US Agency for International Development 
Office of Food for Peace 
Title II Streamlining: 
Opportunities for Improvement 
FINAL REPORT 
July 2003 
Submitted by: 
Enterprise Resource Group, Inc. TCR Services, Inc. 
7831 Woodmont Avenue, Suite 288 2300 Clarendon Blvd., Suite 1004 
Bethesda, MD 20814 Arlington, VA 22201 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The ERG/TCR streamlining assessment team gratefully acknowledges the interest and support of 
many individuals who generously provided their time, insights, and expertise to this effort. The 
information required for the extensive analyses and conclusions that are in this Report came from 
many sources, often provided by those who took extra time or who made special efforts to help. 
The staff and leadership of the Office of Food for Peace and Amex were especially supportive. 
Other individuals in the DCHA Bureau and throughout USAID, including visiting field staff, 
willingly met with the team and shared their views and experience. Cooperating Sponsor 
representatives, some on several occasions, were always available for consultation. 
Representatives of the commodity and shipping industries, as well as USDA staff, were equally 
generous with their time. The willingness of so many to make themselves available and be 
involved in this effort is indicative of the urgency and importance that they attribute to it. 
 
Cathy A. Silverstein Daniel E. Shaughnessy 
Enterprise Resource Group, Inc. TCR Services, Inc. 
 
Table of Contents 
I. Executive Summary 1 
 
II. Background & Methodology 3 
II.A. Legislative Mandate 
II.B. Scope of Work 
II.C. ERG/TCR Approach 
II.D. Streamlining Progress Already Underway 
 
III. Influences Affecting Streamlining 12 
III.A. Unique Influences 
III.B. Strategic Planning Outside FFP 
III.C. Office of Food for Peace Strategic Plan 
III.D. FFP Response to Influences 
 
IV. Data Collection 14 
IV.A. Documentation Review 
IV.B. Title II & USAID Input 
IV.C. Partner Input (Cooperating Sponsors) 
IV.D. FACG/General Issues Working Group Input 
IV.E. DCHA Input 
IV.F. Other Input 
 
V. Process Review and Systems Analysis 29 
V.A. Current Systems Improvement Initiatives 
V.B. Process Review 
V.C. Systems Analysis: Food for Peace Information System (FFPIS) 
V.D Other Process and Systems Issues 
 
VI. Findings 53 
VII. Recommendations and Required Actions 65 
VIII. Proposed Action Plan and Timetable for Implementation 78 
Table of Contents (con't) 
IX. Annexes 
A. List of Acronyms 
B. List of Contacts 
C. List of Documents / Materials Reviewed 
D. Interim Report to Congress
E. FFP /Washington and Field Suggestions for Streamlining 
F. Survey Results: FFP/ Washington 
G. Survey Results: FFP Field 
H. Survey Results: Cooperating Sponsors 
I. Survey Results: World Food Program 
J. Process Map: DAP Review & Approval Process 
K. Process Map: Emergency Proposal Review & Approval Process 
L. Audit of DAP Proposal Submission Data Requirements 
M. USDA/FAS On-Line Food Aid Proposal Entry Format (McGovern-Dole International 
Food for Education Program) 
N. OFDA Recommended Proposal Format 
O. Prototype Webpage for FFPIS Reports 
P. Matrix of Prior Report Recommendations on Title II and FFP 
Q. FFP Staff Responsibilities 
 Final Streamlining Report: July 2003 1
I. Executive Summary 
Background
The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of May 2002 included an amendment to 
Section 202 of PL 480, calling for “Streamlined Program Management” of the PL 480 
Title II program. The legislation was clear: streamline overall guidance and procedures 
for the program; streamline procedures for resource requests; improve program review 
and approval processes; identify basic critical information needs, and provide greater 
flexibility for modifications in programs. The accompanying report language was 
equally clear, emphasizing that the streamlining of procedures and regulatory 
requirements “are a priority in this legislation.” 
As described in the Introduction of this Report, USAID responded to this mandate in 
several ways, including the use of two highly qualified consulting firms to undertake a 
detailed analysis of Title II streamlining needs. This Report presents their analyses, 
findings and recommendations. 
The major conclusion of this Report is that the PL 480 Title II program and the Office of 
Food for Peace are in urgent need of the highest level of management attention and 
support within the Agency for International Development. With a budget of $1.8 billion 
in 2003, FFP's processes and procedures have become overcomplicated, chronically late, 
and of immense frustration to FFP staff, Cooperating Sponsors, USAID field missions, 
agricultural commodity suppliers, and related business interests. 
Title II is the largest single program that the Agency administers, and the Office of Food 
For Peace manages resources larger than those of most regional Bureaus. Located within 
the Bureau for Democracy, Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance (DCHA), FFP's 
activities are largely a mystery to many in the Agency and its day-to-day operations are 
overwhelming. FFP staff are overworked, often under-trained, and largely devoted to a 
cumbersome management process that has been years in the making. Basic regulatory 
guidance is seriously out of date and not reflective of at least three cycles of significant 
legislative changes. When compared to its sister organization within the DCHA bureau, 
the Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance, FFP is under-supported, despite having four to 
five times the program resources. 
In the field, both USAID and “Cooperating Sponsor” managers struggle with 
inconsistencies in program oversight, regulatory interpretation and the task of matching 
Cooperating Sponsor Title II objectives with USAID mission strategies. USAID field 
missions are uneven in their support for Title II – some view the program as a useful 
addition to US assistance, while others see it as a complex management responsibility, 
inviting audit criticism. All could benefit significantly from reduced documentation 
requirements and less procedural complexity. 
It should be noted that FFP responded in extraordinary fashion to recent famine 
conditions in Africa and to the specialized needs of Afghanistan and Iraq. However, other 
critical emergency and development program approvals are often unacceptably late – 
literally affecting the lives and well being of tens of thousands of people. Flawed internal 
 Final Streamlining Report: July 2003 2
procedures, founded on years of bureaucratic reticence, foster unnecessary delays in 
program approvals – often while those in need wait for food. Communications systems 
and team-building are in need of urgent attention. Basic documentation, control systems, 
and internal policy and procedures manuals are needed. In short, systems, processes, and 
procedures must be updated, simplified and modernized, and staff must change 
accordingly for FFP to achieve its critical strategic objectives. 
Delays in program approvals can also be costly. With similar delays in the approval of 
USDA food aid programs, the result is a “bunching” of requirements for commodity 
purchases and ocean freight services at the end of the fiscal year, costing Title II millions 
of dollars in higher prices for certain commodities. 
USAID itself also has continuing problems with delay and internal process, and some of 
the issues faced by the Office of Food for Peace reflect those difficulties. However, most 
of the concerns that are detailed in this Report are not the fault of the rest of the Agency. 
Rather, they stem from years of neglect on the part of top-level Agency management to 
FFP’s requirements for managing an efficient, timely, effective, and high performance 
program. Now that Title II resources reach annual levels of $1.5 billion (or more), the 
Office can no longer continue to focus on minutia, adhere to outdated regulations, or rely 
on information systems which are archaic and vulnerable. In the interests of those whom 
it serves, FFP cannot afford chronic, excessive, and largely unnecessary delay. 
The administration of the Title II program has been the subject of at least four reviews 
and studies in the past four years. Recommendations for improvement which are 
remarkably similar have for the most part, been ignored by the Agency or simply 
forgotten and not implemented. Several of the basic findings in this Report mirror those 
that have been identified before, and the question must be asked, why were they ignored? 
The recommendations are not new: simplify guidelines and proposal procedures, clarify 
and properly interpret regulatory requirements, and support modern information systems. 
The difference now is that this Report also reacts to a clearly expressed, time-limited 
mandate from the United States Congress to “streamline” administration of the program. 
As a consequence, the Report includes findings and recommendations that delve very 
deeply into the processes, procedures, and systems that are currently the basis for 
USAID’s management of the Food for Peace program. 
The task of streamlining is not easy, and this Report’s findings and recommendations 
provide extensive detail on what must be done, from high-level management actions to 
line-level office procedures. While the need for change is obvious, implementation will 
require unprecedented senior management attention to support the Director of the Office 
of Food for Peace, who is committed to making these changes. 
 Final Streamlining Report: July 2003 3
Key Findings 
 
Findings – Operating Environment 
1. The recent enormous growth in Title II program size and responsibility 
requires an end to “business as usual.” The PL 480 Title II program received 
over $1.8 Billion in appropriations for FY 2003. While that level was unusual for 
many reasons, appropriations of approximately $1.2 billion can be expected on a 
continuing basis. At that level, the program simply cannot be managed by 
USAID in the manner of prior years. Lack of critical staff, excessive process, 
preoccupation with detail, and overwhelming documentation requirements are 
completely incompatible with a $1.2 billion program. Economies of scale and the 
management decisions to achieve them are essential and urgently needed. The 
congressional mandate to streamline, which will strengthen FFP's internal 
operations and procurement systems, adds urgent impetus to an already essential 
task. 
2. The Title II program, while an activity of USAID, has been greatly impacted 
by numerous external influences over the past 18 months which have 
required extraordinary attention and have consumed management time and 
resources. 
 These influences include: 
• Unprecedented emergencies (Ethiopia) 
• An extended period of Continuing Resolutions 
• Changing commodity prices 
• Complex emergencies with important foreign policy implications (Iraq, 
Afghanistan, and North Korea) 
In addition, revised appropriation levels and a complicated process of receiving 
funds from the U.S. Department of Agriculture add to the effects from outside 
influences on the complexity of managing the program. The planned Millennium 
Challenge Account may target many of the countries served by Title II, and its 
administration may ultimately affect Title II policies and procedures as well. 
The Agency and the leadership of Title II have done much to deal with these 
influences over the past 18 months. However, the Agency now must shift its 
attention to a management focus for Title II that creates and sustains far greater 
program efficiency. 
3. The Office Of Food for Peace has developed a Concept Paper for its new 
Strategic Plan that can be the basis for streamlining. The new Concept Paper 
proposes a focused strategic objective – Food insecurity in vulnerable populations 
reduced – with matching intermediate results dealing with enhancing FFP’s 
global leadership in food aid and increasing Title II program impact in the field. 
In addition, a crucial intermediate result that links the strategic framework is 
"timely and efficient program management achieved." This strategic approach 
 Final Streamlining Report: July 2003 4
provides the most immediate opportunity to recommit the Agency to timely, 
efficient and effective management of Title II. 
 
4. Basic regulatory guidance for Title II is inexcusably outdated by over a 
decade, and no Title II guidance exists in the Agency’s Automated Directive 
System. The lack of updated regulations causes reliance on “ad hoc” 
interpretations, a long outdated Handbook, and internal memos, emails and notes 
that are not codified, sometimes inconsistent, and occasionally forgotten. 
5. Although there have been four major reviews of FFP’s administration of 
Title II since 1999, the Agency has devoted insufficient attention to their 
findings and recommendations. In addition, there have been prior GAO reports 
and other reports dealing with FFP management The recommendations in these 
reports are remarkably consistent: e.g. the need for clearer, more succinct 
guidance, substantially reduced documentation requirements, shorter time periods 
for program review and approval, additional and better trained staff, and 
simplified reporting requirements. However, only a few recommendations have 
been implemented to date. 
6. There is a high cost for delays in program approvals for development 
programs and some emergency programs. Such delays lead to a “bunching” 
of requirements for certain commodity purchases and freight services late in 
the fiscal year, often at higher costs. This situation is exacerbated by similar 
delays in USDA programs occurring at the same time. The result is excessive 
demand on commodity and freight suppliers for large amounts of commodity and 
freight services within a short timeframe. Preliminary analyses of select Title II 
commodity prices indicate price increases of at least 5-7% during these peak 
periods. Through more timely review of programs and earlier approvals to 
purchase commodities, FFP could avoid "bunching" and could easily save 
millions of Title II dollars. 
Findings – Food for Peace Administration and Financial Management
1. Budgeting and financial management activities in the Office of Food for 
Peace are time-consuming and not well understood, and FFP has inadequate 
resources to perform them. FFP appears to be constantly pre-occupied with 
“budgeting” and “re-budgeting,” and within FFP there appears to be confusion 
and a lack of understanding about the Operational Year Budget process. The 
Office must also deal with a complex process for obtaining its funding from 
USDA accounts. At the same time, the Office has a major responsibility to 
manage and report on the actual use of budgeted resources (that currently exceed 
$1.5 billion). In addition, there are continuous tasks required in budget 
examination of all proposals. Both the capacity and the configuration of staff 
resources are not adequate to meet these varied responsibilities. 
2. USAID’s “mission re-delegation authority” has not been used extensively this 
year, if at all. The Office of Food for Peace and the Agency have established 
clear criteria for “re-delegated missions” in which certain PL 480 Title II 
 Final Streamlining Report: July 2003 5
decision-making authority has been redelegated. That authority should be 
considered to help reduce time spent by FFP/Washington in the program 
approval process. Currently, five USAID missions have “re-delegated” authority 
to make some decisions now being taken in Washington. Those authorities 
should be used, if appropriate, or withdrawn. 
3. Food For Peace clearly needs additional support for both technical and 
administrative resources. Information technology upgrades, staff training, 
computers and other technical needs, all require substantially increased Agency 
support. Many of these unmet needs are long overdue and will be necessary to 
follow implement serious streamlining efforts. 
4. Food for Peace has several streamlining efforts underway. Redelegation of 
authority, combined funding documents, reduced Issues Papers, and an improved 
commodity ordering system are all examples of the Office's commitment to 
streamlined procedures. 
Findings – Program Management
1. Significant improvement is needed in the timing and management of FFP’s 
program review and approval process for both development and emergency 
programs. For non-emergency development programs in which a Development 
Assistance Plan (DAP) and results reports are submitted by a Cooperating 
Sponsor, the total amount of documentation submitted on a single due date is 
excessive. This in turn, causes major delays in review and approval schedules. 
2. Currently, the FFP DAP Guidelines are unclear regarding the definition of 
the legislatively required 120 day window for program “approval.” The 
Guidelines now state: “FFP will reach a final decision (approve and negotiate a 
signed transfer authorization, or deny approval) on DAP proposals within 120 
days of submission of a complete document to FFP” (page 1). However, later the 
Guidelines state: “By the end of the 120-day period, FFP will communicate the 
decision made regarding approval or denial of the proposal” (page 2). These are 2 
different definitions. FFP should uphold the more rigorous standard of an 
approved TA and obligation of funding within the 120 day period. As of 
June 30, 2003, none of the 15 DAPs submitted November 1, 2002 had TAs 
signed within the 120 window (although 2 were rejected).
3. FFP has a largely informal approach to key policy issues. This results in 
confusion, inaction, variable interpretations, internal conflict, miscommunication, 
and an overall ad hoc approach which is time-consuming, costly, and not 
transparent to outsiders. 
4. FFP has a serious lack of clear, updated, written guidelines for even its most 
basic operational procedures. As a result, FFP currently operates on the basis 
of the “institutional memory” of a few individuals with their own perspectives, 
biases, and resource limitations. 
 Final Streamlining Report: July 2003 6
5. FFP's workload is such that staff spend much time reviewing/approving past 
performance "results reporting" in addition to reviewing/approving 
programmatic proposals (for both emergency and non-emergency activities). As 
such, relevant streamlining efforts should focus on results reporting as well. It is 
possible that much of this performance review could be performed by field 
missions. 
Findings – Information Systems 
1. Delays in data entry (input) and generation of key reports (output) of the 
Food for Peace Information System (FFPIS) cause a major bottleneck in 
FFP's review and approval process. While it is the sole historical database for 
FFP commodity transactions and programs, the FFPIS system is antiquated, 
lacking back-up, and in need of major redesign to be more user-friendly and 
responsive. 
2. The "FARES" system, jointly developed by USDA and USAID, is a marked 
improvement to the traditional commodity “call forward” process. FARES 
will be used for all food aid programs administered both by USDA and USAID 
and will be mandatory for all food orders. However, recent experience with "live" 
ordering through FARES indicates that FFP will need to provide careful 
written explanations to users. 
 
Key Recommendations
1. Within the next 30 days, FFP is advised to publish revised PL 480 Title II 
Guidelines and Policies for the submission of non-emergency program 
proposals that include changes resulting from the streamlining review, as 
required in last year's legislation. The guidelines should also include provisions 
clarifying the use of Section 202(e) and ITSH funding. To comply with the 
federal E-Government initiative, FFP should test on-line submission of DAP 
proposals for FY 2005. The guidelines and application should also be posted to 
www.grants.gov, enabling partners to both "find" and "apply" electronically. 
2. FFP should revise the timing requirements for the submission of non￾emergency program proposals and results reports to require phased submission 
of documentation on November 1, January 15, and February 15 (as outlined in the 
Report). This will dramatically decrease concentrated workload requirements for 
both Cooperating Sponsors and Agency staff. 
3. FFP should adhere to the following definition of the “120 day requirement” 
for development proposals: completion of all program review and approval 
procedures, including the approval of an Annual Estimate of Requirements, and 
the issuance of a Transfer Authorization within that timeframe. 
 Final Streamlining Report: July 2003 7
4. FFP should draft, submit for public comment, and issue an updated Agency 
Regulation 11 by January 15, 2004. The need for updated regulatory guidance 
was specifically identified in the streamlining legislation.
5. FFP should take immediate action to improve the timing of data entry (input) 
into the Food For Peace Information System (FFPIS) and broaden the availability 
of key FFPIS reports (output) for use by staff in the proposal review and approval 
process. In addition, FFP should take action to upgrade the FFPIS system and 
enhance overall database design, functionality, and access. 
6. FFP should immediately review and plan to implement the remaining 
internal administrative and management systems improvements 
recommended in this Report and described in the Action Plan and 
Timetable, including:
• Establish intermediate milestones and performance benchmarks for program 
review, approval clearance processes for both Washington and field missions. 
• Develop and maintain proposal tracking mechanisms. 
• Develop a proposal review "checklist" instead of the "review worksheets." 
• Develop standard operating procedures and standardized TA language for 
funding documents. 
• Develop a clear, written, internal Process and Procedures Manual for both 
emergency and non-emergency proposal reviews. 
• Take steps to organize FFP in to a more team-oriented work culture. 
• Establish a Training Unit within FFP. 
• Develop a career path for FFP employees. 
• Improve internal and external communications. 
• Add additional financial management and other selected staff and employ an 
experienced, full time Controller. 
 Final Streamlining Report: July 2003 8
II. Background & Methodology 
II.A. Legislative Mandate 
The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 was signed into law in May of 2002 
and included several amendments to PL 480 – the Agriculture Trade Development and 
Assistance Act of 1954. Prominent among those changes was an amendment to Section 
202 of PL 480, calling for "Streamlined Program Management" of the PL 480 Title II 
program and "improvements in the Office of Food for Peace Management systems." 
Specifically, the amendment provided: 
 "(h) STREAMLINED PROGRAM MANAGEMENT.- 
(1) IMPROVEMENTS. – Not later than 1 year after the 
 date of enactment of this subsection, the Administrator shall - 
(A)streamline program procedures and guidelines under 
this title for agreements with eligible organizations for 
programs in 1 or more countries; and 
(B) effective beginning with fiscal year 2004, to the maximum 
extent practicable, incorporate the changes into the procedures 
and guidelines for programs and the guidelines for resource 
requests. 
(2) STREAMLINED PROCEDURES AND GUIDELINES. – In 
Carrying out paragraph (1), the Administrator shall make 
Improvements in the Office of Food for Peace management 
Systems that include – 
(A) expedition of and greater consistency in the program 
review and approval process under this title; 
(B) streamlining of information collection and reporting systems 
by identifying the critical information that needs to be 
monitored and reported on by eligible organizations; and 
(C) for approved programs, provision of greater flexibility for 
an eligible organization to make modifications in program activities 
to achieve program results with streamlined procedures for 
reporting such modifications. 
(3) CONSULTATION.- 
(A) IN GENERAL. – Paragraphs (1) and (2) shall be carried out 
in accordance with section 205 and subsections (b) and (c) 
of section 207. 
(B) CONSULTATION WITH CONGRESSIONAL 
COMMITTEES.- 
 Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this 
 Subsection the Administrator shall consult with the 
 Committee on Agriculture and the Committee on 
 International Relations of the House of Representatives 
 and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 
 Final Streamlining Report: July 2003 9
 of the Senate on progress made in carrying out this 
 subsection. 
(4) REPORT.- Not later than 270 days after the date of enactment 
of this subsection, the Administrator shall submit to the committee on 
Agriculture and the Committee on International relations of the House of 
Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 
Forestry of the Senate a report on the improvements made and planned 
upgrades in the information management, procurement and financial 
management systems to administer this title." 
In the Statement of Managers accompanying the Farm Security and Rural Investment 
Act, the House/Senate Conferees emphasized the importance of these provisions, noting 
that "the streamlining of procedures and regulatory requirements, and acceleration of the 
approval and review of projects involving food aid programs administered by USDA and 
USAID are a priority of this legislation." The Managers went on to state that: "It is 
necessary for USDA, USAID, and participating non-governmental organizations to act in 
concert to streamline and expedite procedures and activities to achieve a more effective 
and timely food aid delivery process." 
In November of 2002, as required by the legislation, USAID officials briefed 
Congressional representatives on initial streamlining activities and progress to date. In 
February of 2003, USAID, noting an unprecedented situation of extraordinary attention 
to famine relief, combined with an extended period of operation under a Continuing 
Resolution, requested and obtained an extension of time to continue its work and 
reporting on streamlining activities. Based upon that agreement, an Interim Report was 
to be provided on March 31, 2003 with a Final Report to be completed by July 31, 2003. 
II.B. Scope of Work 
The Enterprise Resource Group, Inc. (ERG) and TCR Services, Inc. (TCR) were 
contracted by the Agency to assist with the streamlining effort from January 29 to July 
31, 2003. These "Streamlining Consultants" provided demonstrated expertise in Title II, 
food aid management, systems, and process improvement. They facilitated the 
streamlining effort and liaised extensively with internal and external stakeholders to 
assure the widest possible range of inquiry, both within and outside USAID. 
The Scope of Work for the Streamlining Consultants included the following tasks: 
• Prepare the Interim Report to Congress; 
• Examine overall management and programmatic approval processes for the 
existing divisions of the Office of Food for Peace, as well as the new Technical 
and Policy Division; 
• Review current strategic planning activities and recommend potential 
opportunities for a unified approach to emergency and development needs; 
• Examine ways to facilitate shared services across the DCHA Bureau; 
 Final Streamlining Report: July 2003 10
• Engage in a wide range of data collection, process mapping, and systems analysis, 
including a review of official documentation and regulations; 
• Gather input from a wide range of stakeholders, both within and outside the 
Agency; 
• Meet with the Issues Group of the FACG; 
• Review existing and proposed automated systems; 
• Review prior studies and analyses; 
• Conduct systems analyses for key FFP processes, using gap analysis 
methodology; 
• Provide a Streamlining Report with an action plan and timeframe for carrying out 
proposed recommendations. 
II.C. ERG / TCR Approach 
The ERG/TCR team based its review on the stated intent of the Interim Report, which 
declared that USAID would conduct "an examination of potential streamlining decisions 
that is transparent and as inclusive as possible." To this end, the Streamlining 
Consultants adopted an approach to the project that was team-based, cross-functional, 
and participatory. Data gathering was achieved using a variety of sources and methods to 
ensure maximum input from stakeholders within and outside USAID. 
Personal Interviews / Meetings / Correspondence: Over 85 individual interviews, 
meetings and correspondence exchanges were conducted with individuals and 
organizations including Cooperating Sponsors, trade and business interests, the Office of 
Food for Peace, other USAID/Washington staff, USAID field staff, other DCHA Bureau 
staff, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, FANTA, FACG, AMEX, and related 
stakeholders in the food aid community. 
On March 25, 2003, the consultants introduced the streamlining effort at the FACG 
Meeting in Washington and attended the Export Food Aid Conference, in Kansas City, in 
April 2003. (See Annex B. List of Contacts for details.) 
FFP Senior Management Consultation: Multiple, personal interviews were conducted 
with the Directors of the Development, Emergency and Program Operations Divisions, 
and the Deputy Director of FFP. The Director of FFP was consulted throughout the 
project. 
Streamlining Working Group: FFP established a cross-functional working group to 
support the consultants throughout the streamlining assessment. The working group 
functioned as a "sounding board" for ideas and suggestions, helped gather and 
disseminate relevant information, and kept the consultants abreast of issues and current 
conditions in the Office. 
Document Review: Per the SOW, prior studies and reports on Title II and FFP were 
carefully examined and considered for current relevance.1
 These included: 
 
1
 A complete list of documents used in the assessment is provided in Annex C. 
 Final Streamlining Report: July 2003 11
• Chandler Sykes Study 
• O’Meara Study 
• FANTA Food Aid Food Security Assessment 
• Michigan State University Study on Monetization 
• Final Evaluation of Institutional Support Assistance cooperative agreement with 
Adventist Development and Relief Agency (ADRA) 
All other relevant documentation was reviewed including: emergency and development 
program guidance; monetization and ITSH guidance; program proposal and approval 
documentation; legislation and regulations; funding transfer documents; internal FFP 
reporting and control documents; FFPIS Reports; FFP, Agency and Bureau budgeting 
guidance; commodity ordering formats; existing formal and informal guidance and 
manuals (including training materials); relevant on-line information from USAID, FFP, 
OFDA, USDA and related websites; relevant Agency ADS sections; and a wide range of 
internal and external correspondence. (See Section IV.A Documentation Review and 
Annex C. List of Documents reviewed, for a complete list.) 
IG Process Review: The Performance Audit Division of the Office of the Inspector 
General conducted a survey of the key processes used to manage funds provided under 
the PL 480 Title II Program. This survey, published May 23, 2003, included a very brief 
overview of the review and approval process for both emergency and non-emergency 
programming. The IG's Report "did not attempt to evaluate the effectiveness of these 
individual processes and did not involve substantive testing to verify whether existing 
procedures were, in fact, being implemented and whether they complied with applicable 
agency policies and regulations." 
FFP IT Systems & Hardware Proficiency Survey: In early 2003, FFP and the 
Institutional Contractor conducted a survey to assess information technology needs 
within and outside the Office. Regrettably, only 15 responses were received. Of key 
interest to the Streamlining Consultants were the specific suggestions provided on FFPIS. 
(See Section V.C. Systems Analysis: FFPIS for details.) 
 
Assessment of Internal & External Influences: The ERG/TCR team also took into 
account the internal and external influences that uniquely affect the Office of Food Peace 
and the Title II program. The ERG/TCR team examined these influences, especially those 
caused by legislative change and external policy development; emergency or 
extraordinary assistance requirements; budgeting and procurement systems external to 
the Office of Food for Peace; USDA food aid programs; field mission relationships; and 
the expectations of external stakeholders. (See Section III. Influences Affecting 
Streamlining for a more detailed discussion.) 
Electronic Bulletin Board: A web-based intranet entitled "Streamlining Central" was 
established at www.ergconsult.com to provide information and solicit streamlining 
suggestions. Key documents were posted for public review, including the Interim Report 
to Congress, legislation on streamlining, survey results (see below), the Final Report to 
Congress, and this Final Report. 
 
Supporting Documentation: The consultants have provided extensive Annexes to this 
Report which contain valuable information gathered, analyses conducted, and 
 Final Streamlining Report: July 2003 12
suggestions made in support of the streamlining effort. These documents will be referred 
to throughout the body of this Report. (See the Table of Contents for the listing of 
Annexes.) 
On-Site Workflow Review: The consultants spent time "walking the halls" at FFP to 
understand the workflow of data, systems, and documents related to steps in the review 
and approval process. Consultants "shadowed" staff on-site to observe and understand: 
1. the "day in the life" of County Backstop Officers from both emergency and 
development Divisions, and related activities of the Program Operations Division 
2. flow of data elements throughout the Office from submission of proposals, 
through finalizing of TA packages and signature approvals 
3. data entry into and report generation from FFPIS 
4. data entry into NMS/Phoenix and FARES 
5. call forward actions 
6. field communications 
Surveys: Although not required in the SOW, the Streamlining Consultants felt it was 
important to receive anonymous input from FFP and key stakeholders in addition to data 
gathered from personal interviews and public meetings. From May 5 to May 16, the 
consultants conducted four separate on-line surveys to solicit anonymous feedback from 
internal and external users of PL 480 Title II programs. The survey data supplemented 
information from other sources, such as personal interviews, document research, and on￾site workflow reviews. The surveys were targeted to the following participants: 
1. FFP Washington Staff 
2. FFP Field / Mission Staff 
3. PVO Community 
4. World Food Program 
The anonymity of the surveys helped reveal suggestions that might not have been 
captured otherwise. The aggregated survey data also helped identify key issues for 
further review. In addition, the surveys helped to expand the sample of individual 
participants, given that not all stakeholders could be personally interviewed. 
The following is the response rate for each of the four Streamlining Surveys: 
• FFP Washington: 23 out of 47 invitees (49%) 
• FFP Field: 24 out of 80 invitees (30%) 
• PVOs: 31 out of 87 invitees (36%) 
• WFP: 4 out of 16 invitees (25%) 
Survey results are cited throughout this Report as relevant. For complete survey results, 
see Annexes F, G, H, and I. 
Process Reviews:
The following outlines the logical series of steps taken in the process review effort. 
Some background information on best practices in process improvement is provided for 
readers unfamiliar with process improvement and organizational change initiatives. 
 Final Streamlining Report: July 2003 13
Background: The goals of process improvement efforts typically are to: 
• Improve work product quality 
• Improve timeliness and accuracy of the work produced 
• Reduce cycle time 
• Reduce duplicate and manual processes 
• Reduce processing steps and eliminate non-value added steps 
• Reduce turn-around time 
• Improve services to "customers" 
• Increase cross-departmental sharing of information and reduction of storing 
duplicate data 
Define Process Boundaries: In a typical process review, the process "boundaries" must 
be established and processes defined. For this streamlining assessment, senior 
management concurred that the process review to be conducted by the Streamlining 
Consultants would be limited to those internal processes over which FFP has control, 
and can therefore make needed changes. For the assessment, the process "boundaries" 
were defined as: from the point a proposal is received at FFP to the point when the 
Transfer Authorization (TA) is approved and funds are obligated in USAID's 
NMS/Phoenix system. 
Develop Process Review Criteria: The Streamlining Consultants worked to develop an 
understanding of FFP processes and subprocesses to ensure that future streamlining will 
truly represent major, meaningful improvements. To this end, the consultants focused on 
the following questions in order to gain a more complete understanding of day-to-day 
operational steps taken by FFP staff: 
1. What are the key processes within FFP's control which impact their work output? 
2. What steps and what jobs are involved in these processes? (Who does what?) 
3. What policies and regulations apply to the processes? How do these apply to the 
process steps? 
4. What technology and systems are used in the processes, and for which steps? 
Conduct Process Analysis: The ERG/TCR team aimed to understand many 
perspectives; find the source of key issues and major concerns; identify bottlenecks, 
duplication, gaps; and identify areas for immediate improvement. This was achieved by: 
• Reviewing the IG's process flow charts 
• Conducting detailed personal interviews with FFP staff, managers, the 
Streamlining Working Group, and outside stakeholders 
• Reviewing tracking charts maintained by AMEX for EP and DP programs 
• On-site review of process steps at FFP Washington office 
• Defining & understanding subprocesses that were not detailed in the IG's charts 
• Identifying key decision points, bottlenecks, and gaps 
• Preparing a process map, showing activities/steps, workflow, and timing 
 Final Streamlining Report: July 2003 14
The consultants recognize that the processes reviewed are not explicitly performed the 
same way every time. Rather, variants typically result from new and unexpected 
circumstances which occur frequently in FFP's operating environment. 
Value-Added vs. Quality Control: The consultants reviewed key process steps to 
identify which were needed to affect a "state of change" in the process. They also 
attempted to understand the extent to which each step adds value: that is, the extent to 
which the activity contributes to achieving the final output: timely delivery of food to the 
US port of departure.2
 This is in contrast to process steps which do not add value, but 
which provide quality control (checking) to ensure there are no "defects" in the work 
produced. 
Process "Audits" / Gap Analysis: Given the publication of the IG's process review of 
FFP, it was redundant for the Streamlining Consultants to conduct a gap analysis for 
FFP's review and approval process. However, building on the IG's process review, the 
consultants delved further into the day-to-day workflow within all Divisions at FFP using 
gap analysis methodology to determine areas for improvement. 
• See Section V.C. for a detailed discussion of the outcome of the process review. 
• See Annex J. Process Map: DAP Review & Approval Process. 
• See Annex K: Process Map: Emergency Proposal Review & Approval Process. 
II.D. Streamlining Progress Already Underway 
As noted in the Interim Report of March 31, 2003, several streamlining initiatives have 
been underway within the Office of Food for Peace. These include: 
• FARES: USAID and the Department of Agriculture have completed work on the 
Food Aid Request Entry System (FARES). FARES is a web-based system 
whereby authorized participants may call forward (request) commodities against 
approved programs through a paperless on-line medium. Through the system, a 
Title II Cooperating Sponsor will be able to enter commodity request data in a 
user-friendly electronic format against approved Title II programs. Administered 
by the U.S. Department of Agriculture in cooperation with USAID, the system 
represents a major advancement in the real-time information sharing on the status 
of any commodity request throughout the entire process. This will minimize the 
need for time-consuming follow-up by telephone or email with USAID staff. 
While initiated by USDA, USAID has contributed significant cash and human 
resources to this highly beneficial project. FARES will be used for all food aid 
programs administered both by USDA and USAID and will be mandatory for all 
food orders. 
 
2
 Value-adding activities usually have three characteristics: 1) they accomplish something the "customer" cares 
about; 2) they physically alter an entity (e.g. a form); and 3) it is important they be done right the first time. 
 Final Streamlining Report: July 2003 15
• Re-Delegations of Authority: In an effort to expedite program reviews and 
approvals, the authority to sign transfer authorization modifications of up to $10 
million has been re-delegated to Division Directors. Similarly, approval of 
CSR4s and other administrative modifications to transfer authorizations has been 
re-delegated to Division Directors. 
• Freight Obligations: The authority to obligate funds to cover freight costs of up 
to $10 million has been re-delegated to the Division Director for Program 
Operations. These re-delegations are intended to significantly reduce the time and 
number of clearances required for various approvals within the Food for Peace 
Office. 
• "Hybrid" Transfer Authorizations (TA): The "Transfer Authorization" is the 
basic obligating document for Title II resources. Recently, USAID has made use 
of a new "hybrid" TA, a document that obligates funds from multiple resources. 
In an initial test of this approach, Cooperating Sponsors in Ethiopia have closely 
integrated their planned use of Title II resources with USAID/Ethiopia 
Development Assistance (DA) funding. Normally, this would have necessitated 
two separate approval documents. 
• Closure and de-obligation of Title II-funded activities: Beginning in FY 1999, 
FFP initiated an effort to assure the prompt closure and de-obligation of Title II 
program accounts, specifically those obligated by USAID for freight-related 
expenses for Title II activities.3
 FFP reimburses Cooperating Sponsors for the 
costs of these activities associated with Title II programs. Often actual expenses 
are less than the amounts obligated, and the balance can be de-obligated for other 
uses. FFP has designated staff and streamlined procedures to monitor these 
accounts for prompt closure and de-obligation of unliquidated funds. Once de￾obligated, these resources can be apportioned by the Office of Management and 
Budget to meet current food aid needs. FFP is also refining its freight estimating 
procedures in order to achieve more accurate estimates. 
• Pilot of On-Line FFPIS Reports: FFP is currently taking steps to pilot the 
posting of key FFPIS reports on the USAID intranet (e.g. Line 8 and Line 17 
Reports). This will help streamline the availability of important data that FFP 
requires for the proposal review and approval process. POD is working with the 
Institutional Contractor to validate the hyperlinks and test uploading for use by all 
FFP staff. 
• Reduced Issue Paper Content: During the current year DAP review process, the 
Development Program Director decided to take action to reduce the size and 
content of "Issues Papers" sent from FFP to Cooperating Sponsors to provide 
feedback on their proposals. Several PVO representatives have expressed their 
appreciation for this much-needed improvement. 
 
3
 FFP obligates on average over $500 million annually for ocean freight, inland freight, and internal transportation, 
storage and handling (ITSH) and related costs. 
 Final Streamlining Report: July 2003 16
• Training Coordinator: Despite a huge workload and no extra budget for 
training, FFP has taken steps to address urgent internal training needs by 
designating an internal Training Coordinator role. This individual will add the 
training coordination function to existing job duties. 
 Final Streamlining Report: July 2003 17
III. Influences Affecting Streamlining 
III.A. Unique Influences 
The task of streamlining Office of Food for Peace processes and systems is considerably 
impacted by an extensive range of USAID influences, as well as external factors. The 
Office is subject to a unique combination of these influences that affect its ability to plan 
and manage its activities. 
Unlike other USAID offices, FFP manages very high volumes of commodity allocations 
and approvals of such allocations to American Private Voluntary Organizations and the 
United Nation’s World Food Program. This function, together with cash transfer 
responsibilities under several authorities, requires different documentation requirements 
from the rest of the Agency, close coordination with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 
and a program review and approval process that constantly positions external 
expectations against internal processes. 
In addition, major emergencies, changing commodity prices, wide variations in 
appropriation levels in recent years and a complicated process of receiving funds from 
the U.S. Department of Agriculture, have only enhanced the effects of outside influences 
on the complexity of managing the program. Within USAID, FFP must deal with a 
complex budgeting system that combines Development Assistance funding with PL 480 
commodity and cash funding. Further, new initiatives such as the planned Millennium 
Challenge Account may target many of the same countries served by Title II, and its 
administration may ultimately affect Title II policies and procedures. 
III.B. Strategic Planning Outside FFP 
Streamlining Office of Food for Peace management of the Title II program must take into 
account strategic planning that is underway at the Department/Agency level as well as 
within the Bureau for Democracy, Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance. 
 
The recently developed State Department/USAID Strategic Plan highlights as one of its 
strategic goals, "Management and Organizational Excellence," with accompanying 
performance goals that include "a high performing, well trained and diverse workforce 
aligned with mission requirements" and "customer-oriented, innovative delivery of 
administrative and information services, acquisitions and assistance." 
The Office of Food for Peace’s parent bureau, the Bureau for Democracy, Conflict and 
Humanitarian Assistance (DCHA), is also developing a Bureau-wide strategic "Planning 
Framework" that will impact FFP coordination with other offices in the Bureau. The 
Title II program will be expected to assist the Bureau as it addresses the problems of 
fragile, failed and failing states, the main focus of the Bureau in its Planning Framework 
for 2003 – 2008. 
 Final Streamlining Report: July 2003 18
III.C. Office of Food for Peace Strategic Plan 
The Office of Food for Peace has recently developed a thorough and well-focused 
Concept Paper to manage the PL 480 Title II program. The Concept Paper provides the 
basis for a five-year strategy beginning in Fiscal Year 2004. It describes FFP’s future 
vision and draws upon many years of experience in program administration by FFP and 
its partners. 
The Concept Paper, which is nearing final approval, clearly describes the impact of 
external and internal influences on the Title II Program and FFP. Its "situation analysis" 
covers programmatic influences, changes in FFP’s operating environment, the role of 
external stakeholders, Congress and legislation, and Executive Branch, and USAID 
policies. 
A proposed new strategic objective – "to reduce food insecurity in vulnerable 
populations" – eliminates the concept of separate objectives for Title II emergency and 
"development" programs. As such, it encourages FFP and its partners to undertake 
programming that addresses the root causes of emergencies while sustaining development 
progress. In this way, FFP is clearly focusing on "higher order results" that will require a 
commitment to a "more active global leadership role" in the future. 
The strategy’s intended results – enhancing FFP’s "global leadership," and increasing 
Title II program impact in the field – cannot be achieved without major attention to 
streamlining. Indeed, the Strategic Framework for the new strategy is based upon a key 
intermediate result – "Timely and efficient program management achieved." As the 
Concept Paper notes, "This strategic approach calls for major management improvement 
and innovation." Adoption of the Strategic Plan for 2004-2008 must be accompanied by 
a commitment to the resources and resolve necessary to achieve those major management 
improvements and innovations. 
III.D. FFP Response to Influences 
 
The Agency and the leadership of Title II have done much to anticipate and deal with 
unique influences over the past 18 months, and the Office of Food for Peace has 
developed an excellent strategy for its role in implementing the program over the next 
five years. However, as the Agency moves to adopt that strategy, it must turn its 
attention to a management focus for Title II that creates and sustains far greater program 
efficiency, while at the same time continuing to respond to external mandates and 
influences. 
 Final Streamlining Report: July 2003 19
IV. Data Collection 
This section of the Report describes the information gathered from key stakeholders 
engaged in Title II based on a wide variety of methods and sources.4
 Each of these is 
discussed below: 
• Documentation review 
• Title II and USAID input 
• Partner Input (Cooperating Sponsors) 
• FACG/General Issues Working Group input 
• Survey feedback
• DCHA input 
• Other input 
IV.A. Documentation Review 
In accordance with the SOW, the consultants conducted an extensive review of written 
documentation to understand relevant USAID policy guidelines and procedures. (For a 
complete list of documents reviewed, See Annex C.) A sampling of major documents 
used in this review included: 
Regulation and ADS Guidance: the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, 
22 CFR 211, 22 CFR 226, and Handbook 9; ADS 596, Management Accountability and 
Control; ADS 308, Grants and Cooperative Agreements. 
Non-Emergency/Development: the Monetization Field manual, the Development 
Assistance Program (DAP) Proposal Guidelines, the Cooperating Sponsor Results Report 
and Resource Request Guidelines, the Development Program Policies (Policy Letter), the 
DP boilerplate transfer authorization and standard provisions; USAID Plan for 
Rationalization of PL 480 Title II Monetization Resources. 
Strategic Planning: The Food for Peace Strategic Plan Concept Paper; the DCHA 
Strategic Planning Framework; the Department of State/USAID Strategic Plan. 
Emergency: Emergency Proposal Guidelines, ITSH Guidelines, the EP boilerplate 
transfer authorization and standard provisions. 
Other Agency Documents: USDA/FAS guidelines and application; OFDA grant 
application and guidelines; PPC Guidance for Bureau Program and Budget Submissions 
for FY 2005; USAID's Annual Report Guidance for FY 2003. 
 
4
 Note: This Section of the Report contains certain conclusions and suggestions for action that logically flow from 
the topics being discussed. While they are included here to provide context, they are repeated, as appropriate, as 
formal findings and recommendations in Sections VI and VII. 
 Final Streamlining Report: July 2003 20
IV.B. Title II & USAID Input 
FFP Senior Management Input 
Senior FFP management had varying views on streamlining. These views ranged from 
seeing an urgent need for significant improvement in overall management systems and 
support, to a perception that most issues could be resolved simply by providing 
significantly more staff training. Some managers saw the immediate need for increased 
personnel, while others were more concerned with employing staff with the "right" skills, 
performing the "right" function, and with clear responsibilities. 
All senior managers recognized the need for improvements in program implementation, 
particularly changes that would address delays in program approvals and commodity 
ordering. Opinions differed however, on the severity of change and methods to achieve 
improvements. Some managers were also less informed than others about day-to-day 
activities in their areas of responsibility that contributed to delay or inefficiency. Some 
were also more concerned than others about stakeholder views. 
Senior managers also expressed concern about inadequate time for maintaining external 
relationships (outside of FFP) and limitations on travel to field programs for both 
management and staff. Some cited this inability to travel as a key reason for 
communication difficulties with field offices. 
All senior managers agreed on the need for substantially increased training of staff in FFP 
as well as in the field. They cited inadequate staff preparation and inadequate 
understanding of the program as major impediments in efficiency. 
Clearly FFP senior managers are very concerned about efficiencies in work completion 
for both management and staff. However, it is equally clear that they feel constrained by 
"too much to do" while lacking the resources and support they need to bring about those 
efficiencies. 
FFP Washington Staff Input
During the course of this assessment, the ERG/TCR team met extensively with the staff 
of FFP and its institutional support contractor, AMEX International. The consultants 
interviewed several staff from each Division and observed and documented actual day-to￾day workload, functions, and job duties. 
FFP staff consists of USAID direct hire personnel, Foreign Service personnel, personal 
service contractors, NEPS, Fellows, and interns. While this diversity is useful for 
information exchange, it is also limiting. A staff member's employment status may 
determine what tools and resources they have in order to do their job (such as approval 
authority, NMS/Phoenix role, and access to key information sources). Without exception, 
all FFP staff expressed concern (and even exasperation) about a lack of formal training 
provided by FFP and limited time to learn how to perform job duties correctly. 
 Final Streamlining Report: July 2003 21
Highlights of FFP/Washington staff comments and suggestions include: 
• Dispense with the annual reviews of approved programs. Leave implementation 
to the field. 
• DCHA/FFP staff need to be seen more frequently in the field, by Mission staff 
and partners. Organize regional traveling teams with subject matter experts 
(SMEs) to visit the geographical regions and selected country offices. This would 
improve communication and enable greater consistency in program 
implementation. 
• Let CSs handle call forwards directly to USDA for approved programs. 
• DCHA/FFP has been unwilling to formally re-delegate CTO responsibilities to 
Mission staff. If formal re-delegation of CTO responsibilities could be given to 
Mission staff, it should be done immediately. Mission staff could still liaise 
w/CSs, monitor activities and evaluations, and ensure that annual reporting is 
performed in a timely fashion. 
• The Food for Peace Information System (FFPIS) can only be accessed by a few 
people, which often results in delays in getting much-needed reports. Several 
additional staff should be authorized to enter data into the system, and Country 
Backstop Officers (CBOs) should be able to view and print standard reports. 
• In light of the new authority to pay ITSH for Development programs in LDCs and 
the need to scale back monetization, FFP needs to issue guidance for broad 
distribution with respect to programming ITSH, 202(e), and monetization 
proceeds. 
• A definition is needed for developmental/relief and a framework for the design, 
implementation, approval process, and evaluation of developmental/relief 
programs. 
• Establish FFP regional offices to manage regional activities similarly to OFDA. 
This would increase FFP visibility, access, and help to ensure consistency in 
operational procedures among Missions. 
• Improve working conditions of DCHA/FFP staff. In Washington, ensure 
adequate working space, meeting/conference rooms for FFP staff, and seek closer 
collaboration and coordination with CSs. Proactively plan US visits to CS 
headquarters by FFP staff. 
• Reverse the concept of strategic plan integration, i.e. seeking greater integration 
of FFP activities with overall Mission strategies. This entails considerable 
additional planning and reporting and makes less sense if the FFP goal is "failed 
and failing and fragile states." In that case, report instead against the FFP 
Agency-wide strategic objective, IRs and indicators, not Mission IRs. 
 Final Streamlining Report: July 2003 22
• Improve-information sharing. Distribute and share summary reports of 
DCHA/FFP meetings with Interaction, PVO groups, and field Missions. 
• Equip FFP/Washington with an information unit and model staffing on OFDA. 
With a $1.2 billion budget, this is essential. This unit could also be responsible 
for general communications with partners. 
• Train, train, train – not only for new hires, but support relevant continuous 
training and ongoing professional development. 
• Approve and finalize individual development and training plans for each staff 
member. 
Survey Feedback: Streamlining Suggestions: In the streamlining survey, FFP staff 
were asked the following question: "In brief, what are the top 3 suggestions you have to 
improve the consistency, effectiveness, efficiency, and timeliness of the USAID review & 
approval of emergency & DAP proposals?" 
Their responses are provided in Figure 1 on the following page. (See Annex F for 
details.) 
 Final Streamlining Report: July 2003 23
Figure 1: Streamlining Suggestions from FFP Washington Staff 
(Source: Streamlining Surveys, Spring 2003) 
Review Process: Training: 
• Reduce approval documentation • Provide training in the DAP review process 
• More organized review process for DAPs • Fully train all new staff immediately 
• No last minute addition to DAP reviews • Better guidelines & training of CBOs on process 
• Wide audience of reviewers • Train POD in emergency programs 
• Substantially reduce DAP review/approval process 
• A simplified system of clearances and approvals Systems: 
• Start DAP reviews when DAP rec'd. • Improve existing systems & use of e-management 
• Have reg. Scheduled 'approval meeting times • Replace FFPIS w system that is accessible to all 
• Faster review by field missions • Better system than FFPIS 
• Faster review by CBOs • User-friendly re-vamp of FFPIS 
• More rapid reviews 
• Only 1 or 2 draft apprl docs, not all CBOs - POD? WFP:
• Conduct competitive reviews of proposals. • Allow Faxed WFP Signature on TA to Suffice 
• WFP Maintains Current Pipeline Reports on Web 
Guidelines: 
• Reduce guideline procedures Proposal Submissions: 
• Put FFP EP budget guidelines on web • Electronic submission of proposals 
PVOs: Timing:
• PVOs submit well written/fundable proposals • Sensible deadline dates 
• Base grant allocations on PVO results achieved. • Postpone the submission date - 11/1 is a bad date 
• PVO training on USAID expectations re budgets • Lay out timeline for actions 
• Speedy way to approval emergency programs 
Personnel: • Budget review should be done in shorter timeframe 
• Greater use of technical expertise and suggestions 
• Hire more CBOS on the DP side Policy:
• Better PVO/WFP negotiation & settlement skills • Update draft policies into final form 
• More experience • Have one single policy book in 1 place 
• More staff, so CBOS can know DAPs better 
• Need more staff to evaluate projects. 
Workload:
• Delegate Authority to Dep. Dir. FFP to Approve TAs 
• Redelegate authority to CBOs & Team Leaders 
• Have meetings limited by staff 
• More work, and less talkabouts 
• Support staff should do paperwork 
• Leave the major decisions to professional CBOs 
• Better task planning ref. annual cycle 
Management: 
• Written SOPs 
• Communication w/all involved 
• Ongoing training 
• Improved internal communication on interpretations of legislation, guidelines and policies 
 Final Streamlining Report: July 2003 24
Survey Feedback: FFP/Washington: Training Requests: As mentioned above, FFP 
staff unanimously expressed a critical need for training throughout the Office. The 
following are the responses to the streamlining survey item: "Please list the training 
topics that would be most beneficial to you in performing your Title II-related job duties." 
(See Annex F for details.) 
Figure 2: Training Topics Requested by FFP Washington Staff 
(Source: Streamlining Surveys, Spring 2003) 
1. Nuts and Bolts of Emergency Food Aid 
2. Methodology for Conducting Food Sec. Needs Assess. 
3. Monetization Guidelines 
4. Role of Food Aid/Food Security in Development 
5. Comprehensive Course for Food for Peace Officers 
6. NMS/Phoenix 
7. Intro to CBO duties 
8. Title II program/technical related areas 
9. Title II and FFP Policies 
10. The Legislative Issues of Title II 
11. Approval documentation 
12. TAs/Action Memo Process 
13. POD/Shipping Procedures 
14. *Budget Review (how it works in the whole office) 
15. Pipeline/budget 
16. *Proposal Review 
17. *Developmental Relief 
18. *DAP Process 
19. *Food Aid Managers Course 
20. Practical Situations: Case Studies 
21. Performing field assessments of DAPs 
22. Group dynamics including norms 
23. OFDA DART courses 
24. FMFIA 
25. *AERs (to better read/understand line items) 
26. *WFP 101 and beyond 
27. Update on Development Programs 
28. Monetization and Cost Recovery 
29. Indicators Training 
30. Policy/Technical Overview from FANTA 
31. FFP Policy for Development 
32. FFP Policy for Emergency 
* indicates topics cited by multiple respondents
 Final Streamlining Report: July 2003 25
FFP Mission / Field Staff Input
The ERG/TCR team had the opportunity to meet with visiting FFP Officers from field 
posts and to correspond with others. Common themes in all discussions included the 
following: 
• Delegation Of Authority: Many field staff believe that once a program is 
approved, FFP/W should withdraw from implementation matters: "Staff in the 
field should have the authority to make implementation decisions and report to 
FFP/W." Some suggested moving towards the level of authority similar to that of 
DA-funded programs, in which the focus is on the result and the field has the 
authority to modify activities to achieve that result. However, changing an 
objective would require Washington approval. 
• Commodity Reporting: FFP must have a better electronic commodity tracking 
system. Independent systems have already been developed in the field because 
FFPIS is inaccurate and inadequate. There is a need for a comprehensive system 
like the COMPAS system developed by WFP. 
• Commodity Management: Field staff should have the authority to authorize 
commodity transfers, not just loans. A commodity transfer becomes a major issue 
in Washington and requires agreement modifications. Once commodities are 
allocated to a country, the PVOs together with the FFP field staff should manage 
the commodities. If a commodity transfer is required, it would be accounted for 
as a sub-grant. The agency which has the food available becomes the 
implementing partner to the agency who has the program. Thus, there would not 
be a need to modify agreements. FFP/W spends too much time with tedious 
modifications for small resource amounts that require too much work, further 
stretching FFP/W capacity. 
• Budget Issues: Changes to a budget within an authorized amount and honoring 
the split between direct and indirect costs should be approved in the field. Once 
FFP/W has agreed to the overall amount, they should not be involved in such 
details. FFP/W should be informed of changes but should leave the decision￾making to the field. 
• ITSH vs. 202(e): Field staff all agree that clarification is needed on the coverage 
of this funding. Several noted the enormous amount of time that goes into 
constructing a budget with ITSH, 202(e), monetization, other grantee funds, other 
donors, and host government contributions. They argue that by having more 
straight forward budgets (and perhaps paying too much or too little "here and 
there"), USAID would save much more on staff costs when proposal review time 
comes around. 
• WFP Contracts: Several field staff commented that WFP contracts with 
American and other NGO’s are inadequately funded. NGOs complain that WFP 
passes on too small a portion of their funding with the food. They suggest that 
FFP should discuss with WFP how they could better harmonize the ITSH rates.
 Final Streamlining Report: July 2003 26
• CSR4 Submissions: Staff suggested the inclusion of more background in the 
CSR4 submissions to explain how IPTT (Indicator Performance Tracking Table) 
data was collected, how targets were set, and how indicators were defined (i.e. 
actual numbers, and definition of general terms). Examples of the impact of the 
project on food security would be very useful. It was also suggested to develop a 
formal mechanism to provide feedback to PVOs on CSR4 submissions. 
Survey Feedback: Training Requests by FFP Field/Mission: Like FFP/Washington 
staff, FFP field staff also expressed a critical need for training. The following are their 
suggested training topics as provided in the streamlining survey: 
Figure 3: Training Topics Requested by FFP Field/Mission Staff 
(Source: Streamlining Surveys, Spring 2003) 
1. annual/bi annual refresher 
2. on "what's new" in Title II 
3. Case studies, successful programs. 
4. Food Security Synergies / proposal design 
5. FFP Officer's course 
6. FFP policy update course 
7. Overseeing FFP 
8. Bellmon and other marketing considerations 
9. relative roles of USDA and USAID in food aid 
10. Coordination of USDA and FFP Programs 
11. Differences between USDA and FFP Programs 
12. Planning Cycle for FFP programs 
13. TAs 
14. Food Aid Manager's course (5) 
15. Monetization Training (8) 
16. Technical review of the DAP - finance/ m&e 
17. NEP training 
18. DAP Review/approval process & Guidelines (9) 
19. CSR4 Guidelines 
20. approval processes - who does what when 
21. record keeping - what needs to be in files 
22. efficient time management in FFP duties 
23. Environmental Examination 
24. UMRs 
25. Formal review process 
26. Famine Theory and Response 
27. Title II Legislation, Reg. 11 and HB 9 
28. Other Advanced Management Training 
29. Developmental Relief Programs 
30. TAP review processes 
31. General Project Management 
32. The workings/Nature of FFP/Washington Office 
33. USG food aid programs 
34. Grant management/Reg 11 
35. EP proposal development/evaluation 
36. Commodity/pipeline/TA process and management 
(* indicates # of times suggested topics were repeated) 
 Final Streamlining Report: July 2003 27
Survey Feedback: Field/Mission Suggestions to Improve Review/ Approval Process for 
FFP/Washington: Below are the FFP Field/Mission responses to the question: What 
TOP THREE suggestions do you have to improve the consistency, effectiveness, 
efficiency, and timeliness of USAID WASHINGTON'S review & approval of emergency & 
DAP proposals? 
Figure 4: Suggestions for FFP/Washington from FFP Field/Mission Staff 
(Source: Streamlining Surveys, Spring 2003) 
1. Consider saying NO (not no-but) 
2. Clear criteria and guidelines established, including Missions 
3. No more than one review session 
4. Visit the field by officers to understand realities (3) 
5. Don't change rules during the submission process 
6. Make sure bureaus & Mission understand the DAP guidance 
7. Regular e-mail updates on process & timetable for decisions 
8. Streamline with the rest of OP 
9. Move program approval process to the field (3) 
10. Take Washington out of program issues 
11. Better coordination with Mission/field reviewers 
12. Periodic update/training workshops 
13. Include the Mission technical staff for the review 
14. Keep in touch with missions and PVO's HQ 
15. Tenure of CBOs should not be very short 
16. Measurement of the program impact in the field 
17. Interaction with international community 
18. Fewer clearances required 
19. Rely more on mission comments and recommendations 
20. More staff (2) 
21. Standard process for all regions 
22. Farm out review preparation 
23. Don't second guess everything 
24. Need USDH FSO in emergency programs 
25. Teamwork with the Mission 
26. Streamlined guidelines 
27. Better communication with FFP/W and Missions (2) 
28. Provide budget ceilings early 
29. Respect Missions' comments 
30. Respect FSNs in Missions 
31. Streamline the process. 
32. Use of Internet review mechanisms 
33. More involvement of officers 
34. More inter-Agency dialogue by FFP 
35. Define tasks and management responsibilities 
36. Push necessary information to field in timely way 
 Final Streamlining Report: July 2003 28
Survey Feedback: Suggestions to Improve Review/Approval Process in Missions: The 
following are the FFP Field/Mission responses to the survey question: In brief, what are 
the top 3 suggestions you have to improve the consistency, effectiveness, efficiency, and 
timeliness of YOUR MISSION'S review & approval of emergency & DAP proposals? 
Figure 5: Suggestions to Improve FFP Field/Missions 
(Source: Streamlining Surveys, Spring 2003) 
1. pre - identify review "team 
2. For new Mission authorities, good knowledge of Title II programs. 
3. Consistency in guidance 
4. Minimal changes while in process 
5. Don't change rules midstream 
6. Delegation of more responsibility to the field; move approvals to the field
7. Better knowledge of cycle for submission of proposals 
8. have it any time of year; stagger them so not all end on Sept 30 
9. make it compatible with the rest of OP 
10. More field Staff 
11. More responsiveness from Washington 
12. Additional staff support & training 
13. Better coordination with USAID/W reviewers 
14. More Partners meetings 
15. CBO's visits 
16. Good MTE 
17. DAP and relevant guidelines are issued timely 
18. Mission and FFP exchange visits 
19. CSs are well informed of the Mission strategies. 
20. easy access to FFPIS information 
21. info meetings for CS prior to submission 
22. schedule reviews well in advance 
23. make it an important action for the program office 
24. Team work with Washington 
25. Streamlined guidelines and process 
26. Additional staff 
27. Better commun./coord. between FFP/DP and EP 
28. FFP to give budget ceilings for DAPs in advance 
29. FFP to avoid direct talks w/ PVO w/out Mission 
30. FFP approval within 60 days 
31. Use the Internet more for "virtual" review. 
32. Effective workload management 
33. Timely interaction/feedback with Washington 
34. Enhance technical skills 
 Final Streamlining Report: July 2003 29
IV.C. Partner Input (Cooperating Sponsors) 
 In the SOW, the ERG/TCR team was asked to: 
"Gather input from partners to methodically and thoroughly discuss 
related issues as well as to listen to their concerns and thoughts on parts 
of the process that are operating effectively, regarding the implementation 
of food aid assistance. This would also include discussion of internal 
Private Voluntary Organization (PVO) systems including decentralization 
and identify areas of improvement."
The ERG/TCR team found that "partner" reaction to the above statement was largely 
indignation, annoyance and exasperation. Many PVOs chafe at the term "partner," citing 
attitudes within FFP and in field missions that cast them as contractors being told what to 
do, rather than as "partners." Many PVO representatives were quick to acknowledge 
individual dedication and a willingness to help on the part of many FFP and USAID field 
officials. They also noted appreciation for FARES, shorter "issues letters" sent during 
the last DAP review cycle, and FFP's obvious commitment to meeting emergency needs. 
However, PVOs had little to offer on "parts of the process that are operating effectively."
Many felt that FFP officials, while dedicated, ultimately appeared powerless to make 
badly needed changes. 
Primary concerns reported by PVO contacts included: 
• Failure of FFP to comply fully with the 120 day legislative requirement for the 
DAP approval process: PVOs reported receiving "approval" letters on February 28, 
2003 and waiting until the end of June for formal approval and signed funding 
documents (for proposals submitted November 1, 2002). 
• There is a growing consensus among PVOs for adjusting the submission deadlines 
for CSR4s and DAPs. Current, both Results Reports and DAPs are due on 
November 1, just one month after the end of the fiscal year. While this is a challenge, 
PVOs understand that FFP needs the programmatic results for Congressional 
reporting purposes. Providing accurate financial reporting on November 1st for the 
prior fiscal year is extremely difficult. PVOs know that adjustments to AERs and 
Resource Requests often result from this early deadline. 
• Excessive Delays: During the review period for both emergency and development 
proposals, many PVOs reported an endless "back and forth" of questions, requests for 
additional information, revised budgets, more questions, and even lost proposals that 
had to be replaced. The consultants were provided numerous examples of delays due 
to last minute questions from FFP on proposals that were supposedly already 
"approved," or delays on budget approvals due to unnecessary minutiae (such as 
requests to change formatting, spelling, and grammar). 
• Policies being articulated without prior consultation: The "USAID Plan For 
Rationalization PL 480 Title II Monetization Resources" was frequently cited as well 
as the late issuance of DAP "policy letter." A current issue is unclear USAID 
interpretation of the use of 202(e) and ITSH funding. 
 Final Streamlining Report: July 2003 30
• Being "forced" into emergency Consortia activities with "little guidance up front" 
and "too many questions afterward." PVOs identified issues relating to excessive 
budget documentation and requirements to "integrate" programs with other 
PVO’s/NGO’s. These excessive requirements prolonged the program design and 
approval process, especially since PVOs were given little concrete guidance. 
• Many PVO representatives believe there is a "disconnect" between 
FFP/Washington and USAID field missions. They cite differing review criteria, 
conflicting interpretation of regulations, and lack of communication between 
Washington and field offices as indications of several problems. They note that often 
field offices have inadequate information on commodity issues. What they see as 
minor program changes are too often referred back to Washington for decision. 
• Restricted "Management Units": PVOs have been told in the past that FFP has 
capped at 75 per year the number of "management units" for world-wide programs. 
PVO’s consider this cap to be an artificial restriction on program development and 
initiatives. 
• WFP vs. PVO Approach: There is continuing concern about what many PVOs see as 
a different standard for Title II donations to the World Food Program. They cite the 
apparent ease of approval for WFP Title II emergency programs compared to the 
extensive and time-consuming process that PVOs must "endure." They also note that 
the Transfer Authorization process for WFP is very streamlined with limited 
documentation for very large transfers of resources. They question why that approach 
is not applied to PVO activities, especially those managed by organizations with 20-
50 years of food aid experience. 
• It should be noted that considerable PVO staff time and PVO costs are incurred 
prior to the formulation of a DAP based on DCHA/FFP guidelines. There is no 
provision to pay for such up-front costs. A US-registered non-profit has few 
unrestricted funds to spare. 
• Consolidated DAP Submission: The DAP Guidelines recommend consolidated DAP 
submission. However, this poses practical difficulties because the proposal will be 
submitted with a single Cooperating Sponsor as the lead agency with the others acting 
as sub-recipients. This complicates budget formulations, especially indirect cost 
recovery and staffing patterns. 
• Excessive Questioning at the time of Commodity Ordering: PVOs report receiving 
repeated questions on commodity orders for programs they believed were already 
"approved," leading to missed calls forward and later cash and commodity shortages. 
• Abuse of "Threshold" Definitions: PVOs consider resolution of "threshold" 
questions to be the key determining factor in the proposal review process. However, 
several PVOs report receiving "threshold" questions long after they thought the 
approval was complete. This leads to further delays and program disruption. 
 Final Streamlining Report: July 2003 31
Survey Feedback: Streamlining Suggestions from PVOs: PVOs were asked the 
following question: In brief, what are the top 3 suggestions you have to improve the 
consistency, effectiveness, efficiency, and timeliness of the USAID REVIEW & 
APPROVAL of emergency & DAP proposals? Their responses are as follows: 
Figure 6: Suggestions from PVOs on Streamlining Review/Approval Process, Part 1 
(Source: Streamlining Surveys, Spring 2003) 
 
1. Stop using consortia as a first resort. 
2. Utilize actual c & f figures to track allocations. 
3. Reduce number of signatories required to approve 
4. Reduce detail; allow annual submission of some info 
5. Improve FFP info system 
6. Train & empower CBOs; reduce # sign-offs 
7. On-line submission process and format (5) 
8. Electronic report formats 
9. Effective collaboration between mission and FFP 
10. Sufficient time for participatory need assessments 
11. The need for technical review staff in FFP 
12. limit FFP comment cycles 
13. quicker issue of issues letter 
14. ensure mission and FFP-W reps present at review 
15. problem specific responses; no food dumping 
16. provide DA assistance to complement 
17. review & provide feedback on reports 
18. Decentralized authority 
19. Decentralized authority for non-US vehicles 
20. Stop the micro-management by OMB 
21. Set a limit (preferably 90 days) 
22. Improved communication w/ PVOs 
23. Consistency between Wash and Mission 
24. Review and approval in short time 
25. Complameint with monetization for emergency 
26. Respect the program dates for shipping 
27. more group meetings w/ FFP/W&local, PVO/local&HQ 
28. direct discussions with PVO field offices 
29. Treat PVOs the same as WFP 
30. Response within 5 days on all questions 
31. set a 20 page limit for all DAP applications 
32. Commitment 
33. Communication 
34. Coordination 
35. Define critical budget and program areas 
36. Do not micro-manage / Local Mission not to micromanage 
37. Install tech sys. for finance and commodity 
38. Explicit expectations (e.g. distribution levels) 
39. Consistency between mission and HQ positions 
40. Not too much change on personnel 
41. Have the FFP officer very well trained 
 Final Streamlining Report: July 2003 32
Figure 7: Suggestions from PVOs on Streamlining Review/Approval Process, Part 2 
(Source: Streamlining Surveys, Spring 2003) 
 
42. Improving communications: Mission and FFP/DC 
42. Approve on time 
43. Define threshold issues for DAP approval 
44. Train FFP staff in criteria for DAP approval 
45. Shorten DAP proposal requirements 
46. Maintain same guidance from year to year 
47. Reduce requirements for follow-on DAPS 
48. Minimize number of times revision of doc requested 
49. Listen to the small PVOs as well 
50. Read proposals and identify positive factors 
51. Work in a collaborative style 
52. Clear policy lines from Wash and local Mission 
53. Less bureaucratic details 
54. More support from local Mission 
55. Better coordination between Missions and Wash/FFP 
56. Clear expectations on levels/budgets 
57. Clear guidelines 
58. Direct advice from USAID Mission 
59. Weekly notice that review process is still going 
60. Decrease number of approval steps 
61. Block grants 
62. More decision making in the field missions 
63. Institute process to expand eligible commodities 
64. Make ALL review processes transparent 
65. Improve commodity quality control 
66. More collaboration with smaller NGOS 
67. Monitor inefficiencies and take action 
68. Standardize impact indicators 
69. When an emergency is declared, the US gov't should 
authorize local purchases 
 Final Streamlining Report: July 2003 33
IV.D. FACG/General Issues Working Group Input 
The ERG/TCR team used the "General Issues Working Group" (GIG) of the Food Aid 
Consultative Group as a primary contact for reviewing and confirming the views and 
ideas of Title II partners and stakeholders. The views and commentary of the GIG 
members echoed those of other stakeholders. Their key concerns were excessive process, 
lack of closure, chronic delays, and the need for early consultation on policy issues. 
Based on a wide range of individual stakeholder discussions, preliminary findings and 
potential suggestions for streamlining were discussed informally with the GIG. 
Individual GIG members were also consulted on specific process and systems issues. 
They provided helpful background documentation and program examples. A debriefing 
for stakeholders on this Final Report is planned via the GIG. 
IV.E. DCHA Input 
Through discussions with representatives of other offices within the DCHA Bureau, it is 
apparent that the sheer size and complexity of the Title II program gives FFP a "stand 
alone" identity within the Bureau. The Office’s closest programmatic links within the 
Bureau are to the Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA). However, that 
relationship is usually focused on emergency program requests which require a 
combination of OFDA cash assistance and Title II food. Unlike FFP, OFDA maintains 
and funds its own field staff, has an established training program, and backstops its 
program activities with proven communication capabilities. 
While potential exists for shared training programs, more formalized information 
exchange, and mutual support activities, that potential has yet to be realized. Some 
Bureau representatives suggested that the new focus on failing, failed and fragile states 
may be a common rationale for greater coordination and joint training. The Bureau 
strategy framework could be a starting point for such coordinated activities. 
IV.F. Other Input 
General Counsel: In discussions with the USAID Office of The General Counsel, the 
GC representative expressed concern about the serious delay in revising and updating 
USAID regulation 11 (22 CFR 211). In addition, there was concern that "Handbook 
Nine" was still in circulation, a guidance document used over 20 years ago. 
Regarding the "120 Day Rule" (mentioned in the PL 480 legislation), GC defines this as 
including issuance of final funding documentation, not just issuance of an "approval 
letter." GC made clear that FFP cannot "determine" it will accept a proposal just to meet 
the 120 day deadline with major issues left to be resolved and negotiated. The 
recommended rule of thumb should be that all required documentation is signed 
and funding obligated by day 120 as the rule, not the exception. 
Office of Program Policy Coordination (PPC): PPC is responsible for overall 
coordination of Agency budgeting and policy development. PPC officials are more 
 Final Streamlining Report: July 2003 34
knowledgeable about Title II than other major offices outside FFP. However, they also 
noted their lack of familiarity with day-to-day FFP activities and expressed the view that 
more authority and responsibility for program review and approval should be with the 
field missions. PPC officials acknowledge the complexity of budgeting for Title II funds 
and commodities within the Agency’s system and the additional workload for budgeting 
of FFP. However, they foresaw no changes in Agency requirements that would ease this 
burden. In their view, FFP must respond to Agency requirements as do other Offices. 
USDA/FAS: The ERG/TCR team met with officials of the Department of Agriculture's 
Foreign Agriculture service to examine USDA's on-line proposal submission process and 
review of food aid procedures. The consultants reviewed proposal formats and data flow 
for the Food For Progress program, Section 416(b) program, and the Food For Education 
program. USDA officials also provided a copy of their technical "streamlining" report 
focusing on re-engineering their automated systems. USDA's on-line proposal 
submissions format is a good model for FFP to examine. Several aspects of USDA's 
guidelines and proposal formats should be considered for replication in Title II. 
Commodity Industries: The consultants conducted extensive discussions with 
representatives from commodity industries. Commodity suppliers are particularly 
concerned about a "feast or famine" situation in which long periods of delay occur, 
pending program approval, with approvals "bunched" near the end of the fiscal year. 
This situation is not limited to Title II - it also occurs with USDA programs. Suppliers 
note that waiting long periods for prospective orders disrupts and sometimes eliminates 
their production capabilities and narrows an already limited competitive market. One 
supplier described the close-down of a processing plant with the loss of 30 jobs. When 
commodity orders do occur, they require suppliers to produce large amounts in short 
periods of time, with increasing commodity and labor costs. 
Several commodity suppliers were quite outspoken in their criticism of FFP's reliance on 
outdated prices. This leads to misunderstandings on budget availability and missed 
marketing opportunities. Commodity representatives also repeatedly voiced their view 
that the Office of Management and Budget micromanaged the Title II Program. 
Freight Services: A similar situation exists with freight services. Regular vessel 
availability for movement of Title II cargoes is significantly disrupted when large 
amounts of commodities are purchased near the end of the fiscal year and "bunched" for 
shipment. With the requirement for 75% movement of all U.S. food aid on U.S. Flag 
vessels, plus the limited availability of such vessels, this "bunching" creates high demand 
and higher freight rates. 
An initial review of commodity prices from September 2001 to May 2003 reveals 
obvious price increases in certain commodities in the July, August, September period as 
compared to January, February. While the amount of increase varies according to 
commodity, a preliminary estimate is that delayed orders and consequent "bunching" 
of commodity purchases creates at least a 5-7% increase annually in the cost of 
certain basic commodities. Even with a 5% increase, the cost to the Title II program 
could easily be in excess of $20 million per year.5
 A more thorough review of 
 
5
 Source: Consultant review of KCCO monthly purchase data from September 2001 through May 2003. 
 Final Streamlining Report: July 2003 35
commodity and freight price factors is needed; however, a leveling of certain commodity 
and freight purchases will clearly benefit the program. 
V. Process Review and Systems Analysis6
V.A. Current Systems Improvement Initiatives 
During the course of this assessment, the consultants learned of several systems 
improvement initiatives that are currently underway at USAID. FFP is expected to 
benefit from these either directly or indirectly in the next few years. 
Food Aid Agreement System (FAAS)
The Food Aid Agreement Entry System (FAAS) is envisioned as part of a fully 
automated Commodity Operations System.7
 As a first step in its development, a 
Technical Requirements Matrix has been drafted for FAAS Phase I which will help 
define its eventual design and full development. When fully operational, it is envisioned 
that FAAS would: 
• Allow PVO and WFP to enter agreement information electronically 
• Allow USAID to review and approve/disapprove agreements 
• Interface with FAS FADS system (at USDA) 
• Show information such as how much of a commodity has been called forward to 
parties of agreement 
While FAAS is expected to be a major advancement in electronic commodity 
management, the timeframe for FAAS development has yet to be determined. 
FARES II: 
(See a discussion of FARES progress to date in section II.D.) 
FARES Phase II would allow commodity orders to be sent electronically from existing 
PVO/WFP systems. It is a USDA system, and would not be usable or applicable for 
FFP's proposal review and approval process. While it will greatly improve the food order 
process, FARES II is not a replacement for FFPIS, as is mistakenly believed by some 
at FFP. 
 
6 Note: This Section contains certain conclusions and suggestions for action that logically flow from the topics 
being discussed. While they are included here to provide context, they are repeated, as appropriate, as formal 
findings and recommendations in Sections VI and VII. 
7
 The source for information on the Commodity Operations System in this report is from a presentation by 
USDA/FFP at the Export Food Aid Conference, Kansas City, April 2003. 
 Final Streamlining Report: July 2003 36
The timeframe for release of FARES II has yet to be determined. However it is planned 
for phase three of Commodity Operations System development. WFP is expected to be 
the pilot. On completion, it is envisioned that FARES II would: 
• Allow PVO and WFP to enter commodity order information electronically 
• Allow USAID and USDA to review and approve/disapprove requests 
• KCCO would stage invitations based on at-port dates. 
• Reduce errors in agreements due to automated entry at point of origin 
• Enable on-line communication with comment fields 
• Make Agreement information available on-line, resulting in the ability to track 
requests against agreements to determine how much commodity was actually called 
forward 
• Accept electronic Food Orders from PVOs and WFP 
Upgrade to NMS/Phoenix
The Executive office of USAID's Office of Procurement plans to improve the NMS 
system. The plan is to replace NMS and find a solution to interface with Phoenix which 
will be deployed overseas by 2004. A limiting factor in future development is that any 
new system must be able to integrate with State Department systems. So far, it has taken 
two years to map the "as is" system. It may yet take several years to realize complete 
system upgrades Agency-wide. 
E-Government Grants Initiative
In his February 2002 budget submission to Congress, President Bush outlined a 
management agenda for making government more focused on citizens and results which 
includes expanding Electronic Government ("E-Government"). This project will produce 
a simple, unified "storefront" for all federal grant applicants to electronically find 
opportunities, apply, and manage grants. 
In compliance with this initiative, all US Government Agencies must be able to 
process on-line submissions of grant proposals by October 1. This will be done via 
the internet portal www.grants.gov. Grantees looking for funding opportunities will 
access the portal and choose from two modes: "find" and "apply." The "find" mode is 
currently fully operational at USAID. A search in "find" mode will yield standard 
synopses and full announcements of grants opportunities. A potential applicant will 
complete an on-line application to become a "trusted broker." Once this status is 
confirmed, the applicant will use the "apply" mode to submit a grant application 
electronically. To comply with the mandate, the "apply" mode should be operational by 
October 1. This initiative provides an opportunity for FFP to begin testing on-line 
posting of proposal guidelines and receipt of on-line proposal submissions. 
 Final Streamlining Report: July 2003 37
V.B. Process Reviews 
As part of their scope of work, the consultants were asked to conduct process reviews that 
identified opportunities for improvements in the implementation of Title II. As such, the 
process reviews included both development (DP) and emergency programs (EP), as 
well as workflow between these program areas and the Program Operations Division 
(POD). The methodology used is detailed in Section II.C. ERG/TCR Approach. 
Based on consultation with senior management, this process review focused on internal 
process issues over which FFP has control and therefore has the ability to change. 
Each of these aspects of the Title II grant approval process is discussed below: 
• DAP Proposal Guidelines 
• DAP Proposal Format ("Applications") 
• Data Elements Required for DAPs 
• Emergency Proposal Guidelines & Process 
• Policy Guidance 
• Proposal Review Steps 
• Compliance with 120 Day DAP Approval Deadline 
• Implications on Workload 
• Proposal Tracking 
In addition there follows a discussion of process bottlenecks, duplications, and gaps, and 
comparisons of FFP with OFDA's and USDA's guidelines and proposal formats. 
 
DAP Proposal "Guidelines"
The "DAP Guidelines" for the PL 480 Title II program comprise over 80 pages of 
narrative, Annexes, proposal formats, appendices, and tables. It consists of both 
guidance for how to submit proposals and the proposal "application" itself. What is 
entitled the "DAP Guidelines" is actually an 8 page section of "guidelines," with a 
remaining 6 annexes 4 appendices. Annex A is called the "Proposal Format" and this, 
plus the other annexes and appendices, are considered to be the full proposal format. 
From an outsider's perspective, this can be confusing, since nowhere is the term "DAP 
Application" actually used. For purposes of this Report, the consultants will generally 
distinguish between the "guidance" section as the "Guidelines" and the "Proposal 
Format" sections of the DAP Guidelines as the "DAP Application." 
The DAP Proposal Guidelines are excessively long, hard to follow, and non-user 
friendly. They also include a number of incomplete references. For example: 
• FFP fails to make a clear distinction between guidelines and the actual 
application. 
 Final Streamlining Report: July 2003 38
• Several links provided in the on-line DAP Guidelines posted on the internet8
 do 
not function properly or yield a "file not found" error message (such as the link 
mentioned page 6 cited for P.L. 480 Title II Monetization Field Manual, 1985 
Background Paper and Guide to Addressing Bellmon Amendment Concerns on 
Potential Food Aid Disincentives and Storage, and the official USAID cable 
entitled, Bellmon Certification Requirements for P.L. 480 Title II Activities.)9
 
There is also a problem with the link provided for closeout guidance.10 
DAP Proposal Format ("Application")
The volume of documentation required in the DAP Proposal is highly intimidating. 
For example, Annex A alone has 13 sections and 8 Appendices. The layout is also 
confusing, as similar bits and pieces are required in different sections. For example, 
Section H asks for "narrative" about the Bellmon analysis and supporting statements, but 
the Actual Bellmon analysis must be included as Appendix G. 
FFP does not currently have the capability for on-line submission of emergency or 
development proposals. Nor is it currently taking steps to comply with the E-Grants 
initiative by developing an on-line application. However, by October 1, FFP will have 
to accept on-line proposal submissions in order to be in compliance with the 
President's E-Government Initiative. 
Data Elements Required for DAPs
As part of their process analysis, the Streamlining Consultants compiled a Data Audit of 
all the individual data requirements proscribed in the DAP Application. The raw list, 
with no content, totals seven pages and indicates 92 data elements, based strictly on the 
DAP Application format. (See Annex L. Audit of DAP Proposal Submission.) 
FFP staff commonly justify the arduous data elements required as due to burdensome US 
laws and regulations. The consultants attempted to determine to what extent these laws 
and regulations mandate these myriad data elements. To this end, the consultants 
analyzed the list of data elements to determine their source: whether US law or 
regulation, USAID policy, FFP policy, or simply "common" or "historical" practice by 
the Office. 
On review, the consultants determined that: 
• 41 or 45 % of data elements in the DAP Application appear to be required by law or 
regulation. 
• 34 data elements (37%) appear to be driven by both USAID and FFP policy. 
 
8
 Source: http://www.usaid.gov/hum_response/ffp/dap/dap4.docinternet 
9
 http//www.usaid.gov/hum_response/ffp/monetiz.htm 
10 http://www.usaid.gov/hum_response/ffp/closout.html 
 Final Streamlining Report: July 2003 39
• In addition, another 20 data elements (22 %) are unique to FFP policy – indicating 
that 59% of data elements overall are driven by FFP policy. 
• 8 items were driven by common practice. 
The above analysis implies that the majority of data elements are clearly driven by 
FFP policy, rather than by US law or regulation. Therefore, FFP has a much 
greater opportunity for streamlining the DAP application than is commonly 
understood. 
Emergency Proposal Guidelines & Process
FFP's "PVO Guidelines for Title II Emergency Food Proposals and Reporting" are still 
noted on the USAID website as in "draft" form (and have remained in draft for some 
time). Even the supposedly "simpler" process for emergency proposals could benefit 
from the streamlining initiative. The draft guidelines are comprised of 53 major data 
elements in 21 pages. 
Food for Peace internal guidance provides that the period from receipt of finalized 
emergency proposal to signed TA should be 21 days, yet this benchmark is often missed. 
In fact, excessive delays have occurred with emergency programs. Prominent among 
recent delays is a proposal for Eritrea that was subjected to a nearly six month process 
marked by inadequate responses, endless questions, lost proposals, and devotion to 
minutia. While FFP did finally succeed in making large amounts of food available to the 
region through commodity loans and other means, a FFP consultant and former FFP 
official described these programmatic delays as "tragic" in his report to USAID. 
Policy Guidance 
FFP has issued a "Policy Letter" each year along with the DAP Guidelines. From FFP's 
perspective, the Letter is an attempt to communicate new policy changes quickly to CSs 
separately without having to change the DAP Guidelines. Since policy changes more 
frequently than do application steps, this is seen as a good approach. However, issuing 
this separate Policy Letter has several negative implications on the process: 
• From a user perspective, it is impractical to review and understand two separate 
documents (the Policy Letter and the DAP Guidelines) at the same time. This is 
especially true when the Policy Letter is issued much later than the guidelines. (A 
change in the law now requires both to be issued at the same time.)
• There is a disconnect between the Policy Letter and the DAP Guidelines. There 
are references in the Guidelines to the Policy Letter, but little to no specific 
instruction or example for how the new policy impacts the application. For 
example: "Policy regarding allocation of monetization, Section 202(e) and non￾emergency ITSH will be provided in the forthcoming policy letter" (page 1). 
 Final Streamlining Report: July 2003 40
• Similarly, the Policy Letter highlights changes in legislative and regulatory 
matters, and changes in Agency and FFP policies. However, the Letter fails 
entirely to explain the implication of policy changes on the DAP application 
process. Without guidance, the CSs are left to the trouble of deciphering the 
Policy Letter on their own. 
• The Policy Letter is a highly bureaucratic document, densely laid out, and 
intimidating. The format for presenting this innately complex material to users 
must be simplified. 
FFP needs to revisit the concept of the "Policy Letter." It is indicative of a highly 
bureaucratic approach which is not achieving its desired intent. Rather, policy changes 
should be reflected clearly in the guidelines. 
Proposal Review
Processes are intended to be followed the same way each time to achieve the desired 
result. However the process of reaching an approval decision on a proposal is mainly the 
result of interpretation of policy arrived at through appropriate judgment. Since each 
individual's thought process is unique, the making of "interpretation" and "judgment" can 
not be dictated by guidelines. Thought processes are impossible to map in a workflow, as 
they stem from a series of judgments and interpretations. However, it can clearly be said 
that the consultative process can be the lengthiest sub-step in the overall approval 
process. 
FFP staff report that policy is a "moving target." Budget levels have varied several times 
this year, sometimes dramatically. Even static policies are interpreted differently by 
different people for different situations, depending on their level of training, their in￾country knowledge, or the depth of their institutional memory with Title II. When 
seeking guidance from team leaders and managers, inexperienced CBOs report receiving 
contrasting advice. In some cases, CBOs even report learning of policy changes or 
getting credible policy guidance from Cooperating Sponsors. 
Compliance with 120 Day DAP Approval Deadline
As of June 30, 2003, none of the 17 DAPs received on November 1, 2002 had TAs 
approved and signed within the 120-day period mandated by Congress.
11 (Two of 
the DAPs submitted were rejected within this period.) This serious delay appears to be 
caused by a myriad of factors including: 
• Work overload on November 1 (with CSR4s due on the same date) 
• Lack of training for CBOs 
• Delays in receiving FFPIS reports, cost sheets, and budget summary approvals 
 
11 This includes 15 DAPs, 1 Transitional Assistance program (TAP) which would be considered both Development 
and Emergency, and 1 Proposal for Consortium for Developmental Relief/Angola. 
 Final Streamlining Report: July 2003 41
• Defects in proposal submissions by PVOs (omissions, inconsistencies, mistakes) 
• Duplicative internal steps taken to verify data 
• errors due to transferring data manually from one source/format to another 
• Delays in obtaining approval signatures if key individuals are out of the office 
• Time required for CBOs to physically "walk" TA packages around between 2 
floors and 3 departments 
• Delays in obligating funds in NMS/Phoenix due to cumbersome, multi-step 
obligation process (however, this USAID process is out of FFP's control) 
• Delays for "interpretation" of policy, due to lack of clear policy guidance and 
training; often internal differences in interpretation take time to resolve 
• Inconsistent formats between how data is submitted in proposals, how it must be 
entered into FFPIS, and how data is reviewed for approval 
• Poor utilization of the Institutional Contractor to help reduce administrative 
burden 
In addition, there is not currently a consensus within FFP as to what exactly should 
be achieved within the 120 day proposal "approval" period. Even the recent IG 
Report is unclear, stating merely that FFP "has 120 days to accept or reject" a proposal. 
Currently, the DAP Guidelines are unclear regarding the definition of the 120 days 
window for program "approval." The Guidelines now state: "FFP will reach a final 
decision (approve and negotiate a signed transfer authorization, or deny approval) on 
DAP proposals within 120 days of submission of a complete document to FFP" (page 1). 
However, later the Guidelines state: "By the end of the 120-day period, FFP will 
communicate the decision made regarding approval or denial of the proposal" (page 2). 
These are 2 different definitions. 
It is the Consultants' understanding and belief that within the 120 days the TA must 
either be rejected or the TA formally approved and funds obligated. FFP should 
hold itself to this more rigorous standard to be true to the spirit and intent of 
streamlining. Management must clearly communicate this expectation to staff, 
document this in the proposal guidelines, and hold staff accountable for this goal - yet 
provide them with sufficient tools and resources to achieve it. 
 Final Streamlining Report: July 2003 42
How Long Should DAP Reviews Take?
The time for each step in the DAP review process can vary tremendously depending on 
office priorities. For example, there are substeps involved: 1) review proposal for 
comments and issues; 2) conduct research if necessary to clarify an issue or resolve 
dispute; 3) respond to other reviewers' comments; and 4) wait for PVO responses. 
Due to these variances, it is impossible to gauge the exact time needed to complete each 
substep in the review process. However, it is clear from the process review that the 
"actual" process time it takes staff members to execute actions is minor compared 
to the excessive "time in queue" waiting for a critical input from others before 
actions can be completed. Examples of critical inputs that staff "wait" for include: data 
items from FFPIS reports, approval signatures, decisions from management on a policy 
questions, budget approvals or action memos from POD, and endless feedback from 
missions, technical experts, and other proposal reviewers. Many times the critical input 
may be awaited from the PVOs as well. 
As stated earlier in this Report, compliance with the legislative requirement to finalize a 
non-emergency proposal (including the approval of the TA document) should be a 
maximum of 120 days. While the current challenge is for FFP to meet the 120 day 
approval deadline (as the rule, not the exception), in fact the timeframe could and 
possibly should be even shorter. 
 Final Streamlining Report: July 2003 43
In the Streamlining Surveys conducted, stakeholders were asked questions about the 
timing of DAP proposal reviews. Below is a summary of responses from FFP 
Washington. 
Figure 8: Survey Response from FFP/ Washington 
Source: Streamlining Surveys, Spring 2003 
It appears that 30% of FFP/Washington respondents believe that completed DAP 
approvals should occur in 60 days, while 25% were more comfortable within current 
timeframe of 120 days. 
Not surprisingly, Cooperating Sponsors responded quite differently: 
Figure 9: Survey Response from Cooperating Sponsors: 
Source: Streamlining Surveys, Spring 2003 
10. 
What is your personal expectation for the length of time it "should" 
take for USAID to reach the stage of an approved TA for a quality 5 
year Title II program? 
30 days 2 7%
31-60 days 16 53%
61 – 90 days 7 23%
91 – 120 days 3 10%
Not applicable 4 13%
Clearly 53% believed the review process should not exceed 60 days, while only 10% 
agreed with the current 120 day limit. It is noteworthy that 76% of CS respondents 
believe that it should take USAID no longer than 90 days to complete the review and 
approval of a quality Title II program. 
From the Cooperating Sponsor's perspective, much time is consumed by FFP's lack of 
immediate attention to the proposal, repetitive questions, and insignificant information 
requests. 
11.
What is your personal expectation for the length of time it "should" 
take for USAID to reach the stage of an approved Transfer 
Authorization (TA) based on a well-prepared DAP submission? 
30 days 1 5%
31-60 days 5 25%
61 – 90 days 1 5%
91 – 120 days 5 25%
Not applicable 8 40%
 Final Streamlining Report: July 2003 44
Bottlenecks, Duplications, Gaps
During the process review, the ERG/TCR team identified key points in FFP's proposal 
review process (DP and EP) where bottlenecks, duplication of effort, or gaps occurred 
that ultimately reduced efficiency and slowed the outcome. These items are highlighted 
in the following series of charts, along with implications and recommendations for 
immediate improvement. More detailed recommendations are provided in Section VII. 
Figure 10: Process Review: Bottlenecks
BOTTLENECKS Implications Recommendations 
1. Data entry of AER data into 
FFPIS (both proposals & 
CSR4s) 
o Delay in review/approval 
process 
o Staff spend time and effort 
developing/using personal 
spreadsheets to get around the 
bottleneck 
o Upgrade FFPIS with user friendly 
data entry and make accessible to 
CBOs on their desktop; 
o Enable CBOs to input AER data in 
"pending" mode 
o Clarify requests to POD 
o Need feedback mechanism to 
CBOs if problem with AER that 
needs to be resolved 
2. Output/delivery of FFPIS 
Reports (Line 8 & Line 17) to 
CBOs 
o CBOs delayed in completing 
TA documentation 
o Post Line 8 & Line 17 Reports on 
intranet 
3. POD Budget reviews of 
proposals 
o Delay in review/approval 
process 
o Time spent on minor issues 
o Train more POD staff to perform 
this function to reduce reliance on 
1-2 people 
o Clarify POD review role 
o Enhance CBO training 
o Written internal guidance 
4. POD completion & sign-off of 
Cost Sheets for emergency 
proposals 
o Delay in review/approval 
process 
o Time spent on minor issues 
o Expand the approval of Cost 
Sheets beyond 1-2 individuals 
o Clarify POD review role 
o Enhance CBO training 
o Written internal guidance 
5. Back & forth with CSs to 
finalize DAP Proposal (defective 
inputs) 
o Delay in review/approval 
process 
o Clarify written guidance to CSs 
o Include a proposal template format 
in the guidance for CSs 
6. DAPs and CSR4s all due to FFP 
on same date (Nov. 1) 
o Work overload for FFP and 
CSs 
o Defective submissions 
o Delay in review/approval 
process 
o Immediately change due date for 
DAPs to February 15. 
o Immediately change due date for 
CSR4s to Nov. 1 and Jan. 15 
o Immediately communicate change 
in due dates to CSs, FFP/W, and 
Missions 
7. Time lag in obtaining multiple 
signatures for TAs & TA 
amendments. 
o Delay in review/approval 
process 
Establish designated approval 
times/hours, to ensure availability of 
signatories. 
8. Need for multiple signatures 
/approvals for NMS 
o Delay in review/approval 
process 
Consider re-delegation of approval 
authorities 
 Final Streamlining Report: July 2003 45
Figure 11: Process Review: Duplication of Effort 
DUPLICATION OF EFFORT Implications Recommendations 
1. CBOs copy data from FFPIS 
Reports (Line 8 & Line 17) into 
TA documentation 
o Waste of CBO time to copy 
data 
o High risk of duplication errors 
o Waste of POD time to re￾check the data entered by 
CBOs 
o Cease immediately 
o Allow FFPIS Report data to be 
included in TA package as 
attachments 
2. CBOs manually copy data from 
proposals to Proposal Review 
Worksheets and CSR4 Evaluation 
Worksheets 
o Waste of CBO time to copy 
data 
o High risk of duplication errors 
o Waste of POD time to re￾check the data entered by 
CBOs 
o Utilize Institutional Contractor to 
summarize and provide this data 
3. CBOs manually copy data from 
Cost Sheet into TA Template (for 
EP) 
o CBOs spend much time 
checking figures on 
calculators 
o Revise Cost Sheet to correlate 
with TAs 
o Use electronic version of Cost 
Sheet so data can at least be cut & 
pasted into TA template 
4. CBOs manually copy data and 
background information on 
Action Memo for WFP-PRO 
proposals 
o Waste of CBO time to copy 
data 
o High risk of duplication errors 
o Waste of POD time to re￾check the data entered by 
CBOs 
o Use Institutional Contractor to 
provide background in 
standardized format 
5. POD/AMEX returns final TA file 
to CBO to photocopy: CBO then 
returns to POD/AMEX for 
distribution. 
o Waste of CBO time. 
o Risk of losing TA file. 
o Under utilization of AMEX 
support 
o Use Institutional Contractor to 
manage file transfers. 
o Reduce the flow of paperwork by 
more widespread use electronic 
formats 
6. FFP conducted full 
review/approval of CSR4s 
o Majority of CBO/POD time 
spent on CSR4 reviews rather 
than EP or DP proposals 
o Clarify the minimum 
review/approval requirements 
needed 
o Simplify the CSR4 review process 
7. Completion of Proposal Review 
Worksheets often requires 
repeating information already 
provided in the proposal 
o Adds one more layer of 
review and complexity to the 
process 
o Delays in process 
o Risk of errors 
o Develop a "checklist" that 
addresses & communicates the 
CBO's proposal review 
o FFP should develop meaningful 
criteria for the review 
o Checklist should include an 
"approval recommendation" action 
indicating yes, no, or pending 
(with key items to be addressed) 
 Final Streamlining Report: July 2003 46
Figure 12: Process Review: Gaps
GAPS Implications Recommendations 
1. Lag time between when TA is 
approved, and when FFPIS is 
updated (from "pending" to 
"approved" mode) 
o FFPIS information is often 
outdated 
o FFP staff spend time and effort 
"second-guessing" FFPIS and 
making their own calculations 
o Establish clear steps for how 
information is supplied to FFPIS 
following TA approval 
o Include final approval data entry 
on suggested "Tracking Log" (see 
below) to ensure completion 
o Management should stress to staff 
the priority for keeping FFPIS 
updated on a more timely basis, 
and hold staff accountable. 
2. No consistent tracking of 
proposals (or amendments, 
CSR4s) review/approval 
process 
o Lack of responsibility 
o No sense of urgency 
o Lack of management oversight 
& holding staff accountable 
o Many items left pending 
o Several items lost 
o Immediately develop a "Tracking 
Log" to track progress/status on 
proposals, amendments, CSR4s 
o Designate responsibility for 
maintaining the log (e.g. AMEX) 
o Post the Tracking Log on the 
Intranet, available to all staff, 
updated daily 
o Urge staff to keep the log updated 
o Managers should use the log as a 
management tool. 
3. No established intermediate 
milestones within the 120 DAP 
review period 
o Lack of responsibility 
o No sense of urgency 
o Lack of management oversight 
& holding staff accountable 
o Immediately establish milestones 
for key steps in the proposal 
review process 
o Managers should set expectations, 
manage to these milestones, and 
hold staff accountable. 
4. Travel schedules can hold up 
clearances – lack of established 
back-up for travel 
o Delays in approval process o Keep updated travel schedule and 
post on intranet 
o Management should better 
coordinate travel schedules 
o Management should ensure back￾up for staff on travel, including 
shifting NMS/Phoenix roles 
 Final Streamlining Report: July 2003 47
Implications on Workload
Overlapping Due Dates: Currently, both DAPs and CSR4s are due on November 1. 
However, there is sufficient evidence that some FFP staff do not begin reviewing these 
documents until up to several months later. The submission of DAPs and CSR4s must be 
phased to avoid this impossible work overload for both FFP and partners. 
Based on much input from partners and staff, the suggested new submission schedule
would be: 
• Annual Results Report due: November 1st (this provides programmatic 
results for FFP for Congressional reporting, however it would not include 
year-end financials - this would be sent in with the Resource Request).
• Resource Requests due: January 15 (this would include year-end financials 
from the prior fiscal year). 
• DAP submissions due: February 15. 
Development Division Workload: The Development Division had the following 
workload for FY 04 as of June 19, 2003:12
• 15 DAPs 
• 1 TAP 
• 1 Consortium proposal 
 
In addition, for FY 04, DP has been engaged in: 
• 64 CSR4s 
• 2 DAP Amendments 
• 15 Results Reports (from prior programs) 
• 41 202(e) Obligation TA Modifications (as of 6/5/2003) 
• 92 TA Modifications for commodity levels 
• 38 TA Modifications for commodity levels pending (includes those for 
forward funded FY04 program activities) 
CBOs are reviewing DAPs submitted for the current fiscal year and CSR4s submitted 
annually for years 2 through 6 of the DAP. Out of the 64 CSR4s received November 1, 
2002, only 7 were approved as of 6/19/0313 It appears the volume of work handled CBOs 
is substantially above and beyond the DAP review and approval process. Clearly FFP's 
streamlining effort must be directed not only at DAP review/approvals but also at 
review/approvals of DAP amendments and results reporting as well. 
 
12 Data provided by AMEX International. 
13 Same as above. 
 Final Streamlining Report: July 2003 48
Emergency Division (EP) Workload: Based on FFPIS reports of June 17, 2003, EP had 
received 126 proposals for FY 03. Of this number, 88 approvals had been approved, 16 
amended, 10 rejected, and 12 were pending. Of the 88 approved proposals, 22 were from 
PVOs (25%), 26 from WFP (30%), and the remaining were pledges14 (45%). 
These figures do not indicate the true workload for EP staff. For example, proposals 
addressing complex crises in the Horn of Africa, Southern Africa, and Iraq involved 
substantially greater input, coordination, time, and resources to process than usual. 
The workload volume in FFP is clearly overwhelming. However, FFP's pre-occupation 
with process minutia actually magnifies the workload. This causes delays not only in 
non-emergency programs, but in emergency programs as well. 
For example, the nearly six month review of the emergency proposal for Eritrea 
mentioned earlier was partly due to: apparent lack responsiveness of FFP to the field, 
slow closure on budget reviews, and poor guidance. Tragically, these types of delays 
may lead directly to increases in mortality and malnutrition. 
To help reduce the workload, FFP should: 1) provide more instruction to staff on setting 
priorities and discerning what is really important; 2) conduct closer staff supervision to 
ensure staff are using their time wisely; 3) reduce duplicative or unnecessary steps which 
do not add value to the process. 
Tracking 
In high performance organizations, "what is measured is managed." Therefore, a good 
way to gage what is being managed is to examine what and how work output is 
measured. During their review, the consultants found a dearth of reliable, updated, 
complete, and intelligible mechanisms for tracking the status of either emergency or 
non-emergency proposal approvals. Prior attempts at developing tracking sheets were 
discovered, but were either not in use, or had never been fully implemented. 
The consultants posed these fundamental programmatic questions to FFP senior 
management: 
1) What is the number of FY 04 proposals that FFP has been received since October 1, 
2003 (Emergency, Non-emergency, Development-Relief) and what is their current 
status? 
2) What is the number of CSR4s received since October 1, 2003, and what is their 
current status? 
3) What is the number of DAP amendments handled since October 1, 2003? 
4) What percentage of DAP proposals were actually approved (meaning TA was signed) 
within the 120 day timeframe? 
 
14 The WFP Pledge Proposal is an agreement arranged between the USG and WFP for FY 2003 for a certain dollar 
value. Multiple contributions are made under the Pledge to individual countries up to that dollar ceiling. 
 Final Streamlining Report: July 2003 49
The collection of this most basic information took over a week and required the 
helpful assistance of several AMEX staff. The information was not readily available. 
This lack of availability reveals a critical weakness in FFP's internal management 
systems. 
Without good tracking data, how can FFP hold itself accountable? This basic dearth of 
an updated tracking mechanism is in itself an indication of the lack of attention 
which FFP has historically placed on timely service delivery and quality control. 
Comparison of FFP and USDA Guidelines and Applications
In contrast with FFP, USDA/FAS has an exemplary on-line application form for its 
McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program. (See 
Annex M for a sample.) USDA has been in the process of developing on-line proposal 
submission capability for all of its programs. It has allowed electronic submissions for its 
Food for Progress and Section 416(b) programs for the past two years. The M/D Food 
for Education on-line format is a refinement of that process and has several aspects which 
FFP could replicate. While these developments are encouraging, it should be noted 
however that USDA still has significant delays in program approvals. 
Comparison of FFP and OFDA's Review & Approval Process
The Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA) deals with urgent short-term response 
situations which do not necessarily involve commodities. However, some of OFDA's 
proposal application, review, and approval processes could be adopted by FFP. 
Distinguishing features include: 
• OFDA's "Recommended Proposal Format" is simply laid out on a page and a half. 
• OFDA's "Recommended Results Report Format" is less than 1 page long. 
• In Annex N, OFDA has a one page "Guidelines for New Applicants." FFP could 
benefit from adopting a similar approach. 
• Solicitation are currently posted on www.grants.gov. 
• Submissions are done via e-mail. 
• No required Review Meeting 
• Ability to conduct Virtual Review Meetings if necessary 
• Ability to conduct immediate determination if a proposal is "grant worthy" 
Quick Impact Projects (QIPs): OFDA has a streamlined pre-grant process for 
anticipating an emergency or extreme situation. For example, OFDA had 6 QIPs in place 
with relief organizations before hostilities even started in Iraq. For QIPs, the Field office 
submits a one page plan with estimates, and OFDA can set aside funds for 
administrative and technical costs in advance. With many years of experience with 
trusted Cooperating Sponsors, FFP could establish a pilot QIP-type program. This would 
involve working with CSs to prepare documentation requirements in advance and agree 
to operate on a "work order" basis when emergency food was needed. 
 Final Streamlining Report: July 2003 50
V.C. Systems Analysis: Food for Peace Information System (FFPIS) 
The purpose of the Food for Peace Information System (FFPIS) is to track data and 
information requirements based on commodities approved for use in the PL 480 Title II 
Program. The system tracks all individual commodities in the two million ton Title II 
program by commodity, type, country, Cooperating Sponsor, and value. 
Data generated from FFPIS is critical to the Transfer Authorization (TA) approval 
process. FFPIS houses the historical database of FFP programs, commodities, and 
approvals, and is the basis for FFP's financial management and budget process. Aside 
from the standard reports used by FFP staff, FFPIS is used to generate special reports in 
response to specific information requests from OMB, Agency management, or Congress. 
Despite its critical importance, FFPIS is clearly the source of considerable frustration and 
concern at FFP. It is also the source of many myths, misunderstandings, and some 
personnel conflicts within the Office. The following section is intended to provide insight 
and understanding into this system, address some misconceptions, and share feedback from 
users. Specific suggestions for future FFPIS improvements are detailed in Section VII. 
Background on FFPIS
 
FFPIS was developed in 1992 by ARTI (a subcontractor to Mendez England, the prior 
Institutional Contractor). The FFPIS is comprised of 11 modules: 6 operational and 5 code 
tables. The FFPIS was the first information system developed in USAID on a Unix 
platform. It runs under the Sybase Relational Database Management System (RDBMS). 
The FFPIS is a data model of USAID's P.L. 480 program and has a modular architecture 
with each module serving a specific function. Each module includes its own data entry and 
report writing function. The operational modules are: 
1. Budget Planning/Congressional Presentation 
2. Requests 
3. Calls Forward 
4. Procurement 
5. Booking/Shipping, and 
6. Other (Food Aid Committee/Food Aid History) 
The system includes over 100 tables producing an equivalent number of automated reports. 
It includes approximately 60 megabytes of data ranging from current operating year data to 
historical data and tracks over $2 billion in commodities. The system is complex because of 
the large number of tables and because it manipulates a variety of commodity-based data as 
well as financial data. It also includes a series of well-defined data integrity checks to ensure 
the output is consistent and reliable. 
FFPIS currently uses a UNIX computer as its host, with a Sun Solaris 2.6 operating 
system. Some people mistakenly believe that FFPIS is DOS based because it is normally 
accessed via a PC from the DOS prompt. This however it not the case. The database 
 Final Streamlining Report: July 2003 51
resides inside a firewall. Currently, ORACLE is the Agency's standard database 
management software. However, FFPIS was developed using Sybase, the manufacturer of 
the database where the FFPIS data is stored. 
FFP currently uses the UNIX-version of the Sybase database, version 12003 (the first 
Y2K compliant version). Sybase APT is currently used to create data entry screens, 
however APT is no longer supported by Sybase. The FFPIS System Administrator also 
uses a series of C shell scripts (AWK, Perl, and discontinued shareware software) to 
generate the FFPIS reports. 
Prior FFPIS Systems Improvements
When the FFPIS was developed, the Agency did not have a level of computing power 
sufficient to allow its staff to access the database from their individual desktop computers. 
Today, this constraint no longer exists, and the Agency is moving as rapidly as possible 
toward a desktop client-server environment. In addition, the system was developed an entire 
generation before the internet and web-based applications. In 1999, the operating system 
and database were last updated to Y2K compliant versions. No upgrades in operating system 
or database platform have occurred since then. 
Current Strengths of FFPIS
While FFPIS has numerous limitations that are detailed below, the system does have 
strengths: 
• Stability: To date, FFPIS has been extremely stable. It is always up and running 
for users, unlike some other applications used by FFP, such as MS Outlook. 
• Historical Record: The FFPIS reports contain important historical data from 
1992. FFPIS is the key source of empirical data for FFP management use. 
• Security: The system appears to be secure, and USAID's IRM (Information 
Resource Management) firewall keeps hackers out. There appears to be little to 
no threat of viruses. Safeguards are in place for novices to access and generate 
reports but not to compromise data by accidental data entry. Further, each user 
has a special login with restricted access based on their level of management and 
use of the system. 
User Feedback
FFP and the institutional contractor initiated an internal IT Systems & Hardware 
Proficiency Survey to better understand the needs of FFP Washington and field staff. 
While the survey had many limitations, 15 staff responded. The following are the 
responses indicating problems with FFPIS: 
 Final Streamlining Report: July 2003 52
Figure 13: Sample Staff Responses 
Source: IT Systems & Hardware Proficiency Survey (Spring 2003) 
The consultants received similar feedback in their Streamlining Survey (see Annexes F 
and G). 
Data Entry
The key data elements input into the system come from the AERs (Annual Estimate of 
Requirements) received by CSs as part of their proposal and CSR4 submissions. AER 
data is entered for every proposal, amendment, and CSR4. The system aggregates the 
data for further use in the review and approval process, for budget tracking, and the 
generation of special reports. 
Data entry into FFPIS is arcane and difficult, and poses a major constraint. It requires a 
prescribed stream of sequential queries that must be input into the system. Training and 
experience is required to know the codes necessary for data entry. Currently, one staff 
member is the expert (with two back ups). One cannot proceed to the next screen until 
the prior one is completed. If one field is missing (due to incomplete data), then the 
process stops. The data is originally input in a "pending" mode (prior to approval). 
Following approval, the data is then shifted to "approval" mode. All data must be re￾entered whenever changes or amendments occur. 
The data display on the current data entry screen is archaic and non-user friendly. It is a 
sore reminder of what computer data looked like a decade ago before Windows-type 
applications. 
Question: What features of the FFPIS System cause the most problems? 
1. "Summary dollar and tonnage figures are not easily available." 
2. "Everything needs to be printed rather than used on the screen." 
3. "Info requestor must be very clear to AMEX staff what report data they would like 
to have, otherwise they won't get what they want." 
4. "There are data which it doesn't track. It's not always up to date. The 5 year stat 
sheets only appear if there's an current year approval: we need to see the stat 
sheets on prior years even if there's no activity." 
5. "The system would be more useful if all CBOs had access to the information 
electronically." 
 Final Streamlining Report: July 2003 53
The following is a sample FFPIS data entry screen: 
Figure 14: Sample FFPIS Data Entry Screen Query 
<prancer:steve> 1 /home/steve % repmenu 
 FFPIS 
 Reporting Subsystem 
 GROUPS REPORTS 
 ADJ Weekly_OYB 
 BPD *OYB_202E 
 BUDREQ OYB_COMM 
 CF OYB_IND_COMM 
 FAC OYB_TL1 
 FAO OYB_All_Countries 
 FRGHT OYB_202E_Emergency 
 LOGISTICS OYB_202E_All_Countries 
 *OYB 
 REQ 
 REQPK 
 SHIP 
 SITREP 
 WFP 
 YEAR_END 
 d=down | u=up | b=browse (see all reports) h=See Help for this 
Report 
 x=exit to previous | <return> to select RUN MODE IS ON 
 FFPIS Report Thu Mar 13 
 Title II & Section 202(e) 
 Approved or Pending Quantities 
 
 As of : Thu Mar 13 
 Please enter the Fiscal Year: 2003 
 Report For [L8][L17] :l17 
 Approved, Pending programs or Both? [A/P/B] :a 
 
 Reduce Approvals by Fallout? [Y/N] :n 
 You may select All Countries, Specify a Region, 
 or Select a Single Country 
 For [ A)ll / R)egion / C)ountry ] :r 
 Final Streamlining Report: July 2003 54
FFPIS Report Usage 
According to the IT survey conducted by FFP: 
• 77% said that FFPIS was very important or important to their job function 
• 62% said that FFPIS report generating capacity should be improved 
Respondents were asked which FFPIS reports they most frequently used:15
• Pending and Approved Line 17 
• Pending and Approved Line 8 Report 
• Approved Budget Summary 
• Approved Activity Report 
• Call Forward Status Reports 
• Approved Budget Summary Report 
• WFP Pledge Tracking Report 
• Monetization Report 
• SO#1 Total Approved Programs 
• SO#2 Total Approved Programs 
• Approved Programs by Commodity (all sponsors) 
• Approved Programs by Country (all sponsors) 
• Approved Programs by Sponsor 
• Program Approval Reports 
• Commodity Status Reports (fallout)
• Pending Quantities 
Report Generation & Access 
As stated above, a key function of FFPIS is the generation of important reports which are 
used in the review and approval process. The most commonly referred to and requested 
by CBOs are the Line 8 and Line 17 reports. Currently, when CBOs request one data 
element from one report, apparently the entire report must be printed out, and the 
requested hard copy page removed and distributed to the requester. 
In the course of conducting research for this Report, the consultants discovered that there 
were in fact several FFPIS reports currently available on USAID's intranet updated on a 
daily basis. These can be found at www.prancer.usaid.gov ("prancer" is the alias for the 
FFPIS computer). Anyone with USAID Intranet access can get these reports by typing a 
password. However, few staff members knew about this nor knew the password. 
The on-line reports do not require full printing in order to find one data element. For 
example, the Emergency and Non-Emergency Program References pages within the FFP 
homepage show reports on call forward status and shipping logistics which can be 
viewed and select pages printed. While these few reports have been uploaded to the 
USAID Intranet, it would be relatively simple and cost effective to do the same with 
other reports in wide demand by CBOs. Management could effect this change 
 
15 Report titles are those used by respondents, and may not be accurate. 
 Final Streamlining Report: July 2003 55
immediately. Mission staff could also have access via the password. The FFPIS Systems 
Administrator has developed a "prototype" webpage for the display of FFPIS reports 
which is presented in Annex O. 
FFP staff are currently unable to access a read-only version of FFPIS for informative 
purposes. This was identified earlier as a key bottleneck in the proposal review and 
approval process. FFPIS data should be available to CBOs and AMEX staff at their 
desktops. FFP Mission/Field staff also need access to FFPIS information. Field officers 
now keep their own totals and spreadsheets to track call forwards and commodity/freight 
values which often do not correspond to FFPIS data. Field staff must then ask FFP/W to 
periodically verify the figures. This places additional burden on FFP/Washington staff. 
The initial intention was to keep the system restricted to only a select few for security 
purposes. Clearly FFP needs to assure greater access to FFPIS reports, given the outcry 
of requests by staff. In short, everyone who needs them should have immediate 
access to FFPIS reports, both in Washington and in the field. This can be achieved 
in the short term by immediately posting key FFPIS reports to the USAID intranet. In the 
medium term, FFP needs to pursue systems enhancements to FFPIS that make the data 
available on the internet, with password protections. 
Inaccurate FFPIS Data
Concern and frustration is widespread among FFP staff that FFPIS information is "never 
up to date." The consultants were unable to verify this directly, nor determine the root 
cause. However, there were sufficient complaints to indicate a major problem. The 
following is concrete example of problems with accuracy and availability of FFPIS data 
as described by a Food Aid Monitor: 
"I am responsible for the West Africa Commodity Management (WACOM) 
database. I use [FFPIS] reports to update our database concerning the 
approved quantity per country and CS. Unfortunately sometimes, I have 
problems with the FFPIS report data which don’t correspond to field 
data. For example, the FFPIS FY 2002 report (as of Mar 26, 2003) 
doesn’t present any approved commodity for Sierra Leone but in reality 
Sierra Leone received for FY 2002 approved commodity 37,050 MT 
(12,900 for CRS, 9,060 for WVI, 8,560 for WFP and 6,530 for CARE). For 
CRS (in Senegal and Gambia), FFP approved 1,864 MT of food in FY 
2002, this figure does not exist on the FY 2002 FFPIS report. The same 
problem exists on the FY 2003 FFPIS report... Also, we need (ASAP) an 
updated report of the FY 2003 FFPIS." 
FFP needs to immediately review FFPIS data and correct any inaccuracies that exist. 
Steps should also be taken to ensure that FFPIS data is continuously updated. The 
consultants believe this is a data entry issue, rather than a system issue. There should be 
an internal inquiry to determine the root cause and address the problem, whether due to 
lack of training, lack of attention to detail, or lack of management oversight. 
 Final Streamlining Report: July 2003 56
Connectivity
The consultants were asked to address how FFPIS might link to other systems (e.g., 
FARES) for purposes of proposal submission, program management and reporting. 
Since FFPIS is a USAID system and FARES is a USDA system, this is inherently 
problematic. These connectivity issues are being considered as part of the FAAS Phase I 
initiative mentioned earlier. However the timeframe for FAAS has yet to be determined 
and the outcome is uncertain. 
Below is a sketch comparing how data is transferred now ("as is") from the time of 
proposal submission to call forward, and how it is envisioned under FAAS ("to be"): 
Figure 15: Process Comparison: Connectivity 
 
PVOs submit proposals 
(Hard Copy, E-mail) 
FFPIS System (USAID/FFP) 
Used to check AER 
Gives value of program (Line 17) 
FAAS System 
("Food Aid Agreement System) 
Review & Approval process 
Generates cost sheets & Line 17 report 
FARES System 
(USDA) 
Used for Call forwards 
of commodities 
MANUAL 
INPUT of data 
MANUAL 
INPUT of data 
"AS IS PROCESS" "TO BE PROCESS" 
FAAS 
PVOs submit proposals 
(On-Line) 
Approved 
Review 
Proposal Submission 
FARES System 
(USDA) 
Used for Call forwards 
of commodities 
Calls Forward 
 Final Streamlining Report: July 2003 57
A more critical connectivity issue is how data from FFP's eventual on-line proposal 
applications will link with FFPIS. As mentioned earlier, FFP will need to accept on-line 
proposal submissions as of October 1. However, technology is not currently in place 
within USAID to "upload" the proposal data electronically to FFPIS. 
There are initiatives currently underway in the Office of Procurement to address general 
connectivity issues arising from the E-Grants initiative. FFP should be engaged in this 
effort to ensure its needs will be met as technology upgrades are put in place. 
Improved Management of FFPIS 
While FFPIS has serious limitations, it has unfortunately become a scapegoat for 
process delays at FFP which have less to do with technology and more to do with 
deficiencies in management, oversight, and communication. Clearly FFPIS has its 
technological limitations as detailed above. However, any system, no matter how 
advanced, must be managed effectively and designed as appropriate to the needs of users. 
There are several key items that FFP could address immediately to improve the 
effectiveness of FFPIS through sound management practices regardless of any upgrades 
or enhancements that may or may not be made to FFPIS. 
These suggestions for management are: 
• Establish an internal standard for data entry of AERs (e.g. 48 hours turnaround) 
and report generation (e.g. 48 hours following request) to ensure timely 
turnaround, and establish an internal "customer service orientation." 
• In order to track the above standard, start a "Data Entry Request Log" showing 
date, time, item, and requestor. The date/time the data entry was completed should 
also be noted. Management should check the log periodically to ensure that this 
internal standard is being achieved. 
• Provide clearer guidance to data entry staff on how to prioritize report requests. 
Communicate these priorities to FFP staff to manage expectations. For example, 
during the DAP review period, DAP-related data entry and report generation 
should be top priority. 
• Establish a standard operating procedure for communication between data entry 
staff and CBOs in the event of defective or incomplete AER data. 
• Train staff who conduct data entry and generate reports to adopt an internal 
"customer service" orientation. Few staff have training in and access to FFPIS. 
FFP staff complain that these select few sometimes act as "gate keepers" to fellow 
staff rather than as service providers. Management should mentor staff in shifting 
away from this mentality. 
Other specific recommendations on FFPIS are detailed in Section VII: Recommendations 
and Required Actions. 
 Final Streamlining Report: July 2003 58
V.D. Other Process/Systems Analyses
Calls Forward
Until recently, the actions involved in "calling forward" (ordering) food commodities 
following program approval were a complex, time consuming, and paper-laden process 
for the two million ton program. In order to generate the "orders," Cooperating Sponsor 
field managers would prepare a "call forward request" listing the commodities required 
and their requested shipping dates. That request was then sent through the local USAID 
mission and the Cooperating Sponsors' headquarters to FFP. FFP staff reviewed the 
order, processed it against their approval records, and sent it to USDA/Washington. 
Then, USDA/Washington would send the request to USDA/Kansas City, who would 
ultimately buy the commodity. The process was obviously in need of automation and as a 
result, the FARES system was developed (which is described earlier in this Report). 
FARES is clearly an improvement over the old procedure. However, FFP's recent July 
2003 experience with "live" ordering through FARES indicates that the technology has 
not been fully embraced. Future success will partly depend on careful written 
explanations to users. 
FFP/POD plans to send a letter to all Cooperating Sponsors in August announcing that 
FARES is fully operational and that calls forward will no longer be accepted in paper 
form. However, based on the streamlining survey from April/May, only 55% of CSs 
had access to FARES: 
Figure 16: Survey Responses from Cooperating Sponsors 
Source: Streamlining Survey, Spring 2003
15. 
Are you currently able to access/use the 
FARES system? 
Yes 13 45%
No 16 55%
FFP management must ensure that CSs are brought on board as quickly as possible 
to ensure that FARES can be used in the exclusive manner intended. 
 Final Streamlining Report: July 2003 59
Budgeting And Financial Management
Budgeting and financial management activities within the Office of Food For Peace are 
complex, not well understood by many staff, and subject to an endless stream of 
requirements ranging from Congressional Budget Justifications to reviews of detailed 
proposal budgets. Financial management of a program that exceeds $1.2 billion in 
resources requires substantial reporting requirements and analytical capacity. 
Staff are currently overwhelmed with daily demands and these fiscal responsibilities 
involved are daunting. This combination of budgeting and financial management 
responsibilities for a worldwide activity that exceeds $1.2 billion is an obvious strain and 
limiting factor in FFP operations. 
For its financial management and budgeting responsibilities, FFP should consider a 
separate Financial Management and Budget Unit, with additional financial and budget 
analysis staff. This Financial Management and Budget Unit would be separated from 
commodity management tasks and would be led by an experienced USAID Controller. 
This would greatly enhance FFP's ability to handle financial and budgetary matters more 
promptly, efficiently, and consistently. 
Regulation 11
With nearly a fifty year history, the PL 480 program has an extensive record of legislative 
change. For those organizations involved in Title II of PL 480, no single item of guidance 
is more important than "Regulation 11," or Title 22 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 
Part 211. Regulation 11 notes that it "provides the standard terms and conditions 
applicable to Title II programs." The current Regulation is a twenty-two page single 
spaced document covering twelve separate sections. 
The last time Regulation 11 was updated with applicable legal and other changes was to 
incorporate provisions from the 1990 "Farm Bill." Since then, there have been three 
successive "Farm Bills" with significant changes to Title II – although none of those 
changes have been codified in Regulation 11. A major backlog of revisions exists. 
An updated, usable Regulation 11 is critically needed and must be included in the 
Agency's Automated Directives System (ADS). Program authorities have changed; 
participant responsibilities are different; funding limits have been revised; and 
terminology and interpretations have changed dramatically in the twelve years since 
Regulation 11 was last revised. Revision of Regulation 11 must be among FFP’s 
highest priorities. 
 Final Streamlining Report: July 2003 60
VI. Findings 
The consultants' assessment of streamlining opportunities has encompassed a very wide 
range of inquiry, including work processes, internal office procedures, and management 
information systems. The SOW asked for a review of "program implementation issues 
as well as systems and procedures" to "identify gaps in knowledge, training needs and/or 
system changes." Presented below is a summary of the findings of that assessment which 
cover the FFP operating environment, administration, program management, and 
information systems associated with the Title II program. 
It is noteworthy that many key findings and recommendations that have been made 
independently in this Report are similar to those highlighted in past reviews conducted 
over the last four years. A trend of repetitive findings and recommendations was found 
from sequential reports. The repetitive nature of these prior findings and 
recommendations was so striking that the Streamlining Consultants prepared a matrix to 
compare them (See Annex P). 
Annex P presents a summary of generic recommendations from these Reports with nine 
major subject areas listed. The matrix reveals that prior recommendations for key 
operational improvements to FFP have been largely ignored or simply not 
implemented from 1999. The ERG/TCR team found that all of the underlining concerns 
that were the rationale for these recommendations still exist and still require immediate 
high-level management attention. 
The findings below are presented in the following categories: 
• FFP Operating Environment 
• FFP Administration and Financial Management 
• Program Management 
• Bottlenecks: Review & Approval Process 
• Staffing, Professional Development, and Personnel Management 
• Systems & Technology 
FFP Operating Environment
1. The recent enormous growth in Title II program size and responsibility 
requires an end to "business as usual." The PL 480 Title II program received 
over $1.8 Billion in appropriations for FY 2003. While that level was unusual for 
many reasons, appropriations of approximately $1.2 billion can be expected on a 
continuing basis. At that level, the program simply cannot be managed by 
USAID in the manner of prior years. Lack of critical staff, excessive process, 
preoccupation with detail, and overwhelming documentation requirements are 
completely incompatible with a $1.2 billion program. Economies of scale and the 
management decisions to achieve them are essential and urgently needed. The 
congressional mandate to streamline, which will strengthen FFP's internal 
operations and procurement systems, adds urgent impetus to an already essential 
task. 
 Final Streamlining Report: July 2003 61
2. The Title II program, while an activity of USAID, has been greatly impacted 
by numerous external influences over the past 18 months which have 
required extraordinary attention and have consumed management time and 
resources. 
 These influences include: 
• Unprecedented emergencies (Ethiopia) 
• An extended period of Continuing Resolutions 
• Changing commodity prices 
• Complex emergencies with important foreign policy implications (Iraq, 
Afghanistan, and North Korea) 
In addition, revised appropriation levels and a complicated process of receiving 
funds from the U.S. Department of Agriculture add complexity to managing the 
program. The planned Millennium Challenge Account may target many of the 
countries served by Title II, and its administration may ultimately affect Title II 
policies and procedures as well. 
The Agency and the leadership of Title II have done much to deal with these 
influences over the past 18 months. However, the Agency now must shift its 
attention to a management focus for Title II that creates and sustains far greater 
program efficiency. 
3. The Office of Food for Peace has developed a Concept Paper for its new 
Strategic Plan that can be the basis for streamlining. The new Concept Paper 
proposes a focused strategic objective – Food insecurity in vulnerable populations 
reduced – with matching intermediate results to enhance FFP’s global leadership 
in food aid and to increase Title II program impact in the field. In addition, a 
crucial intermediate result that links the strategic framework is "timely and 
efficient program management achieved." This strategic approach provides the 
most immediate opportunity to recommit the Agency to timely, efficient and 
effective management of Title II. 
 
4. Basic regulatory guidance for Title II is inexcusably outdated by over a 
decade and no Title II guidance exists in the Agency’s Automated Directive 
System. The lack of updated regulations causes reliance on "ad hoc" 
interpretations, a long outdated Handbook, and internal memos, emails and notes 
that are not codified, sometimes inconsistent, and occasionally forgotten. 
5. Although there have been four major reviews of FFP’s administration of 
Title II since 1999, the Agency has devoted insufficient attention to their 
findings and recommendations. In addition, there have been prior GAO reports 
and other reports dealing with FFP management. The recommendations in these 
reports are remarkably consistent: e.g. the need for clearer, more succinct 
guidance, substantially reduced documentation requirements, shorter time periods 
for program review and approval, better trained staff, and simplified reporting 
 Final Streamlining Report: July 2003 62
requirements. However, only a few recommendations have been implemented to 
date. 
6. There is a high cost for delays in program approvals for development 
programs and for some emergency programs. Such delays lead to a 
"bunching" of requirements for commodity purchases and freight services 
late in the Fiscal Year, often at higher costs. This situation is exacerbated by 
similar delays in USDA programs occurring at the same time. The result is 
excessive demand on commodity and freight suppliers for large amounts of 
commodity and freight services within a short timeframe. Preliminary analyses of 
select Title II commodity prices indicate price increases of at least 5-7% during 
these peak periods. Through more timely review of programs and earlier 
approvals to purchase commodities, FFP could avoid "bunching" and could easily 
save millions of Title II dollars. 16 
7. The work and specific functions of FFP are not well known nor understood 
throughout the Agency. FFP daily activities are largely a mystery to many in 
Washington and in the field. (One Senior Regional Bureau manager thought FFP 
staff actually solicited for and purchased commodities.) 
8. FFP suffers from a comparative lack of support from the DCHA Bureau.
Comparatively, FFP receives much less support from the DCHA Bureau in 
administrative and technical support, training, and publicity, than the much 
smaller Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA). Bureau support is 
urgently needed to revise the Food for Peace Information System (FFPIS) and to 
provide for basic needs, such as computer upgrades. For example, OFDA has a 
Training Unit with up to five full-time staff to provide on-going technical training 
and professional development for OFDA staff in Washington and the field. 
However FFP has no internal training resource, and is the largest single program 
administered by the Agency, with a budget over five times that of the OFDA. 
9. Compared to other Agency programs and operating units, FFP and Title II 
generally, appear to be the subject of excessive demands and requirements 
from the Office of Management and Budget. These are the subject of 
considerable concern by many FFP staff, DCHA managers, and outside observers. 
OMB requirements throughout the year have included continuous revisions in 
data representing country and commodity allocations and value, questions and 
meetings about program criteria and performance indicators, and resubmission of 
prior data requests. These demands divert staff attention from program support 
and administration, causing further delays in program review and approval, as 
well as complicating the budgeting and financial management process. 
 
16 Source: Consultant review of KCCO monthly purchase data from September 2001 through May 2003. 
 Final Streamlining Report: July 2003 63
FFP Administration and Financial Management
1. Budgeting activities at FFP are time-consuming and not well understood, and 
FFP has inadequate resources to perform them. FFP appears to be constantly 
preoccupied with "budgeting" and "re-budgeting" – whether it be for next year’s 
Bureau Program and Budget Submission (BPBS), current year Operational Year 
Budget (OYB), Congressional Budget Justification (CBJ), or ad hoc budget 
requests from OMB, PPC or senior Agency management. Within FFP there 
appears to be confusion and a lack of understanding about the Operational Year 
Budget process and the use of OYBs. At the same time, the Office has a major 
responsibility to manage and report on the actual use of budgeted resources of 
over $1.5 billion. In addition, there are tasks associated with the continuing 
process of budget examination in the review of all proposals. At this time, both 
the capacity and the configuration of staff resources are not adequate to meet 
these varied responsibilities. 
For example: CBOs recently spent several weeks revising TA modifications 
based on changes in overall budget levels because the FFPIS system was 
reporting approval levels for development programs above the 310 million 
threshold. The budget level changed again, so the TA modifications were then 
obsolete. 
This combination of budgeting and financial management responsibilities for a 
$1.5 billion worldwide activity is an obvious strain and limiting factor in FFP 
operations. 
2. FFP must, to the extent possible, use up-to-date commodity pricing 
information for planning and budgeting purposes. The Office needs a process 
whereby uncommitted price estimates can be adjusted automatically and on a 
regular basis to accommodate price changes. 
3. The FARES system adds a marked improvement to the traditional "call 
forward" process. However, recent experience with "live" ordering through 
FARES indicates that FFP will need to provide careful written explanations to 
users to prevent delays in calls forward. 
4. USAID’s "mission re-delegation authority" has not been used extensively this 
year, if at all. The Office of Food for Peace and the Agency have established 
clear criteria for "re-delegated missions" in which certain PL 480 Title II 
decision-making authority has been redelegated. That authority should be 
considered to help reduce time spent by FFP/Washington in the program approval 
process. Currently, five USAID missions have "re-delegated" authority to make 
some decisions now being taken in Washington. Those authorities should be 
used, if appropriate. 
 Final Streamlining Report: July 2003 64
Program Management
The consultants were asked to review program implementation issues to identify possible 
improvements in the implementation of Title II. As such, the following are findings in 
the area of program management. 
1. Much improvement is needed in FFP's program review and approval process 
for both development and emergency programs. Rather than a need for 
radical change in process steps, most improvements can be achieved mainly 
from better teamwork, management oversight, and accountability. 
 
For example: 
• The review of DAPs submitted on November 1, 2002, did not begin until 
December 2002 or much later. This was partly due to the fact that FFP was 
engaged in completing approvals for FY 03 proposals at the same time 
(however, this pattern of delay is not limited to 2003). 
• DAPs and CSR4s are often neglected after they are submitted: Some CSR4s 
were not reviewed until May/June (after being submitted November 1).
• Emergency Programs are rarely approved within the self-imposed 21-day 
timeframe, and many are delayed by slow closure on budget reviews, and poor 
guidance – all management issues. 
• The DAP process is inconsistent from year to year. 
• Staff view delay as endemic and accept this as "part of the process." 
2. FFP operations suffer from a largely informal approach to key policy issues. 
This results in confusion, inaction, variable interpretations, internal conflict, 
miscommunication, and an overall ad hoc approach which is time￾consuming, costly, and not transparent to outsiders. For example: 
• Much time is consumed by staff in seeking answers to policy and procedural 
questions. This is a prevalent complaint cited by staff in all Divisions. 
• Policy decisions appear to be determined and communicated in an ad hoc 
manner. 
• Staff and CSs complain that policy shifts are a "moving target." 
• There is no one, well-conceived, reliable written source of guidelines for 
internal operations and policies. 
• Staff complain that even if an issue was originally resolved and a program 
approved, the old argument can resurface in subsequent years. 
• CBOs comment that they sometimes learn of updated FFP policies from 
PVOs. 
• Policy decisions appear to be determined and communicated in an ad hoc 
manner without full consultation. 
• Some important decisions made in meetings become "oral" policy, but are not 
formally communicated. 
3. Currently, the DAP Guidelines are unclear regarding the definition of the 
120 day window for program "approval." The Guidelines now state: "FFP 
will reach a final decision (approve and negotiate a signed transfer authorization, 
 Final Streamlining Report: July 2003 65
or deny approval) on DAP proposals within 120 days of submission of a complete 
document to FFP" (page 1). However, later the Guidelines state: "By the end of 
the 120-day period, FFP will communicate the decision made regarding approval 
or denial of the proposal" (page 2). These are 2 different definitions. While 
"approval letters" were sent to CSs within the 120-day timeframe, it is the 
consultants' view that FFP should uphold the more rigorous standard of an 
approved TA and obligation of funding within the 120 day period. As of 
June 30, 2003, none of 17 DAPs submitted November 1, 2002 had TAs signed 
within the 120 window (although two were rejected). 
4. FFP has an extreme and fundamental lack of clear, updated, written 
guidelines for even its most basic operational procedures, such as basic 
internal procedure manuals. As a result, FFP currently operates on the 
basis of the "institutional memory" of a few individuals with their own 
perspectives, biases, and resource limitations. For example:
• Poor guidelines for Cooperating Sponsors (CSs) and internal guidelines on 
Consortia proposals have led to time-consuming problems. Consortium 
budgets have been huge, complicated, and unclear, due partly to poor 
guidelines given to PVOs. For example: the CSAFE proposal had 68 budget 
sheets, and then 110 of revised budget sheets. The budget review alone took 
1-2 months of full-time level-of-effort according to FFP.
• CSs were told "TAPs are back" but they were not given written guidelines. 
Rather, the most recent Policy Letter stated that "At this point in time, 
proposals for TAPs should be submitted in accordance with the DAP 
guidelines. However, specific guidelines for proposals submitted for transition 
programs will be forthcoming in the next submission cycle." These guidelines 
have not been provided to date. 
• CBOs are unable to give concrete guidance to the CSs on development-relief 
proposals. One activity experienced excessive delay because there were no 
clear guidelines for budget formats. 
• A number of CBOs need clarification on completing proposal documentation. 
CBOs complain they are asked to complete the TA documentation for 
multiple audiences: Team Leader, Division Director, Deputy Director, and 
Director. This is confusing and time-consuming. They cite approval delays if 
one audience is not satisfied with the language which might be satisfactory to 
others. CBOs also need guidance on how to interpret policy, as stated earlier. 
5. There is a profound deficiency of clear, consistent, accurate communication 
within FFP regarding policy, procedures, and new initiatives (even as to who 
is currently working in the office). There are poor internal communications 
within the office (e.g. travel schedules, policy changes, personnel changes, 
updated telephone and e-mail list). There are also poor communications between 
FFP and CSs. There is a profound lack of effective communication across 
Divisions within FFP in Washington. This deficiency is magnified in 
communications with FFP Field staff. 
 Final Streamlining Report: July 2003 66
6. FFP has a serious lack of consistent, standard operating procedures, tracking 
mechanisms, and benchmarks for which staff are made accountable. For 
example: the Consultants observed TAs being casually dropped on a manager's 
desk for review and signature; numerous TAs piling up on desks; managers being 
unaware of which TAs they had received or what was priority.
7. Currently, much staff time is spent reviewing/approving CSR4s in addition 
to programmatic proposals. For example: In FY 2003, FFP/DP received 64 
CSR4s and 15 Results Reports, but only 15 DAP proposals (plus 1 TAP, and 1 
Consortium proposal). Clearly, streamlining efforts must not be limited to only 
proposal reviews/approvals. 
8. Much time and effort is expended on excessive quality control sometimes 
with little added value. This partly due to lack of trust, lack of training, and 
common mistakes that arise from copying data from one form to another. For 
example, substantive delays have occurred on budget approval due to unnecessary 
minutiae (such as requests to change formatting, spelling, and grammar). 
9. There is a severe lack of "customer service" orientation at FFP. This is 
evident both within the Office (e.g. between POD and the program divisions) and 
between FFP and Cooperating Sponsors. For example: 
• There is a dearth of internal and external service standards (such as "24 hours 
to respond to a call by a CS," or "48 hours turnaround time on issuance of 
FFPIS reports). 
• Both DP and EP program staff complain that POD functions more as a "road 
block" than a source of internal support. Whether or not this is fair, this is 
indeed the perception. 
• Proposal guidelines, application materials, and policy statements are not 
written or presented from a user perspective. 
• The tone of written emails from FFP to CSs is seen as pejorative and 
sometimes harsh – far from "cooperative" or "partner-like" as a "Cooperating 
Sponsor" or "Partner" might expect. 
• Some FFP staff do not respond quickly enough to either emails or voicemail 
messages. This was a common complaint of PVOs and was also evident to 
the consultants during the course of this assessment. 
A major "culture shift" is required to move FFP towards a customer service 
orientation. This will require major management commitment, continued 
attention, and demonstration by example. 
10. Physical space limitations contribute to process delays and lack of cohesion 
among FFP staff. Currently, FFP is operating in three separate areas on 2 floors. 
This arrangement has contributed to further segmentation in process steps and 
lack of cohesion among staff. It also leads to much time delay and misuse of 
resources. For example: 
 Final Streamlining Report: July 2003 67
• CBOs are now required to physically distribute TA packages to obtain 
required signatures. The consultants learned it can take a CBO 2-3 days to 
physically walk around to obtain the required signatures for a TA or for 
NMS/Phoenix approvals. 
• CBOs are now required to leave the 7th floor and go the 8th floor to pick up 
the prepared Cost Sheet from one person in POD and deliver it to another 
person a few cubicles away in POD in order to get a TA number for the 
TA. 
• CBOs are expected to "walk" TA packets to POD for many POD steps, 
both to deliver and to pick up completed work. 
11. It appears the proposed Action Plan of the Institutional Contractor has still 
not been approved as of the writing of this Report. Clearly, this is a key 
management issue that needs to be addressed. This would help clarify roles and 
responsibilities and help FFP to utilize the contractor most effectively. 
12. Barriers to entry exist for new CSs wishing to participate in DAP 
submissions. For example, the Guidelines state that CSs without a prior DAP in 
a given country should submit data from proforma invoices or contract quotes 
submitted by likely inland transport companies. Submission of the required 
information is key to establishing an inland transportation account for 
reimbursement. However, it is often difficult for CSs to obtain or present this 
information. 
 Final Streamlining Report: July 2003 68
Bottlenecks: Review & Approval Process
There are several key "bottlenecks" in the review and approval process that should be 
remedied immediately. Most bottlenecks can be handled simply through improved 
management oversight and accountability. Examples of these bottlenecks are below. 
1. Data entry of AERs into FFPIS is a major bottleneck in FFP's review and 
approval process. As of June 20, 2003 the Institutional Contractor informed the 
consultants that roughly 50% of AER data from CSR4s (submitted November 1, 
2002) had been entered into FFPIS. It is currently unclear why it takes so long for 
the AER data to be input into FFPIS since the actual data entry time required is 
estimated at 20-30 minutes. Since an AER is required for each DAP, DAP 
amendment, CSR4, and call forward, this bottleneck is important given the 
volume of AERs. The consultants learned that many modifications are made to 
AERs which are often incorrect the first time around. 
Delay in data entry appears to be due to a breakdown communication from 
several contributing factors: 
• Mistakes in AERs which are submitted by the PVO (that were not caught by 
FFP staff before AER was sent for data entry). 
• Need for corrections on the AER may not be made clear to the CBO. 
• CBOs have varying levels of training on how to read AERs correctly. 
• Hard copies of AERs transferred between CBOs/POD sometimes get lost. 
• Data entry personnel appear to lack clear direction on what is priority. 
2. There appears to be a significant bottleneck in completion and approval of 
"cost sheets" and "budget reviews" as part of the review and approval 
process. It is unclear whether the delay is due to excessive workload, lack of 
staff, lack of attention, or other root cause. However, this bottleneck appears to 
have caused notable delays in the TA approval process. For example: 
• The Ethiopia consortium proposal was held up for one month just to get the 
Cost Sheet finalized. 
• There were examples of submissions of Cost Sheet Request forms to POD that 
were delayed for months. 
• PVO budgets are often given as initial estimates; this can cause problems 
later. 
• There appear to be differences on interpretation of policy guidelines for 
allowable expenditures on certain line items on the cost sheet. 
• The budget negotiation process between program units and POD is time￾consuming and can be adversarial at times. 
• Many CBOs complain that POD sometimes delves into "programmatic" issues 
or may request grammatical, spelling, and formatting changes on 
documentation which they cite as petty, time-consuming, and above and 
beyond POD’s scope. 
 
 Final Streamlining Report: July 2003 69
3. Considerable time is consumed merely in obtaining approval signatures for 
TAs and for NMS obligations. For example: 
• CBOs claim they spend days every month walking around to get approval 
signatures. It is inefficient to drop a TA package on someone’s chair or put in 
their inbox not knowing if they are in town, if they received it, or if 
corrections are needed. 
• CBOs report it often takes days of "walking around" to obtain all the NMS 
signatures required to obligate funds in time for that month’s call forward. 
4. Completion of the Evaluation Review Worksheet appears to take 
considerable time by the CBOs. However, the CBOs say it only takes a few 
days to review and reach an approval recommendation on a CSF4 once the 
Worksheet is completed. 
5. Process steps for TA modifications (mods) take up much time and effort. 
This seems to be a burden on staff resources. For example: 
 
• 41 - TA Mods for 202(e) Obligations were conducted as of 6/5/2003. 
• 92 - TA Mods were conducted for commodity levels approved 6/19/03. 
• 38 - TA Mods were conducted for commodity levels pending (includes those 
for forward-funded FY04 program activities) as of 6/19/03. 
• As FY03 comes to a close, FFP will also be modifying the TAs for FY03 
fallout (commodities not called forward). 
 Final Streamlining Report: July 2003 70
Staffing, Professional Development, and Personnel Management
1. FFP is extremely weak in personnel resources, which is both an underlying 
cause and an effect of many of its organizational deficiencies. For example: 
• There is no set procedure to bring new hires "up to speed." 
• There is little or no time or budget for professional development. 
• There is no full-time staff dedicated to training. 
2. FFP staff morale is generally very low, and frustration is high. FFP is viewed 
by many staff as an undesirable place to work, especially over the long term. 
For example: 
• There is a strong perceived lack of a career path. FFP is seen as a "dead end" 
for many staff. 
• Staff express a sense of overwhelming workload, yet the consultants observe 
there is a curious lack of urgency in completing work tasks. 
• Staff are generally disconnected from what is happening elsewhere in FFP, 
DCHA, AID, or the larger food aid community. 
• The consultants noted a major difference of perspective between staff in the 
Emergency (EP) and Development Divisions (DP). EP staff appreciate their 
more streamlined approval process and enjoy contributing to urgent, highly 
visible events. Some EP staff view FFP development activities as undesirable: 
several CBOs said they would prefer to quit their jobs rather than engage in 
the more complex, time-consuming development program process. 
3. There is a lack of clear definition of roles, responsibilities, and priorities for 
many staff across FFP and between FFP and the Institutional Contractor. 
For example:
• AMEX has 5 analysts that are mainly used for basic administrative duties such 
as filing and photocopying. They could be better utilized in assisting with 
program reviews. However, the AMEX contract appears to limit their scope 
to administrative duties. 
• CBOs appear to be doing reviews but not much analysis. 
• There is not a common understanding of whether POD's role within FFP is to 
provide support, quality control and oversight, or a combination of both. 
There are complaints that POD delves "inappropriately" into programmatic 
issues, however this may be a problem of communication and clear definition 
of POD's role. 
4. Since the latest Institutional Contractor was appointed, there appears to 
have been an increased assumption of administrative tasks by the CBOs. 
CBOs tasks appear to be more administrative in nature despite the fact that the 
contractor was engaged to provide a largely administrative support role. For 
example, the prior Institutional Contractor prepared the TA documentation, rather 
than just duplicating and distributing the proposal submissions. This task has now 
shifted back to CBOs. 
 Final Streamlining Report: July 2003 71
5. FFP is severely lacking in training for new hires and ongoing professional 
development. The lack of training leads to frustration, many mistakes, extra 
work, and some animosities. For example: 
• Currently, there is a "sink or swim" approach to learning one’s duties. 
• One source confides that one out of three TA modifications result from the 
original TA not being done correctly in the first place. 
• There is no orientation training and little in-service training. 
• Staff often receive conflicting advice, find it difficult to have questions 
answered, or find multiple answers to the same question. For example, some 
CBOs are unclear if the $10 million signing authority given to Division 
Directors applied to World Food Program projects. 
6. The distribution of workload is currently driven geographically, rather than 
through a shared team-based approach. This results in uneven distribution 
of proposals among CBOs. Proposals are handled by CBOs based on their 
"portfolio" of countries for which they are responsible. As such, a CBO who is 
responsible for a country with many programs will tend to have a larger workload 
than a CBO with less active programming. This causes workload inequities within 
the Office. 
 
7. While there is a plethora of teams and working groups, there is an extremely 
low team-orientation within FFP. For example, at the writing of this Report, 
DP staff are divided into 3 Regional Teams and a Technical Support/Analysis 
Team; EP staff are divided into 4 Regional Teams; POD Division staff are 
divided into Budget & Finance Team, and the Operations Team. There also 
special Action Teams for the Horn and Iraq, as well as multiple teams on strategy, 
budget, and training among others. Assigning people to teams alone does not 
enhance teamwork. 
Systems & Technology
The SOW asked the consultants to "review existing and proposed automated systems" 
and "make recommendations for overall system technological updates or expansion." 
Below are key findings in the areas of systems and technology. 
1. The following are the key technical disadvantages of FFPIS: 
• Data entry requires a prescribed stream of sequential queries that must be 
input into FFPIS. One cannot proceed to the next screen until the prior one is 
completed. If one field is missing (due to incomplete data), then the process 
stops, and the person doing data entry must go back and re-input the data (as 
an incomplete query cannot be saved). 
• It takes training/experience to know which codes to enter. Currently, one staff 
is the expert (with two back ups). 
 Final Streamlining Report: July 2003 72
• The data is originally input in a "pending" mode (prior to approval). 
Following approval, the data must be shifted to "approval" mode. All data 
must be re-entered anytime there are any changes or amendments. 
• The data display on the current data entry screen is archaic and non-user 
friendly. 
• FFPIS is not currently web-based, and FFPIS reports are mostly distributed 
via hard copy. 
2. Data entry (input) and report generation process (output) of FFPIS is a key 
bottleneck in the review and approval process. However, while the FFPIS 
system is clearly outdated and in need of upgrades, the consultants believe a 
root cause of delay is due to personnel, training, and management 
deficiencies, rather than to systems problems. For example:
• FFPIS data entry clerks receive unspecific report requests from CBOs. 
• While there are serious data input limitations with FFPIS (sequential queries, 
inability to proceed until all data completed, need to know arcane codes, 
inability to see the whole screen at a time), the actual AER data to be input is 
often incorrect. 
• While there are data generation limitations for FFPIS, it would be extremely 
simple to post the reports on the intranet immediately. 
• However, FFPIS issues are surrounded by a "gate-keeper mentality" which 
prevents simple procedural improvements from being considered or 
implemented. 
3. Systems deficiencies have led staff to spend time developing parallel, 
"informal" systems. Staff have developed spreadsheets that they use during the 
review and approval process to supplement, replace, or duplicate the FFPIS data 
or to avoid interaction with POD. Also, some data elements used for FFPIS input 
are now calculated off-line using a separate Excel spreadsheet. While staff see 
these activities as "innovations" to circumvent systems problems, these "shadow" 
processes are an inefficient use of staff time. 
 Final Streamlining Report: July 2003 73
VII. Recommendations 
The following is a summary of key recommendations for streamlining based on the 
analysis presented in this Report. Additional background on these recommendations may 
be found in other relevant sections of this Report as noted. 
The recommendations are presented below in the following general categories: 
• Immediate Actions 
• Proposal Review & Approval Process Improvements 
• External Guidance 
• Internal Guidance 
• Management Improvements 
• Staffing & Personnel Management 
• Training & Staff Development 
• Communications Improvements 
• FFPIS Improvements 
• Improved Management of FFPIS 
• Institutional Contractor 
• Commodity and Financial Management 
• Summary of Staffing Recommendations 
Immediate Actions
In its Report to Congress, FFP should emphasize its view that the findings in Section VI. 
are serious, urgent, and in immediate need of attention. To this end, FFP should take the 
following immediate actions: 
7. Draft revised PL 480 Title II Guidelines and Policies (DAP proposal guidelines) 
for Federal Register issuance by August 15, with a more concise, user-friendly 
format, as suggested in this Report and taking into account the key areas noted in the 
streamlining legislation: consistency in program review, improved information 
collection, and greater flexibility. Revised guidelines should: 
• Be clear, user-friendly, and incorporate guidance based on approved policy 
• Combine Guidelines and Policy Letter into one clear document 
• Provide clearer guidance on page and space limitations, format, content 
• Stress a more rigorous definition of the 120 day approval period. 
• Be posted on www.grants.gov, after Federal Register period, and the posting 
communicated to CSs 
8. Based on revised Guidelines, develop and test on-line DAP Proposal submission 
for FY 2005 via www.grants.gov in order to comply with the October 1 deadline of 
the E-Government initiative. 
 Final Streamlining Report: July 2003 74
9. FFP should revise and announce immediately the timing requirements for the 
submission of non-emergency program proposals and results reports as follows. 
The new suggested submission dates are: 
• Annual Results Report due: November 1st (this provides programmatic 
results for FFP for Congressional reporting, however it would not include 
year-end financials - this would be sent in with the Resource Request).
• Resource Requests due: January 15 (this would include year-end financials 
from the prior fiscal year). 
• DAP Submissions due: February 15.
These revised deadlines will dramatically decrease concentrated workload requirements 
for both Cooperating Sponsors and Agency staff. 
10. Immediately adopt, communicate, and uphold a definition of the "120 day 
requirement" for development proposals as follows: "completion of all program 
review and approval procedures, including the approval of an Annual Estimate of 
Requirements, the issuance of a Transfer Authorization, and obligation of funding 
shall occur within the 120 day period" (rather than the mere issuance of approval 
letters). Update guidance and all documentation accordingly. 
11. FFP should draft, submit for public comment, and issue an updated Agency 
Regulation 11 by January 15, 2004. The updated Regulation should be included in 
Agency's ADS. 
12. FFP should conduct an immediate review of FFPIS data and correct any 
inaccuracies that exist. 
13. FFP should take immediate action to post key FFPIS reports to the intranet, 
updated daily, improve the timing of data entry (input) into the FFPIS, and 
broaden the availability of other key FFPIS reports (output) for use by staff in the 
proposal review and approval process. These items can be achieved immediately 
with improved management and oversight, irregardless of system upgrades. 
However, FFP should take action to upgrade the FFPIS system as described in detail 
in this Report to enhance database design, functionality, and web-access. 
14. Establish key intermediate process milestones and internal performance 
benchmarks for the approval and TA clearance process for both Washington and 
missions, and develop a meaningful tracking mechanism to manage for results. 
The tracking mechanism should be updated daily by designated staff and made 
available on the intranet. This effort is consistent with other streamlining and quality 
service improvement efforts currently underway in the Office of Procurement and 
throughout the Agency. 
15. FFP should immediately review the remaining internal administrative and 
management systems improvements recommended in the following sections, and 
establish a plan and timetable for implementation.
 Final Streamlining Report: July 2003 75
Proposal Review & Approval Process Improvements
1. Revise the DAP Application format, streamline the contents, and provide better 
guidance on acceptable format and length. For example: 
• Post on-line at www.grants.gov as soon as this feature is fully functional 
(target date: October 1, 2003). 
• Reduce data fields based on reasonable requirements which still uphold high 
procurement and financial management standards. 
• Request data in a format consistent with internal reporting and FFPIS data 
entry fields. 
• Take examples from the OFDA and USDA on-line submission format for 
lessons learned. 
• The application itself should provide most guidance (then the need for 
separate guidance would be minimal). 
• Assess and reduce sectoral reporting requirements, wherever possible. 
• Reduce page number requirements for individual sections. 
• Clarify budget data requirements. 
• Increase the dollar level for pre-identified, basic, allowable costs not requiring 
justification. 
• Revise and communicate new due date of February 15. 
2. Before DAPs are submitted, DP management should ensure that the process, 
requirements, and any new policies and other situational issues are well 
understood by staff. There should be a common understanding of expectations, 
roles, and turn-around time expected for key steps. 
3. Test on-line submission of DAP proposals for FY 2005. Ensure that on-line 
submission of proposals does indeed reduce paperwork. In addition:
• Communicate to CSs the shift to on-line submissions, need to register, and 
complete the SS424 form. 
• Encourage CSs to register immediately with grants.gov. 
• Encourage CSs to provide on-line submissions. 
• Allow both on-line and email/hard copy submissions during test phase. 
• Review OFDA's and USDA's on-line proposal submission for lessons learned. 
4. Establish and uphold concept of a DAP review "season" to reinforce the priority 
of DAP reviews and approvals within the 120 day period following the DAP 
submission due date. During the "review season," CBOs should be supported by 
FFP management in making review/approval their top priority. For example: the 
ISA grant reviews were done in a 3 week period, during which time review 
participants worked hard to fulfill the deadline. The same intensity should be given 
to the DAP review process. Based on the suggested revised due date, the DAP 
"review season" would be from February 15 to May 15. 
5. Determine key intermediate milestones and performance benchmarks for the 
approval and TA clearance process for both Washington and missions. This can 
then be the basis for a "ticker" system to remind staff when key milestones are due. 
 Final Streamlining Report: July 2003 76
Ideally, this can be in an on-line, web-based format, but low tech options can be 
useful management tools as well. Examples of milestones (to be determined by 
management with staff input): 
• 48 hour turn-around time for generation of Line 8 and Line 17 report. 
• 48 hour turn-around time for Cost Sheet review. 
• 24 hour notification to CBO by POD regarding any issue/question that 
prevents the timely generation of FFPIS reports or Cost Sheet review. 
• 72 hour turn-around on POD approval of Action memo. 
• 24 hours notification to POD on TA approval information after final approval. 
• 48 hours turn-around to input TA approval data into FFPIS. 
• Designate appropriate turn-around time for each level of approval signatures. 
6. Issue standards on Mission reviews of DAPs. This will help avoid any 
idiosyncratic Mission-level procedures. For example: 
• Reduce Mission review time from 45 to 30 days if possible. 
• Provide standard criteria for Mission review procedures in order to assure 
consistency in the review processes, as required in the legislation. 
• Clarify how to handle recommendations from re-delegated Missions. 
• Provide and clarify Mission authority to allow flexibility for modifications in 
existing program activity, as required in the legislation. 
7. FFP must establish a cut-off date for resolution of "threshold" issues. The 
definition and timing of "threshold" issues is critical to a smoother review and 
approval process. The fact that "threshold" issues are raised at the "last minute" 
indicates that either the review process is flawed, or the definition of "threshold" is 
trivial and subjective. Definitions and time limits are required.
 
8. Develop, maintain, and utilize a proposal workload tracking mechanism using 
the benchmarks above. The tracking mechanism should be updated daily by 
designated staff and made available on the intranet. 
• Develop a tracking sheet which is useful to management, based on the 
benchmarks established (see above). 
• Assign responsibility for constant updating, e.g. AMEX. 
• Post tracking sheet on internal website. 
• The tracking mechanism should indicate number of proposals received, 
approved, pending, rejected, and indicate milestone dates to be achieved. 
• Post the tracking tool on the intranet and encourage use as a management tool. 
9. "FFP should establish clear, concise DAP guidelines which should not need 
revising each year. CSs should be held accountable to the guidance that was in 
place at the time DAPs were approved. CSs should not be required to alter the 
design of an ongoing DAP in order to comply with subsequent change in the 
guidance, except in exceptional circumstances." This recommendation is from the 
Report of the Food Aid and Food Security Assessment: A Review of the Title II 
Development Food Aid Program, Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance (FANTA), 
 Final Streamlining Report: July 2003 77
March 2002. The Streamlining Consultants fully concur with this recommendation 
and have repeated it here to stress management's need to finally address this issue. 
10. Develop a proposal review "checklist" for CBOs to replace the "review 
worksheets." The checklist should allow only minimal narrative description and 
include meaningful criteria for the review. The checklist should also include an 
"approval recommendation" action indicating yes, no, or pending (with key items to 
be addressed). 
11. Use more standard operating procedures and standard TA language. Efforts are 
already underway or in use to standardize basic provisions and language in Transfer 
Authorizations. These efforts should be expedited and applied as widely as possible. 
FFP should also give consideration to a issuing single TA per Cooperating Sponsor 
organization, following or modifying the model used for resource transfers to the 
World Food Program. 
12. FFP may wish to consider further delegations of authority to modify Transfer 
Authorizations. Redelegated authority could be provided to qualified, trained staff, 
consistent with Agency procurement practices and regulations based on 
predetermined funding levels. For example, authority for modifications up to a 
certain dollar level could be delegated to team leaders, or other staff qualified to make 
procurement decisions. 
External Guidance 
1. Revise DAP proposal guidelines immediately, combine with Policy Letter, and 
post on www.grants.gov. (See earlier recommendation under Immediate Actions.) 
2. Ensure that on-line proposal applications can be submitted for FY 2005 
proposals, via www.grants.gov. 
3. Finalize and distribute Guidelines for Consortium Proposals and Budgets. 
 
4. Issue revised, written Guidelines on Developmental-Relief, including internal 
review/approval process and application guidelines. 
5. Issue revised, written Guidelines on Section 202(e) programming, and if 
necessary, on ITSH funding. 
6. Revise and publish new Regulation 11. (See earlier recommendation under 
Immediate Actions.) 
Internal Guidance
1. Develop a clear, written, transparent Process and Procedures Manual for 
internal office use for both emergency and non-emergency proposal reviews. 
 Final Streamlining Report: July 2003 78
• Include step-by-step guidelines for review, approval, and TA clearance 
process. 
• Assign responsibility for updating the guidelines with "official" changes. 
• Post the Process and Procedures Manual on internal intranet, and have several 
office hard copies available in the office. 
• Develop standardized approval language on key topics to expedite CBO 
drafting of TAs and POD reviews (e.g. 202e purchases). 
• Clear procedures should be documented for both emergency and development 
programs. 
2. Develop clear, templates for frequently used items such as the Action memo. 
Templates should be used as much as possible to expedite and standardize internal 
procedures for commonly used items. The templates should be made available on the 
intranet. Designate a role to ensure the templates are kept updated and relevant. 
3. Clarify roles, responsibilities, and authorizations, including: 
• Must both Deputy Director and Director sign all TAs? 
• What signing authority should a PSC have? 
• What signing authority should be delegated to Team Leaders? 
• Clarify process roles for CBOs, POD, and the institutional support contractor. 
• Clarify who has the final word in resolving policy differences, e.g. "What can 
be funded under 202e?" 
 Final Streamlining Report: July 2003 79
Management Improvements
1. FFP must establish a procedure to be more systematic, timely, and transparent 
on finalizing policy decisions. There should be a clear, consistent, transparent 
decision-making process to determine "official" policy changes or notices. It is 
essential to determine the circumstances for an "official" policy change, how to 
document it, and how to communicate it effectively and immediately. 
2. Management needs to resolve internal disputes/lack of clarity on several key 
policy issues. FFP policies must be clearly communicated in improved, internal 
written guidelines. For example: 
• Establish office-wide understanding that 120 days means approved TA and 
funds obligated. 
• Clarify exactly what items/issues are required to trigger a full DAP 
amendment. 
• Clarify who should review development-relief proposals and where the CSs 
should send them. It is currently not clear if the review process starts at EP or 
DP or through some other arrangement. 
• Stress that FFP can approve Operational Year Budgets, and programs within 
those budgets, even in the event of a Continuing Resolution. 
• Clarify, with an official legal interpretation, the funding parameters of Section 
202(3) and ITSH funding. 
3. Consider designating "approval hours" at a certain time or day when signatories 
are available to sign TAs, NMS obligations, and other actions. 
4. CSR4s must be streamlined (including their budget reporting requirements) to 
determine how much information is really required from CSs. Currently, CSs provide 
a budget and the burden is on CBOs to compare the budget to prior years. Instead, 
CSs might be required to merely show how the budget has changed and why. CBO 
suggestions should be considered on how to better track and convey results 
information. The suggested separation in reporting for results reporting (11/1) and 
resource requests (1/15) should help FFP to identify better methods and respond to 
needed changes more quickly. 
5. Attention must be focused on reducing the huge volume of TA modifications that 
are made, often several times, for the same proposal. Unless this problem is 
addressed, it will be extremely difficult for FFP to achieve a complete "approval" 
package (with an accurate, signed TA) within the 120 period required by law.
6. Streamline language and steps for "fallout" modification and de-obligation of 
funds. POD offers this sample language that would be sufficient for action memo 
documentation for a de-obligation of tonnage and related non-commodity costs for 
confirmed fallout: "In accordance with confirmed fallout in FY 200X as noted in 
POD Info memo No. X, the approved tonnage is reduced...." 
 Final Streamlining Report: July 2003 80
Staffing & Personnel Management
1. FFP needs to shift to a more team-oriented work culture. A team-oriented 
approach with improved management oversight overall is needed, rather than a 
major reorganization. Re-organizing the structure into teams will not, in itself, 
encourage teamwork. Conversely, increased teamwork can and should be encouraged, 
even without a formal change in organizational structure. There is a full schedule of 
regular team meetings at FFP; however, this is not the best use of staff time. While 
teamwork is highly encouraged, FFP management should review the effectiveness 
and necessity of the various teams and use meeting time effectively. 
Teamwork should be cross-functional and emphasized by management direction and 
example. Such as: 
• Conduct professional team-building sessions among the management team, 
within functional teams, and cross-functional teams. 
• Share with CSs the Proposal Review Worksheet and Evaluation Worksheet so 
they will clearly understand how the DAP/CSR4s will be evaluated. 
2. Managers must hold staff accountable for results. This can be achieved by 
improved senior management direction and emphasis and management tools such as 
improved CBO review check lists. 
3. Management should consider three new CBO positions and ensure even 
distribution of proposal reviews among CBOs to improve workload burden. This 
would require a shift to a more team-oriented approach. The requirement for 
additional CBOs is driven by the high volume and the variable nature of the 
workload. Additional staff would: provide greater flexibility in team assignments; 
enable FFP to handle workload surges during review periods; help FFP to address 
documentation requirements; ensure coverage during field travel; and allow for 
special assignments or urgent priorities. Regardless of the number of CBOs, 
management should work with staff to determine how the non-emergency and 
emergency workload should best be distributed. 
4. Immediately cease requiring CBOs to physically walk TA and NMS 
documentation around to POD or to other approval signatories. Suggestions 
include: 
• POD returns the item to CBO when completed. 
• Reduce the number of steps/signatures required. 
• Consolidate office space to closer proximity. 
• Try an internal document transfer cart service that makes the rounds several 
times a day (this is standard practice in many large organizations). 
 Final Streamlining Report: July 2003 81
Training & Staff Development
1. Establish a Training Unit within FFP that is responsible for training new hires, 
updating both Washington and field training courses, and developing new 
training modules for on-going professional development. The Unit would be 
staffed by a full-time Training Officer and 1-2 additional staff. Training items that 
must be addressed include: 
• Food Aid Managers course provided more frequently 
• Formalized NEPS training 
• NMS training for CBOs 
• Training in the DAP review process for FFP 
• Training for PVOs on USAID expectations for proposals (budgets) 
• Training on emergency programs 
• Professional and technical refresher training 
• Ongoing training and improved internal communication on interpretations of 
legislation 
• Additional training needs raised by FFP staff in the streamlining surveys (See 
Annexes F – I). 
2. Focus on developing a career path for CBOs to reduce staff turnover and 
professionalize the position. This includes the need to: 
• Assure "laddering" of professional positions 
• Develop a clear basis for how CBOs will be evaluated 
• Identify potential for job advancement and field placement 
3. FFP management should finalize individual work plans and professional 
development/training plans for all staff. 
4. Establish a meaningful, uniform approach to training of new hires. This should 
include assignment of "mentors" to new employees. 
 Final Streamlining Report: July 2003 82
Communications Improvements
1. Improve communications within the Office. This includes communication of 
internal office policies, procedures, authority levels, and travel schedules. 
For example: 
• Ensure all travel schedules are posted on the intranet. 
• Have Managers check travel requests against the Travel Schedule prior to 
clearance. This will ensure proper coverage within the Office at all times. 
• Assign responsibility for posting travel plans onto Travel Schedule and 
updating as needed. 
• Communicate "official" policy decisions to all staff, clearly and immediately. 
• Solicit input from all staff on how inter-office communications can be 
improved. 
2. Division Directors should meet regularly (without Team Leaders) to identify and 
work out areas of dispute and clarify procedures. 
3. Designate an Information and Communications Officer role at FFP/Washington 
to ensure consistent, accurate internal and external communications for FFP. 
This individual will be responsible for ensuring that decisions in meetings are 
communicated and that the website and intranet is updated. 
4. Improve communications between FFP and Cooperating Sponsors and to other 
parts of the Agency. Ensure a method for "official" communication of key policy 
changes or developments. 
 Final Streamlining Report: July 2003 83
FFPIS Improvements
Below are a list of technology improvements that should be made to FFPIS. 
1. Immediately post key FFPIS reports to the intranet, updated daily. This can be 
done in the interim, while other upgrades and enhancements to FFPIS are considered. 
2. FFP should immediately review FFPIS data and correct any inaccuracies that 
exist. Steps should be taken to ensure that FFPIS data is continuously updated. 
There should be an internal inquiry to determine the root cause and address any 
problems, whether due to lack of training, lack of attention to detail, or lack of 
management oversight. 
3. Upgrade immediately the operating system and database version for FFPIS. 
Immediate upgrades are needed to keep the system current and provide a basis for 
future improvements. These basic platform tools will help make FFPIS web-enabled 
as further enhancements are made. These upgrades are of minimal cost, will keep the 
system current, and provide a basis for future improvements such web-based data 
entry and retrieval. 
4. Acquire a "back-up" server to safeguard FFPIS data and provide a "test" 
environment for needed enhancements. This copy would serve as a much-needed 
backup system. It would also ensure that testing can be done on future improvements 
without compromising original data or jeopardizing the system. 
5. Redesign the FFPIS database to improve data entry screens (input) and report 
generation (output) and convert to a web-enabled system. A complete overhaul 
of the system is not required, and replacing the system is not necessary at this 
time. Rather, the database could be designed to store and report data in a way that is 
much easier to use and obtain. The key factor for success will be FFP involvement to 
define exactly what is needed. Key steps would include: 
• Perform a requirements analysis to identify exactly what FFP users want and 
need for data entry screens and report generation (including the type of 
reports). 
• Based on the requirements, management decides the scope and timing of 
enhancements. 
• Develop and test a prototype. 
• Once complete, make the system enhancements operational. 
Any future enhancements to FFPIS should also address: 
• Electronic approval forms that can be reviewed and forwarded electronically. 
• Redesign of the data tables so that the data is consistent with TA 
documentation. 
• A solution for transferring data directly from a grant application form to the 
FFPIS database. 
 Final Streamlining Report: July 2003 84
6. Enable FFP staff able to query the FFPIS database for information from their 
desktop computers: Currently, all users log into the FFPIS server, where all 
applications are then executed. Once the recommendations above are implemented, the 
current applications can be rewritten to create the user/system interfaces necessary to 
operate the FFPIS as a "true client-server environment." Such an enhancement can be 
made at reasonable cost, would not involve changing the database modules, with results 
transparent to users. The benefits would be improved access and faster retrieval time for 
report data. Additional users could be added as needed. 
Improved Management of FFPIS 
While FFPIS has serious limitations, it has unfortunately become a scapegoat for process 
delays at FFP which have less to do with technology and more to do with deficiencies in 
management, oversight, and communication. Clearly FFPIS has its technological 
limitations as detailed above. However, any system, no matter how advanced, must be 
managed effectively and designed as appropriate to the needs of users. 
There are several key items that FFP could address immediately to improve the 
effectiveness of FFPIS through sound management practices regardless of any 
upgrades or enhancements that may or may not be made to FFPIS. These suggestions 
for management are: 
• Establish an internal standard for data entry of AERs (e.g. 48 hours turnaround) 
and report generation (e.g. 48 hours following request) to ensure timely 
turnaround, and establish an internal "customer service orientation." 
• In order to track the above standard, start a "Data Entry Request Log" showing 
date, time, item, and requestor. The date/time the data entry was completed should 
also be noted. Management should check the log periodically to ensue that this 
internal standard is being achieved. 
• Provide clearer guidance to data entry staff on how to prioritize report requests. 
Communicate these priorities to FFP staff to manage expectations. For example, 
during the DAP review period, DAP-related data entry and report generation 
should be top priority. 
• Establish a standard operating procedure for communication between data entry 
staff and CBOs in the event of defective or incomplete AER data. 
• Mentor staff that conduct data entry and generate reports to shift from a "gate￾keeper" mentality to an internal "customer service" orientation. 
 Final Streamlining Report: July 2003 85
Institutional Contractor
1. Utilize the Institutional Contractor more effectively. The current contract focuses 
only on administrative support. This limits the contractor's ability to support other 
FFP needs. FFP should review the contract to ensure this important resource is used 
most effectively. 
2. FFP management should review and finalize an Action Plan for AMEX 
consistent with the recommendations in this Report, as applicable. 
Commodity and Financial Management
1. FFP should consider having a separate "Financial Management and Budget 
Unit" with additional financial and budget analysis staff. This would enable FFP to 
separate financial management and budget functions from commodity management 
functions. The Financial Management and Budget Unit would be led by a full-time, 
experienced USAID Controller. This would greatly enhance FFP's ability to handle 
financial and budgetary matters more promptly, efficiently, and consistently.
Summary of Staffing Recommendations
1. Employ a full-time, experienced Agency Controller. 
2. Employ two additional financial management / budget analyst staff. 
3. Employ three additional CBOs.
4. Employ a full-time Training Officer, and a Training Unit with an additional 1-2 staff.
5. Designate an Information and Communications Officer. 
 Final Streamlining Report: July 2003 86
VIII. Proposed Action Plan & Timetable for Implementation 
The attached Action Plan is intended to ease implementation and decision-making required to 
carry out the recommendations proposed in this Report. The Action Plan may also serve as a 
checklist to monitor progress on implementation outcomes. 
It lists recommendations in priority order, key actions, timing, expected outcome, and 
estimated level of effort (LOE). LOE refers to the equivalent number of 8-hour days 
required to complete an action. For example, 4 days of LOE could be accomplished by one 
individual in four days, or two individuals in two days. 
FFP will need to review the Action Plan and make its own decisions for prioritizing next 
steps. Management attention to implementation details will be crucial given the enormous 
opportunity that exists to substantially improve FFP management and operations. 
Proposed Streamlining Action Plan and Timetable for Implementation 
 Streamlining Action Plan Page 1 of 8 
(See Section VII. Recommendations and Required Actions for more details on recommendations.) 
Priority Recommendation Action Timing Expected Outcome Estimated 
LOE / 
Cost 
1 
HIGH 
Change dates for 
DAP submission and 
CSR4s 
Make immediate announcement to Staff 
and Cooperating Sponsors 
IMMED. Substantial easing of workload for both 
FFP and CSs 
On-line Guidelines available by Sept. 15 
2 days 
2 
HIGH Revise DAP 
guidelines content 
and convert to on￾line submission 
format 
Ensure revision incorporates & explains 
policy 
Ensure format is brief, user-friendly, 
clear 
Post in Federal Register by 8/15/03 
No separate Policy Letter 
Test on-line DAP Proposal submission 
Communicate availability to Staff & CSs 
Begin 
IMMED. 
Post in 
Fed Reg 
By 8/15/03 
End 
9/22/2003 
Improved guidelines 
Feedback on guidelines 
DAP Guidelines and proposal 
submission format on-line 10/1/03 
Improved quality of proposals received 
Faster turn-around time on proposal 
reviews 
15 days 
LOE by 
8/15 
1 week to 
intake 
comments 
3 HIGH Clarify, communicate, and 
manage definition of 
120 day rule 
Management issues clarification to staff 
and CSs 
Include in Guidelines 
Begin 
IMMED 
End 
9/15/03 
100% achievement of 120 rule 
No breakdown in the process due to 
uncertainty 
2 days 
(part of #2 
above) 
Proposed Streamlining Action Plan and Timetable for Implementation 
 Streamlining Action Plan Page 2 of 8 
Priority Recommendation Action Timing Expected Outcome Estimated 
LOE / 
Cost 
4 HIGH Update & Rewrite Regulation 11 & 
include in ADS 
Submit to Federal Register 12/1/03 
Issue an updated Agency Regulation 
1/15/04 
Include Reg 11 in ADS 
Communicate final result to Staff 
Begin 
IMMED 
End 
1/15/04 
Clear guidance on Regulation 11 
Availability in ADS 
Ease in understanding and complying 
with the Regulation 
40-60 Days 
(start to 
finish) 
5 HIGH Improve CSR4 
Guidelines and 
streamline CSR4 
reporting 
requirements 
Split Results and Resource Reporting 
Review actual data requirements 
Simplify budget reporting 
Review Guidelines accordingly 
Post Guidelines on internet 
Communicate to Staff and CSs 
Begin 
IMMED. 
End 
9/15/03 
Easing of workload for both FFP and 
CSs 
Improved quality of CSR4s 
20 – 30 
days 
6 
HIGH Post key FFPIS 
reports to Intranet 
Identify reports needed 
Work with Institutional Contractor to 
have uploaded, ensuring updated daily 
Communicate password to all Staff in 
Washington and field 
Begin 
IMMED 
End 
8/15/03 
Wider access to FFPIS data should 
relieve bottleneck and speed the 
process 
Availability of FFPIS reports to the 
field (assuming intranet access) 
Reduced staff frustration 
3-5 Days 
 7 HIGH Review FFPIS data 
to ensure accurate 
and updated 
Review data accuracy 
Update if necessary 
Develop means to ensure continued 
accuracy 
 IMMED. Updated accurate data 
Improved budgeting 
2-3 days 
Proposed Streamlining Action Plan and Timetable for Implementation 
 Streamlining Action Plan Page 3 of 8 
Priority Recommendation Action Timing Expected Outcome Estimated 
LOE / 
Cost 
 8 
HIGH 
Establish key 
intermediate process 
milestones and 
internal 
performance 
benchmarks 
Identify milestones within the approval 
process 
Establish timing benchmarks 
(e.g. "Issues Letter within 20 business 
days of submission) 
Include standards on Mission reviews of 
DAPs 
Communicate to staff 
Managers hold staff accountable 
Begin 
IMMED. 
End 
10/1/03 
Actively used management tool 
Greater accountability 
Improved awareness of key 
components and responsibilities for 
all involved 
Faster approval process time 
10- 20 days 
 9 HIGH Develop a proposal 
status tracking 
mechanism 
Work with Institutional Contractor to 
develop useful tracking format 
Post tracking sheet on intranet 
Assign responsibility for updating (once 
a week at a minimum) 
Communicate availability to Staff 
Managers hold staff accountable 
Begin 
IMMED. 
End 
9/15/03 
Management knows at any time the 
current status of process steps 
Actively used management tool to 
monitor progress and increase 
accountability 
Ability to spot problems early on in 
the process 
3 - 5 days 
Proposed Streamlining Action Plan and Timetable for Implementation 
 Streamlining Action Plan Page 4 of 8 
Priority Recommendation Action Timing Expected Outcome Estimated 
LOE / 
Cost 
10 
HIGH 
Upgrades and 
enhancements to 
FFPIS to make user￾friendly, web￾enabled, with secure 
back-up 
Upgrade FFPIS's operating system and 
database version 
Acquire a "back-up" server for FFPIS 
Prepare requirements analysis 
FFP determines its needs 
Work with selected vendor to redesign 
the FFPIS database to improve data 
entry screens (input) and report 
generation (output) 
Develop prototype for web-enabled 
FFPIS 
Post FFPIS reports on internet (with 
password) 
Communicate availability to Staff 
Reassign job duties as required 
Begin 
IMMED. 
End 
2/15/03 
Updated operating system & database 
Operational back-up in place 
Prototype for web-enabled FFPIS 
Ability to access updated, accurate 
FFPIS Reports anytime they are 
needed in Washington or field 
Faster generation of special FFPIS 
reports on demand 
Easier manipulation of data 
Secure, reliable, well-functioning, up 
to date system with back-up 
Ease staff frustration 
TBD 
11 HIGH Issue revised, written 
Guidelines on 
Section 202(e)
programming, and if 
necessary, on ITSH
funding. 
Obtain GC interpretation 
Draft Guidelines 
Include reference in DAP Guidelines 
Begin 
IMMED. 
End 
9/15/03 
Clear Guidelines 
Faster review time due to resolution 
of disputes 
15 – 20 
days 
Proposed Streamlining Action Plan and Timetable for Implementation 
 Streamlining Action Plan Page 5 of 8 
Priority Recommendation Action Timing Expected Outcome Estimated 
LOE / 
Cost 
12 HIGH Develop clear, 
templates for 
frequently used 
items such as the 
Action memo 
Prioritize templates needed 
Draft standard language & develop 
Work with Institutional Contractor to 
post on intranet 
Communicate availability to Staff 
 Begin 
9/1/03 
End 
10/1/03 
Clear templates available on intranet 
(with instructions) for all who need 
them 
Increased consistency, reduced error, 
improved timeliness 
Facilitate training new hires 
10 – 15 
days 
13 HIGH Address top priority 
management & 
workload issues 
Clarify roles, responsibilities, and 
authorizations 
Clarify how final policy decisions 
should be made, and who is the "final 
word" 
Establish clear procedure for policy 
development / Utilize new Technical & 
Policy Division to define policy 
development 
Establish and uphold concept of a DAP 
review “season" 
Establish a cut-off date for resolution of 
"threshold" issues 
Designate day/time for when approval 
signatories will be available 
Begin 
IMMED. 
End 
10/1/03 
All staff understand roles & 
responsibilities 
Everyone has the authorizations they 
need (that are allowable) 
No breakdown in the process due to 
uncertainty on who is responsible 
20 – 30 
days 
Proposed Streamlining Action Plan and Timetable for Implementation 
 Streamlining Action Plan Page 6 of 8 
Priority Recommendation Action Timing Expected Outcome Estimated 
LOE / 
Cost 
14 HIGH Finalize individual 
work plans and 
professional 
development/training 
plans for all staff 
Managers take the necessary steps for 
finalize workplans 
Managers meet with staff members for 
input on individual development plans, 
and training needs 
Begin 
IMMED. 
End 
12/1/03 
More capable and informed staff 
Increased opportunities for career 
enhancement 
Reduced staff turnover / better morale 
2 – 5 days 
per staff 
member 
5 days per 
Manger 
15 HIGH Revise & finalize 
AMEX Action Plan 
FFP management coordinates with 
AMEX to ensure Action Plan takes 
these Report recommendations into 
account 
IMMED. Clear role and responsibility 
Improved usage of Institutional 
Contractor to meet FFP needs 
5 days 
16 MEDIUM Finalize and 
distribute Guidelines 
for Consortium 
Proposals and 
Budgets.
Draft Guidelines 
Include reference in DAP Guidelines 
Provide budget guidance 
Post on website 
Communicate availability to Staff & 
CSs 
Begin 
9/1/03 
End 
12/1/03 
Clear, available guidelines 
Greatly improved quality of 
Consortium proposals 
Faster review time 
30 days 
Proposed Streamlining Action Plan and Timetable for Implementation 
 Streamlining Action Plan Page 7 of 8 
Priority Recommendation Action Timing Expected Outcome Estimated 
LOE / 
Cost 
 17 
MEDIUM Issue revised, written 
Guidelines on 
Developmental￾Relief
Draft Guidelines 
Include reference in DAP Guidelines 
Provide budget guidance 
Post on website 
Communicate availability to Staff & 
CSs 
Begin 
9/1/03 
End 
12/1/03 
Clear, available guidelines 
Greatly improved quality of 
Consortium proposals 
Faster review time 
30 days 
 18 MEDIUM 
Develop a clear, 
written, transparent 
Process and 
Procedures Manual
for internal Office 
use 
Identify key processes/procedures to be 
documented 
Select appropriate, readable format 
Draft Manual 
Vet Manual with Staff 
Finalize Manual, & put on-line 
Communicate availability to Staff 
Begin 
10/1/03 
End 
12/1/03 
Clear instructions for all staff 
More standardized operating 
procedures 
Facilitate training new hires 
Add transparency to process 
30 – 40 
days 
Proposed Streamlining Action Plan and Timetable for Implementation 
 Streamlining Action Plan Page 8 of 8 
Priority Recommendation Action Timing Expected Outcome Estimated 
LOE/ 
Cost 
19 MEDIUM 
Employ two 
additional 
finance/budget staff, 
an experienced 
Controller, and three 
new CBOs 
Obtain USAID approval 
Determine job duties & function 
Begin 
IMMED. 
End 
2/1/03 
Assured, available expertise in 
financial management 
Increased capacity to manage 
financial/budget workload 
Increased capacity and flexibility for 
proposal reviews 
10 – 20 
days 
(not 
including 
recruitment 
time) 
Salary & 
benefits 
20 MEDIUM Establish a Training Unit within FFP, led 
by a Training 
Coordinator 
Obtain Office of Management support 
Establish training curricula 
Identify support requirements for the 
Training Unit 
Determine job duties for a Training 
Coordinator 
Begin 
10/1/03 
End 
2/1/03 
More capable and informed staff 
Increased opportunities for career 
enhancement 
Reduced staff turnover 
20 – 40 
days 
MEDIUM 
Conduct professional 
team-building 
sessions among the 
management team, 
within functional 
teams, and cross￾functional teams. 
Obtain professional support from HR or 
outside expert 
Plan timing of sessions 
Conduct several 1-2 days sessions 
Begin 
9/1/03 
End 
1/1/04 
Better functioning teams 
Improve morale 
More efficient work distribution 
10 – 25 
days 
22 MEDIUM 
Designate an 
Information and 
Communications 
Officer 
Determine duties 
Develop Workplan 
Assign duties or hire 
Begin 
10/1/03 
End 
1/1/04 
Improved communications within and 
outside office 
All FFP information maintained & 
updated 
5 – 10 days