Monitoring and evaluation of program food aid

decisionmakers, a field survey of Missions, and a review of specific evaluations, analyzes A.I.D.'s system of monitoring and evaluating (M&E) program food aid (P.L. 480 Titles I, III, and II Section 206 and Section 416). The report reaches several conclusions. In summary: (1) There is little consistency in M&E practices. (2) Current practices, while far from ideal, have permitted Missions to meet most of their needs and AID/W to keep reasonably well-informed. Dissatisfaction with existing M&E focuses on possible vulnerability of program food aid to abuse, and lack of comparative and aggregated data on performance and impact. (3) The greatest opportunities for improving M&E lie in three areas - - descriptive analysis of self-help and local currency measures, and impact assessment of food aid as part of integrated Mission programs. Another option is evaluation of multidonor experience over an extended period of time. (4) Improved M&E presupposes improved clarity as to the objectives of specific programs and, in the case of self-help measures, more consistent articulation of these measures in behavioral terms. The guidance already issued on the subject would be sufficient were it widely applied. (5) A simple annual reporting cable should be sufficient for the monitoring of self- help measures. (6) Increased integration of program food aid into Mission programming and evaluation efforts would appear to be a priority in light of declining development assistance and direct hire staffing levels in many Missions, and the general movement in the Agency toward assessing performance at the program level. Current efforts to evaluate most program food activities on an annual basis are not conducive to integrating program food aid with other Mission evaluation efforts. (7) Also suggested is improved assessment of how alternative modes of distributing food aid affect benefit incidence and the local private sector. (8) Generally, it is not useful to introduce distinctions between the various categories of program food aid, but rather to regard the food as an additional resource to pursue development (and other) objectives. (9) The role for additional central guidance is relatively modest. with respect to self-help measures and local currency activities, this guidance should be as specific and unambiguous as possible. In the case of integrated evaluation, emphasis should be placed on illustrative scopes of work and examples of successful evaluation efforts. (10) There is no obvious need for significant additional training or expenditure to implement the improvements suggested in this report. (Author abstract, modified)