monetization of food
                            water and     with freight    aid, provided
                            sewer         costs of        assistance in
                            services      $1.2 million/   construction of water
                            into rural    1988-93         systems in 72
                            areas.        (Extended to    villages. The PVO
                                          July 22, 1996,  involved communities
                                          at no           in planning, building,
                                          additional      operating, and
                                          cost to         maintaining the
                                          USAID.)         systems, and
                                                          communities financed
                                                          the material and
                                                          equipment. The project
                                                          planned for
                                                          sustainability of the
                                                          water systems through
                                                          user fees. CARE
                                                          subsidized
                                                          construction of
                                                          systems in over 30
                                                          percent of villages
                                                          too poor to mobilize
                                                          the resources needed.

Enterprise    National      Increase      Food aid        The food-monetization
development   Cooperative   employment    valued at       project provided
              Business      and incomes   $5 million/     technical assistance
              Association   by assisting  1986-94         to develop managerial
                            cooperatives                  and marketing services
                            .                             for cooperative
                                                          businesses. Project
                                                          activities generated
                                                          employment for about
                                                          20,000 workers;
                                                          however, the project
                                                          documentation did not
                                                          have quantifiable
                                                          indicators against
                                                          which to assess
                                                          progress. USAID stated
                                                          that the project's
                                                          objectives of creating
                                                          or expanding labor-
                                                          intensive businesses
                                                          and increasing
                                                          production of
                                                          agricultural export,
                                                          among others, have
                                                          been met. The PVO
                                                          works with businesses
                                                          to organize
                                                          cooperatives to
                                                          develop markets.
                                                          Economic activities
                                                          generated by the
                                                          project will be
                                                          susceptible to
                                                          economic circumstances
                                                          in the marketplace.

Mother-       Catholic      Improve       Food aid        The project's food-
child         Relief        health and    valued at $3.4  for-work component
health, food  Services      nutrition of  million and     completed 301
for work,                   mothers and   freight costs   infrastructure
enterprise                  children,     of              improvement projects
development                 increase      $1.3 million/   in 1993 and over
                            rural         1994            122,900 participants
                            incomes.                      received food. The
                                                          mother-child health
                                                          project component
                                                          served 42,291
                                                          beneficiaries at 763
                                                          community health
                                                          centers and began
                                                          establishing small
                                                          financial institutions
                                                          to provide credit for
                                                          economic activities.
                                                          The project has not
                                                          planned for
                                                          sustainability, and
                                                          the activities are not
                                                          self-supporting. The
                                                          PVO used local
                                                          counterpart
                                                          organizations to
                                                          provide services.

INGO          Program for   Strengthen    $1.2 million/   The project provided
development   Appropriate   INGOs'        1991-94         technical assistance
              Technology    abilities to  (Extended to    in financial
              in Health     manage and    June 30, 1995,  management, project
                            plan health   at no           design, and strategic
                            services.     additional      planning to more than
                                          cost to USAID)  16 health sector
                                                          INGOs; however,
                                                          documentation did not
                                                          use the original
                                                          objectives to assess
                                                          project progress. The
                                                          government of
                                                          Indonesia has
                                                          integrated some
                                                          project health
                                                          strategies into its
                                                          objectives, but income
                                                          generating activities
                                                          were problematic for
                                                          INGOs. Beneficiary
                                                          INGOs were involved in
                                                          planning and
                                                          implementing
                                                          development projects.

Natural       World         Strengthen    $1.4 million/   The project awarded 9
resources/    Education     INGOs'        1991-95         of the expected 14
pesticide                   abilities to                  subgrants to INGOs but
reduction                   conduct                       provided training and
                            environmenta                  materials for twice
                            l training                    the expected number of
                            projects.                     workshops for INGOs
                                                          and farmers, training
                                                          about 1,000 people in
                                                          pest management, media
                                                          development, or
                                                          consumer education.
                                                          According to the PVO,
                                                          pest management
                                                          activities decreased
                                                          pesticide use by
                                                          50 percent while
                                                          maintaining product
                                                          quality. The advocacy
                                                          models used have high
                                                          potential for
                                                          sustainability,
                                                          although whether the
                                                          INGOs can become
                                                          financially
                                                          independent of the PVO
                                                          is not clear. The
                                                          project benefitted
                                                          from INGO involvement
                                                          in planning and
                                                          implementation.


Nepal
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Female        Asia          Increase      $0.45 million/  The project, which
education     Foundation    number of     1991-95         provided scholarships
                            girls that                    to girls who continued
                            attend and                    their educations after
                            complete                      primary school,
                            secondary                     succeeded in
                            school.                       increasing the number
                                                          of girls attending
                                                          secondary schools in
                                                          target areas by 65
                                                          percent. The project
                                                          was a pilot that USAID
                                                          and the PVO hoped
                                                          would be funded by the
                                                          World Bank. The
                                                          project strengthened
                                                          the INGO partner's
                                                          organizational skills,
                                                          but the INGO did not
                                                          yet have strong
                                                          planning skills. The
                                                          project was a
                                                          replication of a
                                                          project in Bangladesh,
                                                          but the PVO worked
                                                          closely with an INGO
                                                          that carried out the
                                                          project.

Rural         Save the      Improve       $1.1 million/   The project reached
community     Children      quality of    1988-92         about 120,000 people
development                 life through                  with activities in
                            education,                    primary health care,
                            health,                       water and
                            agriculture,                  infrastructure
                            and                           improvements,
                            microenterpr                  agriculture, resource
                            ise                           conservation
                            activities.                   management, and
                                                          education, but it was
                                                          unable to transfer all
                                                          responsibilities for
                                                          sustaining activities
                                                          to community
                                                          organizations during
                                                          the grant period. The
                                                          PVO planned to
                                                          continue project
                                                          activities after its
                                                          USAID grant ended. The
                                                          PVO worked with 30
                                                          local organizations
                                                          and mobilized local
                                                          volunteers to continue
                                                          project activities.


Niger
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Health/       Africare      Improve       $1.8 million/   At its first phase
child                       mother and    1988-95         mid-term evaluation,
survival                    child                         the project had
                            health.                       trained nurses from
                                                          more dispensaries than
                                                          planned (15 rather
                                                          than 13) and village
                                                          health teams (27
                                                          rather than 24), but
                                                          other planned
                                                          activities that would
                                                          have enhanced the
                                                          achievement of project
                                                          objectives, such as
                                                          training for village
                                                          health management
                                                          committees, were
                                                          dropped. The project
                                                          suffered from poor
                                                          management and showed
                                                          minimal
                                                          accomplishments at the
                                                          time of our visit.
                                                          Project sustainability
                                                          depends on the
                                                          commitment of the
                                                          government of Niger to
                                                          health services.
                                                          Otherwise, activities
                                                          will end when
                                                          assistance is
                                                          withdrawn. The project
                                                          was not well-
                                                          integrated into the
                                                          Ministry of Health's
                                                          local activities, and
                                                          its efforts were
                                                          replacing and at times
                                                          duplicating Ministry
                                                          of Public Health and
                                                          other donors'
                                                          activities at the
                                                          dispensary level.
                                                          USAID approved phase
                                                          two of the project,
                                                          although no final
                                                          evaluation was
                                                          conducted. Africare
                                                          stated that it has
                                                          addressed all the
                                                          problems identified
                                                          during our fieldwork,
                                                          and USAID stated that
                                                          recent performance
                                                          data showed positive
                                                          project results.

Private       World         Promote       $11 million/    The project organized
sector/       Council of    rural credit  1989-97         20 credit unions by
credit union  Credit        union                         the end of 1993,
development   Unions        formation                     trained over 50 credit
                            through                       union leaders in
                            technical                     literacy and
                            assistance.                   bookkeeping, submitted
                                                          draft credit union
                                                          legislation to the
                                                          government of Niger,
                                                          and started loan
                                                          activities. However,
                                                          the project was
                                                          delayed by problems in
                                                          recruiting qualified
                                                          local staff and faced
                                                          an inadequate legal
                                                          and regulatory
                                                          environment, which the
                                                          project sought to
                                                          address. As of Sept.
                                                          1995, draft
                                                          legislation on credit
                                                          unions had been
                                                          introduced. USAID
                                                          believes that about
                                                          half the credit unions
                                                          established under the
                                                          project are now
                                                          viable. Beneficiaries
                                                          were involved in
                                                          design and
                                                          implementation of the
                                                          project.


Romania
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Health and    Project       Improve care  $1 million/     The project
social        Concern       for           1991-95         successfully
services      Internationa  institutiona                  established a
              l             lized                         transitional living
                            children                      facility for
                            through                       handicapped
                            training and                  adolescents and worked
                            a model                       with Romanian medical
                            facility.                     workers in obstetrics
                                                          and neonatal care.
                                                          However, the PVO
                                                          relied entirely on
                                                          USAID funding for in-
                                                          country operations and
                                                          had met with
                                                          resistance from
                                                          Romanian health
                                                          officials that
                                                          hindered release of
                                                          adolescents to the
                                                          group home, so
                                                          facilities were
                                                          underused. Training of
                                                          local staff was a
                                                          priority, and local
                                                          leaders were involved
                                                          in implementing some
                                                          project activities but
                                                          not in designing the
                                                          project.

Health        World Vision  Improve       $1 million/     The project improved
              Relief and    primary       1991-94         clinical services to
              Development   health care                   institutionalized
                            systems and                   children and adults in
                            health care                   target institutions
                            for                           through direct service
                            institutiona                  delivery and training
                            lized                         of Romanian staff, but
                            children                      activities to
                            through                       strengthen local
                            training and                  primary health systems
                            technical                     suffered from internal
                            assistance.                   problems resulting in
                                                          delays and lack of
                                                          clear objectives.
                                                          Local staff received
                                                          training and assisted
                                                          in project
                                                          implementation.

Health and    Feed the      Improve care  $1.6 million/   The PVO successfully
social        Children      for           1991-95         undertook 13
services                    institutiona                  renovation projects at
                            lized                         institutions for
                            children by                   orphans and
                            improving                     handicapped children
                            facilities                    in six districts,
                            and                           providing basic
                            providing                     services, such as
                            supplies.                     water and heat, that
                                                          were previously
                                                          unavailable. However,
                                                          none of the planned
                                                          nutritional activities
                                                          were undertaken, and
                                                          the PVO did not
                                                          develop a strategy to
                                                          transfer activities to
                                                          indigenous
                                                          institutions.
                                                          Improvements were of
                                                          good quality, and
                                                          local staff were
                                                          trained in
                                                          maintenance. The PVO
                                                          had local staff in
                                                          leadership positions,
                                                          although its planned
                                                          partnership with an
                                                          INGO did not
                                                          materialize.

Environment   World         Reduce        $1.2 million/   The project assisted
              Environment   industrial    1990-95         10 enterprises through
              Center        pollution                     technical assistance
                            through                       in environmental
                            prevention                    assessments and
                            technologies                  demonstration of waste
                            .                             management equipment
                                                          and techniques. It is
                                                          unlikely that Romanian
                                                          firms could undertake
                                                          capital improvements
                                                          without outside
                                                          funding. The project
                                                          developed local
                                                          capacity by involving
                                                          the enterprise staff
                                                          in implementing new
                                                          techniques.


Thailand
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INGO          Private       Strengthen    $1.6 million/   The project provided
development   Agencies      INGOs'        1990-94         grants and technical
              Collaboratin  abilities to                  assistance in project
              g Together    develop                       management to 30 INGOs
                            programs,                     and INGO coalitions.
                            build                         The PVO anticipated
                            coalitions,                   that the INGOs would
                            and engage                    have difficulty
                            the public.                   finding additional
                                                          resources to sustain
                                                          their operations. The
                                                          PVO worked closely
                                                          with local
                                                          counterparts and
                                                          involved them in
                                                          implementing project
                                                          activities.

Microenterpr  CARE          Increase      $0.3 million/   The project assisted
ise                         incomes,      1988-1993       816 participant
development                 employment,                   families in 30
                            and                           villages, and there
                            productivity                  was some replication
                            through                       of project activities
                            credit and                    in additional
                            technical                     villages. However, the
                            assistance                    PVO's lack of
                            to                            experience in the
                            microenterpr                  sector and the staff-
                            ises.                         intensive approach
                                                          selected in setting up
                                                          businesses resulted in
                                                          the PVO being unable
                                                          to provide needed
                                                          follow-up assistance.
                                                          The project made
                                                          linkages with
                                                          government
                                                          organizations and
                                                          private sector markets
                                                          for some producers'
                                                          wares, and the
                                                          government of Japan
                                                          agreed to fund the
                                                          project for an
                                                          additional 2 years.
                                                          The beneficiaries were
                                                          involved in carrying
                                                          out project
                                                          activities, and the
                                                          PVO provided training
                                                          in financial
                                                          management.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a In 1993, the Congress and the administration implemented laws and
policies that prohibited USAID from providing assistance aimed at
investment promotion.  Consequently, the project was terminated in
1994, 3 years prior to its planned completion date. 


DISTRIBUTION OF PVOS BY LEVELS OF
FEDERAL FUNDING, 1982 TO 1992
========================================================== Appendix II


                  Total number
                            of                      $100,000  $500,000       $1-      $20-      Over
                    registered                 $1-         -         -     $19.9      $100      $100
Year                      PVOs        $0   $99,999  $499,999  $999,999   million   million   million
----------------  ------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------
1982                       144        18        20        26        20        53         5         2
1983                       142        23        15        20        22        56         4         2
1984                       154        34        15        24        18        59         2         2
1985                       158        37        15        23        17        60         4         2
1986                       178        55        12        21        19        60         8         3
1987                       189        54        17        27        19        60        10         2
1988                       207        65        22        30        17        60        11         2
1989                       241        87        27        34        15        63        13         2
1990                       267       102        27        35        19        68        14         2
1991                       334       128        50        39        31        70        14         2
1992                       384       153        52        50        34        77        16         2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  USAID data. 


PVOS' FEDERAL FUNDING AS A SHARE
OF TOTAL FUNDING, 1982 AND 1992
(IN CONSTANT 1992 DOLLARS)
========================================================= Appendix III

                              (Dollars in thousands)


                                         Federal                         Federal
                       Total  Federa  funding as       Total  Federa  funding as
                     funding       l  percent of     funding       l  percent of
                    from all  fundin       total    from all  fundin       total
PVO name             sources       g     funding     sources       g     funding
----------------  ----------  ------  ----------  ----------  ------  ----------
A Call to Serve          n/r     n/r         n/r   $24,524.8   $42.8         0.2
 International
The Academy for          n/r     n/r         n/r    71,334.8  60,910        85.4
 Educational                                                      .5
 Development
Accion              $1,493.0  $831.7        55.7     3,956.6  1,131.        28.6
 International                                                     5
Action                   n/r     n/r         n/r         6.1       0           0
 Consulting
 Association
Adventist           23,403.2  17,185        73.4    55,246.3  41,302        74.8
 Development and                  .2                              .2
 Relief Agency
 International
 (formerly
 Seventh-Day
 Adventist World
 Service)
Africa Rural             n/r     n/r         n/r       194.6       0           0
 Development
African Children         n/r     n/r         n/r     1,549.9       0           0
 Welfare
 Foundation
African Medical          n/r     n/r         n/r     1,388.8   366.3        26.4
 and Research
 Foundation
The African              n/r     n/r         n/r       428.4   199.3        46.5
 Methodist
 Episcopal
 Church Service
 & Development
 Agency
African Wildlife     1,331.3       0           0     5,634.4   842.7        15.0
 Foundation
 (formerly
 African
 Wildlife
 Leadership
 Foundation)
The African-        16,840.2  13,722        81.5    25,570.9  23,134        90.5
 American                         .6                              .4
 Institute
African-             5,368.7  5,058.        94.2     6,341.1  6,113.        96.4
 American Labor                    0                               0
 Center
Africare             8,794.5  6,045.        68.7    15,119.6  9,669.        64.0
                                   5                               0
AFS                      n/r     n/r         n/r    32,887.3   433.2         1.3
 Intercultural
 Programs
Aga Khan                 n/r     n/r         n/r     3,478.1   485.4        14.0
 Foundation, USA
Agricultural         3,635.5  3,250.        89.4    13,214.2  12,300        93.1
 Cooperative                       7                              .8
 Development
 International
Agricultural         2,735.8   941.1        34.4         n/r     n/r         n/r
 Development
 Council
Agua del Pueblo        159.6    33.6        21.1         n/r     n/r         n/r
AICF/USA                 n/r     n/r         n/r     1,945.0  1,894.        97.4
 (International                                                    1
 Action Against
 Hunger)
Aid to Artisans          n/r     n/r         n/r       746.8   310.5        41.6
Air Serv                 n/r     n/r         n/r     8,173.8   469.7         5.8
 International
Aletheia                 n/r     n/r         n/r        99.6       0           0
 Foundation
Alliance for             n/r     n/r         n/r        46.0       0           0
 Communities in
 Action
ALM                  3,102.1    43.4         1.4     7,464.3    10.0         0.1
 International
 (formerly
 American
 Leprosy
 Missions)
America-Mideast      8,464.4  6,644.        78.5    29,514.6  21,797        73.9
 Educational and                   1                              .3
 Training
 Services
America's                n/r     n/r         n/r     2,272.5  1,900.        83.6
 Development                                                       8
 Foundation
American                 n/r     n/r         n/r       198.3    96.4        48.6
 Association for
 International
 Aging
American                 n/r     n/r         n/r     1,871.4       0           0
 Association of
 Zoological
 Parks and
 Aquariums
American Bureau        435.0       0           0         n/r     n/r         n/r
 for Medical
 Advancement in
 China
American College         n/r     n/r         n/r     2,920.1   372.0        12.7
 of Nurse-
 Midwives
American                 n/r     n/r         n/r        17.5    11.5        65.6
 Colonization
 Society
 Charitable Fund
American                 n/r     n/r         n/r       293.7   157.4        53.6
 Committee for
 Aid to Poland
American             8,902.1   343.3         3.9    11,099.2       0           0
 Committee for
 Shaare Zedek
 Hospital in
 Jerusalem
American Council         n/r     n/r         n/r    21,735.8  3,060.        14.1
 on Education                                                      1
American               151.2       0          .0       409.2       0           0
 Dentists for
 Foreign Service
American Friends     2,656.4       0           0     1,461.4       0           0
 of Kiryat Sanz
 Laniado
 Hospital
American Friends    24,043.6   861.4         3.6    36,380.7       0           0
 Service
 Committee
American                 n/r     n/r         n/r       382.6       0           0
 Himalayan
 Foundation
American            14,221.9  13,636        95.9    15,544.5  14,286        91.9
 Institute for                    .3                              .1
 Free Labor
 Development
The American        75,336.9  19,026        25.3    83,193.7  6,690.         8.0
 Jewish Joint                     .8                               7
 Distribution
 Committee
American Jewish          n/r     n/r         n/r     2,217.2     1.5         0.1
 World Service
American Latvian         n/r     n/r         n/r       604.2       0           0
 Association in
 the United
 States
American Medical         n/r     n/r         n/r       336.5       0           0
 Resources
 Foundation
American             3,348.0    43.4         1.3         n/r     n/r         n/r
 Mizrachi Women
American                 n/r     n/r         n/r   412,331.0  29,626         7.2
 National Red                                                     .7
 Cross
American Near        2,560.1  1,883.        73.6     4,897.5  3,654.        74.6
 East Refugee                      3                               6
 Aid
American ORT        12,688.6  2,121.        16.7    12,496.0  1,349.        10.8
 Federation                        5                               3
American Red         5,280.4   238.6         4.5     6,985.8       0           0
 Magen David for
 Israel
American Refugee         n/r     n/r         n/r     3,265.2  1,276.        39.1
 Committee                                                         4
American Schools     1,525.0   386.8        25.4         n/r     n/r         n/r
 of Oriental
 Research
American Service         n/r     n/r         n/r        90.2       0           0
 to India
American                 n/r     n/r         n/r    11,389.6   210.7         1.9
 Urological
 Association
Americans for            n/r     n/r         n/r       175.6       0           0
 the Restitution
 and Righting of
 Old Wrongs
AmeriCares               n/r     n/r         n/r   102,231.2   210.0         0.2
 Foundation
Amigos de las        1,892.3       0           0         n/r     n/r         n/r
 Americas
Andean Rural             n/r     n/r         n/r       929.8   164.9        17.7
 Health Care
Appropriate              n/r     n/r         n/r     4,544.2  3,763.        82.8
 Technology                                                        7
 International
The Armenian             n/r     n/r         n/r     1,067.0   788.7        73.9
 Assembly of
 America Relief
 Fund
Armenian General     3,569.2   205.0         5.7    19,329.6   713.7         3.7
 Benevolent
 Union
Armenian                 n/r     n/r         n/r     3,995.0   385.4         9.7
 Missionary
 Association of
 America
The Armenian             n/r     n/r         n/r       650.3       0           0
 Relief Society
The Armenian             n/r     n/r         n/r       851.5   463.8        54.5
 Relief Society
 of North
 America
The Asia            11,181.4  9,667.        86.5    43,030.2  31,165        72.4
 Foundation                        5                              .3
Asian-American       5,824.6  5,648.        97.0     4,056.1  2,625.        64.7
 Free Labor                        3                               4
 Institute
Association for     16,556.8  15,758        95.2         n/r     n/r         n/r
 Voluntary                        .4
 Sterilization
Bethany                  n/r     n/r         n/r    16,314.1    54.8         0.3
 Christian
 Services
Bicentennial             n/r     n/r         n/r     3,567.0  2,692.        75.5
 Volunteers                                                        3
Big Brothers/            n/r     n/r         n/r     1,442.0       0           0
 Big Sisters of
 New York City
Booker T.            4,185.2  3,945.        94.3         n/r     n/r         n/r
 Washington                        3
 Foundation
Books for Africa         n/r     n/r         n/r       884.9    15.0         1.7
Books for the            n/r     n/r         n/r       144.4    87.1        60.3
 World
Boys' Club of       10,480.1   472.4         4.5         n/r     n/r         n/r
 America
Brooke                   n/r     n/r         n/r       372.5       0           0
 Foundation
Brother to               n/r     n/r         n/r    26,284.0    11.4           0
 Brother
 International
Brothers'            2,156.2     5.9         0.3    71,513.1  25,806        36.1
 Brother                                                          .9
 Foundation
The Burma                n/r     n/r         n/r        86.0    62.4        72.5
 American Fund
Cambodian                n/r     n/r         n/r        35.7     5.1        14.3
 Children's
 Education Fund
Caribbean                n/r     n/r         n/r       713.5   245.1        34.4
 Conservation
 Corporation
Caribbean Food           n/r     n/r         n/r       370.9   122.9        33.1
 Bank
Caribbean/Latin          n/r     n/r         n/r     1,220.5    50.0         4.1
 American Action
Caribbeana             324.4   207.0        63.8         n/r     n/r         n/r
 Council
Carnegie Council         n/r     n/r         n/r     3,067.3       0           0
 on Ethics and
 International
 Affairs
Catholic Medical         n/r     n/r         n/r    25,579.1       0           0
 Mission Board
Catholic Near            n/r     n/r         n/r    18,371.2       0           0
 East Welfare
 Association
Catholic Relief    483,074.8  332,22        68.8   290,335.0  221,19        76.2
 Services -USCC                  7.3                             2.0
Center for               n/r     n/r         n/r     1,089.2       0           0
 Citizen
 Initiatives
Center for Clean         n/r     n/r         n/r       850.6   416.6        49.0
 Air Policy
The Center for           n/r     n/r         n/r        14.8       0           0
 Health,
 Education and
 Economic
 Research
Center for               n/r     n/r         n/r     7,877.7   639.1         8.1
 Marine
 Conservation
The Center for           n/r     n/r         n/r       186.9       0           0
 Natural and
 Traditional
 Medicines
Center for               n/r     n/r         n/r        15.4       0           0
 Racial Equality
 and Democratic
 Opportunity
Center for               n/r     n/r         n/r       858.1       0           0
 Victims of
 Torture
The Centre for           n/r     n/r         n/r     6,201.8  4,518.        72.9
 Development and                                                   6
 Population
 Activities
Child and Family         n/r     n/r         n/r     9,959.2       0           0
 Service
Child Hope               n/r     n/r         n/r       486.7    70.0        14.4
 Foundation
Children             9,036.3  1,268.        14.0    36,738.5       0           0
 International                     1
 (Holy Land
 Christian
 Mission)
Children's               n/r     n/r         n/r     3,802.7       0           0
 Health Fund
Children's               n/r     n/r         n/r   161,967.1       0           0
 Hospital of
 Pittsburgh
Children's               n/r     n/r         n/r     2,100.8  1,739.        82.8
 Services of                                                       5
 Colorado
Chol-Chol              429.8       0           0       384.7       0           0
 Foundation
 (formerly Chol-
 Chol Foundation
 for Human
 Development)
Christian Blind          n/r     n/r         n/r     1,111.1       0           0
 Mission
 International
Christian           60,772.9       0           0   106,094.6       0           0
 Children's Fund
Christian                n/r     n/r         n/r     1,341.2       0           0
 Outreach Appeal
Christian                n/r     n/r         n/r     5,115.2   190.6         3.7
 Reformed World
 Relief
 Committee
Christian Relief         n/r     n/r         n/r    37,433.7   407.6         1.1
 Services
Church World        87,744.0  38,111        43.4    43,590.3  9,467.        21.7
 Service                          .8                               1
Citizens                 n/r     n/r         n/r     4,330.2  1,689.        39.0
 Democracy Corps                                                   3
The Citizens             n/r     n/r         n/r       768.3   559.0        72.8
 Network for
 Foreign Affairs
Community            2,199.0  2,026.        92.1         n/r     n/r         n/r
 Development                       1
 Foundation
Community of             n/r     n/r         n/r       816.6     4.3         0.5
 Caring
Community                n/r     n/r         n/r     8,751.1       0           0
 Services
 Council
Community              445.4   262.0        58.8       458.2    87.4        19.1
 Systems
 Foundation
Compassion           1,193.2   319.4        26.8    47,997.6       0           0
 International
Compatible               n/r     n/r         n/r       176.3       0           0
 Technology
Congressional            n/r     n/r         n/r       453.3       0           0
 Human Rights
 Foundation
The Conservation         n/r     n/r         n/r    11,671.6  2,079.        17.8
 International                                                     1
 Foundation
Consortium for         435.0   433.5        99.7         n/r     n/r         n/r
 Community Self-
 Help
The Consortium           n/r     n/r         n/r     1,453.4   617.4        42.5
 for the MBA
 Enterprise
 Corps
CARE               382,828.6  298,00        77.8   432,451.0  258,31        59.7
                                 1.0                             7.0
Cooperative          1,237.5  1,113.        90.0     3,377.5  2,712.        80.3
 Housing                           1                               8
 Foundation
Cooperative            420.5       0           0         n/r     n/r         n/r
 League Fund
Coordination in      2,940.4  1,753.        59.6     1,657.9   600.0        36.2
 Development                       0
Council of             889.3   784.1        88.2         n/r     n/r         n/r
 International
 Programs for
 Youth Leaders
 and Social
 Workers
Counterpart          1,326.2   831.2        62.7     3,107.3  1,274.        41.0
 Foundation                                                        6
 (formerly
 Foundation for
 the Peoples of
 the South
 Pacific)
Covenant House           n/r     n/r         n/r    80,842.0  1,398.         1.7
                                                                   8
Credit Union        20,114.7  2,173.        10.8    24,472.7  7,944.        32.5
 National                          4                               1
 Association
Croatian                 n/r     n/r         n/r        51.9       0           0
 Democracy
 Project
Cultural                 n/r     n/r         n/r     4,262.7   388.9         9.1
 Survival
Davis Memorial           n/r     n/r         n/r    11,981.0  3,221.        26.9
 Goodwill                                                          3
 Industries
Delphi                   n/r     n/r         n/r     5,194.4  4,635.        89.2
 International                                                     4
Dental Health            n/r     n/r         n/r        70.9       0           0
 International
Dian Fossey              n/r     n/r         n/r       434.3    54.6        12.6
 Gorilla Fund
Direct Relief        8,177.9     3.9         0.1     9,726.9   660.3         6.8
 International
DKT                      n/r     n/r         n/r     5,235.5    40.0         0.8
 International
Docate                   5.7       0           0         n/r     n/r         n/r
 International
Doctors Without          n/r     n/r         n/r     1,660.1   973.0        58.6
 Borders USA
Domestic/           56,015.3  1,017.         1.8    60,194.0  2,232.         3.7
 Foreign                           4                               0
 Missionary
 Society of the
 Protestant
 Episcopal
 Church
Doulos Community         n/r     n/r         n/r       169.5       0           0
The East Los        22,463.6  15,862        70.6         n/r     n/r         n/r
 Angeles                          .9
 Community Union
East West                n/r     n/r         n/r       800.9       0           0
 Educational
 Development
 Foundation
Educational and          n/r     n/r         n/r       880.3       0           0
 Research
 Foundation for
 AAFPRS
Egyptians Relief         n/r     n/r         n/r        43.4       0           0
 Association
Elwyn                    n/r     n/r         n/r    85,441.4       0           0
Enersol                  n/r     n/r         n/r       270.2    74.2        27.5
 Associates
ENTERPRISE               n/r     n/r         n/r     1,586.7       0           0
 Development
 International
Environmental            n/r     n/r         n/r     5,262.6  2,184.        41.5
 Law Institute                                                     6
Esperanca            1,422.6    97.3         6.8     2,343.6   593.9        25.3
Estonian                 n/r     n/r         n/r       101.4       0           0
 American Fund
 for Economic
 Education
Evangelical              n/r     n/r         n/r     1,173.3       0           0
 Association for
 the Promotion
 of Education
Eye Care               376.0       0           0       415.6   217.2        52.3
Family Health            n/r     n/r         n/r    36,698.5  33,466        91.2
 International                                                    .8
Feed My People           n/r     n/r         n/r     5,997.0   106.2         1.8
 International
Feed the                 n/r     n/r         n/r    88,851.5   307.5         0.4
 Children
Financial                n/r     n/r         n/r    16,757.2  1,425.         8.5
 Services                                                          3
 Volunteer Corps
Floresta USA             n/r     n/r         n/r       227.4       0           0
Florida                  n/r     n/r         n/r       704.8   180.4        25.6
 Association of
 Voluntary
 Agencies for
 Caribbean
 Action
Food Corps, USA          n/r     n/r         n/r        70.8       0           0
Food for the         8,812.0       0           0    32,476.9  7,627.        23.5
 Hungry                                                            4
Food for the             n/r     n/r         n/r    12,335.6   435.0         3.5
 Poor
Foundation for           n/r     n/r         n/r     3,446.8  2,943.        85.4
 International                                                     4
 Community
 Assistance
Foundation of            n/r     n/r         n/r        67.3       0           0
 Compassionate
 American
 Samaritans
Free Trade Union         n/r     n/r         n/r    12,267.3  3,023.        24.7
 Institute                                                         9
Freedom from         2,172.8   549.8        25.3         n/r     n/r         n/r
 Hunger
 (formerly Meals
 for Millions/
 Freedom from
 Hunger
 Foundation)
Freedom House            n/r     n/r         n/r     2,927.1   106.6         3.6
Friends of               n/r     n/r         n/r     3,579.1       0           0
 Animals
Friends of             578.7       0           0         n/r     n/r         n/r
 Children
Friends of               n/r     n/r         n/r       348.6       0           0
 Conservation -
 Friends of the
 Masai Mara
Friends of               n/r     n/r         n/r        38.9       0           0
 Liberia
Friends of the           n/r     n/r         n/r        40.0       0           0
 Shanta Bhawan
Friends of               n/r     n/r         n/r       327.8       0           0
 Women's World
 Banking
Fund for                 n/r     n/r         n/r       935.0   266.3        28.5
 Democracy and
 Development
The Fund for             n/r     n/r         n/r     2,224.2       0           0
 Peace
The German               n/r     n/r         n/r    16,099.8       0           0
 Marshall Fund
 of the United
 States
Girl Scouts of      26,079.2    45.2         0.2         n/r     n/r         n/r
 the USA
Global Health            n/r     n/r         n/r       824.0    24.4         3.0
 Action
Global Health            n/r     n/r         n/r       391.6       0           0
 Ministries
Global Hunger            n/r     n/r         n/r     4,144.6       0           0
 Project
Global Jewish            n/r     n/r         n/r       797.3       0           0
 Assistance and
 Relief Network
Global Links             n/r     n/r         n/r     2,449.1     4.2         0.2
Global Outreach        552.5   252.3        45.7         n/r     n/r         n/r
Goodwill             5,127.0  1,449.        28.3     6,927.9   945.6        13.7
 Industries of                     9
 America
The Greater              n/r     n/r         n/r        28.7       0           0
 Caribbean
 Energy and
 Environment
 Foundation
Hadassah, The       50,672.3   925.2         1.8    83,049.1  1,927.         2.3
 Women's Zionist                                                   4
 Organization of
 America
The Haitian              n/r     n/r         n/r       626.3       0           0
 Health Clinic
Hands to                 n/r     n/r         n/r       124.9       0           0
 Clinical Labs
 of Third World
 Countries
Harry T. Fultz           n/r     n/r         n/r        65.6       0           0
 Albanian-
 American
 Educational
 Foundation
HE.R.MAN.D.A.D.          n/r     n/r         n/r        62.7       0           0
Health and               n/r     n/r         n/r        54.7       0           0
 Development
 International
Health                   n/r     n/r         n/r     4,216.4   771.8        18.3
 Volunteers
 Overseas
Heifer Project       4,712.8   284.5         6.0     8,950.5   602.7         6.7
 International
Helen Keller         2,179.4   618.9        28.4     7,289.0  3,603.        49.4
 International                                                     3
Hias                17,165.6  9,074.        52.9         n/r     n/r         n/r
                                   5
High Scope           3,198.5  2,156.        67.4     5,887.2   161.6         2.8
 Educational                       4
 Research
 Foundation
Holt                 2,704.9    20.5           0     6,745.2   605.9         9.0
 International
 Children's
 Services
Home Management,         n/r     n/r         n/r       130.7       0           0
 Employment
 Skills and
 Entrepreneurshi
 p Institute
Hospital Relief          n/r     n/r         n/r         1.5       0           0
 Fund of the
 Caribbean
Humanity                 n/r     n/r         n/r         1.9       0           0
 International
Indus Medical            n/r     n/r         n/r       100.2       0           0
 Foundation
Institute for            n/r     n/r         n/r       128.7       0           0
 Central
 American
 Studies
Institute for            n/r     n/r         n/r       370.7    13.3         3.6
 Development
 Research
Institute for        1,643.0   729.9        44.4         n/r     n/r         n/r
 International
 Development
Institute for            n/r     n/r         n/r       657.5    45.2         6.9
 Practical
 Idealism
 (Legacy
 International)
Institute of         3,636.0   264.5         7.3     2,310.6    77.3         3.4
 Cultural
 Affairs
Institute of        86,963.9  23,852        27.4   139,203.3  46,677        33.5
 International                    .9                              .2
 Education
Institute of            21.0    16.4        78.2         n/r     n/r         n/r
 International
 Law and
 Economic
 Development
Institutional          308.4   284.7        92.3         n/r     n/r         n/r
 Development and
 Economic
 Affairs Service
INTER-AID                n/r     n/r         n/r       789.7       0           0
 INCORPORATED
 (International
 Christian Aid)
International            n/r     n/r         n/r     1,984.2       0           0
 Aid
International          199.4       0           0       355.9       0           0
 Alliance for
 Children
The                      n/r     n/r         n/r    11,874.1    80.0         0.7
 International
 Book Bank
The                      n/r     n/r         n/r     1,126.1    52.9         4.7
 International
 Center
International            n/r     n/r         n/r     1,573.0    19.1         1.2
 Center for
 Children's
 Health
International            n/r     n/r         n/r       219.4       0           0
 Center for the
 Solution of
 Environmental
 Problems
International            n/r     n/r         n/r       468.6       0           0
 Child Care USA
International            n/r     n/r         n/r       336.1       0           0
 Child Health
 Foundation
International            n/r     n/r         n/r       313.6       0           0
 Child Resource
 Institute
International            n/r     n/r         n/r     4,656.0    23.3         0.5
 Church Relief
 Fund
International            n/r     n/r         n/r       410.2    58.3        14.2
 Clinical
 Epidemiology
 Network
International            n/r     n/r         n/r       926.9       0           0
 Development
 Enterprises
International        1,278.9  1,098.        85.9         n/r     n/r         n/r
 Educational                       4
 Development
International       22,532.5  6,156.        27.3    56,366.0  23,426        41.6
 Executive                         2                              .5
 Service Corps
International        4,564.8  1,526.        33.4     3,724.1   964.5        25.9
 Eye Foundation                    4
International            n/r     n/r         n/r       620.4       0           0
 Federation for
 Family Life
 Promotion
International            n/r     n/r         n/r     3,161.6   536.7        17.0
 Foundation for
 Education and
 Self-Help
International        9,125.2  1,801.        19.7         n/r     n/r         n/r
 Human                             4
 Assistance
 Programs
International            n/r     n/r         n/r     2,064.3   573.3        27.8
 Institute for
 Energy
 Conservation
International        1,606.2   357.8        22.3     2,710.1   662.6        24.5
 Institute of
 Rural
 Reconstruction
International            n/r     n/r         n/r     4,548.7  4,304.        94.6
 Lifeline                                                          9
The                      n/r     n/r         n/r     3,564.1  3,564.       100.0
 International                                                     0
 Media Fund
International        1,528.6  1,391.        91.0         n/r     n/r         n/r
 Medical and                       5
 Research
 Foundation
The                      n/r     n/r         n/r     9,350.8  6,291.        67.3
 International                                                     7
 Medical Corps
International            n/r     n/r         n/r     1,226.1    43.3         3.5
 Medical
 Services for
 Health
International          412.5    17.3         4.2         n/r     n/r         n/r
 Nursing
 Services
 Association
International            n/r     n/r         n/r     1,313.7       0           0
 Orthodox
 Christian
 Charities
International            n/r     n/r         n/r     6,388.3  5,732.        89.7
 Partnership for                                                   1
 Human
 Development
International        4,585.6       0           0    14,536.8  8,911.        61.3
 Planned                                                           4
 Parenthood
 Federation/
 Western
 Hemisphere
 Region
International           74.7       0           0         n/r     n/r         n/r
 Program for
 Human Resource
 Development
International            n/r     n/r         n/r     2,583.0  1,974.        76.4
 Refugee Center                                                    2
 of Oregon
International       39,863.0  28,567        71.7    54,409.6  21,080        38.7
 Rescue                           .7                              .7
 Committee
International            n/r     n/r         n/r       153.4       0           0
 Service Center
International            n/r     n/r         n/r       148.4       0           0
 Services of
 Hope/Impact
 Medical
 Division
International          306.4       0           0         n/r     n/r         n/r
 Social Service
 American Branch
International            n/r     n/r         n/r        59.2    20.7        35.0
 Society of
 Tropical
 Forestors
International            n/r     n/r         n/r     1,271.0   157.5        12.4
 Union for the
 Conservation of
 Nature and
 Natural
 Resources
International            n/r     n/r         n/r        10.2       0           0
 United Black
 Fund
International        3,284.5  1,679.        51.1     1,701.6   765.9        45.0
 Voluntary                         7
 Services
International            n/r     n/r         n/r       445.3       0           0
 Wilderness
 Leadership
 Foundation
International            n/r     n/r         n/r     3,467.0       0           0
 Youth
 Foundation
Island Resources         n/r     n/r         n/r       338.1   222.6        65.8
 Foundation
J.M. Murray              n/r     n/r         n/r     8,202.3       0           0
 Center
Joint Center for         n/r     n/r         n/r     6,174.8       0           0
 Political and
 Economic
 Studies
Junior                   n/r     n/r         n/r     9,370.2       0           0
 Achievement
Katalysis North/         n/r     n/r         n/r       717.9   211.6        29.5
 South
 Development
 Partnership
Khmer Alliance           n/r     n/r         n/r         9.3       0           0
 Foundation
La Leche League      1,498.7   212.2        14.2     2,879.2   170.9         5.9
 International
Laubach Literacy     2,777.1    44.9         1.6         n/r     n/r         n/r
 International
Lawyers Alliance         n/r     n/r         n/r       308.0    37.2        12.1
 for World
 Security
Lawyers'                 n/r     n/r         n/r     4,357.0   226.3         5.2
 Committee for
 Civil Rights
 Under Law
The Life Link            n/r     n/r         n/r       557.5    17.1         3.1
Lighthawk                n/r     n/r         n/r     1,654.6       0           0
Lions Club               n/r     n/r         n/r    30,109.8       0           0
 International
 Foundation
Lithuanian               n/r     n/r         n/r        37.8       0           0
 Children's
 Relief
Lutheran World      15,706.1  4,613.        29.4    22,940.2  5,249.        22.9
 Relief                            5                               4
Maine Adoption           n/r     n/r         n/r       667.3    60.5         9.1
 Placement
 Service
Manomet Bird             n/r     n/r         n/r     3,479.9       0           0
 Observatory
MAP                 40,332.7   464.7         1.2    38,259.7   105.1         0.3
 International
Maranatha                n/r     n/r         n/r     1,579.9       0           0
 Volunteers
 International
The Martin               n/r     n/r         n/r     4,042.9  1,023.        25.3
 Luther King,                                                      4
 Jr. Center for
 Nonviolent
 Social Change
Massachusetts            n/r     n/r         n/r    21,647.4  1,035.         4.8
 Audubon Society                                                   5
Media for                n/r     n/r         n/r       265.7     5.4         2.1
 Development
 International
Medical                  n/r     n/r         n/r     4,479.6   122.1         2.7
 Benevolence
 Foundation
Medical Care         3,855.8  1,725.        44.7     6,682.6   878.3        13.1
 Development                       2
Medical                  n/r     n/r         n/r     1,187.8       0           0
 Education for
 South African
 Blacks
Medical Outreach         n/r     n/r         n/r     1,566.3       0           0
 for Armenians
Medical Teams            n/r     n/r         n/r    34,769.6  18,437        53.0
 International                                                    .6
Melwood                  n/r     n/r         n/r    10,537.7       0           0
 Horticultural
 Training Center
Mennonite           27,805.8   460.5         1.7    39,193.7   182.7         0.5
 Central
 Committee
The Mennonite            n/r     n/r         n/r       374.9       0           0
 Economic
 Development
 Associates
Mercy Corps              n/r     n/r         n/r    17,839.7  3,112.        17.5
 International                                                     5
Mercy                    n/r     n/r         n/r     3,691.8    71.7         1.9
 International
 Health Services
Mercy Ships              n/r     n/r         n/r    10,105.5       0           0
Ministry of              n/r     n/r         n/r       108.7       0           0
 Jesus
Minnesota                n/r     n/r         n/r       565.0   242.6        42.9
 International
 Health
 Volunteers
Mission Without          n/r     n/r         n/r    17,314.1     3.2        <0.1
 Borders
 International
Missouri                 n/r     n/r         n/r    26,585.2  1,776.         6.7
 Botanical                                                         5
 Garden
Mozambique               n/r     n/r         n/r       455.9   393.1        86.2
 Health
 Committee
National             3,722.0  3,091.        83.1    10,354.6  8,170.        78.9
 Cooperative                       0                               3
 Business
 Association
 (formerly
 Cooperative
 League of the
 U.S.A.)
National Council       621.8   527.3        84.8     1,150.1   336.6        29.3
 for
 International
 Health
National Council     4,481.3  3,825.        85.4     5,214.1  1,554.        29.8
 of Negro Women                    2                               9
National                 n/r     n/r         n/r     1,409.2       0           0
 Cristina
 Foundation
National Fish            n/r     n/r         n/r    14,271.6  5,400.        37.8
 and Wildlife                                                      1
 Foundation
National Forum           n/r     n/r         n/r     1,310.6   148.7        11.4
 for Black
 Administrators
National Office        754.4   723.2        95.9         n/r     n/r         n/r
 for Social
 Responsibility
 in the Private
 Sector
National                 n/r     n/r         n/r       819.6       0           0
 Parents'
 Resource
 Institute for
 Drug Education
National                 n/r     n/r         n/r     1,651.8       0           0
 Planning
 Association
National Rural      29,634.1  2,509.         8.5    66,359.4  10,052        15.2
 Electric                          8                              .7
 Cooperative
 Association
National Rural           n/r     n/r         n/r       120.0    39.3        32.8
 Electric
 Cooperative
 Association -
 International
 Foundation
National                 n/r     n/r         n/r    12,819.6   630.0         4.9
 Telephone
 Cooperative
 Association
National 4-H        14,818.5   367.2         2.5    16,123.7   699.8         4.3
 Council
The Nature               n/r     n/r         n/r   274,909.0  1,616.         0.6
 Conservancy                                                       9
Nazarene                 n/r     n/r         n/r       251.2       0           0
 Compassionate
 Ministries
Near East            2,468.7   470.7        19.1     2,844.0   354.4        12.5
 Foundation
New Israel Fund          n/r     n/r         n/r     8,924.3       0           0
New Transcentury     6,466.8  6,298.        97.4         n/r     n/r         n/r
 Foundation                        5
New York                 n/r     n/r         n/r    25,309.2  2,006.         7.9
 Botanical                                                         2
 Garden
New York                 n/r     n/r         n/r    64,969.5  1,219.         1.9
 Zoological                                                        9
 Society/
 Wildlife
 Conservation
 International
Nitrogen Fixing          n/r     n/r         n/r       347.5    48.3        13.9
 Tree
 Association
Obermayer                n/r     n/r         n/r        69.0       0           0
 Foundation
OBOR                    92.3    43.4        47.0       267.6    61.8        23.1
Operation                n/r     n/r         n/r     2,489.3    67.5         2.7
 Blessing
 International
 Relief &
 Development
 Corporation
Operation                n/r     n/r         n/r       247.4       0           0
 Bootstrap
 Africa
Operation              133.0     9.8         7.4         n/r     n/r         n/r
 Bootstrap -
 Tanzania
Operation                n/r     n/r         n/r     1,454.2   525.0        36.1
 Independence
Operation Smile          n/r     n/r         n/r     4,521.7   265.2         5.9
 International
Operation USA            n/r     n/r         n/r     5,204.0    31.4         0.6
Opportunities        5,100.8  5,076.        99.5     8,525.9  4,689.        55.0
 Industrializati                   7                               5
 on Centers
 International
Opportunity              n/r     n/r         n/r     3,043.8   470.9        15.5
 International
Organization for         n/r     n/r         n/r     3,830.8   825.8        21.6
 Tropical
 Studies
Our Little               n/r     n/r         n/r     6,396.1       0           0
 Brothers and
 Sisters
Outreach                 n/r     n/r         n/r       917.9       0           0
 International
Overseas             2,585.1  2,085.        80.7         n/r     n/r         n/r
 Education Fund                    2
 of the League
 of Women Voters
Pan American             n/r     n/r         n/r        18.6       0           0
 Association of
 Eye Banks
Pan American         7,285.5  1,555.        21.4     8,361.6  3,169.        37.9
 Development                       9                               3
 Foundation
Park West                n/r     n/r         n/r    14,551.3     4.3           0
 Children's Fund
Partners in              n/r     n/r         n/r       439.1   182.1        41.5
 Economic Reform
Partners in              n/r     n/r         n/r        78.6       0           0
 International
 Development
Partners of the      2,414.8  1,658.        68.7     8,478.1  6,586.        77.7
 Americas                          3                               3
 (formerly
 National
 Association of
 the Partners of
 the Alliance)
Partnership for        889.5   587.1        66.0         n/r     n/r         n/r
 Productivity
 Foundation/USA
Pathfinder           8,284.0  6,932.        83.7    21,930.5  19,957        91.0
 International                     6                              .8
 (formerly
 Pathfinder
 Fund)
Paul Carlson           610.6   309.1        50.6         n/r     n/r         n/r
 Medical Program
The Pearl S.         2,987.8   460.1        15.4     4,934.3    28.6         0.6
 Buck Foundation
The People-to-      18,753.3  3,788.        20.2    89,621.0  25,244        28.2
 People Health                     9                              .0
 Foundation
 (Project HOPE)
The Peregrine            n/r     n/r         n/r     2,136.3   539.1        25.2
 Fund
Perkins School           n/r     n/r         n/r    32,851.6   759.3         2.3
 for the Blind
The Phelps-              n/r     n/r         n/r     3,668.8       0           0
 Stokes Fund
Philippine               n/r     n/r         n/r       744.7       0           0
 American
 Foundation
Pioneer Women,       3,936.0    12.7         0.3         n/r     n/r         n/r
 Women's Labor
 Zionist
 Organization of
 America
Plan                14,633.4   166.8         1.1    30,688.6   996.9         3.3
 International
 USA (formerly
 Foster Parents
 Plan)
Planned             34,865.0  24,732        70.9    41,869.9  4,163.         9.9
 Parenthood                       .7                               7
 Federation of
 America
Planned             11,967.6  1,265.        10.6    20,303.0       0           0
 Parenthood of                     3
 New York City
Planning               732.8   457.5        62.4     2,699.3   577.2        21.4
 Assistance
Polish American          n/r     n/r         n/r    12,707.4   669.7         5.3
 Congress
 Charitable
 Foundation
Polish Welfare           n/r     n/r         n/r     1,394.8       0           0
 Association
The Population      25,483.0  7,209.        28.3    44,129.5  17,050        38.6
 Council                           2                              .9
Population               n/r     n/r         n/r    16,031.8  14,451        90.1
 Services                                                         .6
 International
Por Cristo               n/r     n/r         n/r     1,407.2       0           0
Private Agencies     5,170.2  5,057.        97.8     6,600.1  6,217.        94.2
 Collaborating                     9                               1
 Together
Private Sector           n/r     n/r         n/r       147.1       0           0
 Initiatives
 Foundation
PRO Women                n/r     n/r         n/r       352.3   215.4        61.2
Program for              n/r     n/r         n/r    15,617.0  4,068.        26.1
 Appropriate                                                       4
 Technology in
 Health
Program for the      1,804.3     9.8         0.5         n/r     n/r         n/r
 Introduction
 and Adaptation
 of
 Contraceptive
 Technology
Project Concern      6,009.7   847.3        14.1     9,070.9  2,101.        23.2
 International                                                     0
Project Dawn             n/r     n/r         n/r       241.8       0           0
Project Mercy            n/r     n/r         n/r       418.3       0           0
Project ORBIS            n/r     n/r         n/r    20,733.3  1,833.         8.8
 International                                                     0
Quebec-Labrador          n/r     n/r         n/r     1,407.5    69.4         4.9
 Foundation/The
 Atlantic Center
 for the
 Environment
RARE Center for          n/r     n/r         n/r       454.8    39.0         8.6
 Tropical
 Conservation
Rav Tov              3,303.5  1,940.        58.7         n/r     n/r         n/r
 Committee to                      1
 Aid New
 Immigrants
The Resource             n/r     n/r         n/r       329.8       0           0
 Foundation
River Blindness          n/r     n/r         n/r     9,959.5       0           0
 Foundation
Rizal/MacArthur         79.0     9.9        12.6        55.3     8.9        16.1
 Memorial
 Foundation
Rocky Mountain           n/r     n/r         n/r       974.8   121.9        12.5
 Adoption
 Exchange
Rodale Institute         n/r     n/r         n/r     4,325.2   703.2        16.3
The Rotary               n/r     n/r         n/r    84,209.0   651.6         0.8
 Foundation of
 Rotary
 International
Sabre Foundation         n/r     n/r         n/r    14,276.7   117.7         0.8
Safari Club              n/r     n/r         n/r     6,411.2       0           0
 International
Salesian                 n/r     n/r         n/r    33,321.9  1,165.         3.5
 Missions                                                          1
Salvadoran               n/r     n/r         n/r    11,216.1    22.7         0.2
 American
 Foundation
The Salvation        1,112.6   888.9        79.9    16,614.0   478.6         2.9
 Army World
 Service Office
Samaritan's              n/r     n/r         n/r     8,921.9       0           0
 Purse
San Diego State          n/r     n/r         n/r    87,290.5  29,267        33.5
 University                                                       .7
 Foundation
Save the            26,577.1  5,464.        20.6    93,113.0  36,784        39.5
 Children                          6                              .2
 Federation
Share and Care           n/r     n/r         n/r     1,153.9       0           0
 Foundation for
 India
Society of St.           n/r     n/r         n/r     1,337.4       0           0
 Andrew
Somali Relief            n/r     n/r         n/r         4.3       0           0
 Federation
Southeast Asia           n/r     n/r         n/r       330.7   152.8        46.2
 Resource Action
 Center
Sovereign                n/r     n/r         n/r     6,629.7    28.9         0.4
 Military Order
 of Malta,
 Federal
 Association,
 U.S.A.
Sudan-American           n/r     n/r         n/r         8.5     6.0        70.8
 Foundation for
 Education
Summer Institute    41,434.1   945.8         2.3    76,546.0       0           0
 of Linguistics
Support Centers          n/r     n/r         n/r     3,173.1       0           0
 of America
The Synergos             n/r     n/r         n/r     1,177.3       0           0
 Institute
TechnoServe          3,046.7  1,775.        58.3     7,345.3  3,453.        47.0
                                   0                               2
Terra Institute         14.0    13.0        92.3         n/r     n/r         n/r
Thomas A. Dooley       952.9    47.5         5.0       864.1     6.5         0.8
 Foundation/
 INTERMED-USA
Tissue Banks             n/r     n/r         n/r     6,886.7       0           0
 International
Tom Dooley             531.3   253.1        47.6        55.0       0           0
 Heritage
Touch Romania            n/r     n/r         n/r        80.4       0           0
Town Affiliation       837.4   571.5        68.3     1,870.8   635.4        34.0
 Association of
 the United
 States (Sister
 Cities
 International)
Trees for Life           n/r     n/r         n/r       338.8       0           0
Trickle-Up               n/r     n/r         n/r     1,144.5       0           0
 Program
The U.S. -               n/r     n/r         n/r       177.7    60.0        33.8
 Baltic
 Foundation
U.S. National            n/r     n/r         n/r     1,224.2   278.3        22.7
 Committee for
 Pacific
 Economic
 Cooperation
Unitarian            1,733.7       0           0         n/r     n/r         n/r
 Universalist
 Service
 Committee
United Board for         n/r     n/r         n/r     7,520.2       0           0
 Christian
 Higher
 Education in
 Asia
United Israel      409,520.3  40,783        10.0   395,983.0  97,064        24.5
 Appeal                           .8                              .0
United Methodist         n/r     n/r         n/r    24,415.2       0           0
 Committee on
 Relief
United                   n/r     n/r         n/r       434.7       0           0
 Palestinian
 Appeal
United States        1,632.0   476.1        29.2         n/r     n/r         n/r
 Foundation for
 International
 Scouting
United Ukrainian         n/r     n/r         n/r     1,132.2       0           0
 American Relief
 Committee
United Way               n/r     n/r         n/r     1,262.5       0           0
 International
Victoria and           532.6    57.8        10.9         n/r     n/r         n/r
 Albert Gildred
 Foundation for
 Latin American
 Health and
 Education
Viet-Nam                 n/r     n/r         n/r        20.9       0           0
 Assistance for
 the Handicapped
Vietnam Veterans         n/r     n/r         n/r     1,348.1       0           0
 of America
 Foundation
Volunteer            1,353.0   763.8        56.5         n/r     n/r         n/r
 Development
 Corps
Volunteer                n/r     n/r         n/r        80.2       0           0
 Optometric
 Services to
 Humanity/
 California
Volunteers in            n/r     n/r         n/r    12,502.8  7,231.        57.8
 Overseas                                                          6
 Cooperative
 Assistance
Volunteers in        3,065.7  2,331.        76.1    10,476.4  9,029.        86.2
 Technical                         8                               6
 Assistance
Water for People         n/r     n/r         n/r       421.1       0           0
The Wilderness           n/r     n/r         n/r    16,824.0    34.1         0.2
 Society
Winrock              4,597.8   602.3        13.1    29,263.0  14,905        50.9
 International                                                    .9
 Institute for
 Agricultural
 Development
 (formerly
 Winrock
 International
 Livestock
 Research and
 Training
 Center)
Wisconsin-             219.7    26.4        12.0         n/r     n/r         n/r
 Nicaragua
 Partners of the
 Americas
Woodlands                n/r     n/r         n/r     1,432.2   345.5        24.1
 Mountain
 Institute
World                    n/r     n/r         n/r     1,794.6       0           0
 Association for
 Children and
 Parents
World Concern            n/r     n/r         n/r    14,311.0   809.8         5.7
 Development
 Organization
World Education      2,220.6   933.7        42.1     4,100.0  2,791.        68.1
                                                                   3
World Emergency          n/r     n/r         n/r     4,924.6       0           0
 Relief
World Federation       194.3   179.8        92.6         n/r     n/r         n/r
 for Medical
 Education
World Federation         n/r     n/r         n/r       149.9       0           0
 for Mental
 Health
World Institute          n/r     n/r         n/r     1,542.9   903.9        58.6
 on Disability
World Learning      12,855.5  1,714.        13.3    51,335.5  19,304        37.6
 (formerly                         4                              .2
 Experiment in
 International
 Living)
World Medical            n/r     n/r         n/r     4,070.9       0           0
 Mission
World                1,901.8   543.7        28.6     2,371.9  1,983.        83.6
 Rehabilitation                                                    3
 Fund
World Relief        19,794.0  7,258.        36.7    19,097.0  10,867        56.9
 Corporation                       6                              .0
World Resources          n/r     n/r         n/r    10,442.1  2,450.        23.5
 Institute                                                         8
World SHARE              n/r     n/r         n/r    47,962.6  7,236.        15.1
                                                                   3
World Vision         8,287.7  5,649.        68.2    87,152.2  37,127        42.6
 Relief and                        4                              .1
 Development
World Wildlife           n/r     n/r         n/r    59,867.2  12,201        20.4
 Fund                                                             .7
Worldcare                n/r     n/r         n/r     1,632.8       0           0
WorldTeach               n/r     n/r         n/r       461.1       0           0
Yirawah                  n/r     n/r         n/r        49.0       0           0
 International
Young Men's         33,229.8  4,319.        13.0    38,582.0  2,475.         6.4
 Christian                         0                               8
 Association of
 the USA
Young Women's        9,734.2       0           0         n/r     n/r         n/r
 Christian
 Association of
 the U.S.A.,
 National Board
 of the
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  "n/r" means that the organization was not registered or its
financial information was not available in that year. 

Source:  USAID data. 




(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix IV
COMMENTS FROM THE AGENCY FOR
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
========================================================= Appendix III



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)


The following are GAO's comments on USAID's letter dated September
15, 1995. 

GAO COMMENTS

1.  The discussion of accountability has been modified and is now in
chapter 2.  In response to USAID's comments, we have noted recent
efforts to improve accountability systems and the contribution of
Office of Management and Budget Circulars A-110 and A-133 audit
requirements. 

2.  We have eliminated comments on the potential impact of the policy
change on PVO behavior. 

3.  USAID stated that it is taking an active role in helping PVOs and
INGOs strengthen their institutional capacity as they view their own
organizations and programs in the context of each country's
development needs.  USAID also emphasized its current attempts to
integrate current and future PVO/INGO activities into
country-specific strategic objectives and results packages, and its
increased priority on monitoring and evaluations systems, to ensure
that projects meet stated objectives and to measure development
impact. 

In focusing our report on the PVO community and its potential for
delivering all foreign assistance, we did not report these activities
in detail.  However, we noted in our fieldwork that notwithstanding
the agency's policy since 1982 to include PVOs in planning country
development programs, PVOs were rarely brought into USAID strategic
planning processes in the countries we visited. 

4.  We have included a selected bibliography at the end of this
report. 




(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix V
COMMENTS FROM INTERACTION
========================================================= Appendix III



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)


The following are GAO's comments to InterAction's letter dated
September 13, 1995. 


   GAO COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:1

1.  Our report deals with the delivery of foreign assistance.  It
does not address issues or raise concerns about development and the
national interest.  Thus, we limited the introduction to a discussion
of issues related to PVOs. 

2.  Our objective was to provide information and analysis on PVOs'
role, project management, and financial dependency.  We have adjusted
the text to make this more clear. 

3.  The purpose of this review was to examine the role of PVOs in
development.  A review of the activities of other potential delivery
mechanisms, such as universities, contractors, or governments, was
outside the scope of this report.  However, during our review we
discovered that the project-type assistance generally delivered
through PVOs is very different from those activities usually
undertaken by contractors and universities.  As we discussed in the
body of the report, in general, USAID turns to PVOs in projects
calling for direct service delivery and working with grassroots
organizations.  In contrast, USAID contracts for technical
assistance, for example in marketing or environmental technology,
from contractors or universities. 

4.  We have modified our discussion of accountability concerns which
is now in chapter 2. 

5.  We have revised the discussion in the body of the report and
added information provided by InterAction as to the standards of its
membership and other actions taken by USAID and the PVO community to
enhance accountability.  Our point is not that all PVOs have major
problems in accountability, or are less accountable than other
delivery mechanisms, but that some PVOs, and especially INGOs, have
had difficulty meeting accountability standards.  The report provides
examples of lack of accountability that has endangered USAID cash or
commodity resources. 

6.  We have provided a selected bibliography at the end of this
report. 

InterAction also provided detailed comments and suggested specific
language it believed would strengthen the report.  We have
incorporated suggested language in the body of the report as
appropriate. 




(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix VI
COMMENTS FROM CATHOLIC RELIEF
SERVICES
========================================================= Appendix III



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)


The following are GAO's comments on Catholic Relief Services letter
dated September 5, 1995. 

GAO COMMENTS

1.  We have expanded our discussion of PVO efforts to improve
accountability. 

2.  We agree with Catholic Relief Services that it is difficult to
draw conclusions about the entire PVO community because of its
diversity, and this is stated in the Executive Summary and in chapter
1.  However, we believe that the conclusions we draw based on
specific case studies are valid and useful in the debate on the
delivery of foreign assistance. 


MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
========================================================= Appendix VII


   NATIONAL SECURITY AND
   INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS DIVISION,
   WASHINGTON, D.C. 
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix VII:1

Ronald A.  Kushner
Margaret Gaddy Morgan
Edward J.  George, Jr.
Debra R.  Johnson
Kathleen M.  Joyce
Minette D.  Richardson
Ann L.  Baker
Ethan Lowry


   EUROPEAN OFFICE, FRANKFURT,
   GERMANY
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix VII:2

George A.  Taylor
Jodi McDade Prosser


   FAR EAST OFFICE, HONOLULU,
   HAWAII
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix VII:3

Dennis Richardson
Mark Ulanowitz


SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
============================================================ Chapter 1

Advisory Committee on Voluntary Foreign Aid.  1988.  "The
Effectiveness of Private Voluntary Organizations." U.S.  Agency for
International Development, Washington, D.C. 

Advisory Committee on Voluntary Foreign Aid.  1990.  "Responding to
Change:  Private Voluntarism and International Development." U.S. 
Agency for International Development, Washington, D.C. 

Advisory Committee on Voluntary Foreign Aid.  1993.  "International
Development and Private Voluntarism:  A Maturing Partnership." U.S. 
Agency for International Development, Washington, D.C. 

Agency for International Development.  1986.  "Development
Effectiveness of Private Voluntary Organizations (PVOs)." Submitted
to House Appropriations Committee.  U.S.  Agency for International
Development, Washington, D.C. 

Carroll, Thomas F.  Intermediary NGOs:  The Supporting Link in
Grassroots Development.  1992.  Kumarian Press.  West Hartford,
Connecticut. 

Drabek, Anne Gordon.  1987.  "Development Alternatives:  The
Challenge for NGOs." World Development, Vol.  15 Supplement. 
Pergamon Press, Oxford. 

Fischer, Julie.  1993.  The Road from Rio:  Sustainable Development
and the Nongovernmental Movement in the Third World.  Praeger. 
Westport, Connecticut. 

Fox, Thomas H.  1987.  "NGOs from the United States." World
Development, Vol.  15 Supplement.  Pergamon Press.  Oxford. 

Gorman, Robert F., ed.  1984.  Private Voluntary Organizations as
Agents of Development.  Westview Press.  Boulder, Colo. 

Hellinger, Stephen, Douglas Hellinger, and Fred M.  O'Regan.  1988. 
Aid for Just Development:  Report on the Future of Foreign
Assistance.  Lynne Riener Publishers, Inc.  Boulder, Colo. 

Hunt, Robert W.  July 1995.  Private Voluntary Organizations and the
Promotion of Small-Scale Enterprise.  A.I.D.  Evaluation Special
Study
No.  27.  Agency for International Development.  Washington, D.C. 

Inter-American Foundation, The.  1977.  they know how .  .  .  an
experiment in development assistance. 

Meyer, Carrie A.  1992.  "A Step Back as Donors Shift Institution
Building from the Public to the "Private Sector." In World
Development, Vol.  20,
No.  8.  Pergamon Press.  Oxford. 

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Centre.  1993. 
Issue Paper "Changing Partners:  Northern NGOs, Northern
Governments." Paris. 

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.  1988. 
Voluntary Aid for Development:  The role of Non-Governmental
Organisations.  Paris. 

Paul, Samuel and Arturo Israel, eds.  1991.  Nongovernmental
Organizations and the World Bank:  Cooperation for Development.  The
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank. 
Washington, D.C. 

Poulton, Robin and Michael Harris, eds.  1988.  Putting People First: 
Voluntary Organisations and Third World Development.  MacMillan
Publishers.  Basingstoke. 

Regional Inspector General for Audit, Cairo, Egypt.  July 1995. 
Audit of USAID West Bank/Gaza and PVO Recipients' Capability to
Implement USAID Programs.  Report No.  6-294-008. 

Riddell, Roger and Mark Robinson.  1992.  Working Paper 68:  The
Impact of NGO Poverty Alleviation Projects:  Results of the Case
Study Evaluations.  Overseas Development Institute.  London. 

Roberts, Hibbert R.  1984.  "The Domestic Environment of
AID-Registered PVOs:  Characteristics and Impact," in R.F.  Gorman
(ed.), Private Voluntary Organizations as Agents of Development, pp. 
99-255. 

Salamon, Lester M.  1994 The Rise of the Nonprofit Sector." Foreign
Affairs, Vol.  73, No.  4. 

Sen, Biswajit.  1987.  "NGO Self-evaluation:  Issues of Concern"
World Development, Vol.  15 Supplement.  Pergamon Press.  Oxford. 

Smith, Brian.  1990.  More Than Altruism:  The Politics of Private
Foreign Aid.  Princeton University Press.  Princeton, New Jersey. 

Streeten, Paul.  1987.  "The Contribution of Non-governmental
Organizations to Development." Development:  Seeds of Change, Vol. 
4. 

Tendler, Judith.  1989.  "What Ever Happened to Poverty Alleviation?"
World Development, Vol.  17, No.  7.  Pergamon Press.  Oxford. 

Tendler, Judith.  1982.  Turning Private Voluntary Organizations Into
Development Agencies:  Questions for Evaluation.  A.I.D.  Program
Evaluation Discussion Paper No.  12.  Agency for International
Development.  Washington, D.C. 

U.S.  General Accounting Office.  1982.  Changes Needed to Forge An
Effective Relationship Between AID and Voluntary Agencies. 
GAO/ID-82-25.  Washington, D.C. 

U.S.  General Accounting Office.  1993.  Food Aid:  Management
Improvements Needed to Achieve Program Objectives.  GAO/NSIAD-93-168. 
Washington, D.C. 

U.S.  General Accounting Office.  1995.  Foreign Assistance:  Private
Voluntary Organizations' Role in Distributing Food Aid. 
GAO/NSIAD-95-35.  Washington, D.C. 

U.S.  General Accounting Office.  1995.  Foreign Aid:  Actions Taken
to Improve Food Aid Management.  GAO/NSIAD-95-74.  Washington, D.C. 

U.S.  General Accounting Office.  1995.  Foreign Assistance: 
Selected Donors' Approaches for Managing Aid Programs. 
GAO/NSIAD-95-37.  Washington, D.C. 

Van Sant, Jerry.  1989.  "Opportunities and Risks for Private
Voluntary Organizations as Agents of LDC Policy Change." World
Development, Vol.  18, No.  11.  Pergamon Press.  Oxford. 

Vivian, Jessica.  1994.  "NGOs and Sustainable Development in
Zimbabwe:  No Magic Bullet." Development and Change, Vol.  25. 
Blackwell Publishers.  Oxford. 

*** End of document. ***