Policy, analysis, research, and technical support (USAID project no. 698-0478) : midterm evaluation

Mid-term evaluation covers the period 5/92-7/94, and was based in part on interviews with or questionnaires completed by more than 150 persons, including 40 in 14 African countries. The project has had a significant impact on USAID's thinking about agricultural investment in Africa. The research and analysis it has supported are relevant and generally of high quality; results are being disseminated throughout USAID and increasingly to African policy makers. The project has in place a high-quality, analytically capable technical staff, supplied under a RSSA with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA); this staff possesses a wealth of historic and institutional knowledge about Africa and has strong links to Missions. Individual staff units have completed a rich variety of analytical national and comparative studies. Some of these studies have developed innovative methodologies for assessing the impact on economic growth and food security of policy reforms and public and private sector investment in agriculture. Unfortunately, not all of the information generated by the project is being fully shared among units or collaborators. However, there is a strong correlation between participation and effective dissemination of results, full participation of African researchers in conceptualizing and implementing research appears to positively affect host country and USAID Mission decision making. The project is increasing utilizing significant levels of African participation. The predominant use of additions (or buy-ins) to Global Bureau projects for research and analysis is an innovative, effective, and efficient process which is positively affecting relations between the Africa Bureau and the Global Bureau. The impact monitoring and evaluation system called for in the project paper has yet to be completely implemented. The system is necessary not only for full justification of the project but as an aid in internal management, where it will help to set priorities and improve communication between units. Despite the lack of a fully articulated monitoring and evaluation plan, some of the existing system's outputs have been of notable value, having been used in Agency reporting documents, used by the Africa Bureau for decisions on allocations, and adopted by African institutions. There is a continual need to focus on the purpose of the project. The USDA RSSA staff is such a strong source of talent that it is in constant demand to perform other tasks. Further, the annual addition of new research to the Analytical Agenda opens the project to possible requests to sponsor analysis closely related to the Agenda. If these activities are truly worthy of effort, then clear justification and inclusion in the Analytical Agenda is essential. (Author abstract, modified)