oversight

Afghanistan Development: Agencies Could Benefit from a Shared and More Comprehensive Database on U.S. Efforts

Published by the Government Accountability Office on 2012-11-07.

Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)

                United States Government Accountability Office

GAO             Report to Congressional Requesters




November 2012
                AFGHANISTAN
                DEVELOPMENT
                Agencies Could
                Benefit from a Shared
                and More
                Comprehensive
                Database on U.S.
                Efforts




GAO-13-34
                                                November 2012

                                                AFGHANISTAN DEVELOPMENT
                                                Agencies Could Benefit from a Shared and More
                                                Comprehensive Database on U.S. Efforts
Highlights of GAO-13-34, a report to
congressional requesters




Why GAO Did This Study                          What GAO Found
Congress has provided almost $20                The four main U.S. agency Afghan development programs and accounts have
billion for development efforts in              similar goals and activities and hence overlap to some degree. In fiscal year 2011,
Afghanistan since 2002 through four             the Economic Support Fund (ESF) and other smaller accounts administered by the
main programs or accounts                       U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and the Commander’s
administered by USAID, DOD, and                 Emergency Response Program (CERP), administered by the Department of
State. These efforts are a key                  Defense (DOD), funded similar activities related to agriculture; democracy and
component of the U.S. civilian-military         governance; education and health; energy and electricity; economic growth; and
strategic framework focused on                  transportation. Both funded activities in 33 of Afghanistan’s 34 provinces and in
countering insurgents in Afghanistan.
                                                249 of Afghanistan’s 399 districts. The Task Force for Business and Stability
Given the volume and multifaceted
                                                Operations (TFBSO), administered by DOD, and the Afghanistan Infrastructure
nature of U.S. support for Afghan
development, it is essential that
                                                Fund (AIF), administered by DOD and the Department of State (State), also funded
agencies streamline their efforts to            efforts in some of the same categories of assistance as ESF and CERP in fiscal
reduce unnecessary overlap and                  year 2011. According to agency officials, these overlapping development efforts
duplication. As such, this report               can be beneficial, provided that agencies leverage their respective expertise and
examines (1) the extent to which U.S.           coordinate efforts.
agencies’ development efforts overlap,          GAO’s analysis of USAID’s development activities and DOD’s CERP activities in
(2) the extent to which USAID and               six Afghan districts identified 28 USAID and 28 DOD CERP funded activities that
DOD’s CERP may have conducted
                                                were potentially duplicative. GAO could not, however, conclusively determine
duplicative activities, and (3) the
                                                whether or not these efforts had resulted in duplication because of gaps and
mechanisms that U.S. agencies have
used to enhance coordination of their           inconsistency in the level of detail on activity descriptions in USAID’s and DOD’s
development efforts, in Afghanistan. To         respective databases. Moreover, some USAID development activities may not
address these objectives, GAO                   have been included because information provided by USAID indicated that
analyzed data from USAID, DOD, and              Afghan Info—the database designated by the embassy as the official repository
State on their development efforts and          for U.S. assistance—did not include 13 active awards, including some assistance
interviewed agency officials in                 to the Afghan government, representing about 10 percent of USAID’s obligations
Washington, D.C., and Afghanistan.              for development efforts in fiscal year 2011. These omissions limited GAO’s ability
                                                to evaluate whether similar activities were providing the same goods or services
What GAO Recommends                             to the same beneficiaries. USAID also lacks complete standardized procedures
Because agencies have made limited              for implementing partners to report information on their development activities in
progress in collecting and retaining            Afghan Info, and for USAID personnel to verify the information on these activities.
critical data on development efforts in a       While U.S. agencies use a variety of methods to coordinate development efforts in
shared database, GAO believes                   Afghanistan, they lack a database to share and retain data. USAID and DOD
Congress should consider requiring
                                                officials cited informal communication and interagency meetings as the primary
them to do so. Also, GAO recommends
                                                method of coordinating USAID and CERP efforts. For AIF efforts, USAID, DOD,
that USAID (1) take steps to include all
of its awards in Afghan Info and
                                                and State conduct interagency planning and obtain formal concurrence by
(2) develop written procedures for              relevant agency officials, as required by law. For TFBSO efforts, DOD coordinates
reporting and verifying information on          through quarterly briefings with USAID and State officials in Kabul and a formal
development projects. USAID agreed              concurrence process. However, the effectiveness of such coordination may
with the recommendations. DOD                   depend on the priorities of the staff involved and could be hampered by high staff
disagreed with the need for legislative         turnover and the lack of data retention. To address these limitations, GAO has
action, believing it may lead to a              previously recommended that agencies report their development efforts in a
reporting burden. GAO maintains that            shared database. USAID agreed and DOD partially agreed with this
a shared database would be beneficial.          recommendation. While Afghan Info has been designated as the central repository
                                                of data for U.S. foreign assistance efforts in Afghanistan, DOD still has not
View GAO-13-34. For more information,
contact Charles Michael Johnson, Jr. at (202)   reported its CERP projects in a shared database such as Afghan Info, citing
512-7331 or johnsoncm@gao.gov.                  concerns with the sensitive nature of its data, which USAID noted could be
                                                mitigated by the internal controls in Afghan Info.
                                                                                        United States Government Accountability Office
Contents


Letter                                                                                   1
               Background                                                               4
               U.S. Agencies’ Development Efforts in Afghanistan Overlap               11
               Analysis for Potential Duplication Was Inconclusive Because of
                 Limitations and Gaps in Agency Data                                   19
               U.S. Agencies Use Various Methods to Coordinate but Lack a
                 Shared Database That Includes All Development Efforts                 24
               Conclusions                                                             30
               Matter for Congressional Consideration                                  31
               Recommendations for Executive Action                                    32
               Agency Comments and Our Evaluation                                      32

Appendix I     Scope and Methodology                                                    35



Appendix II    Obligations for Development Efforts in Afghanistan by Category in
               Fiscal Year 2011                                                         40



Appendix III   USAID and DOD’s CERP Activities in Afghanistan, by Category of
               Development Effort, for Fiscal Year 2011                                 41



Appendix IV    USAID and DOD’s CERP Development Activities Identified as
               Potentially Duplicative                                                  42



Appendix V     Comments from the U.S. Agency for International Development              45



Appendix VI    Comments from the Department of Defense                                  49



Appendix VII   GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments                                    50




               Page i                                     GAO-13-34 Afghanistan Development
Tables
          Table 1: Major U.S.-Administered Programs or Accounts Used to
                   Fund Development Efforts in Afghanistan in Fiscal Year
                   2011                                                              6
          Table 2: Laws Governing the Four Main Programs or Accounts
                   Supporting Development Efforts in Afghanistan in Fiscal
                   Year 2011                                                       12
          Table 3: Categories of Development Efforts Supported by the Four
                   Main Programs or Accounts in Afghanistan in Fiscal Year
                   2011                                                            13
          Table 4: Number of USAID (ESF) and DOD (CERP) Activities in
                   the Six Districts Selected for Analysis                         20
          Table 5: Selected Potentially Duplicative Activities between USAID
                   and DOD’s CERP                                                  21
          Table 6: Number of Keyword Matches in the Six Districts Selected
                   for Analysis                                                    38


Figures
          Figure 1: The Six Regional Commands in Afghanistan                       10
          Figure 2: Afghan Provinces Where the Four Main Programs or
                   Accounts Funded Development Efforts in Fiscal Year
                   2011                                                            16
          Figure 3: Districts in Which USAID and DOD’s CERP Conducted
                   Development Activities in Fiscal Year 2011                      17




          Page ii                                     GAO-13-34 Afghanistan Development
Abbreviations

AIF               Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund
CERP              Commander’s Emergency Response Program
CIDNE             Combined Information Data Network Exchange
DOD               Department of Defense
ESF               Economic Support Fund
GPRA              Government Performance Results Act
PRT               Provincial Reconstruction Team
SIGAR             Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction
State             Department of State
TFBSO             Task Force for Business and Stability Operations
USAID             U.S. Agency for International Development
USFOR-A           United States Forces–Afghanistan




This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the
United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety
without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain
copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be
necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.




Page iii                                              GAO-13-34 Afghanistan Development
United States Government Accountability Office
Washington, DC 20548




                                   November 7, 2012

                                   The Honorable Daniel K. Akaka
                                   Chairman
                                   The Honorable Ron Johnson
                                   Ranking Member
                                   Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal
                                    Workforce, and the District of Columbia
                                   Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs
                                   United States Senate

                                   The Honorable Howard L. Berman
                                   Ranking Member
                                   Committee on Foreign Affairs
                                   House of Representatives

                                   The Honorable Thomas A. Coburn
                                   United States Senate

                                   Congress has appropriated and U.S. agencies have allotted almost $20
                                   billion since 2002 to support the reconstruction and development of
                                   Afghanistan through four main programs or accounts administered by the
                                   United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the
                                   Department of Defense (DOD), and the Department of State (State).
                                   These agencies have implemented projects and activities to support
                                   development of the agricultural, transportation, energy, and water sectors
                                   in Afghanistan, among others. 1 According to U.S. government
                                   documents, these efforts support the U.S. government’s
                                   counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan. The efforts are integral to the
                                   Civil-Military Strategic Framework for the U.S. Mission in Afghanistan 2
                                   and require extensive coordination and information sharing among the
                                   participating agencies. In our 2012 follow-up report on the status of


                                   1
                                    For the purposes of this report, we use “development efforts” to describe the range of
                                   projects and activities conducted by U.S. agencies and funded through four main
                                   programs or accounts to promote economic growth, strengthen governance and the rule
                                   of law, and improve health outcomes, among other objectives. We do not include security
                                   or humanitarian assistance as part of development efforts.
                                   2
                                    U.S. Embassy Kabul and U.S. Forces-Afghanistan, Civil-Military Strategic Framework for
                                   the U.S. Mission in Afghanistan (Kabul, Afghanistan: March 2012).




                                   Page 1                                              GAO-13-34 Afghanistan Development
actions taken to reduce duplication and overlap in the federal government
and other reports issued in 2010 and 2011, 3 we noted that a lack of
information sharing could create the potential for duplication between
U.S. agencies involved in development efforts in Afghanistan—in
particular, the possibility that development efforts undertaken by DOD
through its Commander’s Emergency Response Program (CERP) 4 may
duplicate USAID’s development efforts. For the purposes of this report,
and as we defined in our 2012 annual report to Congress, “overlap” refers
to those instances in which programs or accounts have similar goals,
devise similar strategies and activities to achieve those goals, or target
similar beneficiaries; whereas “duplication” occurs when two or more
agencies are engaged in the same activities or provide the same goods
or services to the same beneficiaries. 5 In your letter requesting this study,
you noted that given the federal government’s fiscal challenges, it is
essential that the Administration and Congress seek ways to improve the
efficiency and effectiveness of federal programs, including streamlining
operations and reducing overlap.

In response to these concerns, this report examines (1) the extent to
which U.S. agencies’ development efforts overlap, (2) the extent to which
USAID and DOD’s CERP may have conducted duplicative activities, and
(3) the mechanisms that U.S. agencies have used to enhance
coordination of their development efforts, in Afghanistan.

To examine the extent to which U.S. agencies’ development efforts
overlap in Afghanistan, we analyzed agency data on the type, amounts,
and locations of assistance provided by these agencies to Afghanistan in
fiscal year 2011. We also reviewed the authorizing and appropriating


3
 GAO, Follow-up on 2011 Report: Status of Actions Taken to Reduce Duplication,
Overlap, and Fragmentation, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue, GAO-12-453SP
(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 28, 2012); Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in
Government Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue, GAO-11-318SP
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 1, 2011); and Afghanistan Development: U.S. Efforts to Support
Afghan Water Sector Increasing, but Improvements Needed in Planning and Coordination,
GAO-11-138 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 15, 2010).
4
 CERP enables U.S. commanders in Afghanistan to carry out small-scale projects
designed to meet urgent humanitarian relief and reconstruction needs in their areas of
responsibility. The background section describes CERP in further detail.
5
 GAO, 2012 Annual Report: Opportunities to Reduce Duplication, Overlap and
Fragmentation, Achieve Savings, and Enhance Revenue, GAO-12-342SP (Washington,
D.C.: Feb. 28, 2012).




Page 2                                                GAO-13-34 Afghanistan Development
legislation and program guidance for selected programs and accounts
administered by USAID, DOD, and State that fund development efforts in
Afghanistan. 6 To examine the extent to which USAID and DOD’s CERP
have conducted duplicative activities in Afghanistan, we obtained and
analyzed data on development activities initiated by USAID and DOD in
Afghanistan in fiscal year 2011. We focused our analysis on activities
undertaken in a nonrandom, nongeneralizable sample of six Afghan
districts. These activities accounted for 17 percent of more than 29,000
development activities initiated by USAID and DOD in Afghanistan in
fiscal year 2011 and 32 percent of the disbursements made by these
agencies for development activities. We selected the six districts to
ensure broad geographic representation within Afghanistan and
representation across a range of categories of assistance. We used
statistical software to identify matching keywords in the descriptions of
activities undertaken by the respective agencies in the same districts.
Finally, we reviewed the activity descriptions for pairs of activities with
matching keywords to determine the potential for duplication. If we could
not rule out the possibility of duplication after reviewing the descriptions
and locations of USAID’s and DOD’s activities, we requested additional
information from the agencies to make a final determination. To examine
the mechanisms that U.S. agencies have used to enhance coordination of
their development efforts in Afghanistan, we analyzed agency documents
and interviewed U.S. officials in Washington, D.C., and Kabul,
Afghanistan, and at the six regional commands in Afghanistan. For our
interviews at the regional commands, we designed and administered a
semistructured questionnaire to capture information on the coordination
mechanisms used by U.S. agencies, including their types, the frequency
of their use, and their reported effectiveness.

We conducted this performance audit from February 2012 to November
2012 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to
obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings
and conclusions based on our audit objectives. Appendix I provides a
more detailed description of our scope and methodology.


6
 For the purposes of this report, we define “account” as an item for which appropriations
are made in any appropriation act or for which there is a designated budget identification
number in the President’s budget.




Page 3                                                 GAO-13-34 Afghanistan Development
             Afghanistan is a mountainous, arid, land-locked country with limited
Background   natural resources. It is bordered to the east and south by Pakistan; to the
             west by Iran; and to the north by Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan,
             and China. At about 650,000 square kilometers, Afghanistan is slightly
             smaller than the state of Texas; its population, estimated at 30.4 million in
             2012, is ethnically diverse and largely rural. The country is divided into 34
             provinces, almost 400 districts, and approximately 30,000 villages.

             Afghanistan is one of the poorest countries in the world and ranks near
             the bottom in virtually every development indicator, including life
             expectancy; literacy; nutrition; and infant, child, and maternal mortality.
             Nearly three decades of war and extended drought have devastated
             Afghanistan’s infrastructure, economy, and government institutions. Given
             these circumstances, Afghanistan has become highly dependent on
             foreign aid to achieve its economic development objectives. As we
             previously reported, the international donor community has funded 86
             percent of Afghanistan’s nonsecurity expenditures, with the United States
             funding an estimated 39 percent of Afghanistan’s total nonsecurity
             expenditures from 2006 through 2010. 7 According to U.S. strategic
             documents, the United States has now entered a transition period as it
             prepares to hand over lead responsibility for security to the Afghan
             government by December 31, 2014. During this transition period, the U.S.
             mission will shift from a focus on stabilization and counterinsurgency
             operations to a more traditional diplomatic and development model. In
             keeping with this focus, U.S. assistance will support the Afghan
             government’s efforts to improve its capacity to deliver governance,
             economic development, and the rule of law. At the July 2012 Tokyo
             Conference on Afghanistan, the Secretary of State announced that the
             United States would seek sustained levels of development funding for
             Afghanistan through 2017 at or near the levels that the United States has
             provided over the last decade.

             To ensure that U.S. civilian and military efforts are fully integrated and
             complementary, the U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan and Commander of
             U.S. Forces-Afghanistan (USFOR-A) jointly issued the Civil-Military
             Strategic Framework for the U.S. Mission in Afghanistan, which provides


             7
              GAO, Afghanistan’s Donor Dependence, GAO-11-948R (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 20,
             2011). These years are expressed as Afghan solar years, which are the basis for
             Afghanistan’s budget cycle. For example, solar year 2010/2011 began on March 21, 2010,
             and ended on March 20, 2011.




             Page 4                                             GAO-13-34 Afghanistan Development
strategic guidance for all American personnel serving in Afghanistan. 8
The framework outlines three key pillars of strategic investment—
governance, rule of law, and socio-economic development—needed for
the United States to achieve its objectives to disrupt, dismantle, defeat,
and prevent the return of al Qaeda and other extremists in Afghanistan.
The framework also identifies security as the foundation of U.S. strategy,
creating an environment that allows progress within the three pillars. In
fiscal year 2011, the United States primarily funded development efforts
in Afghanistan through four programs or accounts—the Economic
Support Fund (ESF), Commander’s Emergency Response Program
(CERP), Task Force for Business and Stability Operations (TFBSO), and
Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund (AIF)—implemented by three agencies:
USAID, DOD, and State. 9 Table 1 provides an overview of these four
programs or accounts.




8
 U.S. Embassy Kabul and U.S. Forces-Afghanistan, Civil-Military Strategic Framework for
the U.S. Mission in Afghanistan (Kabul, Afghanistan: March 2012).
9
 We primarily focused our analysis on development efforts in Afghanistan funded under
these four programs or accounts, which constitute most of the U.S. assistance for
development efforts in Afghanistan since 2002. Smaller amounts of assistance for
development efforts have been provided by other U.S. agencies and through other
accounts.




Page 5                                              GAO-13-34 Afghanistan Development
Table 1: Major U.S.-Administered Programs or Accounts Used to Fund Development Efforts in Afghanistan in Fiscal Year
2011

                                                                                               Task Force for
                                                                    Commander’s                Business and              Afghanistan
                                   Economic Support                 Emergency Response         Stability Operations      Infrastructure
                                   Fund (ESF)                       Program (CERP)a            (TFBSO)                   Fund (AIF)
Primary agency or agencies         USAID                            DOD                        DOD                       DOD and State
responsible
Fiscal year in which funding for   2002                             2004                       2009                      2011
Afghanistan began
Program or account description     Supports Afghan                  Enables U.S.               Supports projects to      Supports high-
                                   government in its                commanders in              help reduce violence,     priority, large-scale
                                   efforts to promote               Afghanistan to carry out   enhance stability, and    infrastructure
                                   economic growth,                 small-scale projects       support economic          projects that
                                   establish a democratic           designed to meet urgent    normalcy through          support the U.S.
                                   and capable state                humanitarian relief and    strategic business        civilian-military
                                   governed by the rule of          reconstruction needs in    and economic              effort in
                                   law, and provide basic           their areas of             opportunities.            Afghanistan.
                                   services for its people.         responsibility.
Funding provided in fiscal year    $2,068                           $400                       $224                      $400
2011 (millions)b
Total funding provided since       $14,919                          $3,439                     $555                      $800
                     b
inception (millions)
                                            Source: GAO analysis of OMB and agency data.
                                            a
                                             CERP may also fund some nondevelopment activities, such as battle damage repair, former
                                            detainee payments, hero payments, protective measures, temporary contract guards for critical
                                            infrastructure, condolence payments, and other urgent humanitarian or reconstruction projects. We
                                            exclude nondevelopment CERP activities from our analyses in this report.
                                            b
                                            Funding provided is based on OMB allocations and agency allotments for Afghanistan assistance.


                                            •     ESF. This account supports the Afghan government in its efforts to
                                                  promote economic growth, establish a democratic and capable state
                                                  governed by the rule of law, and provide basic services for its people.
                                                  With overall foreign policy guidance from State, USAID implements
                                                  most ESF assistance through contracts and assistance instruments
                                                  and also by providing funds directly to the Afghan government for
                                                  specific programs or activities. Contracts and assistance instruments
                                                  are awarded to USAID’s implementing partners, who in turn carry out
                                                  development-related programs and otherwise support USAID’s
                                                  mission in Afghanistan. Direct assistance is provided through the
                                                  Afghan budget either (1) bilaterally to individual Afghan ministries or
                                                  (2) multilaterally through trust funds administered by the World Bank
                                                  and the United Nations Development Program. Since October 2009,
                                                  USAID has tracked information on its development activities funded
                                                  through ESF and other accounts in a database known as Afghan



                                            Page 6                                                     GAO-13-34 Afghanistan Development
       Info. 10 According to USAID, Afghan Info is designed to track the
       location of USAID and other mission-funded activities to the nearest
       village; document the use of funds at the district level; monitor the
       performance of projects; and coordinate with U.S. agencies,
       implementing partners, international donors, and the Afghan
       government. As shown in table 1, almost $15 billion in ESF funds
       have been allocated to support development efforts in Afghanistan
       since fiscal year 2002. 11

•      CERP. This program enables local commanders in Afghanistan to
       respond to urgent humanitarian relief and reconstruction requirements
       within their areas of responsibility. DOD guidance recognizes 19
       authorized uses of CERP, including projects and activities to develop
       Afghanistan’s transportation, electricity, and agriculture sectors.
       CERP is to be used for urgent, small-scale humanitarian relief and
       reconstruction projects that are generally estimated to cost less than
       $500,000 each, and CERP may not be used for any project costing
       over $20 million. USFOR-A has published standard operating
       procedures to serve as the primary source of guidance for CERP,
       including processes and procedures for project selection and
       coordination, execution, management, and reporting of CERP
       projects. 12 DOD tracks information on CERP projects in the Combined
       Information Data Network Exchange (CIDNE)—a classified database
       that also includes other information concerning U.S. military




10
     Prior to 2009, USAID tracked this information in a database known as GeoBase.
11
  Since 2002, Congress has also provided funding through several smaller accounts for
USAID and State to implement development efforts in Afghanistan. For example,
Congress has provided about $823 million through the Development Assistance account,
and about $526 million through the Global Health and Child Survival account. By fiscal
year 2011, however, almost all development efforts administered by USAID were funded
through ESF.
12
 USFOR-A Pub 1-06, Money As a Weapon System-Afghanistan (Kabul, Afghanistan:
March 2012).




Page 7                                                 GAO-13-34 Afghanistan Development
       operations. As shown in table 1, about $3.4 billion in CERP funding
       has been allocated for Afghanistan since fiscal year 2004. 13

•      TFBSO. In June 2006, as part of its counterinsurgency strategy, DOD
       established TFBSO to support economic stabilization efforts in Iraq. 14
       In July 2009, TFBSO expanded to Afghanistan, where it has helped
       identify areas of the economy viable for investment, such as minerals,
       indigenous industries, and agriculture. TFBSO uses a variety of
       approaches to conduct its work, including arranging visits for U.S. and
       non-U.S. investors to meet with business leaders and undertaking
       specific development projects that could involve building facilities or
       conducting assessments to identify potential opportunities. TFBSO
       implements projects through contractors and partnerships with other
       agencies. As shown in table 1, DOD has allotted approximately $555
       million in funding for TFBSO in Afghanistan since fiscal year 2009.

•      AIF. AIF provides funding for high-priority, large-scale infrastructure
       projects in Afghanistan. 15 The Senate Committee on Appropriations
       expressed concern in 2010 that CERP funds were being used to pay
       for large-scale reconstruction projects and other DOD efforts outside
       the scope of the purposes of CERP. 16 The Secretaries of Defense
       and State subsequently jointly requested that Congress establish AIF
       for the purpose of executing large-scale infrastructure projects in
       Afghanistan, and DOD offered to lower its CERP budget request by
       $400 million to fund the AIF. In fiscal year 2011 Congress



13
  GAO has previously reported on CERP-funded development projects in Afghanistan.
See GAO, Afghanistan Development: U.S. Efforts to Support Afghan Water Sector
Increasing, but Improvements Needed in Planning and Coordination, GAO-11-138
(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 15, 2010); Military Operations: Actions Needed to Improve
Oversight and Interagency Coordination for the Commander’s Emergency Response
Program in Afghanistan, GAO-09-615 (Washington, D.C.: May 18, 2009); and Afghanistan
Reconstruction: Progress Made in Constructing Roads, but Assessments for Determining
Impact and a Sustainable Maintenance Program Are Needed, GAO-08-689 (Washington,
D.C.: July 8, 2008).
14
  GAO has previously reported on challenges associated with project management and
information-sharing for TFBSO in Afghanistan. See GAO, DOD Task Force for Business
and Stability Operations: Actions Needed to Establish Project Management Guidelines
and Enhance Information Sharing, GAO-11-715 (Washington, D.C.: July 29, 2011).
15
 Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, Pub. L. No. 111-
383 (Jan. 5, 2010).
16
     S. Rep. No. 111-295, at 207 (2010).




Page 8                                               GAO-13-34 Afghanistan Development
     appropriated $400 million to establish AIF, which requires joint
     formulation and approval of projects between State and DOD before
     either agency may implement those agreed-upon efforts. USAID is the
     implementing agency for State, and USFOR-A implements projects
     for DOD. USAID executes its projects through contracts that it
     manages directly, while USFOR-A executes projects through
     contracts managed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. As shown
     in table 1, Congress has appropriated $800 million for AIF since fiscal
     year 2011.

The United States employs a series of integrated, civilian-military
structures at the national and subnational levels to coordinate the
planning and implementation of development efforts in Afghanistan. In
Kabul, U.S. Mission Afghanistan oversees all civilian assistance to
Afghanistan through the Office of the Coordinating Director for
Development and Economic Affairs, which coordinates assistance with
the military through an Executive Working Group and 14 national-level
and other ad hoc working groups. Outside of Kabul, the U.S. Mission
Afghanistan has established a parallel civilian structure within each
relevant military command to coordinate civilian-military activities at the
regional, provincial, and district levels. Six regional commands coordinate
all civilian-military activities within a specified geographic area consisting
of 1 to 14 provinces. 17 Provincial Reconstruction Teams and District
Support Teams are key instruments through which the United States and
international community deliver assistance at the provincial and district
levels. Figure 1 shows the six regional commands covering the 34
provinces in Afghanistan.




17
  For the purposes of this report, we use “regional command” to refer to both the military
and civilian components of the U.S. regional presence in Afghanistan.




Page 9                                                 GAO-13-34 Afghanistan Development
Figure 1: The Six Regional Commands in Afghanistan




                                       Page 10       GAO-13-34 Afghanistan Development
                           The four main U.S. agency Afghan development programs and accounts
U.S. Agencies’             have similar goals and activities and hence overlap to some degree. For
Development Efforts        the purposes of this report, “overlap” refers to those instances in which
                           programs or accounts have similar goals, devise similar strategies and
in Afghanistan             activities to achieve those goals, or target similar beneficiaries. 18 We
Overlap                    found that these four main programs or accounts have supported
                           development efforts across similar broad categories of assistance—such
                           as democracy and governance, education and health, and agriculture—
                           and have supported efforts in the same provinces and districts.


Congress Has Authorized    Congress has granted several agencies the authority and funding to
Multiple U.S. Programs     administer development efforts in Afghanistan to help achieve U.S.
and Accounts to Support    strategic goals—primarily through the four programs or accounts
                           described earlier. Congress granted authority to USAID to administer the
U.S. Development Efforts   ESF, 19 to DOD to administer CERP and TFBSO, and to State and DOD to
in Afghanistan             jointly administer AIF. Table 2 summarizes statutory language from the
                           authorizations and appropriations bills that established or funded these
                           efforts. As indicated in table 2, Congress provides specific direction on
                           the purposes for which these funds can be used. Operating within the
                           requirements of these laws, agencies have the flexibility to fund and
                           implement development programs and activities that meet the authorized
                           purposes.




                           18
                            GAO-12-342SP.
                           19
                            State is responsible for ESF policy decisions and country amounts.




                           Page 11                                             GAO-13-34 Afghanistan Development
Table 2: Laws Governing the Four Main Programs or Accounts Supporting Development Efforts in Afghanistan in Fiscal Year
2011

                              Fiscal year
             Program or       initiated in
Agency       accounta         Afghanistan        Legal framework
USAID        ESF              2002               ESF funds are authorized to be provided by the President to furnish assistance to
                                                 countries and organizations, on such terms and conditions as he may determine, in
                                                 order to promote economic or political stability. (22 U.S.C. § 2346 (a)).
                                                 For ESF in Afghanistan, funds were appropriated to support and strengthen the
                                                 capacity of Afghan public and private institutions and entities to reduce corruption
                                                 and to improve transparency and accountability of national, provincial, and local
                                                 governments; shall emphasize the participation of Afghan women, and directly
                                                 improve the security, economic and social well-being, and political status, and
                                                 protects the rights of, Afghan women and girls; and when made available to
                                                 provide training for foreign police, judicial, and military personnel, shall address,
                                                 where appropriate, gender-based violence. The United States Embassy in Kabul,
                                                 Afghanistan, shall be consulted on the use of all funds appropriated for rule of law
                                                 programs in Afghanistan. (Pub. L. No. 112-10, § 2122, Apr. 15, 2011).
DOD          CERP             2004               CERP funds were authorized and appropriated for the purpose of enabling military
                                                 commanders in Afghanistan to respond to urgent, small-scale, humanitarian relief
                                                 and reconstruction requirements within their areas of responsibility. CERP funds
                                                 were authorized to support projects that provide an immediate and direct benefit to
                                                 the people of Afghanistan. (Pub. L. No. 109-163, § 1202, as amended by Pub. L.
                                                 No. 111-383, § 1212, Jan. 7, 2011; Pub. L. No. 112-10, § 9005, Apr. 15, 2011).b
DOD          TFBSO            2009               TFBSO funds were authorized and appropriated to carry out projects to reduce
                                                 violence, enhance stability, and support economic normalcy in Afghanistan through
                                                 strategic business and economic activities. These may include projects that
                                                 facilitate private investment, mining sector development, industrial development,
                                                 and other projects that strengthen stability or provide strategic support to the
                                                 counterinsurgency campaign in Afghanistan. To the maximum extent possible,
                                                 these activities should focus on improving the commercial viability of other
                                                 reconstruction or development activities in Afghanistan conducted by the United
                                                 States. (Pub. L. No. 111-383, § 1535, as amended by Pub. L. No. 112-81, § 1534,
                                                 Dec. 31, 2011; Pub. L. No. 112-10, § 9012, Apr. 15, 2011).
DOD and      AIF              2011               AIF funds were authorized and appropriated for infrastructure projects in
State                                            Afghanistan in support of the counterinsurgency strategy, requiring funding for
                                                 facility and infrastructure projects, including, but not limited to, water, power, and
                                                 transportation projects and related maintenance and sustainment costs. (Pub. L.
                                                 No. 111-383, § 1217, Jan. 7, 2011, as amended by Pub. L. No. 112-81, § 1217,
                                                 Dec. 31, 2011; Pub. L. No. 112-10, Apr. 15, 2011).
                                        Source: GAO analysis of congressional authorizations and appropriations.
                                        a
                                         For the purposes of this report, we refer to ESF and AIF as accounts and to CERP and TFBSO as
                                        programs.
                                        b
                                         Congress enacted new authorizing legislation for CERP in fiscal year 2012, which repealed the
                                        previous authorization language. See Pub. L. No. 112-81 § 1201 (Dec. 31, 2011).




                                        Page 12                                                                    GAO-13-34 Afghanistan Development
U.S. Agencies Conducted                 In fiscal year 2011, U.S. agencies funded development efforts in
Development Efforts                     Afghanistan across similar, broadly defined categories of assistance. As
across Similar Categories               shown in table 3, USAID and DOD have conducted efforts across the
                                        same six categories of assistance—agriculture; democracy and
of Assistance                           governance; education and health; energy and electricity; private sector
                                        and economic growth; and transportation. 20 TFBSO supported efforts in
                                        three of these categories, and AIF supported efforts in two of these
                                        categories in fiscal year 2011. All four programs or accounts supported
                                        efforts broadly related to energy and electricity.

Table 3: Categories of Development Efforts Supported by the Four Main Programs or Accounts in Afghanistan in Fiscal Year
2011

                                                                     Category of development efforta
                                                                                                           Private sector
            Program or                            Democracy and                Education    Energy and     and economic
Agency      account            Agriculture         governance                  and health    electricity       growth     Transportation
USAID       ESF                                                                                                            
DOD         CERP                                                                                                           
DOD         TFBSO                                                                                             
DOD and     AIF                                                                                                                
State
                                        Source: GAO analysis of agency data.
                                        a
                                         Water-related efforts may span multiple categories of development efforts.


                                        Appendix II provides additional information on fiscal year 2011 obligations
                                        by U.S. agencies to fund development efforts across these categories.




                                        20
                                          We based these categories, in part, on the categories developed by the U.S. Embassy
                                        in Kabul in its A Compendium of U.S. Government Assistance Programs in Afghanistan,
                                        produced in December 2011 under the direction of the Coordinating Director for
                                        Development and Economic Affairs. The compendium provides information on ongoing
                                        embassy assistance programs and activities from November 2011 through December
                                        2014 and beyond.




                                        Page 13                                                        GAO-13-34 Afghanistan Development
Appendix III provides information on the number of activities initiated by
USAID and DOD’s CERP in fiscal year 2011. 21

While U.S. agencies have, to varying degrees, conducted development
efforts within the same six categories, according to agency officials, these
categories are broad and leave opportunities for agencies to provide
unique assistance within each category. For example, as we reported in
July 2011, although TFBSO and USAID both work to promote economic
development in Afghanistan, USAID officials noted that in addition to
other activities, their efforts focus more broadly on improving the
environment for investments whereas TFBSO focuses on brokering
specific investment deals. USAID and TFBSO have both supported
activities related to mining in Afghanistan. However, USAID officials noted
that their activities focused on improving regulatory policies to promote
mining sector development and attracting private sector investment
through conferences, while TFBSO focused on collecting and collating
mining data with the U.S. Geological Survey, developing detailed
investment proposals, and identifying and attracting investors. 22 In fiscal
year 2011, TFBSO continued mining-related efforts, but USAID did not.




21
  While CERP refers to its activities as projects, for the purposes of this report we
describe CERP projects as activities to be consistent with the level of information included
in Afghan Info on activities funded through ESF. Whereas a project may support
numerous activities in multiple locations, an activity generally refers to a specific good or
service provided in a specific location. For example, one project funded through ESF—the
Advancing Afghan Agriculture Alliance—includes multiple activities, such as providing a
plant biology lab, a soil science course, and field trips for students in several different
locations in Afghanistan. TFBSO obligated funds for 43 projects and AIF obligated funds
for 4 projects in fiscal year 2011. However, we do not report on activities for TFBSO and
AIF because activity-level data were not readily available in a searchable database.
22
 GAO, DOD Task Force for Business and Stability Operations: Actions Needed to
Establish Project Management Guidelines and Enhance Information Sharing, GAO-11-715
(Washington, D.C.: July 29, 2011).




Page 14                                                 GAO-13-34 Afghanistan Development
U.S. Agencies Conducted   In fiscal year 2011, USAID (through ESF and other accounts) and DOD
Development Efforts in    (through CERP) conducted development efforts in Afghanistan in many of
Many of the Same          the same geographic areas. TFBSO and AIF also sponsored
                          development efforts in some of these same areas. Specifically, during
Provinces and Districts   fiscal year 2011, USAID initiated efforts in all 34 of Afghanistan’s
                          provinces, CERP conducted efforts in 33 of the 34 provinces, TFBSO
                          funded efforts in 9 of the 34 provinces, and AIF was active in 5 of the 34
                          provinces. 23 Efforts funded through all four programs or accounts were
                          active in 3 of the same Afghan provinces. Figure 2 illustrates the
                          provinces where efforts funded by each program or account were active
                          in fiscal year 2011. Because both USAID and DOD’s CERP were active in
                          all but one province in fiscal year 2011, figure 2 also shows the number of
                          USAID activities initiated through ESF and other accounts and DOD
                          activities initiated through CERP by province to illustrate the extent to
                          which these respective agencies conducted efforts in the same provinces.




                          23
                            Though AIF projects were planned for two additional provinces, no funds were obligated
                          for these projects in fiscal year 2011.




                          Page 15                                              GAO-13-34 Afghanistan Development
Figure 2: Afghan Provinces Where the Four Main Programs or Accounts Funded Development Efforts in Fiscal Year 2011




                                       Notes: The bar graphs showing activities by province are not to scale but are for illustrative purposes
                                       only. Furthermore, CERP activity totals by province may differ from total agency activities in
                                       Afghanistan as a result of missing agency data.
                                       a
                                        ESF totals include USAID activities tracked in Afghan Info that are funded through other accounts.
                                       These activities do not include activities funded by 13 active awards that were not tracked in the
                                       Afghan Info database in fiscal year 2011.




                                       Page 16                                                       GAO-13-34 Afghanistan Development
                                        To further illustrate the extent to which USAID (through ESF and other
                                        accounts) and DOD (through CERP) were active in the same areas in
                                        fiscal year 2011, figure 3 shows the districts where these respective
                                        agency efforts were located. We determined that USAID conducted
                                        activities in all of Afghanistan’s 399 districts, and DOD through CERP
                                        conducted activities in 249 districts in fiscal year 2011.

Figure 3: Districts in Which USAID and DOD’s CERP Conducted Development Activities in Fiscal Year 2011




                                        Note: This graphic shows USAID activities funded through ESF and other smaller accounts and DOD
                                        activities funded through CERP.




                                        Page 17                                                  GAO-13-34 Afghanistan Development
According to agency officials, overlapping development efforts could be
beneficial, provided that agencies leverage their respective expertise and
resources to coordinate their efforts and prevent duplication. For
example, according to DOD officials, TFBSO was able to leverage its
engineering and designing expertise with CERP resources to complete an
effort to improve infrastructure at the Herat airport. 24 DOD officials noted
that they are now lending their engineering experience and any lessons
learned from this effort to State, which has further efforts under way to
expand the Herat airport for the U.S. embassy. Additionally, a senior
civilian official in Helmand province said that U.S. agencies plan to draw
upon the resources of multiple agencies and programs to provide
agricultural training in the region. Specifically, he noted that an incoming
DOD Agribusiness Development Team would likely be placed with a
CERP-funded District Agricultural Training Center. 25 The plan is for the
Agribusiness Development Team to conduct community outreach, the
training center to provide classes, and USAID to install and run satellite
links to enable the transmission of course content.

Notwithstanding the potential benefits cited by agency officials, overlap
may—in the absence of effective coordination—increase the risk of
duplication. To determine whether overlapping development efforts in
Afghanistan may have resulted in duplication, we analyzed the
descriptions of activities conducted by USAID and DOD’s CERP in the
same districts. We describe this analysis in the next section.




24
  The Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 prohibits CERP
funds from being used to carry out or support TFBSO projects. DOD officials stated that
while TFBSO funds were initially dedicated for the Herat airport project, these TFBSO
funds were later re-prioritized. DOD determined that the Herat airport project was urgent
and necessary to support the local economy, and dedicated CERP funds for this effort.
TFBSO personnel with relevant expertise subsequently collaborated on the execution of
the airport project.
25
  Agribusiness Development Teams are composed of Army and Air National Guard
personnel with backgrounds and expertise in agribusiness. Their mission is to promote the
revitalization of agriculture in Afghanistan and set the stage for transition to civilian-led
agricultural teams.




Page 18                                                GAO-13-34 Afghanistan Development
                          Our analysis of development activities in six Afghan districts identified a
Analysis for Potential    small number of potentially duplicative activities carried out by USAID,
Duplication Was           through ESF and other accounts, and by DOD, through CERP, in fiscal
                          year 2011. For the purposes of this report, “duplication” occurs when two
Inconclusive Because      or more agencies are engaged in the same activities or provide the same
of Limitations and        goods or services to the same beneficiaries. 26 Limitations and gaps in
Gaps in Agency Data       agency data prevented a conclusive determination as to whether these
                          activities or others were in fact duplicative. For example, USAID’s Afghan
                          Info and DOD’s CIDNE databases contained an inconsistent level of
                          detail in the descriptions of development activities; DOD’s CIDNE
                          database did not capture information on the village location for many
                          small-scale CERP activities, including the 28 activities we identified as
                          potentially duplicative; and Afghan Info did not include data on some
                          USAID development efforts. Finally, USAID lacks comprehensive
                          standardized procedures for reporting and verifying development activity
                          information in Afghan Info.


Analysis of U.S. Agency   We identified 28 activities carried out by USAID, through ESF and other
Data Identified a Small   accounts, and 28 activities carried out by DOD, through CERP, in fiscal
Number of Potentially     year 2011 that were potentially duplicative. For this analysis, we
                          examined activities USAID initiated through ESF and other accounts and
Duplicative Activities    activities DOD initiated through CERP. 27 Specifically, we selected a
                          nonrandom, nongeneralizable sample of six districts, which accounted for
                          17 percent of the more than 29,000 development activities USAID and
                          DOD initiated in fiscal year 2011. Table 4 shows the districts we selected
                          for analysis and the corresponding number of activities initiated by USAID
                          and DOD in these districts. Appendix I provides a more detailed
                          discussion of the methodology we used for this analysis.




                          26
                               GAO-12-342SP.
                          27
                            For the purposes of this section, when we describe “USAID activities” or “DOD
                          activities,” we are referring to USAID’s activities under ESF and other accounts and
                          DOD’s CERP activities. Activities funded through TFBSO and AIF were not included in
                          this analysis.




                          Page 19                                             GAO-13-34 Afghanistan Development
Table 4: Number of USAID (ESF) and DOD (CERP) Activities in the Six Districts Selected for Analysis

                                                                            Number of USAID         Number of DOD                       Total
District          Province            Regional command                            activitiesa           activitiesb                 activities
Garm Ser          Helmand             RC-Southwest                                        63                       958                  1,021
Jalalabad         Nangarhar           RC-East                                            272                       131                    403
Kabul             Kabul               RC-Capital                                       1,591                       124                  1,715
Kandahar          Kandahar            RC-South                                           548                       985                  1,533
Mazar-e Sharif    Balkh               RC-North                                           191                         17                   208
Shindand          Herat               RC-West                                             37                       165                    202
Total                                                                                  2,702                     2,380                  5,082
                                         Source: GAO analysis of USAID and DOD data.
                                         a
                                         This column includes ESF and other smaller accounts administered by USAID.
                                         b
                                          DOD does not include district-level CERP data in its quarterly reporting to Congress and therefore
                                         does not conduct the same level of reliability checks on these data. However, we determined that
                                         these data were sufficiently reliable for describing the number of DOD activities conducted in these
                                         six districts and conducting this analysis of potential duplication. Additionally, we included DOD’s
                                         “other urgent humanitarian or reconstruction projects” category in our duplication analysis because of
                                         the potential for overlap and duplication with USAID reconstruction efforts. We did not include this
                                         category in our examination of overlap because of our inability to quickly determine which activities
                                         were humanitarian-focused versus reconstruction-focused.


                                         Our analysis identified 28 USAID activities and 28 DOD activities that
                                         were potentially duplicative among the 5,082 activities USAID and DOD
                                         initiated in the six districts we examined. The 28 CERP activities we
                                         identified that were potentially duplicative accounted for about 1 percent,
                                         or approximately $72,000 of the roughly $8 million in disbursements
                                         made for CERP activities we analyzed within the six districts in fiscal year
                                         2011, according to DOD data. 28 We were not able to determine the
                                         amount of disbursements for USAID’s activities because USAID does not
                                         track disbursements in Afghan Info at the activity level. Selected
                                         examples of potential duplication are provided in table 5. See appendix IV
                                         for a complete list of the USAID and DOD activities we identified as
                                         potentially duplicative.




                                         28
                                           Approximately 81 percent of CERP activities and 17 percent of all CERP disbursements
                                         made in fiscal year 2011 were small-scale activities, which DOD defines as activities that
                                         cost no more than $5,000. All 28 CERP activities we identified as potentially duplicative
                                         with USAID’s activities were small-scale activities.




                                         Page 20                                                      GAO-13-34 Afghanistan Development
                              Table 5: Selected Potentially Duplicative Activities between USAID and DOD’s
                              CERP

                                     USAID Activity Description                    DOD CERP Activity Description
                               1     Shindand - Furniture for Two Zirkoh           Payment for furniture for a school located
                                     Valley Schools and a Young Women’’s           in Urayan. The furniture will provide the
                                     Development Center                            school with adequate working conditions
                                                                                   in order to improve productivity for
                                                                                   approximately 500 children aged 7
                                                                                   through 15.
                               2     General District 3 section 1 canal            Payment made for irrigation canal
                                     restoration, kandahar, kandahar,              restoration in Sub-District 3
                                     general district 3.
                               3     Debris removal program                        Payment made for removal of trash and
                                                                                   debris in Kandahar City to improve quality
                                                                                   of life for approximately 500 local citizens.
                                                                                   Funding provided for labor and cleaning
                                                                                   supplies.
                               4     Providing Sports Equipment to                 Payment made for Sport equipment for
                                     Kandahar City’s Schools                       school.
                               5     Pushing South: Tents for Schools #4           Payment to allow school tents to be put
                                                                                   up for classes to be conducted and
                                                                                   installed a water pump so the children can
                                                                                   have drinking water
                               6     Koshtay Water Gate and Culverts               Payment made for construction of a canal
                                                                                   gate that will improve water flow and
                                                                                   irrigation in Koshtay.
                              Source: GAO analysis of USAID and DOD data.

                              Note: The activity descriptions presented in this table are taken verbatim from USAID’s Afghan Info
                              database and DOD’s CIDNE database and therefore may contain misspellings or typographical
                              errors.


Varying Levels of Detail on   The data we analyzed from Afghan Info and CIDNE varied in the level of
Agencies’ Development         detail provided in activity descriptions and activity locations, preventing a
Activities Prevented a        conclusive determination of whether or not duplication existed between
                              the USAID activities and DOD CERP activities we identified as being
Conclusive Determination      potentially duplicative. For example, activity descriptions in both
of Duplication for Some       databases contained an inconsistent level of detail about the specific
Activities                    good or service provided. In some instances, the databases included only
                              a cursory description, such as “debris removal program,” “furnishing
                              municipal offices,” or “payment made for canal cleaning.” In other
                              instances, the databases contained more detailed accounts of the
                              activities conducted, including the target population and project
                              objectives. USAID officials said that they have not developed any written
                              guidance for implementing partners on what information to include in the
                              activity description field in Afghan Info. In contrast, DOD’s CERP



                              Page 21                                                      GAO-13-34 Afghanistan Development
                           guidance specified that descriptions should include one or two sentences
                           that describe the activity for a person not familiar with it. DOD guidance
                           also provided templates for each category of activity authorized under
                           CERP.

                           DOD’s database, CIDNE, did not include information on the villages
                           where many small-scale CERP activities were implemented. 29 Whereas
                           USAID requires its implementing partners to record the province, district,
                           and village location for all activities, DOD only requires that province and
                           district information be recorded, though DOD officials noted that the
                           CIDNE database allows village-level information to be reported at the
                           discretion of DOD personnel entering the data.


Data Gaps in Afghan Info   Gaps in Afghan Info data also prevented a comprehensive analysis of
Preclude a Comprehensive   potential duplication that included all USAID-funded development
Analysis of Potential      activities. According to USAID data, Afghan Info—the database
                           designated by the embassy as the official repository for USAID’s
Duplication                development efforts and other foreign assistance to Afghanistan—does
                           not include information on activities carried out under 45 of USAID’s 155
                           awards. 30 Of these 45 awards, 13 are active awards that collectively
                           account for about $120 million, or about 10 percent, of the $1.2 billion
                           obligated for all USAID awards in Afghanistan in fiscal year 2011. 31
                           According to USAID officials, some of the awards not included in Afghan
                           Info represent direct, on-budget assistance to the Afghan government.
                           The officials stated that there may be several reasons why these awards
                           are not included in Afghan Info. For example, officials noted that USAID’s
                           bilateral agreements with the Afghan government for some awards do not
                           require the Afghan government to report in Afghan Info on a quarterly



                           29
                             Commander’s Small-Scale Projects are CERP activities costing no more than $5,000
                           that are funded through lump sum withdrawals, known as Advance Bulk Funds, from
                           DOD’s Finance Office to an authorized CERP Paying Agent. According to DOD guidance,
                           this method of CERP execution allows for Commanders, through their CERP executors, to
                           make cash payments on specific types of activities to react quickly to time-sensitive
                           needs.
                           30
                             One USAID award funds multiple activities. For example, one award included in Afghan
                           Info—the Commercial Horticulture and Agriculture Marketing Program—reported over
                           1,500 activities in fiscal year 2011.
                           31
                             In fiscal year 2011, 32 of the 45 awards not in Afghan Info were inactive but still reported
                           obligations or disbursements activity, or both, during that fiscal year.




                           Page 22                                                 GAO-13-34 Afghanistan Development
                             basis, as required for other implementing partners. Other awards, such as
                             one-time audits or surveys contracted through the mission, are not
                             included in Afghan Info because they do not lend themselves to the
                             Afghan Info format or because they are funded through accounts
                             managed from Washington, D.C. USAID officials said that they are
                             currently working on a mission order to provide guidance on how to
                             address these exceptions, and they affirmed that their goal is to include
                             all awards in Afghan Info, whether or not they are delivered through direct
                             assistance to the Afghan government or through implementing partners. 32


USAID Lacks                  According to USAID officials, implementing partners provide information
Comprehensive Guidance       on their activities quarterly for inclusion in Afghan Info, but USAID has not
                             developed comprehensive guidance governing the process by which this
for Entering and Verifying   information is reported and verified. Our Standards for Internal Control in
Information in Afghan Info   the Federal Government states that agencies should clearly document
                             the management directives, administrative policies, or operating manuals
                             used to enforce management directives. 33 The documentation should be
                             properly maintained and managed and readily available for examination.
                             USAID officials stated that they provide quarterly training, including some
                             written training materials, to implementing partners that includes some
                             information on how to report their development activities in Afghan Info.
                             They also noted that the contractual language included in most awards
                             states that implementing partners must provide at least a quarterly update
                             of information on the activities conducted under the award by entering this
                             information into Afghan Info. The officials also said that starting in fiscal
                             year 2012, USAID Contracting Officer’s Representatives are reviewing
                             and approving data submitted by implementing partners quarterly for
                             inclusion in Afghan Info. However, they acknowledged that they have not
                             developed a comprehensive set of standard operating procedures that
                             fully outlines this process, including the requirements for implementing
                             partners, and the roles and responsibilities of Contracting Officer’s
                             Representatives. With the high staff turnover that we previously reported
                             in Afghanistan and without policies and procedures for reporting and
                             verifying information on development activities, USAID risks disruptions in
                             the availability of information about its development efforts—information


                             32
                               We requested a copy of the draft mission order, but USAID officials stated that they
                             could not provide a copy, as the draft had not yet been finalized.
                             33
                              GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1
                             (Washington, D.C.: November 1999).




                             Page 23                                               GAO-13-34 Afghanistan Development
                           that is needed to monitor projects and coordinate with other
                           stakeholders. 34


                           U.S. agencies use informal communication, interagency meetings,
U.S. Agencies Use          concurrence processes, and other mechanisms to coordinate their
Various Methods to         development efforts in Afghanistan, but continue to lack a shared
                           database that includes information on all U.S. development activities. We
Coordinate but Lack a      previously reported that such a database would help to enhance
Shared Database That       interagency coordination, data collection and retention, and information
Includes All               sharing related to U.S. development efforts in Afghanistan and
                           recommended that U.S. agencies consider designating Afghan Info or
Development Efforts        some other database as the shared U.S. government database for U.S.
                           development efforts in Afghanistan. 35 This recommendation is consistent
                           with the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA),
                           which recognizes the importance of interagency coordination where
                           responsibility for achieving results is shared among several agencies. 36
                           Moreover, several strategic documents concerning operations in
                           Afghanistan emphasize the importance of civilian-military coordination in
                           achieving national goals. 37


USAID and DOD Use          USAID and DOD officials reported frequent use of informal
Informal Communication     communication to coordinate on the planning, approval, and
and Interagency Meetings   implementation of development projects. Informal communication
                           includes e-mails, phone calls, and face-to-face interactions that often
to Coordinate CERP         occur spontaneously and often do not result in a permanent record that
Activities with USAID      could be easily obtained by new personnel. Officials we interviewed from
                           five regional commands generally reported that informal communication
                           was very effective or moderately effective at identifying potential overlap
                           and duplication in U.S. development efforts. Officials from several


                           34
                             GAO, Afghanistan Development: Enhancements to Performance Management and
                           Evaluation Efforts Could Improve USAID’s Agriculture Programs, GAO-10-368
                           (Washington, D.C.: July 14, 2010).
                           35
                                GAO-11-138.
                           36
                            Pub. L. No. 103-62, 107 Stat. 285 (1993). GPRA was amended by the GPRA
                           Modernization Act of 2010. Pub. L. No. 111-352, 124 Stat. 3866 (2011).
                           37
                             U.S. Embassy Kabul and U.S. Forces-Afghanistan, Civil-Military Strategic Framework
                           for the U.S. Mission in Afghanistan (Kabul, Afghanistan: March 2012) and National
                           Security Strategy (Washington, D.C.: May 2010), among others.




                           Page 24                                             GAO-13-34 Afghanistan Development
regional commands also noted that the physical colocation of the military
and civilians further enhanced informal communication. However, DOD
officials who manage CERP at a sixth regional command that does not
have a parallel civilian presence—Regional Command-Capital—said that
they had little, if any, interaction with other U.S. civilian agencies. They
use an informal process to coordinate efforts with the Afghan
government, but this process does not involve USAID.

USAID and DOD officials also reported using a range of more formal
communications to coordinate CERP activities with USAID development
efforts, such as interagency meetings and review processes, with the
specifics of each mechanism varying by regional command. For example,
officials at Regional Command-Southwest said that all development
efforts—including CERP activities estimated to cost more than $100,000
or which include a clear future sustainment requirement for the Afghan
government—are proposed, discussed, and executed through
interagency working groups organized by sector. According to these
officials, the working groups include all relevant stakeholders for that
sector and meet weekly to prevent any duplication of effort. Although
some officials at the regional commands noted that identifying duplication
is not necessarily the sole focus of their interagency meetings, most
reported that the meetings were nonetheless very effective or moderately
effective mechanisms for identifying potential duplication. For example,
DOD officials at Regional Command-South described one weekly
interagency briefing in which DOD proposed using CERP funds to build a
detention facility. Officials from other agencies that were present at the
meeting noted that they had similar ongoing projects, and consequently,
the CERP activity was not approved until the agencies coordinated their
efforts.

DOD uses a risk-based approach to coordinate CERP activities, in which
higher-dollar-value activities must be reviewed by more senior officials.
For example, DOD guidance states that CERP activities costing over $1
million must be approved by a USFOR-A CERP Review Board in Kabul
that includes representatives from State, USAID, and other agencies.
CERP activities costing over $500,000 must be reviewed and approved
by an interagency CERP Review Board at the regional command




Page 25                                       GAO-13-34 Afghanistan Development
corresponding to the activity’s location. 38 Officials at the regional
commands also may implement additional mechanisms to coordinate
these CERP activities within their area of responsibility. DOD guidance
also requires that CERP activities with an estimated cost of $50,000 must
be coordinated with the nearest Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT)
and documented in CIDNE with a memo or e-mail. The guidance notes
that coordination with the nearest PRT is key in preventing duplication of
effort in the province, as PRT officials are aware of activities undertaken
by other agencies and nongovernmental agencies operating in the area.
However, many CERP activities are not subject to these formal
coordination requirements because their estimated cost is below the
relevant USFOR-A thresholds. For example, about 93 percent of the
fiscal year 2011 development-focused CERP activities, representing 15
percent of CERP fiscal year 2011 obligations, had an estimated cost of
less than $50,000, meaning that no documentation of coordination or
review and approval before a CERP Review Board was required by
USFOR-A for these activities. Instead, officials from DOD and USAID
stated that for many of these activities they relied primarily on informal
communication and interagency meetings in the field to prevent
duplication of effort.

Although informal communication and interagency meetings can serve as
important mechanisms to coordinate CERP activities with USAID’s
development efforts, U.S. officials acknowledged that the effectiveness of
these methods may be limited by high staff turnover and the individual
personalities of the officials involved. For example, USAID officials at
Regional Command-North noted that there is no longer a regularly
scheduled interagency meeting at the command level because the
meeting was discontinued when a new Senior Civilian Representative
arrived at post. 39 Officials from other regional commands also noted that
quality of coordination through informal communication fluctuated
according to the personalities and priorities of the individuals involved.



38
  DOD officials at the regional commands may apply a lower threshold at their discretion.
For example, officials at Regional Command-East said that they conduct a weekly CERP
Review Board for activities with an estimated cost greater than $200,000. Officials from
Regional Command-South stated that they employ a “virtual CERP Review Board” by
soliciting comments through e-mail for all CERP activities with an estimated cost greater
than $5,000.
39
 Germany is the lead nation for Regional Command-North; hence, the Senior Civilian
Representative is a German official.




Page 26                                               GAO-13-34 Afghanistan Development
AIF Projects Are           By law, infrastructure projects funded under AIF must be jointly
Coordinated through an     formulated and approved by the Secretary of State and Secretary of
Interagency Planning and   Defense, and the agencies have developed an interagency review and
                           approval process to meet this requirement. On February 18, 2011, U.S.
Concurrence Process        Embassy Kabul and USFOR-A issued a policy memo outlining the
                           procedures for developing and approving projects funded through AIF. On
                           June 16, 2011, the Joint Program Committee—an interagency working
                           group composed of technical and program subject matter experts from
                           USAID, DOD, and State—issued further guidance, in part, to enable joint
                           project-level decision making. The process outlined in these documents
                           draws upon existing processes and working groups to facilitate
                           interagency coordination. Planning begins with a call to the regional
                           commands for project nominations. Projects may be proposed by any
                           agency, but they must be coordinated with other agencies at the regional
                           command and with the Afghan government. Project nominations are then
                           reviewed and prioritized by a series of interagency working groups at U.S.
                           Embassy Kabul, resulting in a joint memorandum—signed by the
                           USFOR-A Deputy Commanding General for Support and the
                           Coordinating Director of Development and Economic Affairs—detailing
                           the package of projects recommended by the U.S. Embassy for AIF
                           funding during that year. Finally, the Commander of the International
                           Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan and the U.S. Ambassador to
                           Afghanistan provide their concurrence, and the package is forwarded to
                           the Commander of Central Command, Secretary of Defense, and
                           Secretary of State for final approval. According to officials from USAID,
                           DOD, and State, the coordination requirements included in the
                           authorizing legislation for AIF and the corresponding implementing
                           guidance have helped to ensure robust interagency coordination on the
                           planning and approval of AIF projects.


TFBSO Coordinates          Since fiscal year 2012, DOD’s TFBSO has sought to improve
through U.S. Embassy       coordination and information sharing for its projects by briefing officials
Briefings and a            from State and USAID at a quarterly interagency meeting at U.S.
                           Embassy Kabul. TFBSO also continues to obtain concurrence for its
Concurrence Process        projects from the Secretary of State as required by law. In July 2011, we
                           reported that TFBSO had generally focused information-sharing efforts at
                           the senior U.S. official level in Afghanistan but that its information sharing
                           at the project level had been more ad hoc. Moreover, we noted that
                           senior embassy officials said that improved information sharing by
                           TFBSO would help with unity of effort and that a mechanism to facilitate
                           information sharing would be useful. Accordingly, we recommended that
                           DOD consult with USAID and State to determine the most appropriate


                           Page 27                                        GAO-13-34 Afghanistan Development
                            mechanism for integrating TFBSO participation. DOD, in conjunction with
                            State and USAID, subsequently reached agreement to set up a joint
                            planning process, including a quarterly review process, to review and
                            facilitate the implementation of TFBSO projects. On January 17, 2012,
                            senior officials from the agencies conducted an initial steering conference
                            to provide policy guidance for TFBSO efforts and to ensure that TFBSO
                            activities complement other U.S.-funded projects in Afghanistan.
                            Moreover, the agencies agreed that the Coordinating Director for
                            Development and Economic Affairs at U.S. Embassy Kabul would chair a
                            quarterly meeting with representatives from USAID and DOD to receive
                            an update on TFBSO activities, ensure coordination between civilian and
                            military programs, and enhance the complementary nature of these
                            activities. The first such meeting was held on March 13, 2012, and
                            included representatives from State, USAID, TFBSO, among others.
                            According to a senior official at TFBSO, the agencies had not conducted
                            a second quarterly review meeting as of July 16, 2012. According to
                            officials at State and DOD, the initial quarterly review meeting had helped
                            to improve coordination among U.S. agencies in Kabul. A senior State
                            official at U.S. Embassy Kabul noted that participants had discussed the
                            feasibility and sustainability of TFBSO projects, as well as potential
                            duplication with other U.S. efforts, at the March 2012 meeting. She noted
                            further that TFBSO was reevaluating some aspects of its agricultural
                            initiatives in response to input from USAID that the locations of the
                            projects were too diffuse and that the projects would have more impact if
                            they focused on areas with adequate transportation infrastructure to
                            enable the products to reach markets.


Shared Database             While agencies use various methods to coordinate their development
Populated with All U.S.     efforts in Afghanistan, a shared database that could further enhance
Development Efforts Still   coordination efforts by documenting all U.S. development efforts within
                            the country still does not exist. We have previously reported on gaps in
Does Not Exist              the information available regarding development efforts in Afghanistan
                            and recommended that USAID and DOD take steps to develop a shared
                            database documenting all U.S. development efforts in Afghanistan. We
                            also recommended that the agencies make it accessible to all U.S.
                            government agencies involved in U.S.-funded development projects. 40
                            Such a database would provide a historical record of development



                            40
                             GAO-11-138; GAO-09-615; GAO-08-689.




                            Page 28                                      GAO-13-34 Afghanistan Development
projects and ensure that adequate information exists for officials to
manage and make decisions. Additionally, a shared database would
further encourage agencies to determine a common methodology for
collecting and reporting on development efforts in Afghanistan and assist
agencies in collecting more comparable and consistent data. 41 We further
noted that without such a mechanism to improve the visibility of individual
development projects, the U.S. government may risk duplicating efforts
and wasting taxpayer resources. In November 2010, USAID agreed and
DOD partially agreed with our recommendation. In responding, DOD
noted that such a shared database would make a positive contribution, if
designed to be flexible and allow for easy data access to and sharing with
other agencies and coalition and Afghan partners. DOD also noted that
USAID’s database requirements should not impact DOD’s internal needs
and requirements for project management nor add additional
requirements on DOD personnel. In October 2011, the Deputy
Ambassador at U.S. Embassy Kabul, noted that the lack of an integrated
foreign assistance database was impeding analytic efforts and resulting in
time-consuming data collection exercises in response to congressional
and executive branch inquiries.

The Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR)
also recommended that U.S. Embassy Kabul develop an integrated
management system for reporting and tracking foreign assistance funds
in Afghanistan. In response to our recommendation and SIGAR’s, the
Deputy Ambassador, on October 2, 2011, designated Afghan Info as the
foreign assistance reporting database for U.S. Mission-Afghanistan.
However, as of August 1, 2012, information on projects undertaken and
funded by DOD, including CERP, AIF, and TFBSO, are not readily
captured in Afghan Info or any other shared database also containing




41
  With USAID and DOD’s CERP using two different databases to collect development-
related activity information, not all data are comparable. For example, DOD captures
official obligation and disbursement data by activity, whereas USAID collects
disbursements reported by implementing partners at the district and award level. Also,
Afghan Info has drop-down menus for location information to ensure that data entered are
correct and comparable, whereas DOD’s CIDNE database does not. As a result, DOD’s
CIDNE database includes misspelled or incorrect location names, as well as location
name spellings that vary from those in USAID’s Afghan Info database.




Page 29                                              GAO-13-34 Afghanistan Development
              information on USAID development activities. 42 USAID and DOD neither
              have an agreement requiring them, nor a mechanism enabling them, to
              readily share data between their two respective databases—Afghan Info
              and CIDNE. According to USAID and DOD officials, discussions are
              ongoing regarding how to consolidate data on their respective efforts,
              including whether Afghan Info could be used to include DOD’s activities.
              DOD officials noted that differences in agency reporting requirements
              make designating a single, shared database more challenging. In
              addition, DOD officials cited concerns about including location-specific
              information for ongoing activities that contractors and nongovernmental
              organizations can access. However, USAID officials noted that Afghan
              Info includes built-in firewalls that control user access to information.
              USAID officials also expressed concern about their lack of information on
              DOD’s development activities, given that DOD’s 2014 transition plan
              includes efforts that USAID may be responsible for sustaining or that
              USAID may be able to leverage as part of future efforts. USAID, DOD,
              and State officials could not estimate when they would make additional
              progress to consolidate all of their data into a shared database such as
              Afghan Info.


              Supporting Afghanistan’s social and economic development is a key
Conclusions   component of the U.S. strategy to disrupt, dismantle, defeat, and prevent
              the return of al Qaeda and other extremists in Afghanistan. To that end,
              USAID, DOD, and State have undertaken thousands of development
              activities in Afghanistan through multiple programs and accounts at a cost
              of billions of dollars. The U.S. strategy calls for a whole-of-government
              approach, which Congress has enabled through various new authorities,
              programs, and accounts that create some overlap in the missions of
              different U.S. agencies. Although U.S. agency officials contend that such
              overlap could be beneficial in terms of synergy and unity of effort, they
              also acknowledge that such overlap creates the potential for duplication
              of efforts if their plans and activities are not properly coordinated.




              42
                In its July 2012 audit of AIF, SIGAR recommended that DOD, State, and USAID develop
              a shared or web-based database to house AIF projects, or include AIF projects in an
              existing shared or web-based database. SIGAR also noted that similar consideration
              should be given to all development projects. See SIGAR Audit-12-12, Fiscal Year 2011
              Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund Projects Are Behind Schedule and Lack Adequate
              Sustainment Plans, July 30, 2012.




              Page 30                                           GAO-13-34 Afghanistan Development
                USAID and DOD maintain separate databases to capture their individual
                agency efforts. Additionally, there exists neither an agreement requiring
                nor a mechanism enabling the two agencies to readily share data
                between their two respective databases—Afghan Info and CIDNE. As we
                previously reported in multiple reports and recommended on more than
                one occasion, a shared database of development activities accessible to
                all U.S. agencies would enhance data collection, information sharing, and
                coordination of U.S. development activities in Afghanistan. The Special
                Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction also highlighted the
                importance of an integrated management system for reporting and
                tracking foreign assistance funds in Afghanistan, by making a similar
                recommendation. While the Deputy Ambassador for Afghanistan has
                taken steps to establish Afghan Info as the official repository for
                information on foreign assistance efforts in Afghanistan, DOD has yet to
                commit to reporting information on its development-related activities in a
                shared database. We continue to believe that a shared database that
                incorporates all U.S.-funded development efforts in Afghanistan, including
                DOD CERP activities, is needed to help mitigate potential information
                gaps created by the lack of a formal mechanism for sharing information,
                and could help U.S. agencies undertaking overlapping development
                efforts to mitigate the risk of duplication. Because of the lack of progress
                by the agencies on this issue, we believe that congressional intervention
                may be required to ensure that agencies take effective action to capture
                U.S. development efforts in a shared and comprehensive database.

                In addition, it is vital that U.S. agencies engaged in development activities
                in Afghanistan also maintain complete and reliable information in their
                respective databases. However, we found gaps in the completeness of
                USAID’s data and a lack of comprehensive guidance for reporting and
                verifying information in Afghan Info on USAID-administered assistance to
                Afghanistan. Collecting and retaining more complete data is vital to
                agency strategic planning and implementation, as well as to
                congressional oversight, of future U.S. development efforts in
                Afghanistan. It is also important to ensuring the transfer and retention of
                institutional knowledge, especially given the high turnover of USAID staff
                in Afghanistan.


                Because of the limited progress made by agencies in collecting and
Matter for      sharing comprehensive information on U.S. development efforts in
Congressional   Afghanistan, Congress should consider requiring U.S. agencies to report
                information on their development-related activities—such as their cost,
Consideration   description, and location—in a shared database.


                Page 31                                       GAO-13-34 Afghanistan Development
                      To enhance the completeness and reliability of data in Afghan Info, we
Recommendations for   recommend that the Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International
Executive Action      Development take the following two actions:

                      •    take steps to ensure that all its awards are included in Afghan Info,
                           including direct, on-budget assistance to the Afghan government; and

                      •    develop written procedures for reporting and verifying information on
                           USAID-administered assistance to Afghanistan for inclusion in Afghan
                           Info.

                      We provided a draft of this report to USAID, DOD, and State for their
Agency Comments       review and comment. USAID and DOD provided written comments, which
and Our Evaluation    we have reprinted in appendixes V and VI, respectively. USAID, DOD,
                      and State also provided technical comments, which we incorporated
                      throughout this report, as appropriate.

                      USAID agreed with our recommendation to take steps to include all its
                      awards in Afghan Info and specified that this will include direct, on-budget
                      assistance to the Afghan government and USAID’s contributions to
                      multilateral trust funds. USAID stated that it has already begun to
                      implement this recommendation by having staff review monthly
                      management reports to ensure all awards are reflected in Afghan Info.
                      USAID, however, noted that including on-budget assistance to the Afghan
                      government and contributions to multilateral trust funds in Afghan Info
                      poses challenges because USAID cannot require either entity to report
                      directly in Afghan Info. We would note that in our previous review of
                      bilateral direct assistance to Afghanistan, we found that USAID has
                      previously required Afghan ministries to comply with periodic reporting
                      requirements. 43 Nevertheless, USAID stated that it will ask Afghan
                      ministries and multilateral donors to consider reporting on projects they
                      implement and in the event they cannot report into Afghan Info directly,
                      USAID will devise a compromise to ensure that relevant information is
                      included in the system. USAID also agreed with our recommendation to
                      develop written procedures for reporting and verifying information on
                      USAID-administered assistance to Afghanistan for inclusion in Afghan
                      Info and noted that such procedures are in development. According to



                      43
                        GAO, Afghanistan: Actions Needed to Improve Accountability of U.S. Assistance to
                      Afghanistan Government, GAO-11-710 (Washington, D.C.: July 20, 2011).




                      Page 32                                             GAO-13-34 Afghanistan Development
USAID, it is currently developing a mission order on monitoring and
evaluation that will include guidance on reporting and verifying
information on development projects and will also include references to
relevant existing guidance. Once completed, USAID stated that it would
provide these written procedures to its implementing partners and the
USAID staff that oversee its implementing partners.

DOD commented that it remains committed to providing information on
CERP projects to USAID for inclusion in Afghan Info. According to DOD,
the issue to be resolved with USAID is the level of detail it is providing,
given DOD’s concerns about disclosing data for ongoing projects that
could pose security threats to its personnel. Nonetheless, DOD
expressed confidence that any issues can be mutually resolved and
believes that legislation that may lead to additional reporting requirements
is unnecessary and would add unwarranted financial burdens to both
agencies.

We continue to believe that congressional action may be warranted to
ensure that agencies report information on their development activities in
a shared database. We note that, since 2008, we and SIGAR have
reported in multiple studies on the need for USAID and DOD to
systematically and routinely share information on U.S. development
projects in Afghanistan, but the agencies have made limited progress in
agreeing to centralized data sharing. We also note that Afghan Info has
been established by the U.S. Mission-Afghanistan as a viable option for
centralizing and sharing data on U.S. development projects. Moreover,
USAID and DOD still lack a formal agreement requiring, or a mechanism
to enable, information sharing between their respective databases.
Without a formal mechanism for sharing information, U.S. agencies
undertaking overlapping development efforts in Afghanistan risk
duplicating their efforts.


As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of
this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the
report date. At that time, we will send copies to the appropriate
congressional committees, the Administrator of USAID, and the
Secretaries of Defense and State. In addition, the report will be available
at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact
me at (202) 512-7331 or johnsoncm@gao.gov. Contact points for our
Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on


Page 33                                      GAO-13-34 Afghanistan Development
the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this
report are listed in appendix VII.




Charles Michael Johnson, Jr.
Director
International Affairs and Trade




Page 34                                      GAO-13-34 Afghanistan Development
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
             Appendix I: Scope and Methodology




             To examine the extent to which U.S. agencies’ development efforts
             overlap in Afghanistan, we analyzed U.S. Agency for International
             Development (USAID), Department of Defense (DOD), and Department
             of State (State) data; reviewed laws governing the four main programs
             and accounts supporting development activities in Afghanistan, program
             guidance, and U.S. strategic documents; and interviewed agency officials.
             For the purposes of this report, “overlap” refers to those instances in
             which programs or accounts that have similar goals, devise similar
             strategies or activities to achieve those goals, or target similar
             beneficiaries. 1 To determine whether U.S. agencies have undertaken
             similar efforts and targeted similar beneficiaries in Afghanistan, we
             obtained and analyzed data on activities USAID, DOD, and State
             administered in Afghanistan in fiscal year 2011, including the type,
             amount, and location of assistance provided.

             •   For projects funded by USAID under the Economic Support Fund and
                 other accounts, we analyzed data from the Afghan Info database—
                 including activity descriptions, categories, and locations—and
                 financial data from USAID’s Phoenix database on obligations for
                 these projects. We determined that these data were sufficiently
                 reliable for the purposes of reporting on the type, amount, and
                 location of assistance provided by USAID to Afghanistan in fiscal year
                 2011.

             •   For DOD’s Commander’s Emergency Response Program (CERP), we
                 obtained and analyzed data from DOD’s Combined Information Data
                 Network Exchange (CIDNE) database, including information on
                 activity descriptions, categories, and locations; and obligations and
                 disbursements for these activities. We excluded CERP activities that
                 were not directly related to development, to include battle damage
                 repair, former detainee payments, hero payments, protective
                 measures, temporary contract guards for critical infrastructure,
                 condolence payments, and other urgent humanitarian or
                 reconstruction projects. We determined that these data were
                 sufficiently reliable for the purpose of reporting on the type, number,
                 and location of CERP activities in Afghanistan in fiscal year 2011 and
                 the amounts obligated and disbursed for these activities.



             1
              GAO, 2012 Annual Report: Opportunities to Reduce Duplication, Overlap and
             Fragmentation, Achieve Savings, and Enhance Revenue, GAO-12-342SP (Washington,
             D.C.: Feb. 28, 2012).




             Page 35                                         GAO-13-34 Afghanistan Development
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology




•   For DOD’s Task Force for Business and Stability Operations and
    DOD’s and State’s jointly-administered Afghanistan Infrastructure
    Fund, we obtained and analyzed agency data and project lists
    detailing project descriptions, project assistance categories, and
    obligations for projects funded in fiscal year 2011. We also
    determined that these data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes
    of this engagement.
To compare the type and amount of assistance provided to Afghanistan
through these programs and accounts in fiscal year 2011, we created
common assistance categories roughly based on the Compendium of
U.S. Government Assistance Programs in Afghanistan—a document
maintained by U.S. Embassy Kabul that reports on U.S. development
efforts in Afghanistan. We obtained feedback and general agreement
from agency officials on how we categorized their projects and activities
into our common assistance categories. To obtain the additional
perspectives of officials from USAID, DOD, and State on the extent to
which their efforts overlap, we conducted interviews in Washington, D.C.,
and Kabul, Afghanistan, and at the six regional commands in
Afghanistan.

To examine the extent to which USAID and DOD’s CERP may have
conducted duplicative activities in Afghanistan, we obtained and analyzed
agency data and interviewed agency officials in Washington, D.C., and
Kabul, Afghanistan, and at the six regional commands in Afghanistan. For
the purposes of this report, “duplication” occurs when two or more
agencies are engaged in the same activities or provide the same goods
or services to the same beneficiaries. 2 We obtained data from DOD’s
CIDNE database on CERP activities implemented in fiscal year 2011,
including project descriptions and the name of the province and district
where the project was implemented. We obtained comparable data from
the Afghan Info database, which included information on development
activities initiated by USAID and its implementing partners in fiscal year
2011, and the province, district, and village where the activities were
undertaken. USAID officials indicated that activities funded by some
awards are not recorded in Afghan Info. To determine the number of
awards not reported in Afghan Info for fiscal year 2011, we compared
financial data from USAID’s Phoenix database to activity data in Afghan
Info. We excluded those awards that USAID identified in their Phoenix


2
GAO-12-342SP.




Page 36                                      GAO-13-34 Afghanistan Development
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology




database as “EXO,” “Program Support,” and “Administrative Support”
because these activities were outside the scope of our definition of
development efforts. Additionally, we only included those awards for
which USAID reported financial activity in fiscal year 2011. Accordingly,
we identified 45 of the 155 awards in fiscal year 2011 that had not been
tracked in Afghan Info, which we note in this report. We otherwise
determined that the data USAID and DOD provided were sufficiently
reliable for the purpose of identifying potential duplication among
development efforts.

To conduct our analysis, we selected a nonrandom sample of six
districts—Kabul, Jalalabad, Kandahar, Garm Ser, Shindand, and Mazar-e
Sharif—one from each regional command to ensure broad geographic
representation. We generally selected the district with the greatest
number of activities and greatest amount of disbursements for both
USAID and DOD in that region, and we verified that both agencies had
initiated these activities across a range of assistance categories. Of the
399 districts in Afghanistan, the six districts we selected accounted for
5,082 unique activities, or about 17 percent of the 29,428 development
activities USAID and DOD initiated in Afghanistan in fiscal year 2011 and
32 percent of the disbursements made for these activities. However,
because this sample is a small nonprobability sample, we cannot
generalize the results of our analysis to the rest of Afghanistan.

To analyze the sample of development activities in six districts, we
compared keyword matches in the descriptions of activities from USAID’s
and DOD’s databases. We used statistical software to correct for
alternative spellings of province and district names between and within
USAID and DOD data, and identified keywords that appeared in the
descriptions of activities in the same districts from the respective
databases. From this list of matching keywords we selected a subset of
keywords that we deemed most likely to indicate potential duplication. We
then used statistical software to compare the selected keywords with all
similar words in both USAID’s and DOD’s databases to capture
misspellings or different tenses of the selected words. Finally, we
generated a list of activities in which one or more common keywords
appeared in the descriptions of efforts initiated by USAID and DOD,
respectively, in the same districts. As shown in table 6, our analysis
produced a list of 57,353 matches representing 3,864 unique USAID and
DOD activity descriptions across the six districts we selected. These
unique activities with at least one matching keyword at the district level
constituted 76 percent of the total 5,082 unique activities in the six
selected districts.


Page 37                                      GAO-13-34 Afghanistan Development
                                         Appendix I: Scope and Methodology




Table 6: Number of Keyword Matches in the Six Districts Selected for Analysis

                                    Regional                        Number of 1+ word           Number of 2+ word    Number of 3+ word
District            Province        Command District                         matches                     matches              matches
Kabul               Kabul           RC-Capital                                         26,643               3,742                       606
Jalalabad           Nangarhar       RC-East                                             4,890                 670
Kandahar            Kandahar        RC-South                                           21,275               1,288
Garm Ser            Helmand         RC-Southwest                                        4,109                 192
Shindand            Herat           RC-West                                              336
Mazar-e Sharif      Balkh           RC-North                                             100
                                         Source: GAO analysis of USAID and DOD data.

                                         Note: Cells shaded in gray indicate the word matches that we analyzed for potential overlap and
                                         duplication. We selected the keyword matches to compare in a given district on the basis of what was
                                         feasible, given (1) the number of one-, two-, and three-keyword matches and (2) our time and
                                         resource constraints.


                                         Next, we reviewed the descriptions of the pairs of activities with matching
                                         keywords to identify any instances of potential duplication. We reviewed
                                         activity descriptions with one-word matches for the Shindand and Mazar-
                                         e Sharif districts, matches of two or more words for the Jalalabad,
                                         Kandahar, and Garm Ser districts, and matches of three or more words in
                                         the Kabul district. The activity descriptions we reviewed constituted 3,192
                                         keyword matches representing 875 unique USAID and DOD activity
                                         descriptions. For each pair of activities, we made a determination whether
                                         the respective activities were providing a similar good or service to a
                                         similar beneficiary, which would indicate overlap and the potential for
                                         duplication. Of the 3,192 matching pairs of activities we reviewed, we
                                         assessed 499 to be potentially duplicative. For a subset of these, we
                                         requested additional information from USAID on the locations of the
                                         activities and any additional information available regarding the nature of
                                         the activities. We also reviewed additional documentation on CERP
                                         activities in the CIDNE database. Based on this additional information, we
                                         ruled out the possibility of duplication for all but 28 USAID activities and
                                         28 DOD CERP activities. For these remaining activities, additional
                                         information was not available from USAID and DOD to make a final
                                         determination on duplication.

                                         To examine the mechanisms that U.S. agencies have used to enhance
                                         coordination of their development efforts in Afghanistan, we reviewed the
                                         authorizing legislation, agency guidance, and other relevant
                                         documentation for each of the programs or accounts administered by
                                         these agencies. We also interviewed agency officials in Washington,
                                         D.C., and Kabul, Afghanistan, and at each of the regional commands. For


                                         Page 38                                                       GAO-13-34 Afghanistan Development
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology




the interviews with U.S. officials at regional commands, we designed and
administered a semistructured questionnaire to capture information on the
types of coordination mechanisms used, the frequency of their use, and
the reported effectiveness of the mechanisms. To assess USAID’s and
DOD’s progress toward developing a shared database such as Afghan
Info that would document all U.S. development efforts in Afghanistan, we
interviewed agency officials, received a live demonstration from USAID
officials on the use of Afghan Info, and obtained and analyzed data from
Afghan Info.

We conducted this performance audit from February 2012 through
November 2012, in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the
audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We
believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.




Page 39                                    GAO-13-34 Afghanistan Development
Appendix II: Obligations for Development
                                          Appendix II: Obligations for Development
                                          Efforts in Afghanistan by Category in Fiscal
                                          Year 2011


Efforts in Afghanistan by Category in Fiscal
Year 2011

Dollars in millions
                                                         Obligations by category of development efforta
                                                                                                          Private
                                                                                                       sector and
             Program or                 Democracy and              Education            Energy and      economic                     Total
                                                                                                                                          b
Agency       account      Agriculture      governance              and health            electricity      growth Transportation obligated
USAID        ESFc             $207.4                 $394.8               $105.3             $143.9         $286            $97.5         $1,235
DOD          CERPd              60.8                   39.1                  93.4              41.8          12.4           111.4         $358.9
DOD          TFBSO              18.8                       0                      0            19.2          95.2                 0       $133.1
DOD and      AIFe                  0                       0f                     0           192.8            0                23        $215.8
State
             Total              $287                 $433.9               $198.7             $397.7       $393.6           $231.9       $1,942.8
                                          Source: GAO analysis of agency budget data.

                                          Legend: AIF = Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund; CERP = Commander’s Emergency Response
                                          Program; ESF = Economic Support Fund; DOD = Department of Defense; State = Department of
                                          State; TFBSO = Task Force for Business and Stability Operations; USAID = United States Agency for
                                          International Development.
                                          a
                                           Some development efforts may address multiple categories. For the purposes of this table, we
                                          categorized efforts according to agency classifications and our best judgment as to the primary focus
                                          of the efforts. Water-related efforts spanned several categories, including education and health,
                                          agriculture, and energy and electricity development categories. For example, efforts related to potable
                                          water are included in the education and health category, irrigation-related efforts are included in the
                                          agriculture category, and water efforts related to providing power are included in the energy and
                                          electricity category.
                                          b
                                              Totals may not equal the sum of each row or column due to rounding.
                                          c
                                           ESF obligations for fiscal year 2011 do not necessarily correspond to project activities begun in fiscal
                                          year 2011. These totals also include $35.5 million obligated under accounts other than ESF to
                                          correspond to USAID activity-level data. Obligations data reflect USAID’s report on major grants and
                                          awards and therefore do not include grants or awards of less than $100,000.
                                          d
                                           Obligations cited here do not include funds unrelated to development efforts, including CERP
                                          activities identified as battle-damage repair, former detainee payments, hero payments, protective
                                          measures, temporary contract guards for critical infrastructure, condolence payments, and other
                                          urgent humanitarian or reconstruction projects.
                                          e
                                              AIF obligations reported by DOD for efforts as of September 30, 2011.
                                          f
                                          DOD and State planned to use fiscal year 2011 AIF funding to support democracy and governance
                                          projects. However, obligations for these efforts were not made until fiscal year 2012.




                                          Page 40                                                           GAO-13-34 Afghanistan Development
Appendix III: USAID and DOD’s CERP
                                       Appendix III: USAID and DOD’s CERP
                                       Activities in Afghanistan, by Category of
                                       Development Effort, for Fiscal Year 2011


Activities in Afghanistan, by Category of
Development Effort, for Fiscal Year 2011

                                                              Categories of development effortsa
                                                                                                       Private
                                                                                                    sector and
         Program or                  Democracy and             Education             Energy and      economic
Agency   accountb      Agriculture      governance             and health             electricity      growth Transportation             Total
               c
USAID    ESF                4,852                 7,849                1,297                  68        1,647                  94      15,807
                   d
DOD      CERP               3,157                 2,836                4,060                 395          922              2,251       13,621
         Total              8,009               10,685                 5,357                 463        2,569              2,345       29,428
                                       Source: GAO analysis of USAID and DOD data.

                                       Legend: CERP = Commander’s Emergency Response Program; ESF = Economic Support Fund;
                                       DOD = Department of Defense; USAID = U.S. Agency for International Development.
                                       a
                                        Some activities may address multiple development categories. For the purposes of this table, we
                                       categorized activities according to agency classifications and our best judgment as to the primary
                                       focus of the activities. Water-related activities spanned several categories, including education and
                                       health, agriculture, and energy and electricity development categories. For example, activities related
                                       to potable water are included in the education and health category, irrigation-related activities are
                                       included in the agriculture category, and water activities related to providing power are included in the
                                       energy and electricity category.
                                       b
                                        Activities for the Task Force for Business and Stability Operations and the Afghanistan Infrastructure
                                       Fund are not included in this table because this program and account do not have comparable data
                                       readily available in a searchable database.
                                       c
                                        These numbers include the USAID activities tracked in Afghan Info that are funded through ESF and
                                       other accounts that were initiated in fiscal year 2011. Not included are activities funded by 45
                                       awards—13 active and 32 inactive—that were not tracked in the Afghan Info database.
                                       d
                                        For CERP, the numbers represent activities initiated in fiscal year 2011. CERP activities generally
                                       entail a specific activity in a specific location. CERP totals do not include nondevelopment activities,
                                       including activities identified as battle-damage repair, former detainee payments, hero payments,
                                       protective measures, temporary contract guards for critical infrastructure, condolence payments, and
                                       other urgent humanitarian or reconstruction projects.




                                       Page 41                                                          GAO-13-34 Afghanistan Development
Appendix IV: USAID and DOD’s CERP
                                              Appendix IV: USAID and DOD’s CERP
                                              Development Activities Identified as Potentially
                                              Duplicative


Development Activities Identified as
Potentially Duplicative

     USAID Activity Description                                          DOD CERP Activity Description
1    Bar Khanzai CFW Gravel Road & Culvert Rehabilitation                A road that was still flooded and partly underwater from the
                                                                         winter was repaired/raised higer and leveled with gravel
2    Building Sayed Abad Footbridge between SD9 and SD10                 Construct a footbridge to provide the local national a safe way
                                                                         to cross the bridge.
3    Shindand - Char Borjak Alizaei Canal Rehabilitation, Zawol          Labor and rental equipment for irrigation canal cleanup. 20
     Buluk                                                               workers were hired with a supervisor for 30 days.
4    Shindand - Kawdan Village Canal Rehabilitation, Zawol Buluk         Labor and rental equipment for irrigation canal cleanup. 20
                                                                         workers were hired with a supervisor for 30 days.
5    Shindand - Furniture for Two Zirkoh Valley Schools and a            Payment for furniture for a school located in Urayan. The
     Young Women’’s Development Center                                   furniture will provide the school with adequate working
                                                                         conditions in order to improve productivity for approximately
                                                                         500 children aged 7 through 15.
6    Shindand - Provision of Furniture to Five District Schools          Payment for furniture for a school located in Urayan. The
                                                                         furniture will provide the school with adequate working
                                                                         conditions in order to improve productivity for approximately
                                                                         500 children aged 7 through 15.
7    Repairing the Laki Sluice Gate                                      Payment for repairs to a sluice gate to control water flow into
                                                                         neighboring villages.
8    Removal of historic debris accumulated during the conflict          Payment for the removal of trash and debris in Mundey Kariz
                                                                         village and surrounding area to improve the quality of life for the
                                                                         local citizens.
9    Debris removal program                                              Payment for the removal of trash and debris to improve
                                                                         transportation and commerce within Sub District 4.
10   Removal of historic debris accumulated during the conflict          Payment for the removal of trash and debris to improve
                                                                         transportation and commerce within Sub District 4.
11   Debris removal program                                              Payment for the removal of trash and debris to improve
                                                                         transportation and commerce within Sub District 9.
12   Removal of historic debris accumulated during the conflict          Payment for the removal of trash and debris to improve
                                                                         transportation and commerce within Sub District 9.
13   Debris removal program                                              Payment for the removal of trash and debris to improve
                                                                         transportation within Sub District 1.
14   Removal of historic debris accumulated during the conflict          Payment for the removal of trash and debris to improve
                                                                         transportation within Sub District 1.
15   Koshtay Water Gate and Culverts                                     Payment made for construction of a canal gate that will improve
                                                                         water flow and irrigation in Koshtay.
16   Shindand - Char Borjak Alizaei Canal Rehabilitation, Zawol          Payment made for irrigation canal renovation and consist of
     Buluk                                                               excavator rental for 100 hours and 4 labors for 12 days
17   Shindand - Kawdan Village Canal Rehabilitation, Zawol Buluk         Payment made for irrigation canal renovation and consist of
                                                                         excavator rental for 100 hours and 4 labors for 12 days
18   General district 3 section 2 canal restoration,                     Payment made for irrigation canal restoration in Sub-District 3
     kandahar,kandahar, general district 3.
19   General district 3 section 3 canal restoration,kandahar,            Payment made for irrigation canal restoration in Sub-District 3
     kandahar general district 3.




                                              Page 42                                                 GAO-13-34 Afghanistan Development
                                             Appendix IV: USAID and DOD’s CERP
                                             Development Activities Identified as Potentially
                                             Duplicative




     USAID Activity Description                                         DOD CERP Activity Description
20   General District 3 section 4 canal restoration, kandahar           Payment made for irrigation canal restoration in Sub-District 3
     ,kandahar,general district 3 section.
21   General District 3 section 1 canal restoration,                    Payment made for irrigation canal restoration in Sub-District 3
     kandahar,kandahar, general district 3.
22   Shindand - Char Borjak Alizaei Canal Rehabilitation, Zawol         Payment made for materials and labor to repair irrigation canal
     Buluk
23   Shindand - Kawdan Village Canal Rehabilitation, Zawol Buluk        Payment made for materials and labor to repair irrigation canal
24   Providing Sports Equipment to Kandahar City’s Schools              Payment made for purchase of sports equipment for school in
                                                                        Sub-district 2.
25   Debris removal program                                             Payment made for removal of trash and debris in Kandahar
                                                                        City to improve quality of life for approximately 500 local
                                                                        citizens. Funding provided for labor and cleaning supplies.
26   Removal of historic debris accumulated during the conflict         Payment made for removal of trash and debris in Kandahar
                                                                        City to improve quality of life for approximately 500 local
                                                                        citizens. Funding provided for labor and cleaning supplies.
27   Providing Sports Equipment to Kandahar City’s Schools              Payment made for Sport equipment for school.
28   Cleaning the Canal Drainage System in Kandahar City,               Payment made for the purchase of canal cleaning in Kandahar
     Qalacha, Sub-District 8
29   Construction of two Pedestrian Bridges in Koshtay                  Payment made to local national for materials to construct a foot
                                                                        bridge to increase safe pedestrian travels.
30   Kodalo Drab Spillway and Pedestrian Bridge                         Payment made to local national for materials to construct a foot
                                                                        bridge to increase safe pedestrian travels.
31   Construction of two Pedestrian Bridges in Koshtay                  Payment made to local national for the construction for a
                                                                        pedestrain bridge along the local route. This bridge will facilitate
                                                                        local national traffic and commerce.
32   Kodalo Drab Spillway and Pedestrian Bridge                         Payment made to local national for the construction for a
                                                                        pedestrain bridge along the local route. This bridge will facilitate
                                                                        local national traffic and commerce.
33   Laki Pedestrian Bridge in Garmser District                         Payment made to local national for the construction for a
                                                                        pedestrain bridge along the local route. This bridge will facilitate
                                                                        local national traffic and commerce.
34   Construction of two Pedestrian Bridges in Koshtay                  Payment made to local national for the construction of a new
                                                                        motorcycle and pedestrian bridge in the local area. This bridge
                                                                        will facilitate local national traffic and commerce.
35   Kodalo Drab Spillway and Pedestrian Bridge                         Payment made to local national for the construction of a new
                                                                        motorcycle and pedestrian bridge in the local area. This bridge
                                                                        will facilitate local national traffic and commerce.
36   Laki Pedestrian Bridge in Garmser District                         Payment made to local national for the construction of a new
                                                                        motorcycle and pedestrian bridge in the local area. This bridge
                                                                        will facilitate local national traffic and commerce.
37   Drop 13 Sluice Gate and Bank Repairs                               Payment made to local national to fix the sluice gate on the
                                                                        canal depositing water in the local intersection.
38   Repairing the Laki Sluice Gate                                     Payment made to local national to fix the sluice gate on the
                                                                        canal depositing water in the local intersection.




                                             Page 43                                                  GAO-13-34 Afghanistan Development
                                            Appendix IV: USAID and DOD’s CERP
                                            Development Activities Identified as Potentially
                                            Duplicative




     USAID Activity Description                                               DOD CERP Activity Description
39   Pushing South: Tents for Schools #4                                      Payment to allow school tents to be put up for classes to be
                                                                              conducted and installed a water pump so the children can have
                                                                              drinking water
40   Pushing South: Tents for Schools #5                                      Payment to allow school tents to be put up for classes to be
                                                                              conducted and installed a water pump so the children can have
                                                                              drinking water
41   Cleaning the Canal Drainage System in Kandahar City,                     Payment to local national for canal cleanup
     Qalacha, Sub-District 8
42   Abbasabad Road and Culvert Rehabilitation                                Payment to local national for materials to repair 2 local roads
                                                                              and culverts. This allows for ease of transportation for local
                                                                              populace.
43   Connecting Safar to GIRoA: Sar Ahmed Khanzai Road and                    Payment to local national for materials to repair 2 local roads
     Culvert Rehabilitation                                                   and culverts. This allows for ease of transportation for local
                                                                              populace.
44   Kharako Road and Culvert Rehabilitation                                  Payment to local national for materials to repair 2 local roads
                                                                              and culverts. This allows for ease of transportation for local
                                                                              populace.
45   Kojibad Road & Culverts                                                  Payment to local national for materials to repair 2 local roads
                                                                              and culverts. This allows for ease of transportation for local
                                                                              populace.
46   Loya Darvehsan Road & Culverts                                           Payment to local national for materials to repair 2 local roads
                                                                              and culverts. This allows for ease of transportation for local
                                                                              populace.
47   Kodalo Drab Spillway and Pedestrian Bridge                               Payment to local national for materials to repair foot bridge and
                                                                              culvert. This allows access to local village by pedestrians.
48   Cleaning the Canal Drainage System in Kandahar City,                     Payment to local nationals for canal cleaning.
     Qalacha, Sub-District 8
49   Shindand - Char Borjak Alizaei Canal Rehabilitation, Zawol               Reconstruction of canal and road reinforcement to prevent
     Buluk                                                                    flooding and damages. Supplies are cement bags, concrete
                                                                              blocks, sand trucks, mason, plywood, and laborers.
50   Shindand - Kawdan Village Canal Rehabilitation, Zawol Buluk              Reconstruction of canal and road reinforcement to prevent
                                                                              flooding and damages. Supplies are cement bags, concrete
                                                                              blocks, sand trucks, mason, plywood, and laborers.
51   This 42-day project repaired a portion of Qasaba –Poshte-Koh Reconstruction of canal and road reinforcement to prevent
     road (2,076 m) including the reconstruction of 54 culverts and   flooding and damages. Supplies are cement bags, concrete
     the rehabilitation of 200 m long gabion wall (301 m3) to prevent blocks, sand trucks, mason, plywood, and laborers.
     flooding. The project employed 779 workers including 37
     women and created 10,026 person-days of labor.
52   Drop 13 Sluice Gate and Bank Repairs                                     This project is for repair of a canal sluice gate in local village.
53   Repairing the Laki Sluice Gate                                           This project is for repair of a canal sluice gate in local village.
                                            Source: GAO analysis of USAID and DOD data.

                                            Legend: CERP = Commander’s Emergency Response Program; DOD = Department of Defense;
                                            USAID = U.S. Agency for International Development.
                                            Note: The activity descriptions presented in this table are taken verbatim from DOD’s CIDNE
                                            database and USAID’s Afghan info database and therefore may contain misspellings or typographical
                                            errors. Additionally, while there are 53 pairs of activities listed, there are only 28 unique USAID
                                            activities and 28 unique CERP activities within the table.




                                            Page 44                                                          GAO-13-34 Afghanistan Development
Appendix V: Comments from the U.S. Agency
             Appendix V: Comments from the U.S. Agency
             for International Development



for International Development




             Page 45                                     GAO-13-34 Afghanistan Development
Appendix V: Comments from the U.S. Agency
for International Development




Page 46                                     GAO-13-34 Afghanistan Development
Appendix V: Comments from the U.S. Agency
for International Development




Page 47                                     GAO-13-34 Afghanistan Development
Appendix V: Comments from the U.S. Agency
for International Development




Page 48                                     GAO-13-34 Afghanistan Development
Appendix VI: Comments from the
             Appendix VI: Comments from the Department
             of Defense



Department of Defense




             Page 49                                     GAO-13-34 Afghanistan Development
Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff
                  Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff
                  Acknowledgments



Acknowledgments

                  Charles Michael Johnson, Jr., (202) 512-7331 or johnsoncm@gao.gov
GAO Contact
                  In addition to the contact named above, Godwin Agbara (Assistant
Staff             Director), Drew Lindsey, Kendal Robinson, and Mitchell Karpman made
Acknowledgments   key contributions to this report. Ashley Alley, Carole Coffey, David
                  Dayton, David Dornisch, Etana Finkler, Kasea Hamar, David Hancock,
                  Melissa Hermes, Hynek Kalkus, Bruce Kutnick, and Christopher Mulkins
                  also provided assistance.




(320889)
                  Page 50                                  GAO-13-34 Afghanistan Development
GAO’s Mission         The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and
                      investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
                      constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and
                      accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
                      examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
                      policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
                      to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions.
                      GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
                      accountability, integrity, and reliability.

                      The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
Obtaining Copies of   cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday
GAO Reports and       afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony,
                      and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted
Testimony             products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

Order by Phone        The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of
                      production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
                      publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
                      white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website,
                      http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm.
                      Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
                      TDD (202) 512-2537.
                      Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
                      MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.
                      Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.
Connect with GAO      Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
                      Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov.
                      Contact:
To Report Fraud,
Waste, and Abuse in   Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
                      E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Federal Programs      Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

                      Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-
Congressional         4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room
Relations             7125, Washington, DC 20548

                      Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800
Public Affairs        U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
                      Washington, DC 20548




                        Please Print on Recycled Paper.