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. ***