Detailed Information on the
Humanitarian Demining Assessment

Program Code 10001103
Program Title Humanitarian Demining
Department Name Department of State
Agency/Bureau Name Department of State
Program Type(s) Direct Federal Program
Assessment Year 2004
Assessment Rating Effective
Assessment Section Scores
Section Score
Program Purpose & Design 100%
Strategic Planning 100%
Program Management 100%
Program Results/Accountability 87%
Program Funding Level
(in millions)
FY2007 $65
FY2008 $64
FY2009 $76

Ongoing Program Improvement Plans

Year Began Improvement Plan Status Comments

Within 18 months all countries receiving U.S. mine action assistance must have a comprehensive national strategic plan with measurable goals and objectives.

Action taken, but not completed In countries with the goal of capacity building, we work closely with the pertinent host nation ministries to insure a viable National Mine Action Authority is established and a National Mine Action Strategic Plan developed. This is accomplished through our country planning process, using both our Multi-Award Contractor and, when needed, multi-national/multi-lateral organizations. Funds provided to the multi-national/multi-lateral organizational are through foreign assistance grants.

Continue to implement national strategic planning process and short (1-3 yrs) and long-term (3-5 yrs) plans for reduced or no reliance on international support.

Action taken, but not completed Our country planning process, conducted annually, addresses all factors of programming for mine action. In countries that have a goal of capacity building, the intent is to develop that capacity, to include the ability to budget for mine action, with the proper management and oversight, that will allow the U.S. to reduce and eventually eliminate funding.

Graduate 2 countries in FY08.

Action taken, but not completed

Completed Program Improvement Plans

Year Began Improvement Plan Status Comments

Meet the two key targets enumerated above, and set new objectives for future years.

Completed Both targets met. However, writing new goals to match the stability indicators through the Foreign Assistance Reform process that will help us establish specific, measurable outcomes that will be tracked beginning in FY07 or FY08.

Graduate three countries in FY 2006.

Completed Three countries graduated early in FY 2005.

Review methods for determining country priorities and incorporate the results of the independent evaluation to further assess the country program needs.

Completed We have tasked independent program assessments for Cambodia and Laos to help evaluate and support our decision-making in FY06. Results are now incorporated into Country Planning.

Further tie funding request to specific measures that relate to the progress key countries have made in the development of export controls. This will also take into account the ability of key countries to absorb program funding.

Completed Funding is tied to joint efforts between the U.S. Government and host nations to determine and develop country-specific mine action objectives. Funding is further evaluated and supported through a formal country plan submitted and approved by PM/WRA' s program planning board.

Graduate 2 countries in FY 2007


Graduate 1 country in FY 2008.

Completed Developed funding capacity building within Mozambique to the point where they could provide funding on their own.

Program Performance Measures

Term Type  
Long-term Outcome

Measure: Number of countries receiving U.S. Humanitarian Mine Action assistance that eliminated the most pressing humanitarian impacts and are able to sustain future operations with indigenous capacity and little external funding.

Explanation:Sustainment is defined as the ability of the country to address any residual mine action required to reach mine-safe status with little to no external funding. The specific characteristics of sustainment will be different for each country.

Year Target Actual
2002 9 9
2003 12 12
2004 17 17
2005 15 17
2006 17 17
2007 19 19
2008 20
2009 20
2010 21
2011 22
2012 23
Long-term Outcome

Measure: Percentage of countries supported by PM/WRA's program meeting their respective targets for capacity building as defined in their respective country plans

Explanation:Capacity development is defined as those measures taken to ensure that a country has the management, training, and operational structures (along with equipment, manpower, and facilities) required to assess and prioritize mine action needs, and plan, allocate resources, and execute appropriate mine actions across the full spectrum of activities needed for the country to reach mine-safe status.

Year Target Actual
2002 n/a n/a
2003 n/a n/a
2004 n/a n/a
2005 15 16
2006 16 17
2007 17 17
2008 20
2009 20
Long-term/Annual Efficiency

Measure: Ratio of Countries Reaching Sustainment/Cumulative Budget Authority in millions

Explanation:This ratio measures the efficiency of the humanitarian demining program over time due to more efficient execution and the larger demining problems are addressed.F34+F44

Year Target Actual
2003 n/a n/a
2004 17/$328 million 17/$398 million
2005 15/$474 million 17/$481 million
2006 17/$554 million 17/$546 million
2007 19/$634 million 19/648 million
2008 20/$659 million 20/$659 million
2009 20/$710 million
2010 22/$800 million
2011 23/$800 million
2012 23/$800 million

Questions/Answers (Detailed Assessment)

Section 1 - Program Purpose & Design
Number Question Answer Score

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The U.S. Humanitarian Mine Action (HMA) program advances U.S foreign policy interests by relieving the human suffering caused by landmines and unexploded ordnance (UXO). The HMA strategic plan (2004) clearly links the efforts of the program to the Strategic Goals and Objectives put forth in the DoS-USAID Strategic Framework. PM's office of Weapons Removal and Abatement (PM/WRA), which manages the program has an established mission statement: "to develop policy options, implement destruction and mitigation programs and engage civil society in order to reduce the harmful world-wide effects generated by indiscriminately used, illicit and abandoned conventional weapons of war." The program has a set of eight defined, mine action specific, performance goals, which are enumerated in the strategic plan.

Evidence: a. HMA Strategic Plan, January 2004 b. USG Humanitarian Mine Action Interagency Strategic Framework, 2003 c. Annual Foreign Operations Appropriations Act

YES 20%

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest or need?

Explanation: More than 60 countries have landmines on their territory, and there are estimates that the total number of buried landmines is 45 to 50 million worldwide. These landmines and UXO cause a reported 12,000-16,000 casualties annually, DoS issues a demining report every year that includes a country-by-country analysis of the current situation. In terms of U.S. foreign policy, humanitarian mine action supports US strategic objectives to advance sustainable development and global interests and to advance peace and security by providing a tool for humanitarian response and a means to promote regional stability. Each country plan includes a detailed description of the problem as experienced in that particular country.

Evidence: a. Department of State, "A Hidden Killers: The World's Landmine Problem," (2001) b. Department of State, "To Walk the Earth in Safety: The U.S. Commitment to Humanitarian Demining," September 2002c. Humanitarian Mine Action Strategic Plan, January 2004d. USG Humanitarian Mine Action Interagency Strategic Framework, 2003 e. Landmine Monitor Report, 2003. (Non-USG publication/analysis of problem)f. UN Mine Action Database (www.mineaction.org)g. Country Assessments for 2004

YES 20%

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: PM/WRA is the co-chair of the National Security Council's Policy Coordinating Committee's (PCC) Subgroup on HMA, which serves as the executive coordinating body for all USG HMA efforts. Other members include the NSC, DoD, USAID, CDC and CIA. Each agency engaged in HMA has its own role and particular responsibilities, as delineated by legislation and the USG HMA Interagency Strategic Framework, and that programs are designed to be complementary, not duplicative. For example, PM/WRA emphasizes reducing the threat of landmine and unexploded ordinance--a preventive measure. USAID's Leahy program focuses on survivor assistance, which is a corrective or rehabilitative measure. Additional avenues to guard against duplication include obtaining U.S. embassies and host nations input into the Country Plans. Also, PM/WRA participates in international coordinating bodies.

Evidence: a. Legislation: i. Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended ii. Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster and Civic Aid (OHDACA) iii. Leahy War Victims Fund (LWVF) b. Humanitarian Mine Action Strategic Plan, January 2004 c. USG Humanitarian Mine Action Interagency Strategic Framework, 2003 d. Annual Country Plan Requests, 2004 e. UN Mine Action Support Group (MASG)

YES 20%

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: The PM/WRA HMA Strategic Plan creates a management framework for resource allocation decisions and establishes clear linkages between financial inputs and desired program outputs. It establishes a hierarchy of management goals and objectives, supported by clear country plans containing specific measures of performance.PM/WRA administers the program through one competitive, performance-based service contract and numerous grants. This duel contract/grant approach is more cost-effective and efficient, than implementation by the USG and superior results are attained.

Evidence: a. Humanitarian Mine Action Strategic Plan, January 2004b. Country Mine Action plansc. Terms of the Integrated Mine Action Support (IMAS) performance-based service contract. d. UN Mine Action Database (www.mineaction.org)

YES 20%

Is the program effectively targeted, so that resources will reach intended beneficiaries and/or otherwise address the program's purpose directly?

Explanation: PM/WRA's HMA funds are allocated based on country plans as developed by program managers and approved by a review board. The board approves funding of country programs based on established criteria contained in the Humanitarian Mine Action Strategic Plan. These criteria include specific mine action performance goals to which country-specific objectives are tied and priority categories into which all HMA programs are placed. Future funding will require host countries to develop national HMA plans that contain goals and objectives, and will directly inform PM/WRA program managers' country plans for funding. Host countries will be expected to take ownership of the process and will target resources to ensure maximum benefit to reach end-state as defined by the program managers. Periodic on-site reviews by program managers further ensure that resources and activities are properly directed.

Evidence: a. Humanitarian Mine Action Strategic Plan, January 2004 b. HDP Policy and Procedures Manual (under revision)

YES 20%
Section 1 - Program Purpose & Design Score 100%
Section 2 - Strategic Planning
Number Question Answer Score

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: The overall mission of PM/WRA's HMA program is "to implement destruction and mitigation programs and engage civil society in order to reduce the harmful worldwide effects generated by indiscriminately used, illicit and abandoned conventional weapons of war." To measure progress, PM/WRA has developed a long-term goal that incorporates both the humanitarian and training components of the HMA program. The goal's measure is the number of countries receiving U.S. assistance that have eliminated the most pressing humanitarian impacts and are able to sustain future operations with indigenous capacity and little or no external funding.

Evidence: a. Humanitarian Mine Action Strategic Plan, January 2004 b. Bureau Performance Plan, FY 2006

YES 12%

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: PM/WRA's HMA program proposed to increase the number of mine-safe countries from 16 to 20 between 2004 and 2009.

Evidence: Bureau Performance Plan, FY 2006

YES 12%

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: The program has three specific, quantifiable, annual performance indicators that demonstrate progress toward achieving the long-term goal: (1) percentage of countries on track to develop host nation capacity, (2) percentage of countries on target to reduce landmine casualties, and (3) percentage of countries on target to clear specified amount of square meters of land. These performance indicators generally correspond to the first three mine action specific goals enumerated in the HMA Strategic Plan. This information will provide better data on success of USG-funded programs.

Evidence: a. Bureau Performance Plan, FY 2006 b. Humanitarian Mine Action Strategic Plan, January 2004

YES 12%

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: The program has ambitious targets for its annual measures. PM/WRA will rely on reports of cleared land for sponsored programs only. PM/WRA is in the process of determining a better way to collect information related to casualties and developing a better baseline against which future progress can be measured. Focusing on groups receiving U.S. funds for their humanitarian demining programs will give a more accurate assessment of PM/WRA's programs' achievements.

Evidence: a. Humanitarian Mine Action Strategic Plan, January 2004 b. Bureau Performance Plan, FY 2006

YES 12%

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: Commitment to each country program's goals is maintained by both funding recipients and the host country. Both grantees and the performance-based service contractor are tasked to carry out long-term and annual program goals. The host country commits to the program by outlining the landmine problem in the annual country plan and the mine action goals and objectives used to target the problem with support from PM/WRA. Posts maintain host country accountability through semi-annual or annual progress reports. The reports are used by program managers to monitor the program, measure the progress of each country's HMA program, and assess the host country progress to the end-state.

Evidence: a. Terms of IMAS performance-based service contract supported by monthly and quarterly reports b. Terms of grants awarded by PM/WRA, supported by quarterly reports c. Annual Country Plan d. Post humanitarian demining officers' semi-annual progress reports (available on DOS intranet)

YES 12%

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: Four separate external audits and/or evaluations were conducted of the HMA program when it was administered by PM/WRA's predecessor office, PM/HDP. No significant deficiencies were uncovered, and PM/WRA remains committed to full and transparent disclosure of all its activities and procedures.

Evidence: a. OIG Reports: i. "Audit of Humanitarian Demining Program, 1999" ii."Review of Humanitarian Demining Program and Procurement Activities, 2000" iii. "Review of Allegations Regarding the Humanitarian Program's Contract for Integrated Mine action Services, 2003" b. Center for Procurement Excellence: "Review of the Integrated Mine Action Support Contract for the U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, Office of Humanitarian Demining programs" (2002)

YES 12%

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: Country plans developed by program managers are required to contain a country-specific end-state and one or more performance goal(s) and supporting objectives, as noted in the Humanitarian Mine Action Strategic Plan. The objectives will measure the programs' progress and hold them accountable for results. PM/WRA's management determines funding allocations and budget submissions based on country plans and the office's overall strategic plan. Funding allocations to meet country goals are reflected in the Congressional Budget Justification (CBJ) submitted to Congress.

Evidence: a. Humanitarian Mine Action Strategic Plan, January 2004 b. Congressional Budget Justification for Foreign Operations, FY 2005 c. Bureau Performance Plan, FY 2006 d. Individual Country Plans

YES 12%

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: PM/WRA has a new strategic plan for its HMA program. The plan lays out how resources must be linked to outcomes and contains mine action specific performance goals, one or more of which will be presented in the country plans. The goals, in turn, will be supported by one or more country-specific objectives, which will measure the program's progress and provide a method of accountability for program results. The new strategic plan also prioritizes the various country programs and functional programs funded by PM/WRA. Plans will make specific mention of the three performance indicators (1) host nation capacity building, (2) casualty rates, and (3) land clearance.

Evidence: a. Humanitarian Mine Action Strategic Plan, January 2004 b. HDP Policy and Procedures Manual (under revision)

YES 12%
Section 2 - Strategic Planning Score 100%
Section 3 - Program Management
Number Question Answer Score

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: PM/WRA staff uses the Decision Support Sytem (DSS) to collect and store information on country programs. Entries occur every 2-10 days during an activity and include financial data, contracts, and activity updates. Managers use the information to compare and contrast countries' progress and provide feedback to the countries. Annually, each country receiving demining assistance must submit an annual country plan through the U.S. embassy. The report demonstrates program accomplishments, organizational structure, and effectiveness in order to advocate for continued funding for the next year. Some countries/embassies submit semi-annual or bi-annual reports. PM/WRA grant recipients and the IMAS contractor are required to file quarterly progress and financial reports that are used to ensure the program is fulfilling its objectives and to plan corrective action, if necessary. Failure to submit required reports may result in withheld payments or deferred processing of new awards.

Evidence: a. Annual report component of the Annual Country Plan Request b. Program Management Journal--component of the DSS (available on internal program website) c. Semi-annual report from individual embassies of beneficiary countries d. IMAS contract monthly reports and grantees' quarterly reports e. Participation in the UN Mine Action Support Group f. Cable to posts outlining information requirements, responsibilities, and reporting formats g. Sample Humanitarian De-mining Country Plan for the Republic of Azerbaijan (2003 & 2004)

YES 14%

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: Federal managers undergo annual individual job performance appraisals, which include an assessment of their ability to plan, execute operations, and manage contract task orders and grants. Program managers respond to grantees' quarterly reports and IMAS contract monthly written and quarterly oral reports, seek to correct problems as they arise, conduct regular site visits, and make recommendations for financial withholding when a country demonstrates lack of cooperation in resolving a problem. On the contractor/grantee level, PM/WRA complies with the laws regarding accountability through a component of the IMAS contract which states how the contractor's performance will be measured in terms of method and review schedule. The terms of the contract provide for disallowing payments for delays, increased costs, and poor peformance. Terms of a grant indicate cost, schedule, and performance accountabilities and reporting requirements.

Evidence: a. Terms of IMAS Contract: Government Surveillance Plan b. IMAS Contract monthly reports and quarterly grant reports c. Sample grant document: Emergency Mine Action Response Project (Phase 2) -- North Iraq d. Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) article: "IMAS Contract: A Demonstration in Successful Implementation of the GPRA Act)" e. Annual individual job performance standards and appraisals f. HDP Policy and Procedures Manual, (under revision)

YES 14%

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner and spent for the intended purpose?

Explanation: In allocation requests, which are approved by an Under Secretary of State, PM/WRA notes intended spending levels and purposes at the country level and for global/cross-cutting/administrative items. Once funding is approved by the Under Secretary, PM/WRA requests funds be allotted to the bureau and a task order or grant is issued shortly thereafter, usually within 30 days. Within six months of the FY 2003 FOAA being signed into law, approximately 93% of PM/WRA's FY 2003 HMA program funds were obligated. The IMAS contract and all grants over $300,000 are required to be audited on annual basis by independent auditors for performance and financial management.

Evidence: a. Allocation and allotment requests b. Task orders and grants c. Quarterly reports requirements of IMAS contract and grants d. Independent audit reports of the IMAS contract and grants (over $300,000)

YES 14%

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: PM/WRA relies on the following mechanisms to improve program efficiency and cost effectiveness: 1) PM/WRA's competitive, performance-based service contract requires defining a service in terms of performance objectives and measurable outcomes and allows the contractor to determine how to most effectively meet those objectives. The contract provides incentive to the contractor to maximize performance and includes standards for determining whether performance outcomes have been met and procedures for when performance is below standard. 2) Formulating the BPP submission includes adjusting targets each year to reflect actual progress and increases program efficiency. 3) The DSS tool boosts program efficiency and effectiveness by allowing PM/WRA to review and assess information on initiatives. 4) Measures of Effectiveness are established for each country program and used to evaluate and strengthen the programs' effectiveness. The annual country plans from posts report progress on the measures.

Evidence: a. Reports from Technical Evaluation Panel and Cost Analysis Team during competition for initial IMAS contract (1999) b. HDP Policy and Procedures Manual (under revision) c. Decision Support System (available on internal program website) d. FGM Task Order for the Decision Support System

YES 14%

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: PM/WRA collaborates on the international, interagency, and civil society (in host nation) levels. Through participation in the PCC Subgroup on HMA, various mine action outreach initiatives, UN Mine Action Support Group, formulation of country plans, as well as numerous conferences and symposiums, PM/WRA effectively coordinates with related programs. The NADR FY 2004 allocation memos are cleared with others at DoS who have a stake in the program. Besides colloborating at the PCC Subgroup level, PM/WRA informally coordinates with USAID and DOD on HMA programs in specific countries on an as-needed basis. PM/WRA has MOUs with each of the American embassies that specify the roles and relationship of the Department and the embassy in managing the HMA programs. Our contractor sits on the International Mine Action Standards Review Board and Steering Group.

Evidence: a. PCC Subgroup on HMA b. NADR FY 2004 allocation memos c. Annual Country Plan d. USAID: Leahy War Victims Fund e. DOD: Office of Assistant Secretary- Office of Humanitarian Assistance and Landmine Policy f. MOUs with American embassies g. UN Mine Action Support Group; IMAS Review Board and Steering Group Composition, Feb 2003

YES 14%

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: PM/WRA adheres to all Federal Acquisitions Regulations and the Federal Assistance Law, and uses sound business judgment/ best practices. Through the DSS and other spreadsheets, PM/WRA tracks funds from allocation through allotment and obligation to disbursement. The allotment of funds occurs after the approval of their allocation for a particular country or functional program is received. Obligations for the IMAS contract task orders are processed through the new ARIBA procurement system, which requires approval of funding for the task order by the Bureau's budget office. Payments are processed after the responsible program manager has certified the payment is correct and the budget office has certified that funds are available.

Evidence: a. Federal Acquisitions Regulations and Federal Assistance Law b. Decision Support System c. FY 2004 Funds Tracking and Monitoring spreadsheets

YES 14%

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: During the past year, PM/WRA revised its entire planning and resource allocation methodology. A new strategic plan now guides how the office will prioritize the allocation of resources as well as process country plans, which are now presented to a review board for funding approval. Reporting requirements for recipients are being changed to allow funding to be associated with measurable outputs. This information will be factored into the annual formal review of country plans. In response to a 2003 OIG report, PM/WRA addressed the seven recommendations satisfactorily, and the report was closed.

Evidence: a. Humanitarian Mine Action Strategic Plan, January 2004 b. OIG Reports: "Review of Allegations Regarding the Humanitarian Program's contract for Integrated Mine action Services (2003)" c. PM response to OIG 2003 report

YES 14%
Section 3 - Program Management Score 100%
Section 4 - Program Results/Accountability
Number Question Answer Score

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: As part of strategic review, PM/WRA is establishing objective criteria on when end state will be reached for countries receiving assistance. As part of this process some countries' end-state dates have been revised to more accurately reflect projected goal accomplishments.

Evidence: Bureau Performance Plan, FY 2006


Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: PM/WRA is on target for the number of square meters of land cleared and restored to productive use for FY 2003 and on target for the FY 2003 annual casualty reduction. While exact and complete data is not yet available, early indications are that targets for annual performance goals regarding land clearance and casualty figures will be met. PM/WRA has developed a third annual performance goal to ensure countries are on track to develop an indigenous HMA capacity.

Evidence: Bureau Performance Plan, FY 2006

YES 20%

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: 1) PM/WRA's experience with the current IMAS contract which requires defining performance objectives and measurable outcomes, rather than direct performance processes, and having the contractor determine how to meet those objectives has resulted in cost savings. PM/WRA was the first office in the Department of State to implement a performance based contract, which resulted in two recommendations for Hammer Awards. 2) The DSS tool has made program management more efficient by allowing PM/WRA staff to track, query and report on all program activity. It guards against critical information falling through the cracks, which could lead to program ineffectiveness. 3) PM/WRA and its contractor pioneered a multi-functional "toolbox" approach to mine clearance, resulting in increased efficiency. 4) As nations approach and reach sustainment, there is a decrease in funding needed. By emphasizing the development of local capacity, the program reduces ex-patriate support, directly decreasing costs.

Evidence: a. Terms of IMAS contract b. FY 2006 Bureau Performance Plan c. Independent audit reports of IMAS contract and grants (over $300,000) d. HDP Policy and Procedures Manual (under revision) e. Decision Support System (available on internal program website) f. U.S. Demining Program Funding History (FY 1993-2002) g. FGM Task Order for the Decision Support System h. Landmine Monitor Report 2002 i. UN Mine Action Service j.The Vice-President's Hammer Award is reserved for teams of pioneers who create an innovative and unique process or program to make government work better and achieve results Americans care about.

YES 20%

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: The mine action efforts of the United Nations family of agencies, when taken collectively, are the only mine action effort of similar scope and size. The PM/WRA program enjoys greater unity of purpose and the single service contract offers PM/WRA a clear advantage in cost-savings, timeliness, and efficiency. Additionally, by placing greater focus on host-nation ownership, PM/WRA's approach lowers long-term costs and increases likelihood of indigenous sustainment.

Evidence: a. UN Mine Action Service International Mine Action Standards b. Humanitarian Mine Action Strategic Plan, January 2004

YES 20%

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: In FY 2004, GAO reviewed all NADR programs for adherence to legislative requirements, including the humanitarian mine action program. They plan subsequent reviews (dates not yet set), which will include determining whether national security goals have been incorporated into program budget planning, the extent of coordination between similar USG programs, and the effectiveness of NADR programs. Current external reviews include senior office management and WAE doing site visits. Also, in Cambodia, a sub-grantee performed a quality assurance review of the humanitarian mine action program there. The intent is to augment this review process in the future with contractual resources.

Evidence: a. GAO Report, "Review of the State Department's Non-proliferation, Anti-Terrorism, Demining, and Related Programs Account," GAO-04-521

Section 4 - Program Results/Accountability Score 87%

Last updated: 09062008.2004SPR