This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-09-993 
entitled 'Democracy Assistance: U.S. Agencies Take Steps to Coordinate 
International Programs but Lack Information on Some U.S.-funded 
Activities' which was released on September 28, 2009. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

Report to Congressional Committees: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

September 2009: 

Democracy Assistance: 

U.S. Agencies Take Steps to Coordinate International Programs but Lack 
Information on Some U.S.-funded Activities: 

GAO-09-993: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-09-993, a report to congressional committees. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

In fiscal years 2006-2008, the U.S. Agency for International 
Development (USAID), which has primary responsibility for promoting 
democracy abroad, implemented democracy assistance projects in about 90 
countries. The Department of State’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights 
and Labor (State DRL) and the private, nonprofit National Endowment for 
Democracy (NED) also fund democracy programs in many of these 
countries. 

Partly to lessen the risk of duplicative programs, State recently 
initiated efforts to reform and consolidate State and USAID foreign 
assistance processes. GAO reviewed (1) democracy assistance funding 
provided by USAID, State DRL, and NED in fiscal year 2008; (2) USAID, 
State DRL, and NED efforts to coordinate their democracy assistance; 
and (3) USAID efforts to assess results and evaluate the impact of its 
democracy assistance. GAO analyzed U.S. funding and evaluation 
documents, interviewed USAID, State, and NED officials in the United 
States and abroad, and reviewed specific democracy projects in 10 
countries. 

What GAO Found: 

Data available from State show total democracy assistance allocations 
of about $2.25 billion for fiscal year 2008. More than $1.95 billion, 
or about 85 percent of the total allocation, was provided to field-
based operating units, primarily country missions. Although complete 
data on USAID funding per country were not available, USAID mission 
data, compiled by State and USAID at GAO’s request, show that in a 
sample of 10 countries, most democracy funds are programmed by USAID. 
In the 10 countries, annual funding per project averaged more than $2 
million for USAID, $350,000 for State DRL, and $100,000 for NED. In 
fiscal year 2008, more than half of State funding for democracy 
assistance went to Iraq, followed by China, Cuba, Iran, and North 
Korea, and NED funding for democracy programs was highest for China, 
Iraq, Russia, Burma, and Pakistan. 

USAID and State DRL coordinate to help ensure complementary assistance 
but are often not aware of NED grants. To prevent duplicative programs, 
State DRL obtains feedback from USAID missions and embassies on project 
proposals before awarding democracy assistance grants. State DRL 
officials generally do not participate in USAID missions’ planning 
efforts; some State and USAID officials told GAO that geographic 
distances between State DRL’s centrally managed program and USAID’s 
country mission-based programs would make such participation difficult. 
Several USAID and State DRL officials responsible for planning and 
managing democracy assistance told GAO that they lacked information on 
NED’s current projects, which they believed would help inform their own 
programming decisions. Although NED is not required to report on all of 
its democracy assistance efforts to State and there currently is no 
mechanism for regular information sharing, NED told GAO that it has 
shared information with State and USAID and would routinely provide 
them with information on current projects if asked. 

USAID uses standard and custom indicators to assess and report on 
immediate program results; USAID also conducts some, but relatively 
infrequent, independent evaluations of longer-term programs. The 
standard indicators, developed by State, generally focus on numbers of 
activities or immediate results of a program, while custom indicators 
measure additional program results. USAID commissions a limited number 
of independent evaluations of program impact. USAID mission officials 
told GAO that they did not conduct many independent evaluations of 
democracy assistance because of the resources involved in the 
undertaking and the difficulty of measuring impact in the area of 
democracy assistance. In response to a 2008 National Research Council 
report on USAID’s democracy evaluation capacity, USAID has reported 
initiating several steps—for example, designing impact evaluations for 
six missions as part of a pilot program. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO recommends that, to enhance coordination of U.S.-funded democracy 
assistance, the Secretary of State and the USAID Administrator work 
jointly with NED to establish a mechanism to routinely collect 
information about NED’s current projects in countries where NED and 
State or USAID provide democracy assistance. These entities concurred 
with our recommendation. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-993] or key 
components. For more information, contact David Gootnick at (202) 512-
3149 or goodnickd@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

Data Show Largest Allocations for USAID Democracy Assistance: 

USAID and State DRL Coordinate to Help Ensure Complementary Programs 
but Often Are Not Aware of NED Projects: 

USAID Uses Standard and Custom Indicators to Assess and Report 
Democracy Assistance Results and Provides Some Independent Evaluations 
of Impacts: 

Conclusion: 

Recommendation for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Objective, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Country Funding Levels and Freedom House Ratings: 

Appendix III: Democracy Assistance Provided by MEPI, State INL, and 
MCC: 

Appendix IV: Listing of Field-Based and Washington, D.C.-Based 
Operating Units: 

Appendix V: Comments from the U.S. Agency for International 
Development: 

Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of State: 

Appendix VII: Comments from the National Endowment for Democracy: 

Appendix VIII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: GJD Program Areas and Program Elements: 

Table 2: Total GJD Funding and Freedom House Rating for Top 20 
Countries, Fiscal Years 2006-2008: 

Table 3: Global USAID Democracy Funding and Projects by Implementing 
Mechanism, Fiscal Year 2008: 

Table 4: Example of GJD Element-Level Standard Indicators: 

Table 5: National Research Council Recommendations and USAID Reported 
Actions: 

Table 6: USAID, State DRL, and NED Funding by Country for Fiscal Years 
2006-2008: 

Table 7: Ten Highest GJD-funded Countries not including Iraq and 
Afghanistan, Fiscal Years 2006-2008: 

Table 8: MCC Democracy-Related Threshold Grants to Date: 

Table 9: Operating Units Receiving GJD Funds between FY 2006 and FY 
2008, and Status as Field-Based or Washington, D.C.-Based Operating 
Unit: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Distribution of GJD Funding, Fiscal Years 2006-2008: 

Figure 2: GJD Funding by Operating Unit, Fiscal Year 2008: 

Figure 3: GJD Funding by Program Area, Fiscal Year 2008: 

Figure 4: Average Annual Funding, Number and Duration of USAID, State 
DRL, and NED Democracy Projects in 10 Sample Countries: 

Figure 5: Annualized Funding, Number and Duration of USAID, State DRL, 
and NED Democracy Projects in 10 Sample Countries: 

Figure 6: Countries with the Largest Percentage of Funding from State 
DRL and NED, Fiscal Year 2008: 

Abbreviations: 

CAS: country assistance strategies: 

EUR/ACE: Office of the Coordinator of U.S. Assistance to Europe and 
Eurasia: 

FACTS: Foreign Assistance Coordination and Tracking System: 

GJD: Governing Justly and Democratically: 

MCC: Millennium Challenge Corporation: 

MEPI: Middle East Partnership Initiative: 

NED: National Endowment for Democracy: 

State: Department of State: 

State DRL: Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor: 

State/F: Office of the Director of Foreign Assistance: 

State INL: Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement 
Affairs: 

USAID: U.S. Agency for International Development: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

September 28, 2009: 

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

The Honorable Nita M. Lowey: 
Chairwoman: 
The Honorable Kay Granger: 
Ranking Member: 
Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: 
Committee on Appropriations House of Representatives: 

The U.S. government supports democracy promotion activities in every 
geographic region of the world, including many countries where 
political and civil rights are limited. In fiscal years 2006 through 
2008, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the agency 
primarily responsible for providing democracy assistance abroad, 
implemented democracy activities in about 90 countries. The Department 
of State's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (State DRL) and 
the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a nongovernmental, 
nonprofit organization funded through a congressional appropriation, 
also supported U.S.-funded democracy assistance programs in many of 
these countries.[Footnote 1] 

In 2006, citing the risk of conflicting or redundant efforts and wasted 
resources among U.S. foreign assistance programs,[Footnote 2] State 
initiated efforts to reform and consolidate State and USAID foreign 
assistance processes.[Footnote 3] These efforts included establishing 
the Office of the Director of Foreign Assistance (State/F) to, among 
other duties, coordinate State's, USAID's, and other U.S. foreign 
assistance efforts. To help target U.S. government resources more 
efficiently and effectively, State/F developed the Foreign Assistance 
Framework with five strategic objectives, one of which--"Governing 
Justly and Democratically" (GJD)--encompasses democracy assistance. 
[Footnote 4] In 2008, acknowledging a need to improve the effectiveness 
of its democracy assistance programs, USAID's Office of Democracy and 
Governance commissioned a study by the National Research Council to 
improve methods for evaluating the effectiveness and impact of these 
programs.[Footnote 5] In July 2009, the Secretary of State announced 
plans for a Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review--a 
comprehensive assessment of current approaches to diplomacy and 
development intended to, among other things, strengthen coordination 
between State and USAID and provide recommendations on better 
evaluating impacts of U.S. foreign assistance. 

As directed by the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, this 
report provides an overview of U.S.-funded international democracy 
assistance efforts. Specifically, this report (1) describes democracy 
assistance funding provided by USAID, State DRL, and NED in fiscal year 
2008; (2) examines USAID, State DRL, and NED efforts to coordinate 
their democracy assistance activities to ensure complementary 
programming; and (3) describes USAID efforts to assess results and 
evaluate the impact of its democracy assistance activities.[Footnote 6] 

In conducting our work, we analyzed funding, planning, and programmatic 
documents and data describing U.S. democracy assistance activities 
provided by USAID, State DRL, and NED in fiscal years 2006 through 
2008.[Footnote 7] We conducted audit work in Washington, D.C., and in 
three countries--Indonesia, Jordan, and Russia--with large democracy 
funding levels and assistance from several U.S. entities; in these 
three countries, we met with USAID and State officials responsible for 
democracy assistance programs, officials from nongovernmental 
organizations that implement these programs, and country government 
officials in two of the three countries we visited. We also collected 
information on democracy programs in seven additional countries--China, 
Democratic Republic of Congo, Haiti, Kosovo, Lebanon, Nicaragua, and 
Pakistan; as a result, we collected detailed information on U.S. 
democracy programs in a total of 10 geographically diverse countries 
with large GJD funding levels and where multiple U.S. agencies or 
organizations provide democracy assistance.[Footnote 8] We excluded 
Iraq and Afghanistan from our sample, despite the large democracy 
assistance funding levels there, because of the unique circumstances in 
those countries. To obtain the views of USAID mission officials in our 
10 sample countries regarding interagency coordination and project 
monitoring and evaluation, we conducted an e-mail survey of all 35 
USAID technical officers with responsibility for managing active 
democracy and governance grants in these countries, receiving 31 
responses, from April to June 2009 (a response rate of 89 percent). We 
also interviewed State DRL policy and program officers responsible for 
managing the bureau's democracy grants in the 10 countries. In 
describing USAID efforts to assess results and evaluate the impact of 
its democracy assistance activities, we focused our analysis on USAID's 
projects because they typically represented the majority of U.S.-funded 
assistance and because State DRL and NED generally do not conduct 
impact evaluations. We reviewed USAID performance reports for active 
projects, USAID missions' strategic assessments of democracy and 
governance, and project evaluations in the 10 countries. We also 
reviewed findings from the 2008 National Research Council study of 
USAID democracy assistance evaluation; however, we did not assess the 
study or USAID actions in response to the study.[Footnote 9] (See 
appendix I for a detailed discussion of our objectives, scope, and 
methodology.) 

We conducted this performance audit from September 2008 to September 
2009 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit 
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable 
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for 
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Results in Brief: 

Data available from State/F show total democracy assistance allocations 
of about $2.25 billion for fiscal year 2008. Approximately $306 
million, or almost 15 percent of the total allocation, was allocated to 
operating units in Washington, D.C., including USAID and State regional 
and functional bureaus, and to offices such as State DRL; more than 
$1.95 billion, or about 85 percent of the total allocation, went to 
field-based operating units, primarily country missions.[Footnote 10] 
The State/F data systems do not include funding information by 
implementing entity for the years we reviewed, and complete data on 
USAID funding per country were not available;[Footnote 11] however, 
USAID mission data that State/F and USAID provided at our request show 
that in our 10 sample countries, most democracy funds are programmed by 
USAID. The estimated average annual funding for democracy assistance 
projects active in our 10 sample countries as of January 2009 was about 
$18 million for USAID, $3 million for State DRL, and $2 million for 
NED; annual funding per project averaged more than $2 million for 
USAID, $350,000 for State DRL, and $100,000 for NED. In fiscal year 
2008, more than half of State DRL funding for democracy assistance went 
to Iraq, followed by China, Cuba, Iran, and North Korea, and NED 
funding for democracy programs was highest for China, Iraq, Russia, 
Burma, and Pakistan. 

USAID and State DRL coordinate to help ensure complementary democracy 
assistance programs but often are not aware of NED projects. In our 10 
sample countries, a key mechanism for preventing duplicative 
programming involved State DRL's efforts to obtain feedback from USAID 
missions and embassies on project solicitations and proposals before 
awarding democracy assistance grants. USAID officials at the 10 
missions we contacted generally agreed that this mechanism helps to 
ensure complementary programming. Conversely, while each mission's 
planning efforts may involve other U.S. stakeholders in the country, 
such as staff from the embassy's political and public affairs sections, 
these efforts generally do not involve State DRL officials managing 
democracy projects from Washington, D.C. State DRL officials 
responsible for managing democracy projects in our 10 sample countries 
generally indicated that their participation in USAID missions' 
planning processes would improve coordination. However, State and USAID 
officials noted that geographic distances between State DRL's centrally 
managed program and USAID's country mission-based programs would make 
such coordination difficult. Although NED is not required to report all 
of its democracy assistance efforts to State, several USAID and State 
DRL officials said that they lacked information about NED's current 
projects, which they believed would help inform their own programming 
decisions. No mechanism currently exists for the routine sharing of 
information on NED's projects. NED officials told us that NED has 
shared information on its activities in the past and would be willing 
to provide project information routinely if State or USAID deemed it 
useful. 

USAID uses standard and custom indicators to assess and report on 
immediate program outputs and outcomes; USAID also conducts some, but 
relatively infrequent, independent evaluations of longer-term program 
impacts and reports taking steps to improve its evaluation capacity. 
[Footnote 12] The standard indicators, developed by State/F with input 
from subject matter experts in State DRL and USAID's Office of 
Democracy and Governance, generally focus on numbers of activities or 
immediate results of a program, such as the number of justice sector 
personnel trained by the U.S. government. USAID typically develops 
additional custom indicators to better assess particular projects, 
measuring program results not captured by the standard indicators. For 
example, in Jordan a custom indicator for a democracy assistance 
project measured improvement in the capacity of the legislative branch 
and elected local bodies to undertake their stated functions. USAID 
commissions a limited number of independent evaluations of democracy 
assistance program impact. USAID mission officials we met with noted 
they did not conduct many independent evaluations because of the 
resources involved and the difficulty of measuring the impact of 
democracy assistance. USAID reports initiating several steps in 
response to findings and recommendations in the National Research 
Council's 2008 report on USAID's democracy evaluation capacity. For 
example, USAID is designing impact evaluations for six missions as part 
of a pilot program with the goal of better identifying the effects of 
the missions' democracy assistance programs. 

To enhance coordination of U.S.-funded democracy assistance efforts, 
and in support of the Department of State's first Quadrennial Diplomacy 
and Development Review, we recommend that the Secretary of State and 
the USAID Administrator, while recognizing NED's status as a private, 
nonprofit organization, work jointly with NED to establish a mechanism 
to routinely collect information about NED's current projects in 
countries where NED and State or USAID provide democracy assistance. 

We provided a draft of this report to State, USAID, and NED for review 
and comment. All three entities concurred with our recommendation. 

Background: 

Foreign Assistance Reform: 

In January 2006, to better align foreign assistance programs with U.S. 
foreign policy goals, the Secretary of State appointed a Director of 
Foreign Assistance with authority over all State and USAID foreign 
assistance funding and programs.[Footnote 13] In working to reform 
foreign assistance, the Director's office, State/F, has taken a number 
of steps to integrate State and USAID foreign assistance processes. 
These steps have included, among others, integrating State and USAID 
foreign assistance budget formulation, planning and reporting 
processes. As part of the reform, State/F, with input from State and 
USAID subject matter experts, developed the Foreign Assistance 
Framework, with its five strategic objectives, as a tool for targeting 
U.S. foreign assistance resources; instituted common program 
definitions to collect, track, and report on data related to foreign 
assistance program funding and results; and created a set of standard 
output-oriented indicators for assessing foreign assistance programs. 
State/F also instituted annual operational planning and reporting 
processes for all State and USAID operating units. Moreover, State/F 
initiated a pilot program for developing 5-year country assistance 
strategies intended to ensure that foreign assistance provided by all 
U.S. agencies is aligned with top foreign policy objectives in a given 
country. These integrated processes are supported by two data 
information systems, known as the Foreign Assistance Coordination and 
Tracking System (FACTS) and FACTS Info.[Footnote 14] 

In July 2009, the Secretary of State announced plans to conduct a 
Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, intended in part to 
maximize collaboration between State and USAID. According to State, 
this review will identify overarching foreign policy and development 
objectives, specific policy priorities, and expected results. In 
addition, the review will make recommendations on strategy, 
organizational and management reforms, tools and resources, and 
performance measures to assess outcomes and--where feasible--impacts of 
U.S. foreign assistance. The review will be managed by a senior 
leadership team under the direction of the Secretary of State and led 
by the Deputy Secretary for Management and Resources, with the 
Administrator of USAID and the Director of the Policy Planning serving 
as co-chairs and with senior representation from State and USAID. 
[Footnote 15] Although State has not announced a formal time frame for 
producing a final report of the review's results, a senior State 
official indicated that the process would likely produce initial 
results in early 2010. 

Democracy Assistance and the Foreign Assistance Framework: 

Under the Foreign Assistance Framework developed by State/F in 2006, 
the strategic objective GJD has four program areas--"Rule of Law and 
Human Rights," "Good Governance," "Political Competition and Consensus- 
Building," and "Civil Society"--each with a number of program elements 
and sub-elements. State/F's information systems, FACTS and FACTS Info, 
track funding allocated for assistance in support of GJD and these four 
program areas. Table 1 shows the four program areas and associated 
program elements. 

Table 1: GJD Program Areas and Program Elements: 

Program area: Rule of Law and Human Rights; To advance and protect 
human and individual rights, and to promote societies in which the 
state and its citizens are accountable to laws that are publicly 
promulgated, equally enforced, and independently adjudicated, and which 
are consistent with international norms and standards; 
Program elements: 
* Constitutions, laws and human rights; 
* Judicial independence; 
* Justice system; 
* Human rights. 

Program area: Good Governance; To promote democratic institutions that 
are effective, responsive, sustainable, and accountable to the people; 
Program elements: 
* Legislative function and processes; 
* Public sector executive function; 
* Local government and decentralization; 
* Anticorruption reforms; 
* Governance and security sector. 

Program area: Political Competition and Consensus Building; To 
encourage the development of transparent and inclusive electoral and 
political processes, and democratic, responsive, and effective 
political parties; 
Program elements: 
* Consensus-building processes; 
* Election and political processes; 
* Political parties. 

Program area: Civil Society; To empower individuals to exercise 
peacefully their rights of expression, association, and assembly, 
including through their establishing and participating in NGOs, unions, 
and other civil society organizations; 
Program elements: 
* Civic participation; 
* Media freedom and freedom of information. 

Source: State/USAID Strategic Plan, Fiscal Years 2007-2012 and State's 
Handbook of GJD Indicators and Definitions. 

[End of table] 

Funding Allocations for Democracy Assistance: 

In fiscal years 2006 through 2008, funds allocated for the GJD 
strategic objective were provided for democracy assistance programs in 
90 countries around the world. Almost half of all democracy funding 
over this period was spent in Iraq and Afghanistan; the next highest 
funded countries, Sudan, Egypt, Mexico, Colombia, and Russia, accounted 
for more than 25 percent of the remaining GJD funding allocated to 
individual countries other than Iraq and Afghanistan. Of the 20 
countries with the largest GJD allocations, 8 have been rated by 
Freedom House, an independent nongovernmental organization, as not 
free; 8 have been rated as partly free; and 4 have been rated as free. 
[Footnote 16] Figure 1 illustrates the worldwide distribution of GJD 
funding, and table 2 shows funding levels and Freedom House ratings for 
the 20 countries with the largest allocations. 

Figure 1: Distribution of GJD Funding, Fiscal Years 2006-2008: 

[Refer to PDF for image: map of the world] 

The map indicates the following: 

Countries receiving GJD funds; 
Countries not receiving GJD funds. 

Sources: GAO analysis of State/F data; Map Resources, CIA, and UN 
(map). 

[End of figure] 

Table 2: Total GJD Funding and Freedom House Rating for Top 20 
Countries, Fiscal Years 2006-2008 (Dollars in thousands): 

Country: Iraq; Dollars in thousands: 
GJD FY 2006-2008 funding: $1,752,588; 
Freedom House rating: Not free. 

Country: Afghanistan; 
GJD FY 2006-2008 funding: $935,307; 
Freedom House rating: Not free. 

Country: Sudan; 
GJD FY 2006-2008 funding: $208,373; 
Freedom House rating: Not free. 

Country: Egypt; 
GJD FY 2006-2008 funding: $154,800; 
Freedom House rating: Not free. 

Country: Mexico; 
GJD FY 2006-2008 funding: $119,680; 
Freedom House rating: Free. 

Country: Colombia; 
GJD FY 2006-2008 funding: $118,928; 
Freedom House rating: Partly free. 

Country: Russia; 
GJD FY 2006-2008 funding: $117,734; 
Freedom House rating: Not free. 

Country: Kosovo; 
GJD FY 2006-2008 funding: $92,747; 
Freedom House rating: Not free. 

Country: Pakistan; 
GJD FY 2006-2008 funding: $91,873; 
Freedom House rating: Partly free. 

Country: Liberia; 
GJD FY 2006-2008 funding: $81,150; 
Freedom House rating: Partly free. 

Country: Indonesia; 
GJD FY 2006-2008 funding: $79,663; 
Freedom House rating: Free. 

Country: West Bank and Gaza; 
GJD FY 2006-2008 funding: $74,493; 
Freedom House rating: Not free. 

Country: Ukraine; 
GJD FY 2006-2008 funding: $71,567; 
Freedom House rating: Free. 

Country: Cuba; 
GJD FY 2006-2008 funding: $68,914; 
Freedom House rating: Not free. 

Country: Haiti; 
GJD FY 2006-2008 funding: $65,880; 
Freedom House rating: Partly free. 

Country: Georgia; 
GJD FY 2006-2008 funding: $63,464; 
Freedom House rating: Partly free. 

Country: Serbia; 
GJD FY 2006-2008 funding: $60,754; 
Freedom House rating: Free. 

Country: Armenia; 
GJD FY 2006-2008 funding: $56,887; 
Freedom House rating: Partly free. 

Country: Bosnia and Herzegovina; 
GJD FY 2006-2008 funding: $53,466; 
Freedom House rating: Partly free. 

Country: Jordan; 
GJD FY 2006-2008 funding: $53,206; 
Freedom House rating: Partly free. 

Source: GAO analysis of State/F data and Freedom House's an annual 
survey of the state of global freedom for 2009. 

Note: The GJD funding shown for each country does not include amounts 
that Washington, D.C.-based operating units, such as State DRL, and 
regional operating units, such as USAID regional offices, may have 
programmed in the country. The data available from State/F shows 
allocations to country based operating units and do not include amounts 
of the allocated funds that these regional and cross-cutting operating 
units program in individual countries. 

[End of table] 

Key Entities Involved in Providing U.S.-funded Democracy Assistance: 

USAID, State DRL, and NED fund democracy assistance programs in 
countries throughout the world. USAID's and State DRL's foreign 
assistance programs are funded under the Foreign Operations 
appropriation and tracked by State as part of GJD funding, while NED's 
core budget is funded under the State Operations appropriation and is 
not tracked as part of GJD foreign assistance funding. 

* U.S. Agency for International Development. In fiscal years 2006 
through 2008, USAID democracy programs operated in 88 countries 
worldwide. USAID's Office of Democracy and Governance, based in 
Washington, D.C., supports USAID's democracy programs worldwide, but 
these programs are primarily designed and managed by USAID missions in 
the field. USAID democracy programs cover a large variety of issues 
including media, labor, judicial reforms, local governance, legislative 
strengthening, and elections. USAID programs are managed by technical 
officers, typically based in missions in the field, who develop 
strategies and assessments, design programs, and monitor the 
performance of projects by collecting and reviewing performance reports 
from implementing partners and conducting site visits, typically at 
least monthly. 

* Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor. State DRL implements the 
Human Rights Democracy Fund, established in fiscal year 1998, providing 
grants primarily to U.S. nonprofit organizations to strengthen 
democratic institutions, promote human rights, and build civil society 
mainly in fragile democracies and authoritarian states. In 2006 through 
2008, State DRL's programs operated in 66 countries worldwide. 
According to State, State DRL strives to fund innovative programs 
focused on providing immediate short term assistance in response to 
emerging events. In addition, State DRL can also fill gaps in USAID 
democracy funding (see appendix II). Unlike USAID, State DRL manages 
its democracy grant program centrally. State DRL's Washington-based 
staff monitor these grants by collecting and reviewing quarterly 
reports from grantees and conducting site visits, typically through 
annual visits to participating countries.[Footnote 17] 

* National Endowment for Democracy. In 1983, Congress authorized 
initial funding for NED, a private, nonprofit, nongovernmental 
organization.[Footnote 18] NED's core budget is funded primarily 
through an annual congressional appropriation and NED receives 
additional funding from State to support congressionally directed or 
discretionary programs.[Footnote 19] The legislation recognizing the 
creation of NED and authorizing its funding, known as the NED Act, 
requires NED to report annually to Congress on its operations, 
activities, and accomplishments as well as on the results of an 
independent financial audit.[Footnote 20] The act does not require NED 
to report to State on the use of its core appropriation; however, State 
requires NED to provide quarterly financial reporting and annual 
programmatic reporting on the use of the congressionally directed and 
discretionary grants it receives from State.[Footnote 21] NED funds 
indigenous partners with grants that typically last for about a year. 
NED monitors program activities through quarterly program and financial 
reports from grantees and site visits, performed on average about once 
per year, to verify program and budgetary information. About half of 
NED's total annual core grant funding is awarded to four affiliated 
organizations, known as core institutes.[Footnote 22] The remaining 
funds are used to provide hundreds of grants to NGOs in more than 90 
countries to promote human rights, independent media, rule of law, 
civic education, and the development of civil society in general. 

Data Show Largest Allocations for USAID Democracy Assistance: 

State/F information systems show allocations of approximately $2.25 
billion in GJD funding to operating units in fiscal year 2008, with 
about 85 percent of this amount allocated for State and USAID field- 
based operating units, primarily country missions. The estimated 
average annualized funding for democracy assistance projects active in 
our 10 sample countries as of January 2009 was $18 million for USAID, 
$3 million for State DRL, and $2 million for NED. In fiscal year 2008, 
more than half of State DRL funding for democracy assistance went to 
Iraq, followed by China, Cuba, Iran, and North Korea, and most NED 
funding for democracy programs went to China, Iraq, Russia, Burma, and 
Pakistan. 

Most Democracy Funding Allocated to Field-Based Operating Units: 

Data from State/F information systems, which report GJD allocations by 
operating unit, indicate that most GJD funding allocated in fiscal year 
2008 went to country programs. The State/F systems show that, of more 
than $2.25 billion allocated for GJD in fiscal year 2008, approximately 
$306 million, or almost 15 percent, went to operating units in 
Washington, D.C., including USAID and State regional and functional 
bureaus and offices such as State DRL. More than $1.95 billion, or 
about 85 percent of the total allocation, was allocated to field-based 
operating units, primarily country missions. (See figure 2 for the 
allocation of GJD funding by type of operating unit, for fiscal year 
2008. See appendix IV for a list of Washington, D.C.-based and field-
based operating units that received GJD funds in fiscal years 2006-
2008.) 

Figure 2: GJD Funding by Operating Unit, Fiscal Year 2008 (Dollars in 
millions): 

[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart] 

Field-based operating units, $1,953: 87%; 
Washington-based operating units: Other, $138: 6%; 
Washington-based operating units: State DRL[A], $168: 7%. 

Source: GAO analysis of State/F data. 

[A] The amount shown for the State DRL allocation for fiscal year 2008 
reflects State DRL-managed funding for that year for all countries 
except Iraq and also reflects NED's core appropriation. State/F 
categorizes State DRL-managed funds for Iraq as part of the Iraq 
operating unit; therefore, our analysis includes State DRL-managed 
funds for Iraq as part of the field-based operating units rather than 
the State DRL operating unit. In addition, because NED core funding was 
appropriated through the Foreign Operations account in fiscal year 
2008, NED core funding for that year is included in the amount 
allocated for the State DRL operating unit. (In previous years other 
than fiscal year 2008, NED's core appropriation was not appropriated 
under the Foreign Operations account and therefore is not included in 
the GJD foreign assistance totals for all other years.) 

[End of figure] 

Figure 3 shows the distribution of democracy assistance funding for the 
four GJD program areas. 

Figure 3: GJD Funding by Program Area, Fiscal Year 2008 (Dollars in 
millions): 

[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart] 

Good Governance, $762: 34%; 
Political Competition and Consensus Building, $295: 13%; 
Civil Society, $593: 26%; 
Rule of Law and Human Rights, $608: 27%. 

Source: GAO analysis of State/F data. 

[End of figure] 

Although State/F information systems enable reporting of democracy 
assistance allocations to operating units and by program area, these 
systems do not include funding information by implementing entity for 
the years we reviewed--fiscal years 2006 through 2008.[Footnote 23] 
Consequently, State/F data on GJD funding allocations to implementing 
entities--including the portion of allocations to field-based operating 
units that is programmed by each implementing entity--are not centrally 
located.[Footnote 24] However, in response to our request for 
information on USAID democracy assistance funding, State/F and USAID 
compiled data provided by USAID missions on GJD funding allocated to 
USAID for most country-based operating units for fiscal years 2006 
through 2008.[Footnote 25] According to these data, USAID implements 
the majority of the democracy funding provided in most countries. In 
addition, State/F data show that the largest portion of GJD funding in 
fiscal year 2008 was allocated for the Good Governance program area 
(see figure 3). (appendix II shows amounts of USAID, State DRL, and NED 
funding distributed to all countries in fiscal years 2006-2008 as well 
as each country's Freedom House rating.) 

USAID Funded Most Democracy Assistance in 10 Sample Countries: 

Estimated average annualized funding for all active democracy 
assistance projects in the 10 sample countries was about $18 million 
per year for USAID (78 percent of the total estimated average annual 
funding for all three entities), $3 million for State DRL, and $2 
million for NED. Annualized funding per project averaged more than $2 
million for USAID; more than $350,000 for State DRL; and more than 
$100,000 for NED. Project length averaged 3 years for USAID, 2 years 
for State DRL, and 1 year for NED (see figure 4). 

Figure 4: Average Annual Funding, Number and Duration of USAID, State 
DRL, and NED Democracy Projects in 10 Sample Countries: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated table] 

Total for all countries: 
China; 
Democratic Republic of Congo; 
Haiti; 
Indonesia; 
Jordan; 
Kosovo; 
Lebanon; 
Nicaragua; 
Pakistan; 
Russia. 

Annual funding of portfolio (percentage): 
USAID: 78%; 
State/DRL: 13%; 
NED: 8%. 

Average annual funding per project (dollars in thousands): 
USAID: $2,262; 
State/DRL: $356; 
NED: $112. 

Average number of active projects: 
USAID: 10; 
State/DRL: 8; 
NED: 19. 

Average length of project (in years): 
USAID: 3.2; 
State/DRL: 2.0; 
NED: 1.1. 

Sources: GAO analysis of USAID, State/DRL, and NED data. 

Note: This analysis is based on the set of USAID, State DRL, and NED 
democracy projects that were active in each of the 10 countries during 
January 2009. To compare the projects with varying duration and funding 
levels, we (1) annualized funding of active projects by averaging the 
monthly cost of each project (total project funding divided by the 
length of the project in months) and multiplying by 12; (2) annualized 
the funding for each portfolio by summing the annualized funding for 
each project in the portfolio; and (3) determined the average length of 
projects in years by multiplying by 12 the planned length of active 
projects in months. 

[End of figure] 

According to award data for USAID, State DRL, and NED, USAID provided 
the majority of funding for democracy assistance projects that were 
active as of January 2009 in 9 of the 10 sample countries (see figure 
5).[Footnote 26] USAID funding ranged from 10 to 94 percent, with a 
median of 89 percent, of the three entities' total democracy assistance 
funding in each country. 

Figure 5: Annualized Funding, Number and Duration of USAID, State DRL, 
and NED Democracy Projects in 10 Sample Countries: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated table] 

Country: China; 
Annual funding of portfolio (percentage): 
USAID: 10%; 
State/DRL: 66%; 
NED: 23%; 
Average annual funding per project (dollars in thousands): 
USAID: $660; 
State/DRL: $404; 
NED: $115; 
Number of active projects: 
USAID: 4; 
State/DRL: 42; 
NED: 52; 
Average length of project (in years): 
USAID: 3.0; 
State/DRL: 2.5; 
NED: 1.0; 
USAID funding by program area (percentage): 
Rule of Law: 100%; 
Civil Society: 0; 
Political Competition: 0; 
Good Governance: 0. 

Country: Democratic Republic of Congo; 
Annual funding of portfolio (percentage): 
USAID: 83%; 
State/DRL: 6%; 
NED: 10%; 
Average annual funding per project (dollars in thousands): 
USAID: $2,711; 
State/DRL: $347; 
NED: $45; 
Number of active projects: 
USAID: 5; 
State/DRL: 3; 
NED: 38; 
Average length of project (in years): 
USAID: 2.3; 
State/DRL: 2.3; 
NED: 1.0; 
USAID funding by program area (percentage): 
Rule of Law: 70%; 
Civil Society: 10$; 
Political Competition: 0; 
Good Governance: 20%. 

Country: Haiti; 
Annual funding of portfolio (percentage): 
USAID: 94%; 
State/DRL: 2%; 
NED: 5%; 
Average annual funding per project (dollars in thousands): 
USAID: $2,074; 
State/DRL: $323; 
NED: $68; 
Number of active projects: 
USAID: 9; 
State/DRL: 1; 
NED: 14; 
Average length of project (in years): 
USAID: 3.0; 
State/DRL: 2.0; 
NED: 1.0; 
USAID funding by program area (percentage): 
Rule of Law: 26%; 
Civil Society: 27%; 
Political Competition: 9%; 
Good Governance: 38%. 

Country: Indonesia; 
Annual funding of portfolio (percentage): 
USAID: 91%; 
State/DRL: 4%; 
NED: 5%; 
Average annual funding per project (dollars in thousands): 
USAID: $3,152; 
State/DRL: $281; 
NED: $261; 
Number of active projects: 
USAID: 9; 
State/DRL: 4; 
NED: 6; 
Average length of project (in years): 
USAID: 3.2; 
State/DRL: 2.3; 
NED: 1.7; 
USAID funding by program area (percentage): 
Rule of Law: 21%; 
Civil Society: 3%; 
Political Competition: 6%; 
Good Governance: 70%. 

Country: Jordan; 
Annual funding of portfolio (percentage): 
USAID: 93%; 
State/DRL: 1%; 
NED: 6%; 
Average annual funding per project (dollars in thousands): 
USAID: $2,274; 
State/DRL: $224; 
NED: $136; 
Number of active projects: 
USAID: 8; 
State/DRL: 1; 
NED: 8; 
Average length of project (in years): 
USAID: 3.5; 
State/DRL: 2.0; 
NED: 1.0; 
USAID funding by program area (percentage): 
Rule of Law: 25%; 
Civil Society: 33%; 
Political Competition: 19%; 
Good Governance: 23%. 

Country: Kosovo; 
Annual funding of portfolio (percentage): 
USAID: 92%; 
State/DRL: 6%; 
NED: 2%; 
Average annual funding per project (dollars in thousands): 
USAID: $2,282; 
State/DRL: $216; 
NED: $63; 
Number of active projects: 
USAID: 7; 
State/DRL: 5; 
NED: 5; 
Average length of project (in years): 
USAID: 2.7; 
State/DRL: 1.9; 
NED: 1.0; 
USAID funding by program area (percentage): 
Rule of Law: 50%; 
Civil Society: 16%; 
Political Competition: 3%; 
Good Governance: 31%. 

Country: Lebanon; 
Annual funding of portfolio (percentage): 
USAID: 96%; 
State/DRL: 11%; 
NED: 3%; 
Average annual funding per project (dollars in thousands): 
USAID: $3,041; 
State/DRL: $444; 
NED: $112; 
Number of active projects: 
USAID: 8; 
State/DRL: 7; 
NED: 7; 
Average length of project (in years): 
USAID: 4.0; 
State/DRL: 1.9; 
NED: 1.0; 
USAID funding by program area (percentage): 
Rule of Law: 10%; 
Civil Society: 16%; 
Political Competition: 9%; 
Good Governance: 65%. 

Country: Nicaragua; 
Annual funding of portfolio (percentage): 
USAID: 91%; 
State/DRL: 3%; 
NED: 6%; 
Average annual funding per project (dollars in thousands): 
USAID: $1,945; 
State/DRL: $373; 
NED: $62; 
Number of active projects: 
USAID: 5; 
State/DRL: 1; 
NED: 10; 
Average length of project (in years): 
USAID: 3.0; 
State/DRL: 0.7; 
NED: 1.0; 
USAID funding by program area (percentage): 
Rule of Law: 31%; 
Civil Society: 2%; 
Political Competition: 42%; 
Good Governance: 25%. 

Country: Pakistan; 
Annual funding of portfolio (percentage): 
USAID: 75%; 
State/DRL: 12%; 
NED: 13%; 
Average annual funding per project (dollars in thousands): 
USAID: $3,649; 
State/DRL: $398; 
NED: $166; 
Number of active projects: 
USAID: 5; 
State/DRL: 7; 
NED: 19; 
Average length of project (in years): 
USAID: 2.4; 
State/DRL: 2.3; 
NED: 1.3; 
USAID funding by program area (percentage): 
Rule of Law: 0; 
Civil Society: 0; 
Political Competition: 21%; 
Good Governance: 79%. 

Country: Russia; 
Annual funding of portfolio (percentage): 
USAID: 83%; 
State/DRL: 9%; 
NED: 8%; 
Average annual funding per project (dollars in thousands): 
USAID: $834; 
State/DRL: $550; 
NED: $87; 
Number of active projects: 
USAID: 36; 
State/DRL: 6; 
NED: 32; 
Average length of project (in years): 
USAID: 5.0; 
State/DRL: 1.8; 
NED: 1.0; 
USAID funding by program area (percentage): 
Rule of Law: 27%; 
Civil Society: 52%; 
Political Competition: 8%; 
Good Governance: 13%. 

Sources: GAO analysis of USAID, State/DRL, and NED data; Map Resources 
(maps). 

Note: This analysis is based on the set of USAID, State DRL, and NED 
democracy projects that were active in each of the 10 countries during 
January 2009. To compare the projects with varying duration and funding 
levels, we (1) annualized funding of active projects by averaging the 
monthly cost of each project (total project funding divided by the 
length of the project in months) and multiplying by 12; (2) annualized 
the funding for each portfolio by summing the annualized funding for 
each project in the portfolio; and (3) determined the average length of 
projects in years by multiplying by 12 the planned length of active 
projects in months. 

These charts do not include funding implemented by State INL, MEPI, or 
MCC at the country level. For information on the funding for these 
agencies, see appendix III. 

[End of figure] 

USAID's country-based missions are typically responsible for developing 
democracy assistance activities based on country-specific multiyear 
democracy assistance strategies, which they develop in the field with 
input from embassy officials as well as USAID and State offices in 
Washington, D.C. Once the strategic plan is approved, individual 
programs are designed to fit into the overall priorities and objectives 
laid out in the strategic plan. This program design includes the 
procedures to select the implementer and to monitor and evaluate 
program performance. USAID missions typically collaborate with the 
USAID Office of Democracy and Governance to develop and carry out in- 
depth democracy and governance assessments to help define these 
strategies.[Footnote 27] These assessments are intended to identify 
core democracy and governance problems and the primary actors and 
institutions in a country. For example, the USAID mission in Indonesia 
conducted a democracy and governance assessment in June 2008, which 
formed the basis for a new 5-year democracy and governance strategy for 
2009 to 2014. The assessment, which was commissioned by the USAID 
Office of Democracy and Governance and conducted by an outside 
contractor, involved consultation with more than 100 Indonesian 
government officials, civil society representatives, local academics, 
and other international donors involved in democracy and governance in 
Indonesia. 

USAID democracy activities vary in each country, according to the 
operating environment, needs and opportunities. For example, as of 
January 2009, USAID's democracy assistance portfolio in Lebanon 
amounted to $24.3 million on an annual basis. The majority of this 
funding--65 percent--was awarded for Good Governance activities such as 
assistance to the Lebanese Parliament, and programs to improve service 
delivery through municipal capacity building. In Indonesia, about 70 
percent of USAID funding for projects active in January 2009 was for 
Good Governance-related assistance to help the Indonesian government 
with a major effort to decentralize its government. Conversely, in 
Russia, where USAID does not work closely with the Russian government, 
over 50 percent of USAID funding supported Civil Society programs and 
only about 13 percent of funding supported active projects in the area 
of Good Governance. 

USAID implements approximately half of the value of its democracy 
programs using grants and implements the remaining half using 
contracts. Worldwide, USAID democracy contract funding tends to be much 
higher than USAID grant funding; in fiscal year 2008, democracy 
contract funding averaged about $2 million per project and democracy 
grant funding averaged almost $850,000 per project. However, USAID 
implements more than twice as many projects with grants than with 
contracts; thus, although USAID contracts are higher in funding, USAID 
democracy funding is fairly evenly split between contracts and grants. 
In fiscal year 2008, about 53 percent of USAID democracy funding was 
implemented through contracts and 47 percent was implemented through 
grants. Table 3 shows USAID's average global funding for democracy 
contracts and grants in fiscal year 2008. 

Table 3: Global USAID Democracy Funding and Projects by Implementing 
Mechanism, Fiscal Year 2008: 

Average funding per project: 
Grants: $846,526; 
Contracts: $2,012,114. 

Percentage of total funding: 
Grants: 47 percent; 
Contracts: 53 percent. 

Total number of projects: 
Grants: 692; 
Contracts: 326. 

Source: GAO analysis of USAID data. 

Note: This analysis is based on USAID data for democracy assistance in 
all countries, including Iraq and Afghanistan, for fiscal year 2008; if 
funding for democracy projects in Iraq and Afghanistan is excluded, the 
distribution of USAID democracy funds by funding mechanism changes to 
52 percent of funds distributed for grants and 47 percent for 
contracts. In 2006 and 2007, USAID democracy funding, excluding 
projects in Iraq and Afghanistan, was likewise more heavily 
concentrated toward grants, with 62 percent of funds distributed for 
grants and 38 percent for contracts in 2006 and 65 percent distributed 
for grants and 35 percent for contracts in 2007. USAID officials noted 
that democracy projects in Iraq and Afghanistan are more reliant on 
contracts because of the nature of the projects involved. This analysis 
does not cover all USAID democracy projects over this period, as it 
excludes some cross-cutting projects relating to more than one 
objective. 

[End of table] 

State DRL and NED Funded Democracy Assistance Activities in Select 
Countries: 

State DRL funded democracy programs in more than 30 countries in a 
variety of program areas in fiscal year 2008,[Footnote 28] spending 57 
percent of its funds in Iraq and 28 percent in China, Cuba, Iran, and 
North Korea. Funds managed by State DRL totaled $157 million in fiscal 
year 2008, $75 million of which was allocated through a supplemental 
appropriation for democracy programs in Iraq. Only a small portion of 
State DRL-managed funding in that year--$13 million of $157 million-- 
was discretionary; most of the funding was congressionally directed for 
specific countries or issues.[Footnote 29] In planning resource 
allocations as well as solicitations for statements of interest and 
requests for proposals from NGOs, State DRL staff members consult with 
USAID and State regional bureaus, and review country mission strategic 
plans and operational plans, according to a State DRL official. 
Proposals are reviewed by a 7-person panel, which includes 
representatives from State DRL, USAID, and State regional bureaus. 
[Footnote 30] According to a State DRL official, the bureau does not 
prepare country strategies for its democracy grant program because 
funding levels are relatively small for most countries and fluctuate 
from year to year. 

NED funded democracy programs in more than 90 countries in fiscal year 
2008, spending 28 percent of its funds on programs in China, Iraq, 
Russia, Burma, and Pakistan. Unlike USAID and State DRL, NED allocates 
democracy funds relatively evenly across many countries, with average 
per-country funding of almost $1 million in fiscal year 2008.[Footnote 
31] In fiscal year 2008, NED's funding allocation for democracy 
programs totaled $118 million. NED makes programming decisions on 
specific projects in the context of its current 5-year strategic plan, 
published in 2007, and an internal annual planning document. For each 
region of the world, the annual planning document identifies regional 
priorities and critical sectors--such as human rights and freedom of 
information--in which to target assistance. According to a NED 
official, NED solicits proposals from NGOs every quarter. After grant 
proposals are received, NED conducts an internal review and the 
proposals that are selected are presented to the NED board of directors 
for approval.[Footnote 32] 

Figure 6 shows the countries where State DRL and NED, respectively, 
allocated the largest amounts for democracy programs in fiscal year 
2008. 

Figure 6: Countries with the Largest Percentage of Funding from State 
DRL and NED, Fiscal Year 2008 (Dollars in millions): 

[Refer to PDF for image: 2 pie-charts] 

Countries with Highest DRL Funding: 
Iraq, $75: 57%; 
China, $15: 11%; 
Cuba, $12: 9%; 
Iran, $8: 6%; 
North Korea, $3: 2%; 
All other countries, $19: 15%. 

Countries with Highest NED Funding: 
Iraq, $6: 7%; 
China, $6: 6%; 
Russia, $6: 6%; 
Burma, $5: 5%; 
Pakistan, $3; 4%; 
All other countries, $66: 72%. 

Source: GAO analysis of State/DRL, and NED data. 

Note: This analysis includes all funding directly allocated to programs 
in individual countries and excludes funding allocated to regional or 
cross-cutting programs that operate in more than one country. 

[End of figure] 

USAID and State DRL Coordinate to Help Ensure Complementary Programs 
but Often Are Not Aware of NED Projects: 

To help ensure complementary programming and avoid duplication in their 
respective democracy assistance programs, State DRL invites USAID 
missions to review State DRL proposals for democracy assistance 
projects. In addition, State DRL officials sometimes participate in 
USAID missions' planning for democracy assistance projects. However, 
USAID and State DRL officials are often not aware of NED democracy 
assistance projects, and although NED is not required to report on all 
of its democracy assistance projects, State DRL officials and USAID 
mission officials said that information on all NED's active projects 
would be useful in ensuring coordinated assistance.[Footnote 33] USAID 
officials participate in embassy working groups or committees that 
review democracy assistance projects, among others, to ensure that 
projects are complementary. 

USAID Missions and State DRL Take Steps to Coordinate Democracy 
Assistance Programming: 

State DRL--which manages its democracy grant program centrally, without 
embassy-based staff--solicits feedback from USAID missions in both the 
development of State DRL's solicitations for democracy programs and the 
resulting project proposals from NGOs. As part of State DRL's formal 
process for evaluating democracy assistance project proposals, USAID 
and State regional bureau representatives participate in State DRL's 
project review panels and vote on proposals, conveying feedback from 
USAID country missions and embassies as to whether project proposals 
complement or duplicate ongoing democracy assistance efforts of USAID 
and other State entities. USAID officials at the 10 missions we 
contacted generally agreed that this process helps to ensure 
complementary programming between State DRL and USAID. In just one 
instance, a USAID mission official remarked that a review panel had 
approved a State DRL proposal for civil society training that could 
duplicate an existing USAID project. According to a State DRL official, 
the review panels take into account the missions' and embassies' 
feedback but may vote to approve a project on the basis of other 
factors. 

In addition, State DRL officials are involved in some aspects of USAID 
missions' democracy assistance planning. State DRL officials who manage 
the bureau's democracy grants participate with USAID's Office of 
Democracy and Governance in providing input on democracy funding levels 
as a part of the budget formulation process and have the opportunity to 
review and comment on all country operational plans, according to State 
officials. State officials also noted that State DRL as a bureau is 
involved in many strategic discussions about democracy assistance that 
is provided through bilateral programs; however, State DRL officers 
generally are not involved in USAID missions' planning for democracy 
assistance projects. According to State DRL officials responsible for 
grants in our 10 sample countries, increased integration into USAID's 
planning process would better inform State DRL programming decisions 
and ensure better coordination between State and USAID. State DRL 
officials noted that this would also increase the opportunity for State 
DRL to share its expertise as the bureau responsible for U.S. human 
rights and democracy policy. However, State DRL and USAID officials 
commented that increasing the level of coordination between State DRL's 
staff and USAID missions in USAID's planning process could be 
challenging, because State DRL staff typically have resources to travel 
to countries only once per year as part of their grant oversight 
duties. According to USAID officials, USAID selects its projects based 
on multiyear democracy assistance strategies developed at country-based 
missions; the development of individual USAID democracy assistance 
projects and selection of implementing partners also generally takes 
place at the missions. USAID mission officials also noted that their 
review process for selecting implementing partners, which takes place 
in the field, generally lasts 10 to 15 days. In addition, a State/F 
official observed that for most countries, State DRL's level of funding 
for its grant program would likely be too small to justify the 
additional staff time necessary for increasing their involvement in 
USAID's mission-based planning processes.[Footnote 34] 

Despite the challenges related to State DRL involvement in USAID 
planning, we found that USAID missions included State DRL staff in 
joint planning activities for 2 of our 10 sample countries. For 
example, the USAID mission in Russia invited a State DRL official to 
participate in an interagency visit to the country in 2008 to review 
current U.S. democracy assistance efforts and consider areas for future 
programming. The State DRL official involved in the visit noted that 
this effort helped her identify potential areas where State DRL could 
target its assistance to complement USAID's larger, longer-term 
democracy program. In China--the only country in our sample where State 
DRL funds a larger portfolio of democracy projects than does USAID--a 
State DRL official participated in vetting proposals for a USAID Rule 
of Law project in China that began in 2006. State DRL official did not 
participate in planning the solicitation for the proposals,[Footnote 
35] and USAID did not invite State DRL to participate in its planning 
or proposal vetting for subsequent Rule of Law projects in China. More 
recently, State DRL and USAID staff met with embassy staff in Beijing 
to collaborate on their respective democracy assistance programs. 
However, according to a State DRL official, it is not clear what role 
State DRL will have in USAID's future strategic planning process for 
assistance in China or in reviewing USAID's future democracy project 
proposals there. 

The development of joint State-USAID country assistance strategies 
(CAS), which State/F is piloting as part of its foreign aid reform 
efforts, is expected to improve coordination of State and USAID foreign 
assistance, according to State/F officials. However, as we reported in 
April 2009, the CAS, unlike USAID's country strategies, contains only 
high-level information, which could limit its impact on interagency 
collaboration.[Footnote 36] State piloted this new strategic planning 
process in 10 countries in fiscal year 2008 and was reviewing the 
results of the pilot as of August 2009.[Footnote 37] Consequently, 
according to State and USAID officials, it is not yet clear what form 
the new process will take; it also is not clear whether or how the 
process may affect interagency coordination of democracy assistance 
efforts.[Footnote 38] 

USAID and State DRL Are Often Not Aware of NED Projects: 

USAID and State DRL officials responsible for managing democracy 
assistance in our 10 sample countries have often lacked basic 
information about NED's democracy projects, which they believe would be 
useful in ensuring coordinated assistance. No mechanism currently 
exists for the routine sharing of information on NED's core-funded 
projects outside the Europe and Eurasia region. In 4 of our 10 sample 
countries, USAID mission officials told us that they were not aware of 
NED-supported activities in the country, despite the presence of 
several active NED projects. Several USAID mission officials stated 
that more knowledge of NED's projects would be useful for ensuring that 
U.S.-supported assistance is well coordinated. State DRL officials 
responsible for planning and managing democracy grants in 7 of the 10 
sample countries also told us that they were not aware of NED's current 
projects, and State DRL officials responsible for managing projects in 
5 of these 7 countries said that receiving timely information on NED's 
projects would improve coordination and help reduce the possibility of 
duplicative programming. In particular, State DRL officials stated that 
knowledge of NED's activities in a given country would help inform 
their own planning decisions regarding which projects to support. 

State has access to NED's annual report to Congress on its core grant 
activities. However, State DRL officials noted that they cannot rely on 
this report for complete information about NED's activities, because 
the report may exclude many projects that go into effect after the 
report is published. Although NED is under no obligation to report to 
State on the projects it funds with its core U.S. appropriation, NED 
also regularly provides information on its core-funded and non-core- 
funded projects to State in some instances. For example, in addition to 
annually reporting, NED provides quarterly updates on both proposed and 
active projects in former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe countries to 
State's Office of the Coordinator of U.S. Assistance to Europe and 
Eurasia (EUR/ACE).[Footnote 39] EUR/ACE officials stated that they 
circulate information on NED's proposed and active projects to the 
relevant USAID missions and U.S. embassies, as well as to Washington 
counterparts in DRL and regional State and USAID bureaus, to keep them 
informed and that they also solicit any feedback that might be useful 
to NED on an advisory basis only. EUR/ACE officials noted that because 
EUR/ACE exists expressly to coordinate all foreign assistance in its 
geographic regions, staff resources are available to collect and 
disseminate this information; according to these officials, other 
geographic State bureaus may not have access to such resources. 

NED officials told us that, although there is no mechanism for routine 
information sharing on NED projects, NED provides information to State 
and USAID when asked. NED officials also said that the organization 
does not oppose sharing with State or USAID information on projects 
that the NED board has approved.[Footnote 40] The officials stated that 
NED would be willing to provide project information routinely if State 
or USAID deemed it useful. However, NED and State officials also 
indicated that any attempt to increase NED's sharing of information 
with State DRL should be designed to minimize additional administrative 
burden and avoid straining State DRL's available staff resources. 

USAID and Embassy Officials Collaborate Regularly: 

USAID mission and embassy officials involved in democracy assistance in 
our 10 sample countries collaborate regularly, typically through 
working groups or committees at posts. For example, in Indonesia, an 
anticorruption working group that includes USAID, Department of 
Justice, and State officials from the embassy's political and economic 
sections meets monthly at the embassy. According to USAID officials, 
this group has discussed various anticorruption-related programs to 
ensure that their efforts are complementary. The embassy in Indonesia 
also convenes a parliamentary working group, a counterterrorism and law 
enforcement working group, and an ad hoc working group on elections 
involving many of the same representatives. In addition, during our 
review of 10 sample countries, USAID officials in Russia told us of a 
working group that meets at the embassy to coordinate all U.S. foreign 
assistance, including democracy assistance. Also, according to State 
officials, the embassies in Lebanon and Kosovo have each established a 
staff position devoted to coordinating U.S. assistance.[Footnote 41] 
The State officials noted that these staff have facilitated interagency 
coordination among the various U.S. programs involved in democracy 
assistance in these countries. 

In addition to participating in embassy-based interagency working 
groups and committees, mission officials also reported regularly 
collaborating, both informally and formally, with State officials at 
posts such as political and public affairs officers. In particular, in 
our survey of 31 USAID mission officials responsible for managing 
democracy assistance projects, 25 officials identified collaboration 
with the embassy political section, 21 officials identified 
collaboration with the embassy public affairs section, and 10 officials 
identified collaboration with the embassy law enforcement section as 
being at least somewhat important to their current projects. Our survey 
respondents also showed that State officials often reviewed USAID 
democracy project proposals. Specifically, 13 respondents identified 
the embassy political section as being somewhat, moderately, or very 
involved in reviewing USAID's democracy project proposals. Six 
respondents identified the embassy public affairs section, and two 
respondents identified the embassy law enforcement section, as being at 
least somewhat involved in reviewing the proposals. 

USAID Uses Standard and Custom Indicators to Assess and Report 
Democracy Assistance Results and Provides Some Independent Evaluations 
of Impacts: 

USAID uses standard indicators to report quantitative information on 
immediate results of its democracy assistance programs and develops 
additional custom indicators to assess specific projects. In addition, 
USAID sometimes commissions longer-term independent evaluations of 
program impact. USAID reported taking several actions to improve its 
evaluation capacity in response to the 2008 National Research Council 
study that the agency commissioned. 

USAID Uses Standard and Custom Indicators to Assess Immediate Results 
of Democracy Assistance: 

USAID uses standard indicators to assess and report the outputs--that 
is, numbers of activities and immediate results--of its democracy 
assistance programs.[Footnote 42] State/F developed the standard 
indicators with input from subject matter experts in DRL and USAID's 
Office of Democracy and Governance. The indicators, which are linked to 
State/F's program objectives, areas, and elements, are intended to 
facilitate the aggregating and reporting of quantitative information 
common to foreign assistance programs across countries.[Footnote 43] 
For the GJD program areas, there are 96 element-level standard 
indicators (see table 4 for examples). USAID uses the standard 
indicators in performance reports that summarize project activities, 
achievements, and difficulties encountered.[Footnote 44] 

Table 4: Example of GJD Element-Level Standard Indicators: 

Program area: Rule of Law and Human Rights; 
Program element: 
* Constitutions, Laws and Human Rights; 
Indicator: 
* Number of U.S. government-supported public sessions held regarding 
proposed changes to the country's legal framework. 

Program area: Rule of Law and Human Rights; 
Program element: * Judicial Independence; 
Indicator: 
* Number of judges trained with U.S. government assistance. 

Program area: Good Governance; 
Program element: 
* Legislative Function and Process; 
Indicator: 
* Number of public forums resulting from U.S. government assistance in 
which national legislators and members of the public interact. 

Program area: Good Governance; 
Program element: 
* Anti-corruption Reforms; 
Indicator: 
* Number of government officials receiving U.S. government-supported 
anti-corruption training. 

Program area: Political Competition and Consensus Building; 
Program element: 
* Consensus Building Processes; 
Indicator: 
* Number of groups trained in conflict mediation/resolution skills with 
U.S. government assistance. 

Program area: Political Competition and Consensus Building; 
Program element: 
* Elections and Political Processes; 
Indicator: 
* Number of election officials trained with U.S. government assistance. 

Program area: Civil Society; 
Program element: 
* Strengthen Democratic Civic Participation; 
Indicator: 
* Number of people who have completed U.S. government-assisted civic 
education programs. 

Program area: Civil Society; 
Program element: 
* Media Freedom and Freedom of Information; 
Indicator: 
* Number of journalists trained with U.S. government assistance. 

Source: Department of State, Office of the U.S. Director of Foreign 
Assistance. 

[End of table] 

According to USAID officials, in addition to using these standard 
indicators to measure program outputs, USAID uses custom indicators for 
virtually every project to measure program outputs, outcomes, and 
impacts[Footnote 45] that are not captured by the standard indicators. 
[Footnote 46] Some USAID officials we spoke with informed us that they 
use project-specific custom indicators that are more outcome focused 
than the standard indicators. For example, USAID's Jordan mission uses 
customized project indicators associated with each GJD program area; 
for the program area Good Governance, one such indicator is "improved 
capacity of the legislative branch and elected local bodies to 
undertake their stated functions." Of the USAID technical officers we 
surveyed, more than two-thirds (22 of 31) said that custom indicators 
were very useful for monitoring and evaluating projects and assessing 
impact. USAID management officials also noted the importance of custom 
indicators in assessing the impact of democracy assistance projects. 

USAID Conducts Some Independent Evaluations of Longer-Term Democracy 
Assistance Impact: 

To complement the data collected with the standard and custom 
indicators, USAID also commissions some independent evaluations of the 
longer-term impact of its democracy assistance, although such 
evaluations are relatively infrequent.[Footnote 47] State/F's and 
USAID's March 2009 joint guidelines for evaluating foreign assistance 
state that mission staff may decide whether and when to commission 
evaluations, based on management needs among other considerations. 

Evaluations of USAID assistance efforts have decreased in frequency 
since the mid-1990s. In 1995, USAID eliminated a requirement that every 
major foreign assistance project undergo midterm and final evaluations; 
according to USAID officials, the requirement was eliminated because 
the evaluation requirement of every project was seen as too resource 
intensive relative to the value added. As a result of this change in 
policy, the number of evaluations across all areas of development 
assistance dropped from approximately 340 in 1995 to about 130 in 1999, 
according to a 2001 review.[Footnote 48] 

Our analysis of documentation from the 10 sample countries shows 7 
independent evaluations commissioned in fiscal years 2006 through 2008. 
[Footnote 49] Some USAID mission officials we met with noted that they 
conducted few independent evaluations of democracy assistance because 
of the resources involved in the undertaking and the difficulty of 
measuring impact in the area of democracy assistance.[Footnote 50] For 
example, one technical officer responded on our survey that "behavior 
change is difficult to measure and change in democracy is not seen 
overnight. It is a long process difficult to measure." In addition, 
senior USAID officials we spoke to in the three countries we visited 
stated that it is difficult to demonstrate causality between projects 
and improvements in a country's democratic status. On the other hand, 
USAID mission officials in all of our 10 sample countries stated that 
evaluations are useful to monitoring, evaluating, and identifying 
lessons learned. In addition, in our survey six of eight technical 
officers who responded on the usefulness of independent evaluations 
responded that they are either very or moderately useful to monitoring 
and evaluation. 

USAID officials at headquarters as well as at several missions we 
contacted told us that because of the infrequency of independent 
evaluations, USAID missions use, as a proxy for such evaluations, 
internal program assessments of a country's need for democracy 
programming (called sector and subsector assessments). More than half 
of the USAID technical officers we surveyed said that they found these 
assessments moderately or very useful in monitoring and evaluating 
their current projects.[Footnote 51] The three overall sectorwide 
assessments that we reviewed--for Kosovo, Indonesia, and the Democratic 
Republic of the Congo--follow the assessment structure recommended in 
USAID guidance, which emphasizes strategic recommendations rather than 
program performance results. In line with that guidance, these 
assessments provide general, high-level comments on program results, 
rather than evaluative information, and do not include either evidence 
supporting the results statements or references to evaluation 
documents.[Footnote 52] We also examined 10 subsector assessments (not 
subject to the sector assessment guidance). Three of the 10 included 
significant information about the results of specific programs, while 
others included no reference or only a brief reference to the results 
or outcomes of specific USAID democracy projects. 

USAID Reported Preliminary Steps to Improve Evaluation Capacity: 

Recognizing the need for evaluations of its democracy assistance 
programs' impacts, in 2008 USAID commissioned a review of its program 
evaluation practices and problems by the National Research Council. 
According to the report's findings:[Footnote 53] 

* USAID has lost much capacity to assess the impact and effectiveness 
of its programs. 

* The number of evaluations undertaken by USAID has declined. 

* The evaluations undertaken generally focus on implementation and 
management concerns and have not collected the data needed for sound 
"impact" evaluations. 

* Most current evaluations do not provide compelling evidence of the 
impacts of the programs. Most evaluations usually do not collect data 
that are critical to making the most accurate and credible 
determination of project impacts. 

* Most evaluations tend to be informative and serve varied purposes for 
project managers. 

The National Research Council report outlines techniques for improving 
the monitoring and evaluation of projects, developing methodologies for 
retrospective case studies, and other means of collecting and analyzing 
data that will allow USAID to more reliably gauge impact and improve 
strategic planning and programming decisions. Following the release of 
the report, the USAID Office of Democracy and Governance formed an 
internal initiative to formulate how to implement the report's 
recommendations. According to USAID data provided to GAO, as of June 
2009, the office reports taking several actions in response to these 
recommendations.[Footnote 54] Table 5 shows the National Research 
Council's recommendations and USAID's reported actions. 

Table 5: National Research Council Recommendations and USAID Reported 
Actions: 

National Research Council recommendation: Undertake a pilot program of 
impact evaluations designed to demonstrate whether such evaluations can 
help USAID determine the effects of its Office of Democracy and 
Governance projects on targeted policy-relevant outcomes; 
USAID reported actions: Initiated a pilot impact evaluation program to 
conduct a series of multicountry, subsectoral impact evaluations 
covering the most important kinds of democracy programs. Designed and 
delivered new training modules on impact evaluations for experienced 
USAID democracy officers, new Development Leadership Initiative 
recruits, implementing partners, and USAID staff and partners in the 
field. By the end of June 2009, over 200 were trained. Also provided in-
country assistance to six USAID missions on design of potential impact 
evaluations to include in scope of work of new projects. In addition, 
USAID noted that it now routinely trains democracy officers in how to 
conduct impact evaluations, and has hired experts in evaluation 
methodologies to improve overall institutional capacity. 

National Research Council recommendation: Develop more transparent, 
objective, and widely accepted indicators of changes in democratic 
behavior and institutions at the sectoral level (i.e., rule of law, 
civil society, etc.); 
USAID reported actions: Addressed deficiencies in sector-level 
indicators of democracy. For example, conducted analysis of indicator 
"gaps" and possible means for filling those gaps. Draft report on this 
analysis forthcoming. 

National Research Council recommendation: Use more diverse and 
theoretically structured clusters of case studies of democratization 
and democracy assistance to develop hypothesis to guide democracy 
assistance planning in a diverse range of settings; 
USAID reported actions: Launched other types of evaluations (besides 
impact evaluations) and explored ways to better integrate academic 
research with efforts of Office of Democracy and Governance to guide 
democracy assistance planning. For example, in May 2009, awarded a 
grant of $685,000 to the University of Pittsburgh to improve the USAID 
strategic framework for political party assistance and to update 
assessment and evaluation methodologies for political party assistance. 

National Research Council recommendation: Rebuild USAID's institutional 
mechanisms for absorbing and disseminating the results of its work and 
evaluations, as well as its own research and the research of others, on 
processes of democratization and democracy assistance; 
USAID reported actions: Took actions to promote institutional and 
administrative changes for the Office of Democracy and Governance and 
USAID in terms of monitoring and evaluation. For example, launched a 
cross-sector office evaluation group to formulate and manage the 
Enhancing Democracy and Governance Evaluations initiative that 
coordinates the implementation of the National Research Council's 
recommendations. 

Source: National Research Council and USAID. 

[End of table] 

Conclusion: 

Democracy promotion is one of five strategic objectives for U.S. 
foreign assistance. Given the need to maximize available resources to 
pursue this important objective, coordination among the entities 
providing democracy assistance is essential to ensure that these 
efforts are complementary and not duplicative. USAID and State DRL have 
processes in place to facilitate coordination of their programs--for 
example, State and USAID officials in the field review State DRL 
project proposals to minimize duplication, and USAID officials 
regularly participate in interagency meetings with embassy officials to 
help ensure that their agencies' democracy-related projects are 
complementary. However, lacking access to current information about 
NED's activities, State and USAID officials are constrained in their 
efforts to fully coordinate their activities with NED's in the many 
countries where they and NED each provide democracy assistance. 
Although NED is not required to report to State on all of its 
activities, NED regularly shares useful information with State 
regarding democracy projects in the former Soviet Union and Eastern 
Europe, and NED indicated its willingness to also routinely provide 
information on its projects in other countries. 

Recommendation for Executive Action: 

To enhance coordination of U.S.-funded democracy assistance efforts, 
and in support of the Department of State's first Quadrennial Diplomacy 
and Development Review, we recommend that the Secretary of State and 
the USAID Administrator, while recognizing NED's status as a private 
nonprofit organization, work jointly with NED to establish a mechanism 
to routinely collect information about NED's current projects in 
countries where NED and State or USAID provide democracy assistance. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

USAID, State, and NED provided written comments regarding a draft of 
this report, which are reprinted in appendixes V, VI, and VII, 
respectively. State also provided technical comments separately, which 
we incorporated as appropriate. 

In its written comments, USAID agreed with our recommendation, noting 
that its country missions and Bureau for Democracy, Conflict, and 
Humanitarian Assistance would benefit from information on current NED 
projects. USAID also noted that the current coordination mechanism in 
State's Europe and Eurasia Bureau appears to be effective and may serve 
as a model for worldwide efforts. In our report, we highlight the 
important role of that bureau's Office of the Coordinator of U.S. 
Assistance to Europe and Eurasia, which exists expressly to coordinate 
all foreign assistance in its geographic regions, but note that other 
geographic State bureaus may not have access to the resources available 
to this office. USAID's written comments suggested several additions to 
our report's description of the agency's planning and evaluation 
processes; we incorporated these suggestions as appropriate. 

State also concurred with our recommendation. State responded that 
improved coordination with NED could enhance the effectiveness of U.S. 
democracy assistance and agreed to work with USAID and NED to assess 
how to develop a cost-effective and sustainable process for doing so. 
State also noted that coordination and information sharing have 
improved in recent years as a result of foreign assistance reform 
efforts and that State DRL includes relevant U.S. agencies in its 
planning and program solicitation process. 

NED concurred with our recommendation as well, noting that sharing 
information about its programs with other providers of democracy 
assistance helps avoid duplication of effort and also helps providers 
develop their program-related strategies. NED stated that a mechanism 
for collecting information on its current projects should be designed 
to minimize additional administrative burden and avoid straining staff 
resources on all sides. In addition, NED highlighted the monitoring and 
evaluation efforts it undertakes and referred to its March 2006 report 
to Congress, Evaluating Democracy Promotion Programs, which we also 
cite in our report's discussion of challenges associated with assessing 
the impact of democracy assistance. 

We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional 
committees, the Secretary of State, the Acting Administrator of USAID, 
and other interested parties. In addition, this report is available on 
GAO's Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. If you or your 
staffs have any questions about this report, please contact David 
Gootnick at (202) 512-3149 or gootnickd@gao.gov. Contact points for our 
Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on 
the last page of this report. Individuals who made key contributions to 
this report are listed in appendix VIII. 

Signed by: 

David Gootnick: 
Director, International Affairs and Trade: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objective, Scope, and Methodology: 

Our objectives were to (1) describe democracy assistance funding 
provided by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and 
the Department of State's Bureau of Democracy, Labor and Human Rights 
(State DRL), and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) in fiscal 
year 2008; (2) examine USAID, State DRL, and NED efforts to coordinate 
their democracy assistance activities to ensure complementary 
programming; and (3) describe USAID efforts to assess results and 
evaluate the impact of its democracy assistance activities. To 
accomplish our objectives, we analyzed funding, planning, and 
programmatic documents describing U.S. democracy assistance activities 
provided by USAID, State DRL, and NED in fiscal years 2006 through 
2008. We conducted audit work in Washington, D.C., and in three 
countries: Indonesia, Jordan, and Russia. We also collected information 
on democracy programs in the following seven additional countries: 
China, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Haiti, Kosovo, Lebanon, 
Nicaragua, and Pakistan. In total, we collected detailed information on 
U.S. democracy programs in 10 countries. 

We selected these 10 countries to reflect geographic diversity and 
provide examples of countries with significant levels of U.S. funding 
for the strategic objective Governing Justly and Democratically (GJD) 
and that have multiple U.S. or U.S.-funded entities providing democracy 
assistance, such as USAID, State DRL, and NED. However, this sample of 
10 countries is not intended to be representative of all countries 
receiving U.S. democracy assistance. Moreover, we did not include Iraq 
and Afghanistan in our sample, despite the very large levels of U.S. 
democracy assistance funding provided there, because of the unique 
circumstances in these two countries. 

In the three countries we visited, we met with USAID officials 
responsible for democracy assistance programs, selected non- 
governmental organizations receiving USAID, State, and NED grants or 
contracts to provide democracy assistance, and country government 
officials in Indonesia and Jordan. For all 10 countries in our sample, 
we interviewed the USAID Democracy and Governance directors at the 
USAID missions (either in person or by telephone) and administered a 
survey to 31 USAID technical officers with responsibility for managing 
active democracy and governance grants in these countries. We also 
interviewed State DRL policy and program officers responsible for 
managing the bureau's democracy grants in the 10 countries. 

To obtain the views of USAID mission officials in our 10 sample 
countries regarding interagency coordination and project monitoring and 
evaluation, we conducted an e-mail survey of all 35 USAID technical 
officers with responsibility for managing active democracy and 
governance grants in these countries, receiving 31 responses, from 
April to June 2009 (a response rate of 89 percent). Our survey included 
questions on collaboration with other U.S. government agencies, overlap 
of USAID programs with those of other agencies, cooperation with 
implementing partners, site visit activities, and monitoring and 
evaluation practices. We pretested our survey with seven technical 
officers in Indonesia, Jordan, and Russia. In collecting and analyzing 
the survey data, we took steps to minimize errors that might occur 
during these stages. 

To describe the funding levels for U.S. democracy assistance for each 
entity involved in these activities, we collected funding allocation 
data. From State/F we collected and analyzed data on GJD funding 
allocations to each operating unit from fiscal years 2006 through 2008, 
which was generated using the FACTS Info database. Because State/F data 
systems do not include GJD funding by implementing agency, State/F and 
USAID compiled data at our request on GJD funding allocated to USAID 
for each country operating unit for fiscal years 2006 through 2008. 
[Footnote 55] We also obtained funding allocation data by country for 
fiscal years 2006 through 2008 directly from State DRL and NED. We also 
collected funding data on all democracy-related Millennium Challenge 
Corporation (MCC) threshold grants directly from MCC and available 
funding information on democracy-related assistance provided by State's 
Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI) and the Bureau of 
International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (State INL). 
[Footnote 56] 

To obtain information on active democracy programs in our 10 sample 
countries, we contacted the USAID mission in each country to obtain a 
list of all projects active during January 2009 and the corresponding 
funding obligations for each project. In addition, we contacted State 
DRL and NED to obtain lists and respective funding levels for all 
active projects in those 10 countries. To compare these projects with 
varying duration and funding levels, we annualized the funding of each 
project and portfolio. Specifically, we based the annualized funding of 
active projects on the average monthly cost of each project (total 
project funding divided by the length of the project in months), 
multiplied by 12; and we summed the annualized funding for each project 
to obtain the annual value of the USAID, State DRL, and NED portfolios. 

To assess the reliability of the global funding information on U.S. 
government democracy assistance from the F database, we checked that 
the congressionally appropriated amount for GJD in fiscal years 2006 
through 2008 matched the amounts provided to us by State/F. To assess 
the reliability of the country-level data provided by State/F on GJD 
allocations to USAID at country missions in fiscal years 2006-2008, we 
compared these data to the information USAID missions provided to us 
directly for our 10 sample countries. We also discussed with State/F 
how they conducted this data call and data reliability issues. 
Regarding the State DRL data we use in this report, State DRL officials 
noted that the data provided on funding levels for each country are 
based on individual grant awards. Correspondingly, to verify both the 
country-level and project-level data, we compared State DRL's data to 
information in copies of grant agreements of all active State DRL 
projects in the three countries we visited (Jordan, Russia, and 
Indonesia). To verify the reliability of the USAID data on individual 
active democracy programs we received from USAID missions for our 10 
sample countries, we compared the dollar totals of projects contained 
in the lists they provided us against data on a set of 47 projects 
detailed by the 31 technical officers we surveyed. To assess the 
reliability of the NED project-level data for the 10 sample countries, 
we compared them to project-level data contained on the NED Web site. 
We found that all data used in this report are sufficiently reliable to 
present the general levels of democracy funding globally and in 
individual countries and to present the relative size of project 
portfolios between USAID, State DRL, and NED. 

To assess coordination between USAID, State DRL, and NED, we 
interviewed responsible officials from these three entities and 
selected grantees and contractors during our field work in Indonesia, 
Jordan, and Russia to obtain their views on the coordination mechanisms 
to ensure complementary programming and avoid duplication. For the 
broader sample of 10 countries, including the 3 countries we visited, 
we reviewed project descriptions for all active democracy grants and 
contracts funded by USAID, State DRL, and NED. We also included 
questions on interagency coordination and examples of duplication in 
our survey of USAID technical officers as well as interviews of USAID 
mission and State DRL officials. 

In assessing U.S. reporting and evaluation efforts, we focused our 
analysis on USAID efforts and projects since they typically represented 
the majority of U.S.-funded assistance. We interviewed agency and 
organization officials, as well as selected implementing partners 
during our field work in Indonesia, Jordan, and Russia to obtain their 
views on reporting and evaluation efforts. In our survey of technical 
officers, we included questions on reporting and evaluation practices. 
We reviewed selected quarterly and final performance reports of USAID- 
funded democracy projects in the 10 countries, which are required of 
USAID's implementing partners. We also reviewed democracy and 
governance assessments for the 10 countries, which are conducted as 
part of USAID missions' strategy development and project planning 
efforts. We also discussed the use of performance indicators with 
USAID, including standard indicators required by State and custom 
project-specific indicators developed by USAID missions and their 
implementing partners. In addition, we reviewed USAID assessments to 
determine the extent to which these assessments provide program 
results. Moreover, we reviewed independent evaluations from our 10 
sample countries completed in fiscal years 2006 through 2008. We did 
not review State DRL and NED practices for assessing results and 
evaluating impact, because their programs are small and short term 
relative to USAID's and because they generally do not conduct 
independent evaluations of their activities' impact. According to State 
DRL officials, State DRL recommends that its grantees conduct 
independent external evaluations as part of individual grant awards but 
has not undertaken standard independent evaluations of democracy 
assistance at the country or thematic level. NED commissions periodic 
independent evaluations of clusters of programs but does not evaluate 
every grant. In addition, we reviewed recent studies that discuss the 
challenges associated with measuring impact of democracy assistance. In 
particular, we complemented our findings from interviews and document 
reviews with findings from the National Research Council study of USAID 
evaluation capacity.[Footnote 57] We did not assess the quality or 
comprehensiveness of this study; we also did not assess USAID's actions 
since June 2009 in implementing recommendations from this study, 
because these actions are preliminary. 

We conducted this performance audit from September 2008 to September 
2009 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit 
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable 
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for 
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Country Funding Levels and Freedom House Ratings: 

Table 6 shows the USAID, State DRL, and NED democracy funding allocated 
to each country from fiscal years 2006 through 2008. This table 
demonstrates that USAID democracy funding is substantially larger than 
State DRL and NED funding in most countries. Not including Iraq, 
Afghanistan, and Pakistan, USAID has the majority of funding in 93 
percent of countries where USAID has an active portfolio. However, 
State DRL or NED provides democracy assistance in over 20 countries 
where USAID funding is not provided. In addition, State DRL democracy 
funding tends to be larger in countries with lower USAID funding, such 
as in China and Iran, or where USAID funding for democracy assistance 
is not provided, such as North Korea or Syria, consistent with State 
DRL's focus on filling in the gaps in USAID democracy funding. 

Table 6: USAID, State DRL, and NED Funding by Country for Fiscal Years 
2006-2008 (Dollars in thousands): 

Country: Iraq; 
USAID: Not available; 
State DRL: $352,353; 
NED: $13,179; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): Not available; 
USAID as percent of total: Not available; 
Freedom House rating: Not free. 

Country: Pakistan; 
USAID: Not available; 
State DRL: $8,011; 
NED: $9,603; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): Not available; 
USAID as percent of total: Not available; 
Freedom House rating: Partly free. 

Country: Afghanistan; 
USAID: Not available; 
State DRL: $2,200; 
NED: $5,534; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): Not available; 
USAID as percent of total: Not available; 
Freedom House rating: Not free. 

Country: Sudan; 
USAID: $165,617; 
State DRL: $2,563; 
NED: $3,046; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $171,226; 
USAID as percent of total: 97; 
Freedom House rating: Not free. 

Country: Egypt; 
USAID: $152,100; 
State DRL: $859; 
NED: $3,185; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $156,144; 
USAID as percent of total: 97; 
Freedom House rating: Not free. 

Country: Russia; 
USAID: $84,174; 
State DRL: $2,800; 
NED: $13,005; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $99,979; 
USAID as percent of total: 84; 
Freedom House rating: Not free. 

Country: Indonesia; 
USAID: $75,755; 
State DRL: $2,262; 
NED: $4,456; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $82,473; 
USAID as percent of total: 92; 
Freedom House rating: Free. 

Country: Colombia; 
USAID: $72,752; 
State DRL: $500; 
NED: $3,385; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $76,637; 
USAID as percent of total: 95; 
Freedom House rating: Partly free. 

Country: West Bank and Gaza; 
USAID: $68,147; 
State DRL: $1,063; 
NED: $3,898; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $73,108; 
USAID as percent of total: 93; 
Freedom House rating: Not free. 

Country: Kosovo; 
USAID: $67,414; 
State DRL: $1,351; 
NED: $1,084; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $69,848; 
USAID as percent of total: 97; 
Freedom House rating: Not free. 

Country: Liberia; 
USAID: $66,950; 
State DRL: $908; 
NED: $2,884; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $70,742; 
USAID as percent of total: 95; 
Freedom House rating: Partly free. 

Country: Haiti; 
USAID: $61,849; 
State DRL: $1,146; 
NED: $2,150; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $65,145; 
USAID as percent of total: 95; 
Freedom House rating: Partly free. 

Country: Ukraine; 
USAID: $56,633; 
State DRL: 0; 
NED: $7,684; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $64,317; 
USAID as percent of total: 88; 
Freedom House rating: Free. 

Country: Mexico; 
USAID: $52,348; 
State DRL: 0; 
NED: $2,830; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $55,178; 
USAID as percent of total: 95; 
Freedom House rating: Free. 

Country: Georgia; 
USAID: $47,043; 
State DRL: $650; 
NED: $3,180; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $50,873; 
USAID as percent of total: 92; 
Freedom House rating: Partly free. 

Country: Cambodia; 
USAID: $45,836; 
State DRL: $1,210; 
NED: $244; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $47,290; 
USAID as percent of total: 97; 
Freedom House rating: Not free. 

Country: Jordan; 
USAID: $43,700; 
State DRL: $1,696; 
NED: $3,569; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $48,965; 
USAID as percent of total: 89; 
Freedom House rating: Partly free. 

Country: Democratic Republic of the Congo; 
USAID: $42,406; 
State DRL: $3,480; 
NED: $4,864; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $50,750; 
USAID as percent of total: 84; 
Freedom House rating: Not free. 

Country: Lebanon; 
USAID: $39,913; 
State DRL: $5,300; 
NED: $2,722; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $47,935; 
USAID as percent of total: 83; 
Freedom House rating: Partly free. 

Country: Cuba; 
USAID: $37,813; 
State DRL: $23,667; 
NED: $4,351; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $65,831; 
USAID as percent of total: 57; 
Freedom House rating: Not free. 

Country: Serbia; 
USAID: $37,023; 
State DRL: $981; 
NED: $2,133; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $40,137; 
USAID as percent of total: 92; 
Freedom House rating: Free. 

Country: Armenia; 
USAID: $2,108; 
State DRL: 0; 
NED: $620; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $32,728; 
USAID as percent of total: 98; 
Freedom House rating: Partly free. 

Country: Bosnia and Herzegovina; 
USAID: $31,120; 
State DRL: $379; 
NED: $1,905; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $33,404; 
USAID as percent of total: 93; 
Freedom House rating: Partly free. 

Country: Bolivia; 
USAID: $30,187; 
State DRL: $2,200; 
NED: $1,429; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $33,816; 
USAID as percent of total: 89; 
Freedom House rating: Partly free. 

Country: Nigeria; 
USAID: $30,050; 
State DRL: $500; 
NED: $4,539; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $35,089; 
USAID as percent of total: 86; 
Freedom House rating: Partly free. 

Country: Azerbaijan; 
USAID: $26,898; 
State DRL: $2,660; 
NED: $3,247; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $32,805; 
USAID as percent of total: 82; 
Freedom House rating: Not free. 

Country: Macedonia; 
USAID: $26,551; 
State DRL: 0; 
NED: $637; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $27,188; 
USAID as percent of total: 98; 
Freedom House rating: Partly free. 

Country: Nicaragua; 
USAID: $24,442; 
State DRL: $2,073; 
NED: $1,850; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $28,365; 
USAID as percent of total: 86; 
Freedom House rating: Partly free. 

Country: Philippines; 
USAID: $24,371; 
State DRL: $1,818; 
NED: $1,997; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $28,186; 
USAID as percent of total: 86; 
Freedom House rating: Partly free. 

Country: Kyrgyz Republic; 
USAID: $22,754; 
State DRL: $500; 
NED: $2,805; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $26,059; 
USAID as percent of total: 87; 
Freedom House rating: Partly free. 

Country: Guatemala; 
USAID: $22,385; 
State DRL: $1,434; 
NED: $1,924; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $25,743; 
USAID as percent of total: 87; 
Freedom House rating: Partly free. 

Country: Iran; 
USAID: $21,623; 
State DRL: $15,039; 
NED: $1,273; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $37,935; 
USAID as percent of total: 57; 
Freedom House rating: Not free. 

Country: Bangladesh; 
USAID: $20,344; 
State DRL: $1,500; 
NED: $486; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $22,330; 
USAID as percent of total: 91; 
Freedom House rating: Partly free. 

Country: Moldova; 
USAID: $20,092; 
State DRL: 0; 
NED: $1,276; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $21,368; 
USAID as percent of total: 94; 
Freedom House rating: Partly free. 

Country: Zimbabwe; 
USAID: $19,650;
State DRL: $2,545; 
NED: $3,275; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $25,470; 
USAID as percent of total: 77; 
Freedom House rating: Not free. 

Country: Kenya; 
USAID: $18,492; 
State DRL: 0; 
NED: $2,959; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $21,451; 
USAID as percent of total: 86; 
Freedom House rating: Partly free. 

Country: Nepal; 
USAID: $18,429; 
State DRL: $3,020; 
NED: $1,226; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $22,675; 
USAID as percent of total: 81; 
Freedom House rating: Partly free. 

Country: Belarus; 
USAID: $17,979; 
State DRL: $1,803; 
NED: $7,770; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $27,551; 
USAID as percent of total: 65; 
Freedom House rating: Not free. 

Country: Morocco; 
USAID: $17,423; 
State DRL: $340; 
NED: $3,441; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $21,204; 
USAID as percent of total: 82; 
Freedom House rating: Partly free. 

Country: Angola; 
USAID: $17,109; 
State DRL: $1,194; 
NED: $288; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $18,591; 
USAID as percent of total: 92; 
Freedom House rating: Not free. 

Country: Timor-Leste; 
USAID: $17,059; 
State DRL: $532; 
NED: $1,338; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $18,929; 
USAID as percent of total: 90; 
Freedom House rating: Partly free. 

Country: Kazakhstan; 
USAID: $15,396; 
State DRL: $1,015; 
NED: $1,334; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $17,745; 
USAID as percent of total: 87; 
Freedom House rating: Not free. 

Country: Albania; 
USAID: $14,822; 
State DRL: 0; 
NED: $1,539; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $16,361; 
USAID as percent of total: 91; 
Freedom House rating: Partly free. 

Country: Ethiopia; 
USAID: $13,648; 
State DRL: $2,723; 
NED: $1,655; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $18,026; 
USAID as percent of total: 76; 
Freedom House rating: Partly free. 

Country: Tajikistan; 
USAID: $13,607; 
State DRL: $300; 
NED: $925; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $14,832; 
USAID as percent of total: 92; 
Freedom House rating: Not free. 

Country: Bulgaria; 
USAID: $12,516; 
State DRL: 0; 
NED: $270; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $12,786; 
USAID as percent of total: 98; 
Freedom House rating: Free. 

Country: Uzbekistan; 
USAID: $12,254; 
State DRL: 0; 
NED: $570; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $12,824; 
USAID as percent of total: 96; 
Freedom House rating: Not free. 

Country: Dominican Republic; 
USAID: $12,100; 
State DRL: 0; 
NED: 0; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $12,100; 
USAID as percent of total: 100; 
Freedom House rating: Free. 

Country: South Africa; 
USAID: $11,035; 
State DRL: 0; 
NED: v229; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $11,264; 
USAID as percent of total: 98; 
Freedom House rating: Free. 

Country: Guinea; 
USAID: $10,751; 
State DRL: v1,130; 
NED: $444; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $12,325; 
USAID as percent of total: 87; 
Freedom House rating: Not free. 

Country: El Salvador; 
USAID: $10,570; 
State DRL: $250; 
NED: $781; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $11,601; 
USAID as percent of total: 91; 
Freedom House rating: Free. 

Country: Venezuela; 
USAID: $10,420; 
State DRL: $3,050; 
NED: $2,951; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $16,420; 
USAID as percent of total: 63; 
Freedom House rating: Partly free. 

Country: Somalia; 
USAID: $10,399; 
State DRL: $2,000; 
NED: $1,586; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $13,985; 
USAID as percent of total: 74; 
Freedom House rating: Not free. 

Country: Paraguay; 
USAID: v10,132; 
State DRL: 0; 
NED: $290; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $10,422; 
USAID as percent of total: 97; 
Freedom House rating: Partly free. 

Country: Peru; 
USAID: $9,691; 
State DRL: $637; 
NED: $3,163; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $13,491; 
USAID as percent of total: 72; 
Freedom House rating: Free. 

Country: Honduras; 
USAID: $9,267; 
State DRL: 0; 
NED: 0; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $9,267; 
USAID as percent of total: 100; 
Freedom House rating: Partly free. 

Country: Sri Lanka; 
USAID: $9,043; 
State DRL: $995; 
NED: $1,956; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $11,994; 
USAID as percent of total: 75; 
Freedom House rating: Partly free. 

Country: Ecuador; 
USAID: $8,379; 
State DRL: $270; 
NED: $2,763; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $11,412; 
USAID as percent of total: 73; 
Freedom House rating: Partly free. 

Country: China; 
USAID: $8,068; 
State DRL: $52,601; 
NED: $16,916; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $77,585; 
USAID as percent of total: 10; 
Freedom House rating: Not free. 

Country: Burundi; 
USAID: $7,587; 
State DRL: $1,178; 
NED: $213; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $8,978; 
USAID as percent of total: 85; 
Freedom House rating: Partly free. 

Country: Sierra Leone; 
USAID: $7,388; 
State DRL: 0; 
NED: $1,099; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $8,487; 
USAID as percent of total: 87; 
Freedom House rating: Partly free. 

Country: Uganda; 
USAID: $6,897; 
State DRL: 0; 
NED: $3,015; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $9,912; 
USAID as percent of total: 70; 
Freedom House rating: Partly free. 

Country: Croatia; 
USAID: $6,672; 
State DRL: 0; 
NED: $350; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $7,022; 
USAID as percent of total: 95; 
Freedom House rating: Free. 

Country: Romania; 
USAID: $6,000; 
State DRL: 0; 
NED: $648; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $6,648; 
USAID as percent of total: 90; 
Freedom House rating: Free. 

Country: Montenegro; 
USAID: $5,875; 
State DRL: 0; 
NED: $1,094; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $6,969; 
USAID as percent of total: 84; 
Freedom House rating: Partly free. 

Country: Guyana; 
USAID: $5,662; 
State DRL: 0; 
NED: 0; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $5,662; 
USAID as percent of total: 100; 
Freedom House rating: Free. 

Country: Turkmenistan; 
USAID: $5,192; 
State DRL: $500; 
NED: $937; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $6,629; 
USAID as percent of total: 78; 
Freedom House rating: Not free. 

Country: Vietnam; 
USAID: $4,858; 
State DRL: $1,800; 
NED: $1,077; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $7,735; 
USAID as percent of total: 63; 
Freedom House rating: Not free. 

Country: Mongolia; 
USAID: $4,570; 
State DRL: $100; 
NED: $244; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $4,914; 
USAID as percent of total: 93; 
Freedom House rating: Free. 

Country: Mali; 
USAID: $4,455; 
State DRL: $178; 
NED: $1,303; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $5,936; 
USAID as percent of total: 75; 
Freedom House rating: Free. 

Country: Jamaica; 
USAID: $4,190; 
State DRL: 0; 
NED: 0; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $4,190; 
USAID as percent of total: 100; 
Freedom House rating: Free. 

Country: Yemen; 
USAID: $4,010; 
State DRL: $1,706; 
NED: $2,608; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $8,323; 
USAID as percent of total: 48; 
Freedom House rating: Partly free. 

Country: Rwanda; 
USAID: $3,839; 
State DRL: 0; 
NED: $94; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $3,933; 
USAID as percent of total: 98; 
Freedom House rating: Not Free. 

Country: Tanzania; 
USAID: $3,138; 
State DRL: $450; 
NED: $465; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $4,053; 
USAID as percent of total: 77; 
Freedom House rating: Partly free. 

Country: Mozambique; 
USAID: $2,893; 
State DRL: 0; 
NED: 0; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $2,893; 
USAID as percent of total: 100; 
Freedom House rating: Partly free. 

Country: Burma; 
USAID: $2,544; 
State DRL: $2,159; 
NED: $11,805; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $16,508; 
USAID as percent of total: 15; 
Freedom House rating: Not free. 

Country: Djibouti; 
USAID: $2,200; 
State DRL: 0; 
NED: $736; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $2,936; 
USAID as percent of total: 75; 
Freedom House rating: Partly free. 

Country: India; 
USAID: $2,043; 
State DRL: 0; 
NED: $30; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $2,073; 
USAID as percent of total: 99; 
Freedom House rating: Free. 

Country: Namibia; 
USAID: $2,037; 
State DRL: 0; 
NED: 0; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $2,037; 
USAID as percent of total: 100; 
Freedom House rating: Free. 

Country: Chad; 
USAID: $2,000; 
State DRL: $2,331; 
NED: $463; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $4,794; 
USAID as percent of total: 42; 
Freedom House rating: Not free. 

Country: Thailand; 
USAID: $1,980; 
State DRL: $4,930; 
NED: $1,493; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $8,404; 
USAID as percent of total: 24; 
Freedom House rating: Partly free. 

Country: Senegal; 
USAID: $1,758; 
State DRL: $600; 
NED: $203; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $2,561; 
USAID as percent of total: 69; 
Freedom House rating: Partly free. 

Country: Ghana; 
USAID: $1,629; 
State DRL: 0; 
NED: $820; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $2,449; 
USAID as percent of total: 67; 
Freedom House rating: Free. 

Country: Madagascar; 
USAID: $1,592; 
State DRL: 0; 
NED: 0; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $1,592; 
USAID as percent of total: 100; 
Freedom House rating: Partly free. 

Country: Panama; 
USAID: $1,320; 
State DRL: 0; 
NED: 0; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $1,320; 
USAID as percent of total: 100; 
Freedom House rating: Free. 

Country: Malawi; 
USAID: $1,000; 
State DRL: 0; 
NED: 0; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $1,000; 
USAID as percent of total: 100; 
Freedom House rating: Partly free. 

Country: Zambia; 
USAID: $750; 
State DRL: 0; 
NED: $246; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $996; 
USAID as percent of total: 75; 
Freedom House rating: Partly free. 

Country: Mauritania; 
USAID: $500; 
State DRL: 0; 
NED: v1,329; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $1,829; 
USAID as percent of total: 27; 
Freedom House rating: Not free. 

Country: Syria; 
USAID: 0; 
State DRL: $6,728; 
NED: $749; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $7,477; 
USAID as percent of total: 0; 
Freedom House rating: Not free. 

Country: North Korea; 
USAID: 0; 
State DRL: $4,169; 
NED: $4,433; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $8,601; 
USAID as percent of total: 0; 
Freedom House rating: Not free. 

Country: Malaysia; 
USAID: 0; 
State DRL: $1,676; 
NED: $1,997; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $3,673; 
USAID as percent of total: 0; 
Freedom House rating: Partly free. 

Country: Saudi Arabia; 
USAID: 0; 
State DRL: $1,462; 
NED: $820; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $2,282; 
USAID as percent of total: 0; 
Freedom House rating: Not free. 

Country: Argentina; 
USAID: 0; 
State DRL: $1,447; 
NED: $1,450; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $2,897; 
USAID as percent of total: 0; 
Freedom House rating: Free. 

Country: Cote d'Ivoire; 
USAID: 0; 
State DRL: $1,446; 
NED: $2,655; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $4,101; 
USAID as percent of total: 0; 
Freedom House rating: Not free. 

Country: Laos; 
USAID: 0; 
State DRL: $700; 
NED: 0; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $700; 
USAID as percent of total: 0; 
Freedom House rating: Not free. 

Country: Algeria; 
USAID: 0; 
State DRL: $560; 
NED: $1,465; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $2,025; 
USAID as percent of total: 0; 
Freedom House rating: Not free. 

Country: Bahrain; 
USAID: 0; 
State DRL: $385; 
NED: $214; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $599; 
USAID as percent of total: 0; 
Freedom House rating: Partly free. 

Country: Turkey; 
USAID: 0; 
State DRL: 0; 
NED: $5,479; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $5,479; 
USAID as percent of total: 0; 
Freedom House rating: Partly free. 

Country: Tunisia; 
USAID: 0; 
State DRL: 0; 
NED: $1,075; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $1,075; 
USAID as percent of total: 0; 
Freedom House rating: Not free. 

Country: Tibet; 
USAID: 0; 
State DRL: 0; 
NED: $1,033; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $1,033; 
USAID as percent of total: 0; 
Freedom House rating: Not free. 

Country: Belize; 
USAID: 0; 
State DRL: 0; 
NED: $835; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $835; 
USAID as percent of total: 0; 
Freedom House rating: Free. 

Country: Somaliland; 
USAID: 0; 
State DRL: 0; 
NED: $833; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $833; 
USAID as percent of total: 0; 
Freedom House rating: Not free. 

Country: Libya; 
USAID: 0; 
State DRL: 0; 
NED: $561; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $561; 
USAID as percent of total: 0; 
Freedom House rating: Not free. 

Country: Guinea-Bissau; 
USAID: 0; 
State DRL: 0; 
NED: $452; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $452; 
USAID as percent of total: 0; 
Freedom House rating: Partly free. 

Country: Niger; 
USAID: 0; 
State DRL: 0; 
NED: $332; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $332; 
USAID as percent of total: 0; 
Freedom House rating: Partly free. 

Country: Togo; 
USAID: 0; 
State DRL: 0; 
NED: $282; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $282; 
USAID as percent of total: 0; 
Freedom House rating: Partly free. 

Country: Cameroon; 
USAID: 0; 
State DRL: 0; 
NED: $254; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $254; 
USAID as percent of total: 0; 
Freedom House rating: Not free. 

Country: Congo; 
USAID: 0; 
State DRL: 0; 
NED: $228; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $228; 
USAID as percent of total: 0; 
Freedom House rating: Not free. 

Country: Kuwait; 
USAID: 0; 
State DRL: 0; 
NED: $215; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $215; 
USAID as percent of total: 0; 
Freedom House rating: Partly free. 

Country: The Gambia; 
USAID: 0; 
State DRL: 0; 
NED: $84; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $84; 
USAID as percent of total: 0; 
Freedom House rating: Partly free. 

Country: Poland; 
USAID: 0; 
State DRL: 0; 
NED: $38; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $38; 
USAID as percent of total: 0; 
Freedom House rating: Free. 

Country: Equatorial Guinea; 
USAID: 0; 
State DRL: 0; 
NED: $25; 
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $25; 
USAID as percent of total: 0; 
Freedom House rating: Not free. 

Source: GAO analysis of data obtained by State/F from USAID country 
missions, State DRL and NED data and Freedom House's annual survey of 
the state of global freedom for 2009. 

Notes: In response to our request for information on USAID's share of 
GJD funding in each country, State/F and USAID compiled data from USAID 
missions. We requested USAID funding data for all country missions; 
however, with our concurrence, State/F excluded USAID funding data for 
Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan owing to the unique and complex 
circumstances in those countries. 

According to State/F data, GJD funds were allocated to 90 country 
missions from fiscal year 2006 through 2008. In addition, data compiled 
by State/F and USAID from USAID missions shows that USAID implements 
democracy funds in 88 of these 90 countries. However, since State/F 
data systems include GJD data by operating unit, democracy funding 
allocated to individual countries by Washington, D.C.-based operating 
units, such as State DRL, is not tracked by country. In identifying the 
countries that receive either USAID and/or, State DRL funding, the 
number of countries increases to 97. 

Some other entities such as State INL, MCC, and MEPI also ultimately 
program funds in a number of countries but these totals are not 
included in this table. 

[End of table] 

In fiscal years 2006 through 2008, almost 30 percent of all GJD funds 
were allocated for democracy activities in Iraq, which is the largest 
portion of democracy assistance funds allocated to any country over 
this period. A large and increasing portion of GJD funds are allocated 
to democracy programs in Afghanistan as well. The percentage of GJD 
funds allocated to Afghanistan rose from 6 percent in fiscal year 2006, 
14 percent in fiscal year 2007, to 24 percent in fiscal year 2008. In 
fact, in fiscal year 2008, there were more GJD funds allocated to 
democracy programs in Afghanistan than any other country. Together, GJD 
funds allocated to Iraq and Afghanistan comprised over 40 percent of 
all GJD funds in fiscal years 2006 through 2008. 

In fiscal years 2006 through 2008, total democracy assistance funding 
increased by 29 percent. However, when excluding Iraq and Afghanistan, 
which account for nearly half of all democracy spending, democracy 
funding only rose 20 percent. In addition, not including funding for 
Iraq and Afghanistan, the 10 countries with the highest GJD funding 
from fiscal years 2006 to 2008 comprised almost half of the remainder 
of GJD funding allocated to individual countries over that time period 
(see table 7). 

Table 7: Ten Highest GJD-funded Countries not including Iraq and 
Afghanistan, Fiscal Years 2006-2008 (Dollars in thousands): 

Country: Sudan;
GJD FY 06-08 funding: $208,373; 
Funding as a percent of total: 7.91. 

Country: Egypt; 
GJD FY 06-08 funding: $154,800; 
Funding as a percent of total: 5.87. 

Country: Mexico; 
GJD FY 06-08 funding: $119,680; 
Funding as a percent of total: 4.54. 

Country: Colombia; 
GJD FY 06-08 funding: $118,928; 
Funding as a percent of total: 4.51. 

Country: Russia;
GJD FY 06-08 funding: $117,734; 
Funding as a percent of total: 4.47. 

Country: Kosovo; 
GJD FY 06-08 funding: $92,747; 
Funding as a percent of total: 3.52. 

Country: Pakistan; 
GJD FY 06-08 funding: $91,873; 
Funding as a percent of total: 3.49. 

Country: Liberia; 
GJD FY 06-08 funding: $81,150; 
Funding as a percent of total: 3.08. 

Country: Indonesia; 
GJD FY 06-08 funding: $79,663; 
Funding as a percent of total: 3.02. 

Country: West Bank and Gaza; 
GJD FY 06-08 funding: $74,493; 
Funding as a percent of total: 2.83. 

Country: All other countries; 
GJD FY 06-08 funding: $1,495,459; 
Funding as a percent of total: 56.76. 

Source: GAO analysis of State/F data. 

Note: The GJD funding to country operating units is not broken out by 
implementing entity and therefore includes funding implemented by USAID 
as well as by other implementers programming GJD funds through country 
operating units, such as State INL. In addition, these calculations do 
not include GJD funds allocated to regional or functional operating 
units. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Democracy Assistance Provided by MEPI, State INL, and 
MCC: 

The Department of State's Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI) and 
Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (State 
INL) and the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) provide democracy 
assistance in a much narrower set of countries than USAID, State DRL or 
NED programs. 

MEPI: 

MEPI, part of State's Near Eastern Affairs Bureau, was launched in 
December 2002 as a presidential initiative to promote reform, foster 
democracy in the Middle East and North Africa, and serve as a tool to 
address violent extremism. MEPI programs are focused in 17 countries 
and are managed from MEPI's office in Washington, D.C., as well as from 
regional offices in Abu Dhabi and Tunis. MEPI programs are organized 
generally into four areas, two of which--political participation and 
women's empowerment--are characterized as GJD assistance; MEPI funding 
for these areas in fiscal years 2006 through 2008 totaled about $110 
million. Unlike USAID and State DRL programs, which are generally 
focused on individual countries, MEPI programs are often cross-cutting 
regional programs that cover a number of different countries. 
Consequently, it is not possible to identify MEPI funding by country. 
In addition to providing larger grants in response to specific 
solicitations, MEPI provides a number of local grants each year 
directly to organizations working at the community level. For instance, 
MEPI's local grants program in Jordan provides funds to less 
experienced NGOs to increase the NGOs' capacity and help them become 
eligible for future funding from larger donors such as USAID. Grant 
officers in the MEPI office in Washington, D.C., monitor projects 
through reviews of grantee quarterly reports and rely on staff in the 
regional offices and embassy-based MEPI coordinators to conduct site 
visits and coordinate with related USAID assistance programs. 

State INL: 

State INL's programs within the GJD framework focus on institution 
building in the criminal justice sector. State's FACTS database does 
not break out State INL's funding for GJD programs in every country; 
however, according to a State INL official, the bureau managed $290 
million in GJD funding worldwide in fiscal year 2008, directing the 
majority of these funds to Afghanistan, Colombia, and Iraq. State INL's 
programs support reforms such as reform of criminal procedures codes 
and promotion of adversarial and evidentiary trial principles; training 
and technical assistance for judges, prosecutors, and defense 
attorneys; and anticorruption programs. A wide variety of U.S. law 
enforcement and regulatory agencies, international organizations, NGOs, 
and international assistance agencies implement State INL's programs. 
For example, State INL funds training of prosecutors through the 
Department of Justice's Office of Overseas Prosecutorial Development, 
Assistance and Training. Embassy Law Enforcement Sections oversee State 
INL programs implemented in the field and they coordinate democracy 
assistance with USAID through embassy-based interagency working groups. 

MCC: 

MCC is a U.S. government corporation that provides assistance through 
multiyear compact agreements with countries that demonstrate commitment 
to reducing poverty and stimulating economic growth, in part by 
strengthening their democratic institutions and processes.[Footnote 58] 
MCC also funds "threshold programs," intended to help countries that do 
not qualify for compact assistance to achieve eligibility. During 2008, 
MCC had programs providing democracy-related assistance, such as 
support for anti-corruption and local governance, in 16 countries. 
Although these threshold grants fit within State's definition of GJD, 
State does not track these activities or funding. USAID has primary 
responsibility for overseeing the implementation of MCC's threshold 
programs. USAID monitors MCC threshold programs similarly to its own 
democracy and governance programs, through quarterly and end-of-project 
reporting by implementing partners and site visits by technical 
officers based in USAID missions in the field. In addition, USAID 
submits quarterly reports on threshold projects to MCC. According to 
USAID officials we met with in Indonesia and Jordan, management of the 
MCC threshold projects by USAID mission-based staff--former or current 
USAID democracy and governance technical officers--facilitated 
effective coordination with USAID's democracy and governance programs. 

MCC has threshold projects related to democracy in select countries 
that are high in funding (see table 8). For example, in Indonesia, MCC 
funded a 2-year, $35 million threshold project, which represents a 
large amount of funding when compared to annual funding of $28 million 
for the USAID democracy and governance portfolio in Indonesia, $1.1 
million for State DRL's grant program, and $1.6 million for the 
National Endowment for Democracy. 

Table 8: MCC Democracy-Related Threshold Grants to Date (Dollars in 
thousands): 

Country: Ukraine; 
MCC threshold funding (total ruling justly): $44,970; 
Signing date: 12/4/2006; 
Completion date: 12/31/2009. 

Country: Indonesia; 
MCC threshold funding (total ruling justly): $35,000; 
Signing date: 11/17/2006; 
Completion date: 5/31/2010. 

Country: Paraguay; 
MCC threshold funding (total ruling justly): $28,353; 
Signing date: 5/8/2006; 
Completion date: 8/31/2009. 

Country: Albania; 
MCC threshold funding (total ruling justly): $25,176; 
Signing date: 4/3/2006; 
Completion date: 2/28/2011. 

Country: Rwanda; 
MCC threshold funding (total ruling justly): $24,730; 
Signing date: 9/24/2008; 
Completion date: 12/31/2011. 

Country: Moldova; 
MCC threshold funding (total ruling justly): $24,700; 
Signing date: 12/14/2006; 
Completion date: 9/30/2009. 

Country: Peru; 
MCC threshold funding (total ruling justly): $24,120; 
Signing date: 6/9/2008; 
Completion date: 1/31/2011. 

Country: Zambia; 
MCC threshold funding (total ruling justly): $22,735; 
Signing date: 5/22/2006; 
Completion date: 2/28/2009. 

Country: Malawi; 
MCC threshold funding (total ruling justly): $18,920; 
Signing date: 9/23/2005; 
Completion date: 9/30/2008. 

Country: Jordan; 
MCC threshold funding (total ruling justly): $16,500; 
Signing date: 10/17/2006; 
Completion date: 8/29/2009. 

Country: Kyrgyz Republic; 
MCC threshold funding (total ruling justly): $15,494; 
Signing date: 3/14/2008; 
Completion date: 6/30/2010. 

Country: Philippines; 
MCC threshold funding (total ruling justly): $13,455; 
Signing date: 7/26/2006; 
Completion date: 5/29/2009. 

Country: Kenya; 
MCC threshold funding (total ruling justly): $12,723; 
Signing date: 3/23/2007; 
Completion date: 6/30/2010. 

Country: Tanzania; 
MCC threshold funding (total ruling justly): $11,150; 
Signing date: 5/3/2006; 
Completion date: 12/30/2008. 

Country: Uganda; 
MCC threshold funding (total ruling justly): $10,446; 
Signing date: 3/29/2007; 
Completion date: 12/31/2009. 

Country: Niger; 
MCC threshold funding (total ruling justly): $4,190; 
Signing date: 3/17/2008; 
Completion date: 9/30/2011. 

Source: GAO analysis of MCC data. 

Note: The signing date is not necessarily the same as the project start 
date. There have been two threshold agreements in Albania; the first 
was signed on 4/3/2006 and ended 11/15/2008, and a second stage 
threshold agreement was signed on 9/29/2008 and has an expected 
completion date of 2/28/2011. The funding and corresponding dates for 
Albania reflect all ruling justly activities in both of these threshold 
agreements. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Listing of Field-Based and Washington, D.C.-Based 
Operating Units: 

Table 9: Operating Units Receiving GJD Funds between FY 2006 and FY 
2008, and Status as Field-Based or Washington, D.C.-Based Operating 
Unit: 

Field-Based Operating Units: 
Afghanistan; 
Albania; 
Angola; 
Armenia; 
Azerbaijan; 
Bangladesh; 
Belarus; 
Bolivia; 
Bosnia and Herzegovina; 
Bulgaria; 
Burma; 
Burundi; 
Cambodia; 
Chad; 
China; 
Colombia; 
Croatia; 
Cuba; 
Democratic Republic of the Congo; 
Djibouti; 
Dominican Republic; 
Ecuador; 
Egypt; 
El Salvador; 
Ethiopia; 
Georgia; 
Ghana; 
Guatemala; 
Guinea; 
Guyana; 
Haiti; 
Honduras; 
India; 
Indonesia; 
Iran; 
Iraq; 
Jamaica; 
Jordan; 
Kazakhstan; 
Kenya; 
Kosovo; 
Kyrgyz Republic; 
Laos; 
Lebanon; 
Liberia; 
Macedonia; 
Madagascar; 
Malawi; 
Mali; 
Mauritania; 
Mexico; 
Moldova;
Mongolia; 
Montenegro; 
Morocco; 
Mozambique; 
Namibia; 
Nepal; 
Nicaragua; 
Nigeria; 
Pakistan; 
Panama; 
Paraguay; 
Peru; 
Philippines; 
Romania; 
Russia; 
Rwanda; 
Senegal; 
Serbia; 
Sierra Leone; 
Somalia; 
South Africa; 
Sri Lanka; 
Sudan; 
Tajikistan; 
Tanzania; 
Thailand; 
Timor-Leste; 
Tunisia; 
Turkmenistan; 
Uganda; 
Ukraine; 
Uzbekistan; 
Venezuela; 
Vietnam; 
West Bank and Gaza; 
Yemen; 
Zambia; 
Zimbabwe; 
Central Asia Regional; 
USAID Central America Regional; 
USAID East Africa Regional; 
USAID Middle East Regional; 
USAID Southern Africa Regional; 
USAID West Africa Regional. 

Washington, D.C.-Based Operating Units: 
Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance;
Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (State DRL);
Economic Growth Agriculture and Trade; 
State Eurasia Regional; 
State Europe Regional; 
International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (State INL); 
International Organizations; 
Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI); 
ODP - Office of Development Partners; 
Policy and Program Coordination; 
State Africa Regional; 
State East Asia and Pacific Regional; 
State South and Central Asia Regional; 
State Western Hemisphere Regional; 
USAID Africa Regional; 
USAID Asia Middle East Regional. 

Source: GAO analysis of State data. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: Comments from the U.S. Agency for International 
Development: 

Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear at the 
end of this appendix. 

USAID: 
From The American People: 

September 17, 2009: 

David Gootnick: 
Director: 
International Affairs and Trade: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Dear Mr. Gootnick: 

I am pleased to provide the U.S. Agency for International Development's 
(USAID) formal response to the draft GAO report entitled "Democracy 
Assistance: U.S. Agencies Take Steps to Coordinate International 
Programs but Lack Information on Some U.S.-Funded Activities" (GAO-09-
993). 

USAID would like to provide additional comments pertaining to one of 
the four main questions identified in the engagement memo dated August 
14, 2008: "How do State and USAID plan and evaluate Democracy and 
Governance programs?" The enclosed statement clarifies and adds to the 
report's analysis of USAID planning and evaluation processes. In 
addition, the draft report contains a single recommendation related to 
improved coordination with the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). 
USAID broadly concurs with this recommendation, but we provide some 
specific comments in the enclosure. 

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the GAO draft report and 
for the courtesies extended by your staff in the conduct of this 
review. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Drew W. Luten: 
Acting Assistant Administrator: 
Bureau for Management: 

Encl: Management's Comments on Draft Report: 

[End of letter] 

Comments Related to Strategic and Program Planning: 

GAO's examination of USAID's policies and procedures related to 
Democracy and Governance (DG) programming was primarily focused on two 
aspects of our "business model" - the interagency budget process and 
the process for selecting and awarding implementing mechanisms. While 
these two aspects are important, and are covered quite effectively in 
this report, to a large extent, it is strategic planning that drives 
the budget and program selection process. In other words, the outcome 
of our planning process is a major determinant of country DG budgets 
and the implementing mechanisms that are ultimately selected. The 
report would be strengthened by further discussion of this 
relationship. 

USAID's strategic approach is to develop a 3-5 year DG country 
strategy, generally as part of a larger mission strategy, that is 
targeted toward the key constraints to democratic reform and good 
governance in that country. This process typically starts with a DG 
assessment that is specifically designed to help define a country-
appropriate strategy and programs. As briefly noted in the report, the 
strategic planning process is formalized by Agency directives. Once the 
strategic plan is approved, individual programs are designed to fit 
into the overall priorities and objectives laid out in the strategic 
plan. This program design includes the procedures to select the 
implementer and to monitor and evaluate program performance. [See 
comment 1] 

Therefore, how individual grants or contracts are awarded is just one 
step of a larger program cycle that is driven by planning. 

USAID's DG Program Cycle: 
Assessment; 
Implementation; 
Evaluation. 

Comments Related to Monitoring and Evaluation: 

USAID greatly appreciated GAO's comprehensive study of our ongoing 
efforts to improve the quality and quantity of our program evaluations 
generally, and in the democracy and governance sector, specifically. 
However, USAID believes our understanding of what works and what 
doesn't in the field of DG assistance would be enriched by further 
examination and discussion in the report of State Department and NED 
policies and procedures for evaluating DG programs. [See comment 2] 

We have identified a few areas that should be clarified related to 
USAID's evaluation efforts. The draft report notes in several places 
that USAID has undertaken six pilot impact evaluations as part of our 
efforts to implement the recommendations of the National Academies of 
Science. In addition, USAID now routinely trains DG officers in how to 
conduct impact evaluations, and has hired experts in evaluation 
methodologies to improve our overall institutional capacity. The report 
also states in several places that USAID often develops custom 
indicators to assess individual projects in addition to reporting on 
standard indicators. In fact, these custom indicators exist for 
virtually every program as part of mandatory performance management 
plans (PMPs) that are used internally to conduct an ongoing assessment 
of program impact. PMPs are a very important tool that USAID uses for 
program evaluation. [See comment 3] 

Comments Related to Audit Recommendation: 

Draft Recommendation: To enhance coordination of U.S.-funded democracy 
assistance efforts, and in support of the Department of State's first 
Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, we recommend that the 
Secretary of State and the USAID Administrator, while recognizing NED's 
status as a private nonprofit organization, work jointly with NED to 
establish a mechanism to regularly collect information about NED's 
current projects in countries where NED and State or USAID provide 
democracy assistance. 

USAID Response: USAID concurs that in countries where we provide 
democracy assistance, USAID missions and the Democracy, Conflict, and 
Humanitarian Assistance (DCHA) Bureau would benefit from information on 
current NED projects. It is also worth noting that current coordination 
mechanisms between NED and the Europe Bureau at State appear to be 
effective and may serve as a model for world-wide efforts. 

The following are GAO's comments on USAID's letter dated September 17, 
2009. 

GAO Comments: 

1. We have incorporated information provided in USAID's letter 
regarding its democracy strategic planning efforts into our report as 
appropriate. 

2. As we state in our discussion of scope and methodology, we did not 
review State DRL's and NED's evaluation efforts because their programs 
are small and short-term relative to USAID's and because they generally 
do not conduct independent evaluations of their activities' impact. 

3. We have incorporated evaluation information provided in USAID's 
letter into our report as appropriate. 

[End of section] 

Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of State: 

United States Department of State: 
Assistant Secretary and Chief Financial Officer: 
Washington, DC 20520: 

September 17, 2009: 

Ms. Jacquelyn Williams-Bridgers: 
Managing Director: 
International Affairs and Trade: 
Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001: 

Dear Ms. Williams-Bridgers: 

We appreciate the opportunity to review your draft report, "Democracy 
Assistance: U.S. Agencies Take Steps to Coordinate International 
Programs but Lack Information on Some U.S.-funded Activities," GAO Job 
Code 320619. 

The enclosed Department of State comments are provided for 
incorporation with this letter as an appendix to the final report. 

If you have any questions concerning this response, please contact 
Rozina Damanwala, Program Analyst, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights 
and Labor at (202) 663-2689. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

James L. Millette: 

cc: GAO - Leslie Holen: 
DRL - Karen B. Stewart: 
State/OIG - Mark Duda: 

[End of letter] 

Department of State Comments on GAO Draft Report: 

DEMOCRACY ASSISTANCE: U.S. Agencies Take Steps to Coordinate 
International Programs but lack Information on Some U.S.-funded 
Activities (GAO-09-993, GAO Code 320619): 

The Department of State appreciates the opportunity to comment on GAO's 
draft report entitled "Democracy Assistance: U.S. Agencies Take Steps 
to Coordinate International Programs but lack Information on Some US.-
funded Activities." 

The GAO report recommends the following to the Secretary of State: 

Recommendation: To enhance coordination of U.S.-funded democracy 
assistance, the Secretary of State and the USAID Administrator work 
jointly with NED to establish a mechanism to collect information about 
NED's current projects in countries where NED and State or USAID 
provide democracy assistance. 

Response: The Department concurs with the GAO's assessment that 
improved coordination with the NED could enhance the effectiveness of 
U.S. democracy assistance efforts and agrees, to work with USAID and 
the NED to assess how to develop a cost-effective and sustainable 
process to meet this objective. 

The Department notes that coordination and information sharing have 
improved in recent years in part as a result of foreign assistance 
reform efforts to integrate and make more transparent State and USAID 
budget formulation, planning and performance monitoring. These efforts 
include the development of a standard set of foreign assistance 
definitions used by all Department and USAID implementing offices, 
bureaus and overseas missions to describe the budget as well as a 
budget data system that captures Department and USAID foreign 
assistance budget information for both agencies in a common format. 

The Department also notes that in order to ensure effective use of 
funding, DRL has made it a priority proactively to include relevant USG 
actors, such as USAID, Department of Labor, and the Broadcasting Board 
of Governors, in its planning and program solicitation process. This 
collaborative approach allows DRL to fund innovative programs that 
focus on responding swiftly to emerging events of importance. 

[End of section] 

Appendix VII: Comments from the National Endowment for Democracy: 

National Endowment for Democracy: 
"Supporting freedom around the world"
1025 F Street, NW: 
Suite 800: 
Washington, DC 20004-1409: 
(202) 378-9700: 
(202) 378-9407, fax: 
E-mail: info@ned.org: 
[hyperlink, http://www-ned.org] 

September 14, 2009: 

Mr. David B. Gootnick: 
Director, International Affairs and Trade: 
Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, NW: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Dear Mr. Gootnick: 

Thank you for sharing with us a draft copy of the forthcoming report 
requested by Congress on U.S.-funded efforts to assist democracy 
abroad. (GAO-09-993). 

We believe the report offers an accurate description of the work of the 
National Endowment for Democracy. We also endorse the report's emphasis 
on the importance of sharing information about our programs with the 
other providers of assistance, since we agree that such sharing not 
only helps avoid duplication of effort but also is useful for helping 
funders develop their program-related strategies more broadly. 

The report indicates that in some of the countries in which research 
was carried out, USAID and State DRL officials said that they lacked 
information about NED's current projects. This has occurred even though 
we provide Congress annually with a report describing each of the 
grants we award, share these reports with officials at the State 
Department and AID, and readily offer information to anyone at State 
and AID about any program when asked. We do recognize that the most 
recent annual report will obviously not capture new programs that have 
commenced since the report was issued, a matter that we will be 
addressing through reporting them on our website after grant agreements 
have been signed. 

The report also points out that the problem of a lack of information 
does not exist for projects in former Soviet Union and Eastern European 
countries, for which there is a coordinator's office that collects the 
information quarterly and circulates it to the relevant AID missions 
and U.S. embassies. 

We believe that this matter can and should be addressed. We endorse the 
recommendation that the State Department and USAID work jointly with 
NED to establish a mechanism to collect information about NED's current 
projects, one that is designed in such a way as to minimize additional 
administrative burden and avoid straining staff resources on all sides. 
For example, we are willing to send to DRL brief descriptions of 
programs following their approval at quarterly Board meetings, provided 
the Bureau is willing to offer a point of contact who would be prepared 
on a consistent basis to collect this information and share it with the 
relevant officials both in Washington and in the field. 

We would also like to take this opportunity to say a word about NED's 
evaluation of programs, a subject that the report does not address due 
to our not conducting "impact" evaluations. This may be true in a 
literal sense, given all the methodological difficulties of doing so, 
as explained in our March 2006 report to the Congress entitled 
"Evaluating Democracy Promotion Programs." Nevertheless, it is worth 
noting that NED's multi-sectoral approach to grant making entails a 
unique system of evaluation. At the micro level, Endowment staff 
members conduct continual monitoring of progress toward specific 
grantee project objectives. Independent evaluations are conducted at 
the mid-level by external consultants hired by the Endowment. Such 
evaluations cover a span of at least five years and might examine a 
subset of projects within one country or explore a theme across 
countries. 

We are taking this opportunity to share with you a copy of our 2006 
report, whose appendix, written by Professor Michael McFaul (who was 
then Director of the Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of 
Law at Stanford University), proposes a research design for assessing 
the nature and extent of the influence of international democracy 
assistance on domestic democratic change in different types of regimes. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Richard Gephardt: 
Chairman: 

Signed by: 

Carl Gershman: 
President: 

Enclosure: 

Cc: Leslie Holen: 

[End of section] 

Appendix VIII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

David B. Gootnick (202) 512-3149 or gootnickd@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the contact named above, Leslie Holen, Assistant 
Director; Diana Blumenfeld; Howard Cott; David Dornisch; Reid Lowe; 
Grace Lui; and Marisela Perez made key contributions to this report. 
Etana Finkler provided technical support. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] USAID, State DRL, and NED--referred to in this report as 
implementing entities--provide U.S. funding for democracy assistance 
programs implemented by partners such as nongovernmental organizations. 
Other implementing entities, including the Millennium Challenge 
Corporation (MCC) as well as State's Middle East Peace Initiative 
(MEPI) and Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement 
Affairs (State INL), also provide U.S.-funded democracy assistance in 
some of these countries (see appendix III for more information about 
these other implementing entities' democracy assistance efforts in 
fiscal years 2006-2008). Various other State offices, such as regional 
bureaus and the Bureau of International Organization Affairs, also 
receive small amounts of funding for democracy assistance efforts. 

[2] Foreign policy observers have written of the potential for 
fragmented and duplicative U.S. democracy promotion activities, which 
are often provided by multiple entities. For example, see Thomas O. 
Melia, "The Democracy Bureaucracy: The Infrastructure of American 
Democracy Promotion" (discussion paper prepared for the Princeton 
Project on National Security, September 2005); and Susan B. Epstein, 
Nina M. Serafino, and Francis T. Miko, Democracy Promotion: Cornerstone 
of U.S. Foreign Policy?, RL34296 (Washington, D.C.: Congressional 
Research Service, 2008). 

[3] We previously reported on State's foreign aid reform efforts. See 
GAO, Foreign Aid Reform: Comprehensive Strategy, Interagency 
Coordination, and Operational Improvements Would Bolster Current 
Efforts, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-192] 
(Washington, D.C.: Apr.17, 2009). 

[4] State and USAID define GJD as encompassing activities aiming to 
promote and strengthen effective democracies in recipient states and 
move them along a continuum toward democratic consolidation. GJD and 
the other four strategic objectives--Peace and Security, Investing in 
People, Economic Growth, and Humanitarian Assistance--are part of the 
Foreign Assistance Framework. 

[5] The Office of Democracy and Governance, within the Bureau for 
Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance, is responsible for 
supporting and advancing USAID's democracy and governance programming 
worldwide. Its primary objective is to work with USAID missions, 
regional and pillar bureaus, and other U.S. government partners to 
incorporate democracy and governance as a key element in foreign 
assistance programming. 

[6] We did not review State DRL and NED practices for assessing results 
and evaluating impact, because their programs are small and short term 
relative to USAID's. According to State DRL officials, State DRL 
recommends that grantees conduct independent external evaluations as 
part of individual grant awards but has not undertaken standard 
independent evaluations of democracy assistance at the country or 
thematic level. NED commissions periodic independent evaluations of 
clusters of programs but does not evaluate every grant. See appendix I 
for more information about our scope and methodology. 

[7] We focused our work on these three entities because each conducts 
democracy assistance projects in most recipient countries around the 
world. In contrast, other entities providing U.S.-funded democracy 
assistance, such as MEPI and State INL, conduct projects in a much 
smaller number of countries. 

[8] In 9 of the 10 countries, USAID manages its democracy assistance 
projects from country-based missions. The one exception is in China, 
where USAID does not have a mission. Instead, USAID's Regional 
Development Mission for Asia, which is based in Bangkok, Thailand, 
manages USAID's Democracy and Governance projects in China. 

[9] National Research Council, Improving Democracy Assistance: Building 
Knowledge through Evaluations and Research (Washington, D.C.: National 
Academies Press, 2008). The report can be accessed at [hyperlink, 
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12164]. 

[10] State/F defines an operating unit as the organizational unit 
responsible for implementing a foreign assistance program for one or 
more elements of the foreign assistance framework. For example, all 
country missions; all regional offices, such as USAID West Africa 
Regional office; and all Washington-based bureaus, such as USAID 
Democracy Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance, are separate operating 
units. In fiscal year 2008, State/F listed 166 operating units based in 
the field, including 155 country missions and 11 USAID regional 
offices, as well as 24 State and USAID regional and functional bureaus 
based in Washington, D.C. 

[11] We requested USAID funding data for all country missions; however, 
with our concurrence, State/F excluded USAID funding data for Iraq, 
Afghanistan, and Pakistan owing to the unique and complex circumstances 
in those countries. 

[12] According to joint State/F-USAID guidance, evaluation is a 
systematic and objective assessment, designed to determine the 
relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability, or impacts, of an 
ongoing or completed project, program, strategy, or policy. The purpose 
of an evaluation is to generate credible and useful information that 
contributes to improved performance, accountability, or learning from 
the experience, to assess the program's effects or impacts, and to 
inform decisions about future programming. Planning and Performance 
Management Unit, Evaluation Guidelines for Foreign Assistance, Final 
Version (Washington, D.C.: Office of the Director of U.S. Foreign 
Assistance, 2009). 

[13] See [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-192]. 

[14] FACTS was designed to collect foreign assistance planning, 
reporting, and funding data; FACTS Info was designed to aggregate, 
analyze, and report data on U.S. foreign assistance programs. For more 
information about these databases, see GAO, Foreign Assistance: State 
Department Foreign Aid Information Systems Have Improved Change 
Management Practices but Do Not Follow Risk Management Best Practices, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-52R] (Washington, D.C.: 
Nov. 21, 2008). 

[15] According to State, the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development 
Review leadership team will also include senior representation from the 
Millennium Challenge Corporation. 

[16] Freedom House conducts an annual survey of the state of global 
freedom as experienced by individuals. The survey is intended to 
measure freedom--defined as the opportunity to act spontaneously in a 
variety of fields outside the control of the government and other 
centers of potential domination--according to two broad categories: 
political rights and civil liberties. 

[17] State DRL typically does not have dedicated staff in U.S. 
embassies to manage its democracy grants; instead, the bureau works 
with foreign service officers covering the human rights and labor 
portfolios in the embassy, according to State DRL officials. State DRL 
has one full-time contractor at the U.S. embassy in China and two full- 
time foreign service officers at the U.S. embassy in Iraq; in both 
countries, State DRL is operating significantly larger democracy 
programs than it does elsewhere. 

[18] The legislation authorizing funding for NED, National Endowment 
for Democracy Act, spells out six purposes for the endowment: 
encouraging democratic institutions through private sector initiatives; 
facilitating exchanges between U.S. private sector groups and 
democratic groups abroad; promoting U.S. nongovernmental participation 
in democratic training programs; strengthening democratic electoral 
processes abroad in cooperation with indigenous democratic forces; 
supporting the participation of U.S. private sector groups in fostering 
cooperation with those abroad "dedicated to the cultural values, 
institutions, and organizations of democratic pluralism;" and 
encouraging democratic development consistent with the interests of 
both the United States and the democratic groups in other countries 
receiving assistance from programs funded by the Endowment. See Pub. L. 
No. 98-164, Title V, 97 Stat. 1017 (1983). 

[19] Although NED's programs support democracy promotion, State does 
not include NED's core appropriation in its calculation of foreign 
assistance because NED's annual core appropriation is usually requested 
and appropriated in the Diplomatic and Consular account, not in the 
Foreign Operations appropriation. In fiscal year 2008 only, NED's core 
budget was appropriated under Foreign Operations and, therefore, part 
of total funding for GJD foreign assistance funds. 

[20] See Pub. L. No. 98-164. Section 504 requires NED to provide an 
annual report to Congress of its activities and accomplishments and 
makes NED subject to audits by GAO. 

[21] Unlike NED's core appropriation, these directed or discretionary 
grants are counted as GJD funding. 

[22] NED's core institutes--the American Center for International Labor 
Solidarity (also known as the Solidarity Center), the Center for 
International Private Enterprise, the International Republican 
Institute, and the National Democratic Institute--represent, 
respectively, organized labor, business, and the two major U.S. 
political parties. Projects implemented by the core institutes are 
subject to approval by the NED Board of Directors and oversight by NED 
staff. The institutes also participate in NED's planning process. 

[23] Each operating unit enters information into the databases from its 
annual operational plan, showing how it intends to use the current 
year's funding allocation, including the amounts to be programmed by 
implementing entities. After funding is allocated to a field-based 
operating unit, such as a country mission, that operating unit 
determines the amount of funding to be implemented by USAID and other 
entities that implement funds at the mission. State officials noted 
that because these databases and reporting tools were developed in 2006 
and refined in 2008, the databases were not completely populated with 
information for every operating unit by fiscal year 2008. However, 
State officials noted that aggregated funding information broken out by 
implementing entity may become available in the future as the databases 
become more complete. For more information about the development of 
State/F's databases, see GAO-09-192. 

[24] Although State DRL is an implementing entity, the State/F 
information systems show GJD funds allocated to State DRL because it is 
also considered to be a Washington, D.C.-based operating unit. 

[25] We requested USAID funding data for all country missions; however, 
with our concurrence, State/F excluded USAID funding data for Iraq, 
Afghanistan, and Pakistan owing to the unique and complex circumstances 
in those countries. 

[26] The 10 countries in our sample are China, the Democratic Republic 
of the Congo, Haiti, Indonesia, Jordan, Kosovo, Lebanon, Nicaragua, 
Pakistan, and Russia. 

[27] Internal program assessments are commissioned at the mission 
level. Sectorwide program assessments follow a specific framework, 
USAID: Conducting A DG Assessment: A Framework for Strategy 
Development, November 2000. This framework recommends that these 
assessments can be accomplished with three-person teams, one of whom 
should know the country very well, conducting 3 weeks of field work, 
plus some preparation and follow-up time. 

[28] State DRL funded democracy programs in 66 countries in fiscal 
years 2006 through 2008. 

[29] In fiscal year 2008, State DRL-managed funding for democracy 
grants included specific congressionally directed funding levels for 
several countries, including Iraq, China, Hong Kong, Tibet, Syria, 
Iran, and North Korea, among others, as well as for internet freedom 
and religious freedom programs. 

[30] State regional bureaus and USAID each have one of seven votes on 
these review panels. 

[31] NED per-country funding ranged from $25,000 to more than 
$6,000,000 across 94 countries in fiscal year 2008. 

[32] NED has a board of 28 officers and directors, including foreign 
policy experts and current and former members of Congress. 

[33] The NED Act requires NED to report annually to Congress on its 
operations, activities, and accomplishments as well as on the results 
of an independent financial audit. The act does not require NED to 
report to State on the use of its core appropriation; however, State 
requires NED to provide quarterly financial reporting and annual 
programmatic reporting on the use of the congressionally directed and 
discretionary grants it receives from State. 

[34] See appendix II, table 6, for information on State DRL's democracy 
assistance funding. 

[35] A USAID representative is part of State DRL's panels to review 
State DRL project proposals. 

[36] See [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-192]. 

[37] The countries are Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Democratic 
Republic of the Congo, Honduras, Jamaica, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, 
the Philippines, and Tanzania. 

[38] USAID issued guidance in September 2009 that in countries where a 
joint country assistance strategy is not in place or not under 
development, USAID Missions may develop an interim long-term (3 to 5 
years), USAID-only country strategic plan. If a joint country 
assistance strategy is subsequently approved, it will supersede USAID's 
strategic plan. 

[39] State's EUR/ACE oversees the bilateral economic, security, 
democracy, and humanitarian assistance of all U.S. government agencies 
providing assistance to 18 states of the former Soviet Union and 
Eastern Europe. The office is part of State's Bureau of European and 
Eurasian Affairs and was established by the Support for East European 
Democracy Act of 1989 (Public Law 101-179), as amended, and the FREEDOM 
Support Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-511), as amended. 

[40] NED officials also indicated that having more access to 
information on State DRL and USAID projects could help inform NED's 
programming decisions. 

[41] According to State officials, U.S. embassies in former Soviet 
Republics and Eastern European countries, including Russia and Kosovo, 
have a designated coordinator of all U.S. assistance programs, usually 
the Deputy Chief of Mission or a dedicated staff person. 

[42] The standard indicators we describe are those that State/F refers 
to as element-level indicators. State/F has defined three types of 
standard indicators: (1) strategic-level indicators, intended to 
capture the impact of foreign and host-government efforts at the 
objective level; (2) program area-level indicators, intended to measure 
country performance within subsectors of the five foreign assistance 
program objectives and to measure results beyond what could be achieved 
solely by U.S. government-funded interventions; and (3) element-level 
indicators, intended primarily to measure outputs that are directly 
attributable to U.S. government programs, projects, and activities. 

[43] The standard indicators are tied to State/F's standardized program 
structure, which provides uniform program categories and associated 
definitions to describe and account for foreign assistance programs. 
The standardized program structure serves as the foundation of the 
integrated State and USAID foreign assistance budget requests, annual 
operational plans and performance reporting. 

[44] Beginning in fiscal year 2008, State/F requires USAID and DRL to 
assess and report the results of their democracy assistance activities, 
providing standard indicators for monitoring reports. 

[45] Outcome and impact indicators measure policy-relevant effects of a 
program. 

[46] In its operational plan guidance for fiscal year 2007, State/F 
acknowledges that the standard indicators may not capture all ongoing 
programs or their outcomes and encourages the limited use of additional 
output, outcome, or impact indicators, called custom indicators, to 
establish targets and monitor the progress and impacts of interventions 
at the implementing mechanism level [Office of the Director of Foreign 
Assistance, U.S. Foreign Assistance Performance Indicators for Use in 
Developing FY2007 Operational Plans (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department 
of State, 2006).] In addition, USAID guidance on performance monitoring 
and evaluation mandates that each mission collect performance 
indicators on every assistance objective (project). The guidance 
defines performance indicators as both quantitative and qualitative 
indicators that include custom project indicators and State/F standard 
indicators. (USAID, Automated Directives System, chap. 203.3.4.) 

[47] In this report, "independent evaluations" refers to evaluations 
conducted by third parties, versus end-of-project reports completed by 
implementing entities or implementing partners. In joint guidance 
issued in March 2009, State/F and USAID define evaluation as a 
systematic and objective assessment of an ongoing or completed project, 
program, strategy or policy, designed to determine the relevance, 
effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability, or impacts of an 
intervention, strategy, or policy. The guidance characterizes 
evaluations as episodic or ad hoc and notes that they are often 
performed by independent contractors. Office of the Director of U.S. 
Foreign Assistance, Evaluation Guidelines for Foreign Assistance 
(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of State, 2009). 

[48] The review projects the number of evaluations for 1999; in 2001, 
when the review was published, there were 68 evaluations. Cynthia Clapp-
Wincek and Richard Blue, Evaluations of USAID's Recent Evaluation 
Experience, USAID Working Paper No. 320 (Washington, D.C.: USAID, 
2001). 

[49] USAID had 96 active projects in January 2009. In the 10 sample 
countries, the seven evaluations were for projects completed in fiscal 
years 2006 through 2008: three in Indonesia, two in Jordan, and two in 
Kosovo. USAID recommends, but does not require, that missions allocate 
7 to 10 percent of their budget for evaluations. 

[50] Recent studies have highlighted the difficulties of measuring the 
impact of democracy assistance. For example, in 2006, NED reported that 
demonstrating causality between a democracy project and a country's 
progress toward democracy is difficult because many other variables 
come into play. See National Endowment for Democracy, Evaluating 
Democracy Promotion Programs: A Report to Congress from the National 
Endowment for Democracy, submitted to the House and Senate 
Appropriation Committees in response to a request for a report 
contained in the conference report (H. Rept. 109-272 at 195 (2005)) 
accompanying the Science, State, Justice, Commerce Appropriations Act 
for FY2006 (H.R. 2862). However, a 2006 USAID-funded independent study 
of the effects of foreign assistance on democracy in 165 countries 
between 1990 and 2005 found that USAID democracy assistance at the 
country (versus project) level had a significant and positive, albeit 
moderate, impact on democracy in the country. (see Steven E. Finkel, 
Aníbal Pérez-Liñán, Mitchell A. Seligson, C. Neal Tate, Deepening Our 
Understanding of the Effects of US Foreign Assistance on Democracy 
Building, Final Report (Washington, D.C.: USAID, 2008). 

[51] Specifically, 14 survey respondents indicated that the assessments 
were moderately or very useful, and 4 respondents indicated that the 
assessments were somewhat useful; the remaining 13 respondents did not 
respond to our question about the assessments. 

[52] According to State DRL officials, State DRL recommends that its 
grantees conduct independent external evaluations as part of individual 
grant awards but has not undertaken standard independent evaluations of 
democracy assistance at the country or thematic level. NED commissions 
periodic independent evaluations of clusters of programs but does not 
evaluate every grant. 

[53] National Research Council, Improving Democracy Assistance: 
Building Knowledge through Evaluations and Research. 

[54] Because of the preliminary nature of USAID's reported actions in 
response to the National Research Council report, we did not verify or 
assess these actions. 

[55] We originally requested USAID funding data for all country 
missions, however with our concurrence, State/F excluded USAID funding 
data for Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan due to the unique and complex 
circumstances in those countries. 

[56] MCC has six indicators under the category of Ruling Justly: Civil 
Liberties, Political Rights, Voice and Accountability, Government 
Effectiveness, Rule of Law, and Control of Corruption. USAID, which 
implements MCC threshold programs, categorizes threshold programs 
related to these six indicators as democracy assistance. 

[57] National Research Council, Improving Democracy Assistance: 
Building Knowledge through Evaluations and Research. 

[58] The Millennium Challenge Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-199, Division 
D, Title VI) authorizes MCC to provide assistance to eligible countries 
that enter into public compacts with the United States. Countries' 
eligibility is determined in part by their scores against indicators 
divided into three categories: Ruling Justly, Economic Freedom, and 
Investing in People. According to USAID officials, the six Ruling 
Justly indicators--(1) political rights, (2) civil liberties, (3) voice 
and accountability, (4) government effectiveness, (5) rule of law, and 
(6) control of corruption--relate to democracy assistance. 

[End of section] 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance 
and accountability of the federal government for the American people. 
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core 
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] 
and select "E-mail Updates." 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

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

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: