Detailed Information on the
Inter-American Foundation Assessment

Program Code 10004613
Program Title Inter-American Foundation
Department Name Intl Assistance Programs
Agency/Bureau Name Inter-American Foundation
Program Type(s) Competitive Grant Program
Assessment Year 2005
Assessment Rating Moderately Effective
Assessment Section Scores
Section Score
Program Purpose & Design 100%
Strategic Planning 88%
Program Management 100%
Program Results/Accountability 67%
Program Funding Level
(in millions)
FY2007 $19
FY2008 $21
FY2009 $20

Ongoing Program Improvement Plans

Year Began Improvement Plan Status Comments

Grant agreements and public statements of approved grants will highlight goals and the budget required to implement the project.

Action taken, but not completed All FY-07 grant agreements highlight goals and budget required to implement the project

IAF will continue improving the link between budget requests and program performance, specifying budget request per goal.

Action taken, but not completed The IAF has been reporting on budget requests and program performance by Strategic Plan goals since FY-05 and has included charts on the relationship of budget to performance in the FY-07, FY-08 and FY-09 budget submissions to OMB.

IAF will develop a system of results data collection for the RedEAm??rica sub grants.

Action taken, but not completed A pilot was initiated in FY-07. We expect to have a data collection system in place by FY-09.

Completed Program Improvement Plans

Year Began Improvement Plan Status Comments

Program and Evaluation Staff will conduct analyses of accomplishments per goal and then report them as a target on PART.

Completed IAF has been reporting on this target in PART since FY 2006

Program Performance Measures

Term Type  
Long-term/Annual Outcome

Measure: Strategic Goal 1. Percentage of grantees that met or exceeded outcome goals specified for each project.

Explanation:A project history for each IAF grantee is compiled upon completion of IAF's funding. This history tracks the grantee's achievement of the quantitative and qualitative outcome goals for the project as recorded in the grant agreement at the outset of IAF's funding. Using project histories, this measure aggregates all grantees that met or exceeded these agreed-upon outcome goals, as a percentage of all grantees whose grant period ended during the designated fiscal year.

Year Target Actual
2004 Baseline 57%
2005 62.5% 66%
2006 65% 83%
2007 72.5% 77%
2008 75% 69% (partial)
2009 77.5%
2010 80%
Long-term/Annual Outcome

Measure: Strategic Goal 2. Percentage of participants responding to surveys that agree or strongly agree that they will apply knowledge gained in IAF-sponsored learning activities to their development work.

Explanation:IAF will gauge the usefulness of its learning activities by distributing a questionnaire asking participants in selected IAF-sponsored events whether they can apply the knowledge shared to their development work. This measure is the percentage of respondents that agree or strongly agree. The findings will be used to improve the IAF's learning and dissemination activities.

Year Target Actual
2004 Baseline 50% est.
2005 52.5% NA
2006 55% 82%
2007 57.5% 87%
2008 60% 93%
2009 65%
2010 70%
Long-term/Annual Outcome

Measure: Strategic Goal 3a. The number of companies and corporate foundations who commit to supporting grassroots development by becoming members of RedEAm??rica.

Explanation:This measure is annual numerical increase in RedEAmerica members. Admission into RedEAmerica requires participation in scheduled meetings and technical training in IAF's grassroots approach to development.

Year Target Actual
2004 Baseline 52
2005 53 54
2006 58 57 non-paying mbrs
2007 63 54 dues-paying mbrs
2008 68 57 dues-paying mbrs
2009 73
2010 78
Long-term/Annual Output

Measure: Strategic Goal 3b. The amount of resources available for grassroots development as a result of membership in RedEAm??rica.

Explanation:RedEAm??rica requires its members to report their investment in grassroots development and in-kind and cash contributions to their respective projects from other sources. This measure is the dollar value of the total RedEAmerica investment in grassroots development.

Year Target Actual
2004 Baseline $1.0 Million
2005 $1.5 Million $2.9 Million
2006 $2.0 Million $5.9 Million
2007 $2.5 Million $2.2 Million
2008 $3.0 Million $3.3 Million
2009 $3.0 Million
2010 $3.0 Million
Long-term/Annual Output

Measure: Strategic Goal 3c. Amount of in-kind and cash resources that grantees obtain to further their efforts.

Explanation:IAF grantees' mobilize in-kind and cash contributions, beyond the counterpart specified in the grant agreements, toward project activities and future efforts. IAF verifies semi-annually the amounts of resources reported as mobilized. This measure is the total verified dollar value of these resources.

Year Target Actual
2004 Baseline $10.0 Million
2005 $5.5 Million $5.6 Million
2006 $6.0 Million $4.7 Million
2007 $6.5 Million $4.4 Million
2008 $7.0 Million $1.1 Million(partial
2009 $7.5 Million
2010 $8.0 Million
Long-term/Annual Efficiency

Measure: Strategic Goal 4a. Percentage of IAF's total obligations spent on overhead.

Explanation:Overhead includes the following expenses: personnel, staff travel, office rent, phone service, information technology services, supplies, equipment and other general operating expenses.

Year Target Actual
2004 Baseline 30.4%
2005 29% 28.9%
2006 28% 29.9%
2007 27% 27.8%
2008 26% 30.1% (estimate)
2009 26%
2010 26%
Long-term/Annual Efficiency

Measure: Strategic Goal 4b. Time spent in review and approval of grant proposals.

Explanation:This is measured as the average time spent between receipt of proposals and the award of grants, calculated using all awarded grants.

Year Target Actual
2004 Baseline 15 Months
2005 15 Months 15 Months
2006 12 Months 11 Months
2007 11 Months 11 Months
2008 10 Months 11 Months (estimate)
2009 9 Months
2010 8 Months

Questions/Answers (Detailed Assessment)

Section 1 - Program Purpose & Design
Number Question Answer Score

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: IAF's purpose is to deliver U.S. development assistance directly to poor people in Latin America and the Caribbean by supporting grassroots organizations in innovative projects for reducing poverty and fostering democracy. IAF funds projects that exhibit a high degree of beneficiary participation. IAF delivers its support through competitively awarded small grants and disseminates best practices and lessons learned throughout the development community. IAF's mission has four areas of strategic focus: (1) Effective Development, identifying, funding and measuring the results of the best ways of providing assistance; (2) Learning from IAF's experience and sharing these lessons effectively; (3) Mobilizing Counterpart Resources in cash and in kind from beneficiary communities and other sources; (4) Operational Efficiency, directed at making internal operations as cost-effective as possible.

Evidence: Enabling legislation 2 USC § 290f(b), Strategic plan

YES 20%

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

Explanation: The IAF addresses the problem of persistent poverty and underdevelopment in Latin America and the Caribbean, where many countries have been documented as among the poorest in the world, and 34 percent of the population lives below the poverty line. IAF specifically addresses a large, unmet need to help the region's organized poor develop effective, sustainable solutions tailored to their local context.

Evidence: Annual results report, Randomly selected evaluations, Annual report, Semi-annual grantee reports.

YES 20%

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

Explanation: The IAF program is designed to complement, instead of duplicate, other development efforts in Latin America and the Caribbean. The IAF is neither redundant nor duplicative for three reasons: 1) The development challenge in the region far outstrips available resources. 2) The IAF is the only donor in the region offering a comprehensive approach to the grassroots development model: targeted solicitation of participatory self-help proposals; competitively awarded grants directly to the grassroots level; ongoing project support based on scheduled evaluations; semi-annual measurement of tangible results; and communication of successful experiences to a broad audience, often directly by project beneficiaries. 3) As the grassroots delivery mechanism has proven successful and has been emulated by other development organizations, IAF has fulfilled its mission to be innovative and has offered new models and approaches to development.

Evidence: Enabling legislation 22 USC § 290f (d), Annual report, Journal, Evaluation reports, Wilson Center PowerPoint

YES 20%

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

Explanation: IAF was designed to be agile in order to respond to the initiatives of the organized poor, and it has remained that way. This permits the IAF's program to adjust to the changing reality in Latin America and the Caribbean, as reflected by the changing priorities of the proposals received. No major limits to the effectiveness or efficiency of the program have been identified, and if any were, IAF would adjust its structure and processes to overcome new challenges.

Evidence: Proposals received, grading sheets and proposals funded, Invitations to speak and disseminate learning

YES 20%

Is the program design effectively targeted so that resources will address the program's purpose directly and will reach intended beneficiaries?

Explanation: One hundred percent of the IAF's grant funding supports projects designed and implemented by nongovernmental and grassroots organizations to address the needs and interests of the poor, including sectors that have traditionally been excluded, such as women, indigenous peoples, the disabled and Afro-Latinos. The funds are not channeled through foreign governments but are disbursed directly to grantees to benefit the populations served. IAF is continually refining its call for proposals in order to attract true innovations and target specific populations.

Evidence: Annual report, Results report, Audits

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: IAF has developed effective measures for each of its four strategic goals. The first focus area, Effective Development, is gauged by one outcome measure: the percentage of IAF grantees that meet or exceed their goals of improving the quality of life according to objective indicators. The IAF responds to a wide range of ideas each year and regularly measures each grantee's progress toward its stated goals. Because of the diversity of projects funded each grant cycle, applicable indicators vary from one fiscal year to the next. All grantees, however, target the same outcome: an improved quality of life for their beneficiaries. The best gauge of improvement is the aggregated accomplishment of the individual grantees' goals. Achievement of the IAF's second goal, Learning, is gauged by one outcome measure: the utility of IAF-sponsored activities as measured by the participants' responses to surveys. The achievement of the third, Mobilize Counterpart Resources, is measured in terms of (1) the IAF's success in encouraging companies and corporate foundations to support self-help projects, and (2) its grantees' success in obtaining material and other support from other sources. IAF's fourth strategic goal is measured by an overhead rate and time spent in review of grant proposals.

Evidence: Measures included in PART; Strategic annual and five years plans.

YES 12%

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

Explanation: For each of the measures included in the PART, IAF has established a baseline and set ambitious long-term goals. With respect to its goal of effective development, IAF plans to increase the percentage of grantees meeting or exceeding outcome goals from a current estimated baseline of 60 percent to a targeted 80 percent by 2010. With respect to its learning goal, the IAF plans to increase the percentage of participants in learning activities who will apply knowledge gained to their development work, from an estimated baseline of 50 percent to a targeted 70 percent by 2010. Baselines were compiled from relevant data collected by IAF, though not for the measures included in the PART. Going forward, data will be collected directly for PART measures.

Evidence: OMB submission, Congressional Budget submission, Spreadsheet of proposals received, Results report, GDF

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: Given that all measures have been designed so data can be collected annually, measures for long-term goals are the same as for annual goals. For each measure, progressively more ambitious annual targets, set through 2010, lead to the long-term targets. Meeting its long-term goals will require IAF to sustain its focus on improving program performance every year.

Evidence: Results reports, Congressional budget presentation, OMB submission - strategic plan

YES 12%

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

Explanation: Baselines have been established for all measures, and ambitious targets have been set for both annual and long-term goals. In all cases annual targets represent a progressive improvement in program performance. Baselines were compiled from relevant data collected by IAF, though not for the measures included in the PART. Going forward, data will be collected directly for PART measures.

Evidence: PART Measures.

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: Grant agreements specifically commit grantees to work toward the goals of IAF's program as reflected in their proposal, and grantee progress toward achieving goals is reported regularly. Grant agreements also specify counterpart contributions from partners toward the agreed upon goals of the project. IAF contractors, trained in IAF methods and policies and often working in remote and challenging environments, report on compliance with the grant agreement.

Evidence: Program Office Operations Manual - Section 4 - Funding Guidelines and Procedures, IAF website, 1,887 proposals received by 6/30/04 and the accompanying review documents, One page description of RedEAmerica.

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: Every year IAF randomly selects for in-depth evaluation 10 projects from those completed two years earlier. Problem areas are explored and eliminated and best practices are identified for replication for future grants. Findings are discussed among the IAF's staff for application to the grant-making process. These evaluations also help IAF improve its monitoring. To date, 20 projects have been selected for evaluation, and 20 reports have been completed. Ten new projects have been selected for evaluation in fiscal 2006. These third-party evaluations are currently conducted under a five-year contract. Given the size of the program, they meet the threshold of sufficient scope and quality.

Evidence: AID/OIG audit reports, CD with 18 evaluation reports.

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: IAF's FY 2007 Budget submission has been improved with the inclusion of allocations by strategic plan goals. This presentation has clarified the funding and number of employees supporting each strategic goal. But no evidence is provided of how the funding request is tied to the program's ability to achieve performance targets for annual and long-term measures, and what the impact of different funding levels would be.

Evidence: Budget submission for 2007 tying funds to performance goals. FY 2005 OMB Budget Submission

NO 0%

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

Explanation: In response to the PART exercise, the IAF's staff articulated outcome goals and performance measures to support them. They developed ambitious targets and timeframes for all goals, and they are integrating a review of progress toward these goals into regular reviews of program and grantee performance. IAF is also realigning both its OMB submission and Congressional Budget Justification with the PART document, tracking progress toward these goals, and tying its budget requests to the accomplishment of both annual and long-term strategic goals.

Evidence: FY 2005 OMB Budget Submission and FY 2005 Congressional Budget Justification. PART Measures.

YES 12%
Section 2 - Strategic Planning Score 88%
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: Every six months grantees must submit to the IAF performance reports which track progress in achieving project objectives and goals. Each grantee is visited every six months by an in-country, IAF-contracted monitor who completes and corroborates the reported information. At the end of each grant period, the monitor compiles a project history with accomplishments and lessons learned and submits it to IAF. In fiscal 2004, the monitors submitted reports on 100 percent of active IAF grants. Each grantee is also audited by in-country contract auditors on its use of IAF funds according to a schedule set forth in the grant agreement. These reports and evaluations are reviewed regularly by IAF staff and the lessons learned are incorporated into future reviews of grant proposals and consultations with grantees, auditors, and monitors. IAF employees visit the funded projects on a yearly basis.

Evidence: GDF, Project history, FR field report.

YES 10%

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: IAF grantees are accountable for properly using grant funds and for making their best efforts toward complying with the terms in their grant agreement. When problems arise, the Grant Oversight Committee (GOC) made up of office directors or representatives from Operations, Audit, General Counsel, Programs, and Evaluations meets with the responsible Program Office staff to discuss the causes and implications and agree on a course of action. When possible the GOC works with Program staff to support otherwise viable grants. When the grant is not deemed viable, or in cases of malfeasance, the grant is terminated, and funds and assets may be recovered. IAF holds all contractors accountable for their performance through regular oversight and review of all written products. In FY 2005 the Audit Program instituted a Quality Control Review program and has conducted Quality Control Reviews (QCR) of the work products of four contract auditors, with additional QCRs scheduled for FY 2006 and FY 2007.

Evidence: GOC policy, GOC meeting notes, Financial audits, Grant agreements, Auditor Manual.

YES 10%

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

Explanation: One hundred percent of grant funds are obligated every fiscal year. Disbursements are scheduled according to a plan agreed upon by the Foundation representative and the IAF grantee. Disbursements are contingent on timely submission of required semi-annual financial and programmatic reports, clean audits, and demonstrated progress toward project goals. All grants exceeding $35,000 are audited by in-country auditors annually and at the end of the grant period. Audit reports are reviewed, as appropriate, by IAF's auditing, legal and program offices. Adverse findings are addressed immediately. IAF conducts quarterly reviews so that available funds can be allocated to critical program needs. Since FY 2003, the IAF has only carried over 1 percent to 4 percent of its appropriated funds.

Evidence: SF-132 for FY 2004 and FY 2005; FY 2004 Report on Audit of the IAF's Financial Statements for FY 2004 and 2003, Progress reports, audits, GDF reports

YES 10%

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: Operational efficiency has been and will be tracked through two efficiency measures: an overhead ratio and the time spent reviewing grant proposals. Any operational dollars saved support further awards, and IAF managers respond to this natural incentive by trying to reduce the cost of operations so they can fund more deserving proposals. The IAF's small size and the staff's strong commitment to its mission help make this incentive significant. IAF has also taken a number of meaningful actions to meet its efficiency targets in recent years. The IAF has competitively outsourced to specialized government agencies many support services: procurement, accounting, travel, budget, human resources, payroll, and equal employment opportunity and information technology. These agencies provide very cost-effective, state-of-the-art services. The Bureau of Public Debt (BPD), which manages the IAF's procurement, uses competitive sources for procurement requests.

Evidence: List of recent contracts awarded competitively, Reimbursable Service Agreements with BPD and NBC.

YES 10%

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: IAF coordinates closely with USAID field missions when available and with U.S. Embassies where there is no USAID presence. While under current State Department policy USAID does not conduct a programmatic review of IAF's grant portfolio, Foundation representatives regularly meet with their USAID counterparts during field visits to discuss program coordination. Considering the more experimental nature of its project support, IAF sees itself as complementary to USAID's initiatives and will occasionally refer proposals to USAID which it feels will be in the latter's interest, with an aim to not duplicate USAID's work in the field. IAF coordinates with USAID in Washington (USAID/W) regarding general topics IAF, and USAID staff engage in round-table presentations and each others' events. IAF participates in USAID's council for volunteer agencies and makes occasional presentations about its style of grassroots support to USAID/W contractors. During fiscal 2005 IAF was particularly active in coordinating with the State Department inter-agency meetings regarding the Summit of the Americas. IAF's proposal for Opportunity Zones was cleared by 11 other agencies and was the first such proposal selected by the NSC for President Bush's presentation to the Summit. The IAF participates in the Interagency Strategic Planning Coordinating Conference's Project Horizon, led by the State Department on the issue of national security strategic goals. Finally, IAF is among the agencies included in the State Department budget submission as part of its foreign policy plan and IAF's programs are integrated into the U.S. Foreign Policy Goals.

Evidence: Report of Regional Workshop on Leadership and Socioeconomic Development of communities of African Descent in Latin America and the Caribbean, Summit documents, Letter from WB thanking IAF for participating in disability conference, Wilson Center guest lists, BPP learning community agendas, Mayor's conference agenda, write ups, invitations, IGF cooperative agreement, NMAI thank you letter, One page RedEAmerica summary, SBA panel write up, thank you letter. IAF's Summary and Highlights for State Dept's FY06 CBJ, Description of IAF's FY06 plans for State Dept's FY06 CBJ, How IAF's program fits with US Foreign Operations Goals by percentage, How IAF's program fits with US National Security Strategic Goals (IAF participated in a State Dept-led inter-agency strategic planning process).

YES 10%

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: IAF's contracted procurement specialists at BPD provide the IAF with real-time budget numbers, so the IAF can know at any time how much money it has spent and how much money is available by budget object class within each IAF office. For the past four years IAF has received unqualified audits from the Office of the Inspector General (OIG)/USAID of its financial statements, internal control over financial reporting, and compliance with laws and regulations.

Evidence: SF-132 for FY 2004 and FY 2005, FY 2004 Report on Audit of the IAF's Financial Statements for FY 2004 and 2003.

YES 10%

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

Explanation: IAF is regularly looking for ways to improve internal management. For instance, several years ago IAF revived and strengthened its Grant Oversight Committee. This committee, which includes representatives of each IAF office, works to promptly identify grantees with programmatic, financial or institutional problems that could threaten the viability of an IAF-funded project. The committee supports the Program Office and the grantee in either resolving the problem in a timely manner or terminating the grant. IAF also recently conducted an evaluation of its grants management database (GEMS) and determined that it would be more cost-effective to buy a grant management database "off-the-shelf" than to correct the deficiencies of the current GEMS database. IAF is currently preparing to purchase GIFTS, the most economical and appropriate grants management database.

Evidence: Evaluation Report of GEMS database, Grant Oversight Committee Policies and Procedures

YES 10%

Are grants awarded based on a clear competitive process that includes a qualified assessment of merit?

Explanation: Each project proposal is evaluated according to elements set forth and explained in IAF's call for proposals, with no specific sectoral or geographic requirements: Merit is the only standard. The call for proposals is posted on IAF's Web site and disseminated throughout Latin America and the Caribbean through a variety of other channels. Each proposal is analyzed by professional program staff. About two-thirds receive a second reading. In fiscal 2005 roughly the top 10 percent were discussed in sub-regional committees. The best 100 proposals were visited in the field by program staff. After field visits, they were reviewed in detail by a cross-section of all IAF offices, including the general counsel (GC); questions are forwarded to the proponent for clarification before final approval. Recommended projects are submitted to the relevant U.S. Embassy for clearance within 30 days. The GC reviews the grant documents for legal sufficiency. IAF's president reviews each proposal and, if everything is in order, approves it. A public statement is forwarded to IAF's board of directors and Congressional oversight committees for review and comment. If no concerns are raised during a 15-day period, the grant is awarded. Grants can be amended by extending the time in which to spend the funds, which accommodates delays, by reprogramming the budget originally approved or by adding funds. Amendments are proposed by the grantee, endorsed by the Foundation representative as merited by the circumstances, cleared by two supervisors and approved by IAF's president. Amendments are generally for a shorter duration than the original grant and are usually for less funding. They are audited, and visits by field contractors and IAF staff continue through their duration.

Evidence: IAF website, Program Office Operations Manual

YES 10%

Does the program have oversight practices that provide sufficient knowledge of grantee activities?

Explanation: Grantees must submit semi-annual programmatic and financial reports. The reports are verified through as many as four contractor visits per year plus annual visits by Program Office staff. Reports from contractors that raise concerns are referred to the responsible Program Office staff; if sufficiently serious, they are addressed by the Grant Oversight Committee.

Evidence: Audit report, GOC notes, Follow-up sheets, Results report

YES 10%

Does the program collect grantee performance data on an annual basis and make it available to the public in a transparent and meaningful manner?

Explanation: Data collected on grantee performance are aggregated and reported in the IAF's annual Results Report, which is sent to OMB and Congressional committees. Copies are available to the public upon request. IAF's journal, Grassroots Development, and IAF's annual report contain profiles and other information and are distributed widely.

Evidence: Results report, Journal, Annual report

YES 10%
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: Data included for PART measures as well as data provided by IAF in other sources indicate that IAF, its partners and grantees are making measurable progress toward meeting its long-term performance goals in PART 2005: Strategic Goal 1: Project histories and programmatic and financial reports on grants expired in fiscal 2004 revealed that 57 percent of the grantees met or exceeded their specified goals. Some grantees that did not achieve 100 percent of their goals would have met them if they had had more time to build the necessary human and social capital. Some could not meet all their goals because of circumstances beyond their control, such as market fluctuations and natural disasters. Others had goals that were too ambitious or too experimental for the context in which they were working. In fiscal 2005, verified data reported by 43 percent of grantees whose grants had expired, showed that 75 percent had achieved their specified goals, exceeding the target in the PART for 2005. (The partial reporting is due to the deadline of December 31, 2005, when all reports must be submitted.) Strategic Goal 2: The measure assessing progress in 2005 was not articulated until the end of the fiscal year; therefore it could not be applied. At least four IAF-sponsored learning activities will be assessed in fiscal 2006. IAF will circulate a questionnaire on the participants' application of the information presented to their development work. Responses and analysis will be reported in the next PART submission. Strategic Goal 3a and b: RedEAmerica, a network of private companies and corporate foundations applying the IAF's approach to grassroots development, increased its membership from 27 in fiscal 2003 to 54 in fiscal 2005, exceeding the baseline set for the fiscal 2004 and the target for 2005. RedEAmerica reports cash and in-kind resources for development increased from $1.0 million (baseline) to $2.9 million in fiscal 2005, representing more than a dollar-per-dollar match of IAF's investment. RedEAmerica partners used IAF and their own funding to finance 319 small grants supporting the self-help efforts of grassroots organizations. For fiscal 2006, the results of RedEAmerica's grants will be verified in the same manner as other IAF grants. Strategic Goal 3c. IAF's grantees contribute cash and in-kind resources toward activities benefiting the poor. In fiscal 2004 they contributed $5.3 million, slightly exceeding the estimated 2004 baseline. Based on the 50 percent of the verified reports available at this writing, IAF's grantees contributed $2.2 million in fiscal 2005. This is a partial figure. An updated figure, based on 100 percent of the verified reports, will be submitted in the 2006 PART document. (See partial grant results report.)

Evidence: Analysis of project histories, Results Report, evaluations, RedEAmerica report. The majority of reports are due by end of fiscal year.


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

Explanation: Because performance measures for annual goals are the same as for long-term goals (set forth in Q2.1 and Q2.2), this progress is detailed under 4.1. Given that the data available enables a better analysis of the program's success in achieving its annual goals, as opposed to its progress toward achieving its long term goals, IAF meets the standard for Large Extent for this question.

Evidence: Results Report, sample project histories, evaluations, Fiscal 2007 Budget Submission, e-mails from recipients of IAF's publications.


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

Explanation: Strategic Goal 4a and b: IAF's fourth strategic goal is to reduce its overhead and the time spent reviewing grant proposals. In fiscal 2005, overhead was 28.9 percent, slightly lower than anticipated, because of measures that trimmed the cost of personnel, staff travel, telecommunications, supplies, equipment and other general operating expenses. In connection with the grant process, IAF revised its call for proposals to reduce substandard proposals, eliminated the single annual deadline in favor of evaluating proposals year-round, and installed new grant management software so it can receive proposals on-line. IAF will continue outsourcing to specialized government agencies support services such as procurement, accounting, travel, budget, payroll, human resources, equal employment opportunity and information technology. New grant management software will be operational in fiscal 2006 and grant information will be easier to access. Grant monitoring, auditing and evaluations are provided by in-country professionals under contract to IAF. They provide IAF, its partners and grantees outstanding services at a reasonable price.

Evidence: Interagency agreement with DOI and BPD, Consultant report on grant management software, Consultant report and flow charts on grantmaking, Audit Report Number 9-IAF-03-006-P: Audit of Awarding and Monitoring of Grants by the Inter-American Foundation.

YES 25%

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

Explanation: Given that IAF uses a unique model of development assistance, and relies on outcome measures that are highly specific to its grant portfolio, there is no basis for a comparison with other programs.


NA 0%

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

Explanation: Independent evaluations show that an IAF grant, combined with an innovative proposal and well managed project, can produce demonstrable results for the community to which it is awarded. Choosing the right projects and partners remains a challenge, however, and some projects do not meet promised goals. This difficulty is a direct consequence of IAF's mission to fund innovative, grassroots proposals, and the mixed results presented in the evaluations provide important lessons learned for IAF, the grantee, and the development community, fulfilling an important part of the IAF mission. Through this learning process the IAF is continuing to work to improve the percentage of projects which meet their goals and demonstrate a quantifiable impact on their communities, as measured under Strategic Goal 1.

Evidence: IG performance audit. CD with 18 evaluation reports.

Section 4 - Program Results/Accountability Score 67%

Last updated: 09062008.2005SPR