United States Agency for International Development - evaluation of local currency programs : main volume

480, Commodity Import Programs (CIP's), and sector assistance programs. External evaluation, which focuses on 10 such projects (out of some 140 implemented), covers the period 1980-11/86 and is based in part on interviews. The projects included activities in drought relief, agricultural cooperatives, agricultural education, literacy, housing, and small enterprises. All 10 achieved at least a measure of success; some - the Drought Relief Crop Pack Scheme, Chegutu Bulk Grain Depot, Chibero Agricultural College, and University Agricultural Faculty - were exceptionally effective. The following general conclusions were drawn. (1) While neither the number of donors involved nor the funding source (e.g., P.L. 480 or CIP) influenced performance, project success was strongly correlated with the institutional capacity of the implementing agent; long-established institutions fared best. Also, the fewer the number of implementing entities, the greater the likelihood of success; if more than one entity is involved, it is essential that leadership be defined. Projects confined to a single locality did better than national efforts. (2) Delays in release of funds from Treasury caused serious problems for most of the projects. Implementing agencies that applied unremitting pressure on Treasury were able to secure their funds when needed and thus ensure project success. (3) For most projects, more money was budgeted than needed. (4) Revolving loan funds were less successful than direct grants; inevitably, bureaucracies would develop around them, sometimes at the expense of the intended beneficiaries. At the program level, the following observations were made. (1) Under CIP's, the requirement that counterpart funds be committed to projects before foreign currency is released can lead to, first, rushed proposals, and second, delays in the use of aid (although this is not necessarily the case). (2) Some feel that sector assistance programs distort the pattern of development, and that beneficiary Ministries did not have an efficient approach to project proposals, as they were assured of the funds and not in competition with other sectors. (3) The Working Group (i.e., committee) approach to programming local currency has worked well for the Zimbabwe Agricultural Sector Assistance (ZASA) Program, less well for the Basic Education and Skills Training Sector Assistance Program. (4) The ZASA Program has itself been an exceptional success, but agricultural projects funded by P.L. 480 and CIP programs (which are therefore administered differently) have also shown considerable success. The technical knowledge of USAID/Z agricultural officials is no doubt a strong contributory factor.