Global Development Lab: USAID Leverages External Contributions but Needs to Ensure Timely Data and Transparent Reporting

The Lab was created as a USAID bureau in April 2014. The Lab was intended to institutionalize and improve USAID's ability to harness and leverage science, technology, innovation, and partnerships in addressing development issues and goals worldwide. The Lab supports projects and activities and announces, issues, and manages awards—or funding opportunities—for innovators to propose new ideas, approaches, and technologies. The Lab also incorporates external (i.e., non-USAID) contributions into its programming.

Senate Report 114-290 included a provision for GAO to review the Lab. GAO's report examines, among other things, (1) the Lab's programs, funding, and staffing resources and (2) the extent to which the Lab has documented its oversight of awards with non-USAID contributions and clearly reported these contributions. GAO reviewed and analyzed agency documents and interviewed agency officials in Washington, D.C., and from six missions. GAO also analyzed selected Lab documentation for fiscal years 2014 through 2017.

The U.S. Agency for International Development's (USAID) Global Development Lab (the Lab) has programs and activities for each of its five strategic objectives: science, technology, innovation, and partnerships (STIP) and agency integration of STIP. The Lab comprises five centers and two support offices (see figure). The centers house more than 25 Lab programs focused on issues such as development research, digital development, innovation ventures, and private sector engagement. The Lab's funding for its programs has generally been decreasing, as have its staffing numbers, since fiscal year 2015. USAID allocations of program funds to the Lab decreased from $170.7 million in fiscal year 2015 to $77 million in fiscal year 2017.

Although the Lab has documented its oversight of awards that include non-USAID contributions, some data it collects for these contributions are outdated and its public reporting of such data lacks transparency.

For awards GAO reviewed, the Lab consistently documented its compliance with key award oversight requirements. However, its Internal Guide to Accounting for Leverage (internal guide) does not include instructions for ensuring the data for these contributions are current. As a result, GAO found the Lab's management information system contained outdated data for non-USAID contributions in 10 of 24 awards GAO reviewed.

The Lab publicly reports a broader range of non-USAID contributions than the types described in USAID policy. However, the Lab's internal guide does not require the Lab to disclose the types of contributions represented in its public reporting. As a result, the Lab's public reporting of such contributions lacks transparency.

USAID policy and standards for internal control in the federal government require the use and communication of timely and reliable information. Revising the Lab's internal guide to include instructions for updating data on non-USAID contributions and requiring the Lab's public reporting to disclose the types of contributions represented would help the Lab ensure accuracy and transparency in the information it reports to Congress and the public.

GAO recommends that USAID ensure that the Lab revises its Internal Guide to Accounting for Leverage to (1) include instructions for updating data on non-USAID contributions for awards and (2) require its public reporting of non-USAID contributions to disclose the types of contributions represented.

USAID concurred with both recommendations.

In 2010, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the  Department of State initiated efforts to enhance the use of science and  technology to meet development challenges in the 21st century. These  efforts were driven by, among other things, technological breakthroughs  and improvements in connectivity that provided USAID with opportunities  to change the global development landscape. According to USAID, it  established the Office of Innovation and Development Alliances and the  Office of Science and Technology in 2010 to open up solutions to  development issues, foster scientific inquiry, and embrace an  environment of entrepreneurship and ingenuity. In 2014, these efforts led  to the creation of the Global Development Lab (the Lab) as a USAID  bureau. According to USAID officials, since its inception, the Lab has  sought innovative solutions to development challenges and used public– private partnerships to further its mission and invest in strategies to  address development problems ranging from hunger to disease to  literacy.

Senate Report 114-290 included a provision for GAO to assess the  structure, activities, and results of the Lab, among other things. In this  report, we examine (1) the Lab’s programs, funding, and staffing  resources; (2) the extent to which the Lab has documented its oversight  of awards with non-USAID contributions and clearly reported these  contributions; and (3) the tools that the Lab uses to assess its  performance as well as results that such assessments have shown.

To examine the Lab’s programs, funding, and staffing resources, we  reviewed and analyzed Lab documents and data covering fiscal years  2014 through 2017. We also interviewed Lab officials representing every  center and office regarding the Lab’s organizational structure, programs,  and services.

To examine the extent to which the Lab has documented its oversight of  awards with non-USAID contributions, we reviewed and analyzed Lab  data on awards with committed non-USAID contributions in fiscal years  2014 through 2017. To assess the reliability of these data, we reviewed  documentation and interviewed USAID officials to identify and rectify any  missing or erroneous data. We determined that the data and information  were sufficiently reliable for comparison with award documentation. We  reviewed and analyzed award documentation from 24 Lab-managed  awards that included non-USAID contributions. These awards  represented all such awards issued during or after fiscal year 2014 and  ending during or before fiscal year 2017. We also reviewed USAID  guidance related to the oversight of non-USAID funding contributions  contained in the agency’s Automated Directives System (ADS) as well as  Lab-issued guidance related to the oversight of such funds. Additionally,  we met with Lab officials responsible for managing these awards and with  Lab officials responsible for creating and implementing Lab guidance.

To report on the tools the Lab uses to assess its performance, we  reviewed and analyzed Lab performance and program documents, such  as the Lab’s strategic plan and evaluations. We also reviewed results of  the Lab’s performance indicators and portfolio reviews covering fiscal  years 2016 through 2017. In addition, we interviewed officials from five  USAID bureaus in Washington, D.C., and from six USAID missions  overseas to obtain information on their interactions with the Lab. See  appendix I for more information about our objectives, scope, and  methodology.

We conducted this performance audit from July 2017 to November 2018  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.

Establishment, Mission, and Objectives of the Lab

In 2014, USAID established the Lab as a USAID bureau by merging and  restructuring two offices—the Office of Science and Technology and the  Office of Innovation and Development Alliances. According to USAID  officials, the agency moved a number of the two offices’ core programs  and activities, along with staffing functions, to the Lab. In a January 2014  notification, USAID informed Congress of its intent to establish the Lab  and noted initial staffing levels, funding, and short-term plans. The Lab is  generally subject to guidance pertaining to operating units and bureaus,  including policies and procedures set out in USAID’s ADS. It also  publishes and contributes to various performance and financial reporting  of information, such as USAID’s Annual Performance Plan and Report,  which are provided to Congress and available to the public, according to  Lab officials.

The Lab was created to work collaboratively within USAID and with other  government and nongovernment partners to produce development  innovations, among other things. According to Lab officials, the Lab seeks  to improve USAID’s ability to harness the power of science, technology,  innovation, and partnerships (STIP) with private and public sectors by  funding and scaling breakthroughs that would accelerate the completion  of foreign policy and development goals.

The Lab has a two-part mission:  1.  Produce development breakthroughs and innovations by funding,  testing, and scaling proven solutions that will affect millions of people.  2.  Accelerate the transformation of development enterprise (i.e., to build  capacity of the public and private sectors to work in the development  arena) by opening it to people everywhere with good ideas, promoting  new and deepening existing partnerships, applying data and  evidence, and harnessing scientific and technological advances.

The Lab’s mission, objectives, and goals are laid out in its strategic plan,  which has evolved since the Lab’s creation. In fiscal years 2014 and  2015, the Lab operated under an initial strategy that focused on  examining the delivery capabilities and constraints of current and ongoing  Lab programs; prioritizing investments of time and resources; and  confirming new activities and programs. The strategy for fiscal years 2016  through 2020 presents a results framework that includes the Lab’s two- part mission statement as well as five objective statements and  corresponding intermediate result statements explaining how the Lab  intends to achieve its goals (see fig. 1).

The Lab, which is headed by an Executive Director, includes five  centers—the Center for Development Research, the Center for Digital  Development, the Center for Development Innovation, the Center for  Transformational Partnerships, and the Center for Agency Integration— each focused on one of the Lab’s five strategic objectives. The Lab also  includes two offices, the Office of Engagement and Communication and  the Office of Evaluation and Impact Assessment, which provide support  services. Figure 2 shows the Lab’s organizational structure.

Table 1 describes each of the Lab’s centers and offices.

In April 2018, the USAID Administrator announced agency reorganization  plans that will affect the Lab. USAID leadership plans to create a new  Bureau for Development, Democracy, and Innovation and a Bureau for  Policy, Resources, and Performance. According to USAID, the new  bureaus will combine existing operating units that provide technical and  program design support and expertise into a “one-stop shop” of  consultancies that USAID missions can utilize. The new bureaus will  absorb the Lab, along with other units, and track its contributions using  new metrics that measure customer service to determine whether  missions and bureaus have access to the right expertise at the right time,  according to the USAID Administrator. As of October 2018, USAID had  not indicated time frames for implementing the reorganization plans.

To achieve its objectives and goals, the Lab funds and manages awards  (which result in activities) that cover STIP programming as well as the  Lab’s operations. The Lab uses a number of different mechanisms—for  example, broad agency announcement procedures, annual program  statements, and requests for applications—when making awards, which  include grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts.

Global Development Alliance  A Global Development Alliance (GDA) is a  partnership involving the U.S. Agency for  International Development (USAID) and the  private sector. GDA partners work together to  develop and implement activities that leverage  and apply assets and expertise to advance  core business interests, achieve USAID’s  development objectives, and increase the  sustainable impact of USAID’s development  investments. Generally, according to USAID,  the value of private sector expertise,  capabilities, and resources contributed to an  alliance must equal and, in general, should  significantly exceed the value of resources  provided by USAID.

The Lab also holds competitions focused on new ideas, approaches, and  technologies to address development problems, and awards prizes to  individuals or groups that meet the competition’s requirements. Some  awards include funding from USAID as well as cash or in-kind  contributions from non-USAID sources in the private or public sector.  The Lab refers to the use of all non-USAID contributions as leverage and  reports leverage as a programmatic performance indicator. According to  USAID documents, the agency seeks to build partnerships that leverage  the assets, skills, and resources of the public, private, and nonprofit  sectors to deliver sustainable development impact. Examples of such  leverage contributions include donated cash, services, or supplies from  implementing partners or third parties to specific awards managed by the  Lab. Third parties contributing to Lab managed programs have included  foreign governments, international organizations, businesses and  corporations, philanthropic foundations, non-governmental organizations,  and higher education institutions, among others. One method USAID has  approached this goal is through Global Development Alliances (see  sidebar).

The Lab Aligns Programs to Support Its Five Strategic Objectives; Funding and Staffing Have Decreased since Fiscal Year 2015

The Lab Aligns Programs with Its Strategic Objectives

Staff in the Lab’s five centers, offices, and Lab-Wide Priorities manage  more than 25 programs and portfolios, which encompass projects and  activities under a specific issue, aligned with the Lab’s five strategic  objectives. The programs focus on development research (science  objective), digital development (technology objective), innovation ventures  (innovation objective), and private-sector engagement (partnerships  objective). Table 2 shows examples of programs and portfolios aligned  with each strategic objective.

Examples of the Lab’s programs and activities include the following (see  app. II for more information about these and other Lab programs):

Staff in the Lab’s Center for Development Innovation manage the  Grand Challenges for Development initiative, intended to foster  innovations to address key global health and development problems.  Since 2011, USAID and its partners have launched 10 Grand  Challenges that are implemented by USAID bureaus, including the  Lab. The Lab is responsible for managing the Securing Water for  Food Grand Challenge and also the Scaling Off-Grid Energy Grand  Challenge. Other USAID bureaus implement the other eight Grand  Challenges (see app. III for a description of the Grand Challenges).

Staff in the Lab’s Center for Development Research manage the  Higher Education Solutions Network. The program is a partnership  with seven universities that also work with partners in academia, the  private sector, civil society, and governments worldwide. The  universities established eight development labs that focus on efforts to  solve a range of development problems.

The Lab’s two offices support various aspects of the centers’  programs and portfolios, such as internally promoting center programs  throughout USAID and conducting monitoring and evaluation  activities.

Types of STIP Services Provided by the  Global Development Lab  Digital development: Technologies and  data-driven approaches to extend the reach of  development programs   Catalyzing innovation: Integration of design  methodologies, development innovations, and  programming solutions to solve development  challenges differently.   Partnerships/private sector engagement:  Relationships between USAID and one or  many organizations, including private sector  entities, in an effort to create development  impact.  Scientific research and capacity building:  Application of science and research to solve  development problems.

In addition to managing programs, the centers provide a variety of STIP- focused services and support, including assistance with programming, to  USAID field missions and headquarters bureaus as part of the Lab’s  mission to accelerate development impact. According to Lab  documentation, the Lab can provide services related to country and  regional strategic planning; project design and implementation; activity  design and implementation; and monitoring and evaluation. The Lab’s  STIP services fall into several categories—digital development, catalyzing  innovation, partnerships and private sector engagement, and scientific  research and capacity building, according to Lab documents (see  sidebar).

The centers, led by the Center for Agency Integration, deliver internal  STIP services and mechanisms through toolkits, training, advisory  services, and assessment and analysis of STIP activities or programming,  according to Lab documentation. For example, at the request of missions  or bureaus, the Digital Finance team in the Center for Digital  Development can, among other things, review and provide technical input  on awards related to digital finance. In addition, the Lab has provided  advisory services to USAID operating units regarding innovative design or  methods, such as co-creation, which can be used throughout the program  cycle including in procurement (i.e., the broad agency announcement,  annual program statements, etc.). According to Lab officials, some  services are funded by the Lab at no cost to USAID operating units, while  other services must be funded by the USAID operating units through  funding mechanisms such as “buy-ins” or cooperative agreements.

Lab data for fiscal years 2014 through 2017 show that the Lab provided  services or support frequently in digital development activities, such as  geospatial support to USAID field operations, and partnership services.  For example, the Lab has provided technical services to missions around  the world related to the GeoCenter (housed in the Center for Digital  Development), which supports the application of advanced data and  geographic analysis to international development challenges to improve  the strategic planning, design, monitoring, and evaluation of USAID’s  programs. In addition, the Lab provided partnership services related to  private-sector engagement, including technical assistance and  consultative services to USAID missions for more efficiently engaging,  building, and maintaining relationships with the private sector at local or  regional levels.

Officials we interviewed at USAID missions and headquarters bureaus  described services or tools they had received from the Lab, such as  technical advice and training related to establishing private-sector  partnerships and leveraging funding. For example, some USAID  headquarters officials told us they had taken Lab-led private-sector  engagement training that addressed developing collaborations with  external stakeholders, establishing risk-sharing agreements, and  engaging investors and other financial sector actors. In addition, some  mission officials stated that they were involved in Lab-supported  programs such as the Partnerships for Enhanced Engagement in  Research and the Partnering to Accelerate Entrepreneurship Initiative  and had received Lab support related to geographic information system  mapping. One mission had a Lab-funded embedded advisor who  provided technical assistance to a country’s Ministry of Health. According  to Lab officials, demand for the Lab’s services and support exceeds the  Lab’s capacity and its resources.

Program Funding for the Lab Has Decreased since Fiscal Year 2015

Allocations of program funds from USAID to the Lab have decreased over  the past few fiscal years, from $170.7 million in fiscal year 2015 to $77  million in fiscal year 2017. Similarly, the Lab’s obligations of program  funds have also decreased since fiscal year 2015, according to Lab  data. Obligations reached around $170 million in fiscal year 2015, the  Lab’s first full year of operations. By fiscal year 2016, the Lab’s  obligations had decreased to about $109 million—a reduction of over 35  percent. Although the Lab is still obligating fiscal year 2017 funding, its  obligations would not exceed $77 million if it obligated the full amount of  program funding provided to the Lab. As table 3 shows, from fiscal year  2014 through fiscal year 2017, the Lab obligated over $435 million of its  program funds for its centers and support services (see app. IV for an  overview of funding from various appropriations accounts in fiscal years  2014-2017). According to Lab officials, the program funds cover Lab- managed programs and programming (including funding for awards  comprised of many activities) and the centers’ services, STIP activities,  and staffing (including contractors), among other things (see app. V for a  discussion of Lab-managed activities and corresponding obligations for  fiscal years 2014-2017).

As table 3 shows, in fiscal years 2014 through 2017, the Lab’s Center for  Development Innovation obligated the most funds overall. The center  houses the Development Innovation Ventures, a portfolio of innovations  with the goal of reducing global poverty. Borrowing from the private  sector’s venture capital model, the portfolio seeks to identify and test  innovative development solutions based on three principles: rigorous  evidence, cost-effectiveness, and potential to scale up.

Lab officials indicated that the Lab has reassessed and realigned  programming priorities because of decreased funding. For example, the  Lab temporarily suspended new applications for awards through the  Development Innovation Ventures program from the end of July 2017 due  to budget uncertainties in fiscal year 2018. However, Lab officials  indicated that the Lab has recently secured funding for new applications  for the program. Funding decreases have also caused the Lab to scale  back or put some programs on hold, according to Lab officials. For  example, the Lab scaled back its Partnering to Accelerate  Entrepreneurship Initiative; its Lab-Wide Priorities; and its Monitoring,  Evaluation, Research, and Learning Innovation programs. The Lab also  put its partnerships with NextGen missions on hold indefinitely, according  to Lab officials. In addition, the Lab reported that it has been able to  provide only minimal support for multi-stakeholder partnerships, such as  the Digital Impact Alliance and the Global Innovation Fund.

Lab Staffing Has Decreased since Fiscal Year 2015

The number of staff in the Lab has decreased since fiscal year 2015, the  first year for which staffing numbers are available. Lab staff include both  direct-hire staff, comprising civil service and foreign-service employees,  and contractors with specialized skills who supplement the efforts of  direct-hire staff. Contractors have made up at least 35 percent or more of  staff each fiscal year since 2015. The total number of staff, including  direct-hire staff and contractors, decreased by over 30 percent from fiscal  years 2015 through 2018, dropping from 224 in fiscal year 2015 to 155 in  fiscal year 2018 (see table 4).

Lab information shows that the staff primarily comprise senior technical  and professional experts and that about 80 percent of staff are on time- limited appointments, which can last 1 to 5 years, according to Lab  officials. Further, according to Lab officials, due to the ever-changing  nature of work in the Lab, staff may work on multiple projects and  activities across several teams or may be assigned to work with one team  or on a single project until it is completed. For example, Lab officials  stated that when Lab-Wide Priorities are established, staff members are  brought in to contribute to these efforts while also working on activities in  the centers they support.

In addition to declining staff numbers overall, since fiscal year 2015, the  number of direct-hire staff employed by the Lab has decreased.  According to Lab officials, because of the technical focus of its  programming, the Lab has not been able to staff all authorized positions  with direct-hire employees who have the necessary expertise. Instead,  the Lab has filled some of these positions with contractors or science  fellows. The Lab also uses a variety of other hiring mechanisms, such as  the Participating Agency Service Agreement with the Department of  Agriculture and the American Association for Advancement of Science  fellows, to allow for flexibility and obtain the needed expertise to  implement STIP and technical services throughout USAID. By fiscal year  2017, the Center for Digital Development had 40 staff members—the  highest overall number, including the highest number of contractor staff  members—among all the Lab’s centers. This center’s contractor staff  primarily consisted of technical specialists assisting the GeoCenter (see  app. VI for numbers of direct hires and contractors at each center in fiscal  years 2015-2018).

Lab officials stated that the decline in staff numbers—primarily direct-hire  staff—over the years was due to a number of factors, including a  government-wide hiring freeze, budget constraints, and a high attrition  rate among the Lab’s staff beginning in 2017. According to several Lab  officials, the high attrition rate was due to uncertainty about the USAID  reorganization and its impact on the Lab, since a large percentage of the  Lab’s staff is employed on a term-limited basis.

The Lab Documented Its Oversight of Awards with Non- USAID Contributions, but Some Data Are Outdated and Public Reporting Lacks Transparency

The Lab’s Documented Oversight of Awards with Non-USAID Contributions Followed USAID and Lab Guidance

Our review of Lab documents showed that, for all 24 Lab-managed  awards we reviewed, the Lab consistently documented certain oversight  requirements for non-USAID contributions (i.e., committed, rather than  actual, contributions from the private sector, the public sector, and other  U.S. government agencies). We reviewed 24 Lab-managed awards that  included non-USAID contributions to determine whether the Lab  documented its compliance with key award oversight requirements we  identified in USAID and Lab guidance.

For all 24 awards, the Lab documented its compliance with the following  key requirements:  report funding amounts committed from non-USAID sources;  conduct valuations of in-kind contributions, as applicable; document partners met cost-share or matching funds, if required; maintain copies of the award agreement and any modifications.

Additionally, for awards receiving in-kind contributions, the Lab  maintained documentation in award files demonstrating that officials  reviewed the valuation of in-kind services and supplies. Further, in the 10  awards we reviewed containing cost-share requirements, the Lab  maintained documentation to show partners’ progress in meeting those  requirements.

The Lab’s Data for Some Non-USAID Contributions Are Outdated

We found that the Lab’s management information system contained  outdated data on non-USAID contributions, which the Lab reports as  leverage. According to ADS 596, information should be communicated  to relevant personnel at all levels within an organization and the  information should be relevant, reliable, and timely. Further, Standards  for Internal Control in the Federal Government states that management  should use quality information to achieve the entity’s objectives, including  obtaining relevant data from reliable internal sources in a timely manner.  Further, the Lab’s “Internal Guide to Accounting for Leverage” (internal  guide) states that data on non-USAID contributions will be collected from  Lab teams semi-annually.

Our analysis of data in the Lab’s management information system found  that one of two tables used to develop a number of internal and external  reports contained outdated data for 10 of the 24 awards we reviewed and,  in some cases, had not been updated for more than 2 years. Although  this table showed a total of about $24.5 million in non-USAID  contributions for these 10 awards, award documentation provided by the  Lab showed the updated amount of non-USAID contributions to be about  $12.1 million. For example, for an award aimed at providing hydro- powered irrigation pumps in Nepal, the table showed committed non- USAID contributions of about $262,000, while our review of award  documentation found that the updated amount was about $410,000. For  another award aimed at providing drip irrigation systems for small-plot  farmers in India, the table showed partners had committed $362,000 in  non-USAID contributions. However, in reviewing award documentation,  we found that partners had ultimately committed about $61,600 to this  award.

The Lab’s internal guide does not provide instructions for ensuring that  the non-USAID contributions data in USAID’s management information  system are timely. According to Lab officials, the outdated data we  identified resulted from staff’s failure to manually enter updated data in  both of the two tables used for external reporting. Lab officials stated that  leverage data are entered manually because the Lab’s management  information system does not have the capacity to automatically update  the tables. However, we found that the Lab’s internal guide does not  describe the Lab’s current process for entering leverage data in the  system or include instructions for ensuring that these data are regularly  updated. Instead, the internal guide refers to a data collection practice  that predates the Lab’s management information system and that,  according to Lab officials, is no longer in use.

To the extent that the Lab used outdated data when generating external  reports and budget exercises, it risks reporting incorrect information about  non-USAID contributions to Lab awards. According to Lab officials, the  table with outdated data on non-USAID contributions that we identified in  the Lab’s management information system is one of the data sources that  the Lab uses for reports to the USAID Administrator’s Leadership Council  and the Department of State and in USAID’s Annual Performance Plan  and Report. According to Lab documentation, the Lab also uses these  data to develop a number of annual budget formulation and justification  exercises, including congressional communications. Providing  instructions for updating all non-USAID contributions data in its  management information system could help the Lab strengthen the  timeliness and reliability of these data and of the external reports that  include them.

The Lab’s Internal Guide Does Not Require Its Public Reporting of Leverage Data to Disclose Types of Non-USAID Contributions Represented

The Lab’s internal guide does not require its public reporting of data on  non-USAID contributions, or leverage, to disclose the types of  contributions represented. According to ADS 596, information should be  communicated to relevant personnel at all levels within an organization  and the information should be relevant, reliable, and timely. In addition,  according to Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government,  management should externally communicate complete and accurate  information to achieve an entity’s objectives.

The Lab defines leverage more broadly than the Agency’s definition found  in USAID’s ADS 303. Specifically, these definitions differ in two ways.  First, the Lab definition includes cost-share contributions, which the ADS  definition excludes. Second, the ADS definition limits leverage to public-private partnership awards, while the Lab’s definition does not contain a  similar limitation.

Because the Lab’s definition of leverage differs from the definition in ADS,  the Lab uses two separate indicators to track non-USAID contributions,  according to Lab officials. For the leverage data it collects for USAID  reporting on public-private partnerships, the Lab adheres to the ADS  definition, accounting as leverage all non-USAID resources, excluding  cost sharing, that are expected to be applied to a program in USAID  public-private partnership awards. For the leverage data it collects for its  internal performance management and external reports, the Lab accounts  in its leverage calculations all cost-share contributions (from both private  and public-sector partners); all other contributions (from the private  sector, the public sector, and other U.S. government agencies); and gifts  (from bilateral donors).

According to Lab officials, the Lab’s definition of leverage differs from the  ADS definition because the Lab partners with both the private and public  sectors in its contracts and awards, and the Lab’s more expansive  definition allows it to fully account for all non-USAID contributions.  However, despite the difference in the Lab’s and USAID’s definitions, the  Lab’s internal guide does not require that its public reporting of leverage  data identify the types of non-USAID contributions represented in the  data. As a result, the Lab’s public reporting—for example, on its  webpage—provides the total amount leveraged but does not specify the  types of contributions committed by non-USAID partners.

Given the difference between the Lab’s definition used in its public  reporting and the ADS definition of leverage, USAID lacks assurance that  it is reporting transparent data on leveraged non-USAID contributions.  Moreover, because the Lab’s internal guide does not require the Lab’s  public reporting of leverage to disclose the types of contributions,  Congress and the public lack access to complete information about the  extent and nature of the Lab’s partnerships. By specifying the types of  non-USAID contributions included in its data on leveraging, the Lab could  increase the transparency of its public reporting for this key metric.

The Lab Uses Various Tools to Assess Its Performance; Assessments Have Identified Both Positive Results and Some Weaknesses

The Lab uses various tools, such as its results framework, portfolio  reviews, strategic learning reviews, and evaluations, established by  USAID policy or Lab-specific practices to assess its performance.  Because the Lab has existed only since 2014 and has had a strategy only  since 2016, it has been able to collect a limited amount of data with which  to assess its performance to show any trends in achieving results.  However, the performance assessment tools that the Lab uses have  identified both positive results and some weaknesses or challenges.

Results Framework Tool and Identified Results

The Lab’s strategy for fiscal years 2016 through 2020 includes a results  framework comprising the Lab’s five strategic objectives, as shown  previously in figure 1. For each strategic objective, the framework  presents a corresponding development objective—that is, the most  ambitious result that a Lab center aims to achieve through its projects and  activities—as well as targets the Lab is focused on achieving by 2020.  Progress toward the targets is tracked with annual and, in some cases,  semi-annual performance indicators, according to Lab officials (see app.  VIII for a list and descriptions of the Lab’s indicators). According to Lab  officials, the Lab considers the results framework a living document and  adjusts indicators and targets as necessary based on changing  circumstances. The Lab’s indicator data indicate that, overall, the Lab met  or exceeded its targets slightly more often than it did not meet them (see  table 5).

As table 5 indicates, the Lab met or exceeded its targets for 20 of its 39  indicators in fiscal years 2016 and 2017. For example, for one indicator— total number of program or policy changes made by public sector, private  sector, or other development actors that are influenced by Lab-funded  research results or related scientific activities—the Lab reported that it  exceeded its target for both fiscal years. The Lab’s targets for this  indicator for fiscal years 2016 and 2017 were set at 42 and 48,  respectively, with reported results of 83 and 84. For another indicator— total dollar value of private and public capital catalyzed for early-stage  entrepreneurs as a result of USAID support—the Lab reported it had  exceeded its fiscal year 2017 target of $575 million, with an actual result  of around $686 million. In addition, the Lab improved its performance for  seven indicators, according to its data. For instance, for agency  integration indicators—such as the number of operating units that have  integrated STIP at the strategic, programmatic, and organizational  levels—the Lab went from not meeting its targets in fiscal year 2016 to  exceeding its targets in fiscal year 2017.

The Lab’s indicator data also show some areas in which the Lab has  faced challenges or has not met its targets. As table 5 shows, the Lab did  not meet its targets for 19 of the 39 indicators in fiscal years 2016 and  2017. For example, for one indicator—number of operating units that  have integrated STIP at the strategic, programmatic, and organizational  levels—the Lab did not meet its targets of 15 and 20, respectively, for  fiscal years 2016 and 2017, with reported results of 12 and 19. For  another indicator—number of smart innovation methods adopted by  USAID operating units—the Lab set a target of eight but reported an  actual result of six. Moreover, from fiscal year 2016 to fiscal year 2017,  the Lab’s performance declined for seven indicators. For instance, for  innovation indicators—number of system actors engaged in innovation  methods and number of smart innovation methods adopted by agency  operating units—the Lab went from exceeding its targets in fiscal year  2016 to not meeting them in fiscal year 2017. Lab officials stated that the  Lab’s performance goals were meant to be ambitious and that the Lab  would adjust goals on the basis of resource and budget constraints.

Portfolio Review Tool and Identified Results

The Lab has implemented biannual portfolio reviews of projects and  activities. According to Lab officials, the portfolio reviews assess  progress toward strategic objectives, provide Lab staff an opportunity to  share lessons learned, and foster collaboration across the centers. In  fiscal years 2016 and 2017, the Lab conducted four portfolio reviews— two at midyear and two at the end of both years. Each portfolio review  discussed the performance of each center, examined how well the center  was meeting the targets for its performance indicators, and addressed  topics such as key achievements and challenges and priority evaluation  and research questions for the upcoming fiscal year. Lab officials stated  that portfolio reviews have helped the Lab become more rigorous and  better understand the reasons for implementing the various projects and  activities.

The Lab’s portfolio reviews for fiscal years 2016 and 2017 highlight,  among other things, lessons learned and achievements made for  particular projects and toward the Lab’s overall strategic objectives and  targets. The reviews also note challenges faced Lab-wide as well as  planned adjustments to address these challenges. Examples of the  portfolio reviews’ findings, by strategic objective, include the following for  each of the five Lab centers:

Science. The review noted that lessons learned by the Center for  Development Research included emphasis on managing relationships  and the need to communicate with missions about the ways in which  research can help them contribute to their objectives. The review also  noted that the center’s challenges included striking the right balance  between different elements of the science objective in the Lab  strategy and developing mission-focused tools for integrating  research.

Technology. The review noted that the Center for Digital  Development achieved largely positive ratings for digital development  training and for a substantial amount of technical assistance,  trainings, and knowledge products. The review also noted that the  center had faced some challenges, such as staffing constraints that  limited staff’s ability to prioritize both internal and external  engagements.

Innovation. The review noted that the Center for Development  Innovation had several achievements, including positive feedback  from innovators who received technical assistance from the center as  well as agency partners who received program design services. The  challenges noted included the center’s need for more engagement  with key missions and for finding balance between advisory services  and direct project implementation.

Partnerships. The review noted that the Center for Transformational  Partnerships had identified lessons learned in areas such as the  center’s ability to support missions by helping them to identify  opportunities and determine when and where partnership makes  sense. One challenge that the review identified was the possibility that  the center’s limited resources might inhibit technical assistance to  missions and bureaus. Planned adjustments included prioritizing  advisory and liaison support to the regions that have lower capacity  for private sector engagement.

Agency integration. The review noted that the Center for Agency  Integration achieved several successes, including introducing the Lab  and STIP to over 30 Foreign Service nationals (i.e., local, non-U.S.  citizens employed by USAID), several of whom continued to  champion STIP at their missions. The review also noted challenges,  such as staffing and capacity gaps, that hampered training efforts as  well as USAID staff being overwhelmed by the amount of information  flowing from the Lab.

Strategic Learning Review Tool and Identified Results

In October 2017, the Lab implemented an evaluation, research, and  learning plan that includes practices recommended for bureaus.  According to Lab officials, the Lab’s plan is intended to help build  evidence within and across the centers and ensure that resources are  prioritized to support evaluation and research. As part of this plan, the  Lab identified five key questions for all of the centers that evaluations,  research, and learning efforts should attempt to help answer. According  to Lab officials, the Lab began holding strategic learning reviews,  beginning in spring 2018, to help it address theories of change—that is,  descriptions of how and why a result is expected to be achieved through  a particular project or activity. The Lab developed the reviews to  complement its portfolio reviews, according to Lab officials.

The Lab, led by the Office of Evaluation and Impact Assessment,  completed its first cross-Lab strategic learning reviews in the spring of  2018, according to Lab officials. The reviews focused on three of five key  questions in the Lab’s evaluation, research, and learning plan: addressing  adaptive management; supporting innovators, entrepreneurs, and  researchers; and sustaining results. According to the Lab, the 2-hour  sessions, in which Lab officials and other selected agency subject-matter  experts participated, resulted in discussions about issues that the  participants considered most important for the Lab to address or improve  in the future. For example, participants identified actions that could be  currently achieved, such as designating time for “pause and reflect” exercises, particularly for  reducing USAID’s administrative burden for first-time Lab partners  that lack the capacity to manage USAID requirements; and  focusing on larger market-enabling environments rather than on a  single value chain.

According to Lab documents, the Lab plans to use data from the reviews  to develop recommendations that will be reflected in an action memo and  to track any actions the Lab takes to implement the recommendations.  Lab officials stated that the Lab plans to hold three additional 2-hour  strategic learning reviews in fall 2018.

Evaluation  Evaluation is the systematic collection and  analysis of information about the  characteristics and outcomes of programs and  projects that provides a basis for judgments to  improve effectiveness and/or inform decisions  about current and future programming.

The Lab assesses its performance through evaluations (see sidebar).  According to Lab officials, the Lab has conducted both external  evaluations and internal evaluations, and the majority of its performance  evaluations are external. As of October 2018, the Lab had primarily  completed performance evaluations, although Lab officials reported that  the Lab was also conducting three impact evaluations and one  developmental evaluation. In addition to conducting evaluations, the Lab  conducts assessments—management tools used to gather information  about context or operating environment or to review an activity or  project.

As of October 2018, the Lab reported that it had completed 7 external  performance evaluations of its programs or projects and had an additional  12 ongoing evaluations, both internal and external. The Lab’s completed  performance evaluations cover a variety of programs, activities, and  USAID services, such as the Securing Water for Food Grand Challenge  project and the Lab’s technical assistance services. We reviewed the  seven completed external performance evaluations and found that they  identified a range of program strengths as well as challenges or  weaknesses. For example:

Mid-Term Review of Securing Water for Food: A Grand Challenge  for Development. The evaluation identified program strengths,  such as a diversity of innovations in the portfolio. The evaluation also  found that the program had potential weaknesses, including a lack of  focus on innovations for locations with greater water scarcity.

Mid-Term Evaluation of the Partnerships for Enhanced  Engagement in Research Program. The evaluation found, among  other things, that partnerships between scientists in developing  countries and in the United States have been of value for scientific  output and strengthening professional relationships. In addition, the  evaluation identified potential weaknesses in the program, including  the need to facilitate broader dissemination of research findings by  convening program grantees, the private sector, government officials,  and civil society partners to network and share findings as well as  policy and program challenges.

Mid-Term Evaluation of the Higher Education Solutions  Network. The evaluation found, among other things, that  development labs housed in seven higher education institutions have  begun providing data to inform USAID operating units’ decision  making, collaborating to develop and test new technologies and  innovative approaches, and engaging in knowledge sharing and  learning. Additional findings included the need for Higher Education  Solutions Network labs to streamline activities, adjust resource  allocations, and increase synergies based on the insights gained  through the first 5 years.

Global Broadband and Innovations Alliance Performance  Evaluation. The evaluation found, among other things, successful  outcomes of specific projects focused on sustainably increasing  broadband internet connectivity in the developing world. The  evaluation also found that USAID had been challenged by changing  leadership in the agency, which resulted in shifting priorities. In  addition, the evaluation found that limited marketing of the mechanism  to missions and other bureaus and offices resulted in lower-than- expected initial buy-in from the missions.

STIP Integration Performance Evaluation: West Africa Regional  and Uganda. The evaluation found, among other things, that  mission staff want to build their capacity to use STIP but would prefer  more demand-driven services from the Lab, rather than services that  do not align with mission strategies.

In addition to completing formal evaluations, the Lab has completed over  15 assessments of its activities or projects since 2014 and also is  conducting a number of ongoing assessments. The completed  assessments reflect work in all five centers and cover areas such as  digital finance services, co-creation, and STIP integration.

Since its establishment as a USAID bureau more than 4 years ago, the  Lab has supported the agency’s efforts to address science, technology,  innovation, and partnerships. Further, the Lab has funded and managed  opportunities for innovators to propose new ideas, approaches, and  technologies that tie into USAID’s overall development goals and  programming. The Lab’s centers have pursued global partnerships with a  wide range of non-USAID public and private sector stakeholders in an  effort to augment their programming and further their efforts.

However, because non-USAID contributions data that the Lab collects are  not always current, some of the leverage data the Lab reports internally  and externally to help demonstrate its accomplishments risks being  outdated. Moreover, because the Lab’s Internal Guide to Accounting for  Leverage does not require its public reporting of leverage data to identify  the types of contributions represented, the Lab’s public reporting lacks  transparency. Ensuring that the Lab’s internal data on non-USAID  contributions are updated and that its publicly reported information about  leveraged resources from the public and private sector is transparent will  enable the Lab and USAID to better demonstrate to Congress and  American taxpayers that the agency is maximizing its use of development  resources to pursue new and innovative approaches to development  challenges.

We are making the following two recommendations to USAID:

The USAID Administrator should ensure that the Executive Director of  the Lab assures that the Lab’s Internal Guide to Accounting for  Leverage includes instructions to update all non-USAID contributions  data in the Lab’s management information system at least annually.  (Recommendation 1)

The USAID Administrator should ensure that the Executive Director of  the Lab assures that the Lab’s Internal Guide to Accounting for  Leverage requires that the Lab’s public reporting of leverage data  discloses the types of non-USAID contributions represented.  (Recommendation 2)

We provided a draft of this report to USAID for review and comment.  USAID provided written comments that are reprinted in appendix IX. In its  letter, USAID concurred with, and indicated that it is already addressing,  both recommendations. In addition, USAID provided technical comments  on the draft, which we incorporated as appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees, the USAID Administrator, and other interested parties. In  addition, the report is 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) 512-3149 or gootnickd@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on  the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this  report are listed in appendix X.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

In this report, we examine (1) the Global Development Lab’s (the Lab)  programs, funding, and staffing resources, (2) the extent to which the Lab  has documented its oversight of awards with non-U.S. Agency for  International Development (USAID) contributions and clearly reported  these contributions, and (3) the tools that the Lab uses to assess its  performance as well as results that such assessments have shown.

To examine the Lab’s programs, funding, and staffing resources, we  reviewed and analyzed Lab program, funding, and staffing documents  and data covering fiscal years 2014 to 2017. We reviewed the  congressional notification in which USAID advised Congress of its intent  to establish the Lab, program description documents, as well as the Lab’s  current strategy document which contains the Lab’s results framework  and strategic objectives covering science, technology, innovation,  partnerships (STIP), and agency integration. In addition, we reviewed  documents that provided information on services and tools the Lab  provides to operating units within USAID. We reviewed and analyzed  Lab funding data, by appropriations accounts, which included allocations  and obligations for Lab programs by centers and offices covering fiscal  years 2014 to 2017. The Lab did not yet have fiscal year 2018 funding  information available. In addition, we reviewed and analyzed obligation  data on Lab-managed activities for fiscal years 2014 to 2017. To report  on staffing, we reviewed and analyzed Lab staffing data for fiscal years  2015 to 2018 which included data on the number of direct hire staff and  contractors, hiring mechanisms used to bring staff on board, as well  information on the centers and offices the staff worked in. To assess the  reliability of the staffing data for fiscal years 2015 to 2018 and the funding  data for fiscal years 2014 to 2017, we compared and corroborated  information provided by the Lab with staffing and funding information in the Congressional Budget Justifications for the fiscal years. On the basis  of the checks we performed, we determined these data to be sufficiently  reliable for the purposes of this report.

We interviewed Lab officials representing every center—Center for  Development Research, Center for Digital Development, Center for  Development Innovation, Center for Transformational Partnerships, and  Center for Agency Integration; each support office—Office of  Engagement and Communication, and Office of Evaluation and Impact  Assessment; and all Lab-Wide Priorities—Ebola, Digital Development for  Feed the Future, and Beyond the Grid—to understand the Lab’s  organizational structure, roles and responsibilities, programs, and  services, among other things. We also spoke with officials in the  Administrative Management Services and Program and Strategic  Planning offices, which cover the Lab’s financial and human resources,  as well as strategic planning and reporting. To obtain insight into the  Lab’s interaction and STIP integration within USAID, we also interviewed  agency officials from five USAID bureaus in Washington, D.C.— Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance; Economic Growth,  Education, and Environment; Food Security; Global Health; and Policy,  Planning, and Learning; and from six USAID missions overseas— Albania, Cambodia, Guinea, Haiti, Uganda, and the Regional  Development Mission for Asia.

To determine the number of activities the Lab managed from fiscal years  2014 through 2017, and the amount it had obligated for these activities in  this timeframe, we reviewed and analyzed data from USAID’s financial  management system—Phoenix. Additionally, we met with Lab officials  responsible for managing and reviewing the data in this system. To  ensure that we accounted for only programmatic activities in our  timeframe, we removed activities, in consultation with Lab Officials, from  the dataset that pertained to institutional support contracts and  fellowships. We also met with officials from each of the Lab’s centers to  discuss the activities that they manage. We determined that the data  were sufficiently reliable to account for Lab managed activities.

Oversight, Documentation, and Reporting of Non- USAID Contributions

To address oversight and documentation of awards with non-USAID  contributions, we reviewed Lab and USAID policies and guidance for  oversight of non-USAID contributions as of fiscal year 2017, including Lab  guidance, and relevant chapters of USAID’s Automated Directives  System (ADS), which contain the agency’s policy. We analyzed Lab- managed awards with committed funding from non-USAID partners from  fiscal years 2014 through 2017 (a total of 154) from the Lab’s information  management system DevResults, which we determined was sufficient to  allow us to select a sample of these awards for further review. Our  sample included 24 awards, which represented all Lab-managed awards  containing non-USAID contributions issued on or after fiscal year 2014,  and ending in or before fiscal year 2017. We selected these timeframes to  ensure that the awards we reviewed did not predate the creation of the  Lab (fiscal year 2014) and to ensure that activities and all award  documentation on activities had been completed.

To assess the reliability of these committed funding data, we reviewed  documentation and interviewed USAID officials to identify and rectify any  missing or erroneous data. Since we selected only awards in our given  timeframe, the results cannot be generalized to all Lab managed awards  receiving non-USAID committed contributions. We determined that the  data and information were sufficiently reliable to compare against award  documentation. The awards we reviewed covered four of the Lab’s five  objectives: science (1 award), technology (3 awards), innovation (19  awards), and partnerships (1 award). To determine the extent to which  the Lab had documented certain oversight requirements for these  awards, we reviewed award documentation contained in the 24 award  files against key oversight requirements and best practices established by  USAID and the Lab. These oversight requirements include:  report committed funding amounts received from non-USAID sources;  conduct valuations of in-kind contributions, as applicable; document partners met cost-share or matching funds, if required; and maintain copies of the award agreement and any modifications.

To determine the extent to which the Lab’s information management  system contained current data on non-USAID contributions, we reviewed  committed funding data for the 24 selected awards in this system against  documentation in the award files. We also reviewed the Lab’s guidance  on accounting for non-USAID contributions in addition to meeting with  Lab officials responsible for data input and oversight of such  contributions. However, we did not independently assess the accuracy of  the committed contributions against actual contribution amounts because  the Lab does not collect data on actual contributions received in all of its  awards.

To determine the extent to which the Lab’s guidance on accounting for  non-USAID contributions differs from USAID agency guidance, we  compared guidance documents provided by the Lab with agency  guidance from USAID’s ADS 303. Among other guidance documents, we  reviewed the Lab’s Global Development Lab Internal Guide to Accounting  for Leverage, and the Lab’s “Indicator Reference Sheet.” We also  interviewed Lab officials responsible for implementing the Lab’s guidance  for accounting for non-USAID contributions, as well as officials from  USAID’s office of Policy, Planning, and Learning who are responsible for  developing and updating ADS guidance on non-USAID contributions. We  also reviewed the Lab’s public reporting of non-USAID contributions on  USAID’s website.

To report on the tools that the Lab uses to assess its performance, we  reviewed and analyzed numerous Lab program and performance  documents. These included the Lab’s strategic plan that covers fiscal  years 2016 to 2020 and the Lab’s results framework that outlines the  strategic objectives; Performance Management Plan; evaluation,  research, and learning plan; Lab portfolio reviews; and Lab strategic  learning reviews.

To learn about the Lab’s performance management, program evaluation,  and assessment process, we interviewed Lab officials from the Office of  Evaluation and Impact Assessment and the Program and Strategic  Planning office. We reviewed sections of USAID’s ADS 201 that pertain to  strategic planning and implementation; project design and  implementation; activity design and implementation; and monitoring,  evaluation, and learning. We also spoke with officials in the Bureau for  Policy, Planning, and Learning regarding the performance management  requirements for bureaus outlined in ADS 201.

To report on the results of the Lab’s performance indicators, we reviewed  indicator data from the Lab for fiscal years 2014 to 2017. Since the Lab’s  strategy was created in 2016, we focused our analysis on indicator data  for fiscal years 2016 and 2017 that represent the Lab’s objectives as laid  out in the Lab’s Results Framework. The Lab provided this information  from DevResults, to include targets and measurements for each indicator  by fiscal year. The data that we received from the Lab contained over 250  total indicators, which included those at the objective level, intermediate  level, and sub-intermediate results level. We identified and analyzed 39  indicators representing the objective and intermediate results levels (for  the science, technology, innovation, partnerships, and agency integration  objectives) and looked at the targets and actuals for these for fiscal years  2016 and 2017. We compared each target value with the actual value to  determine whether the Lab met, exceeded, or did not meet its targets for  each indicator. If the target and the actual were the same value, we  designated this as “meets.” If the target value was less than the actual  value, we designated this as “exceeds.” Finally, if the target value was  more than the actual value, we designated this as “does not meet.” We  also identified indicators (both at the objective and intermediate results  levels) where the Lab improved its performance from fiscal year 2016 to  fiscal year 2017 as well as indicators where the Lab had declined in its  performance from fiscal year 2016 to fiscal year 2017. To assess the  reliability of the Lab’s performance data base, we interviewed Lab officials  and reviewed documentation, and we determined that the data was  sufficiently reliable for the purposes of comparing the Lab’s targets to  reported results. However, it was beyond the scope of this engagement to  assess the reliability of each of the 39 indicators.

To report the results of the Lab’s seven external evaluations, we reviewed  the completed external evaluations that were conducted in 2016 and  2017. As applicable, we looked at the purpose of those evaluations,  findings, lessons learned, and any challenges to the program or project  that the evaluation covered. We did not assess whether the Lab met its  evaluation requirements under ADS 201, as this issue was outside of the  scope of our review. We did not independently assess the methodology  that was used in the evaluations.

To report the results of the Lab’s portfolio reviews, we reviewed four  portfolio reviews—two at midyear and two at the end of the year—that the  Lab conducted in fiscal years 2016 and 2017. The portfolio reviews  included sections on the Lab’s five objectives. As the portfolio reviews  used different approaches to collect information, we analyzed them and  identified headings in the documents that pointed towards results,  including findings, challenges, achievements, and lessons learned and  summarized this information. To report on the results of the strategic  learning reviews, we reviewed the three strategic learning reviews—each  a 2-page document—that the Lab had conducted in spring of 2018. We  summarized each review and reported on each of the reviews’ questions  and one of the “now what” actions from each review to provide an  illustrative example.

We conducted this performance audit from July 2017 to November 2018  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 II: Description of Key Global Development Lab Programs and Portfolios by Each Center

The Global Development Lab’s (the Lab) five centers, its offices, and Lab- Wide Priorities manage more than 20 key programs and portfolios. The  following are descriptions of key programs or portfolios implemented or  managed by the Lab’s five centers—Development Research, Digital  Development, Development Innovation, Transformational Partnerships,  and Agency Integration.

Higher Education Solutions Network (HESN): According to Lab  documentation, HESN is a partnership with seven universities working  with partners worldwide. Leveraging nearly equal investments from each  higher education institution, the universities established eight  development labs that collaborate with a network of 685 partner  institutions in academia, the private sector, civil society, and government  across 69 countries. HESN’s development labs work with the U.S.  Agency for International Development (USAID) to address problems  faced by developing countries.

Partnership for Enhanced Engagement in Research (PEER): According to  Lab documentation, PEER supports competitively awarded grants for  collaborative research projects led by developing country scientists and  engineers who partner with American researchers. PEER-funded  scientists conduct applied research that can inform public policy or new  practices in development with a goal of creating and leading new  innovations or generating evidence for how to scale innovations. PEER  also builds research capacity by providing funds, tools, technical  assistance, and research opportunities for local scientists and students.  The program is implemented in partnership with the U.S. National  Academy of Sciences.

Science and Research Fellowship Programs: According to Lab  documentation, the Lab supports three fellowship programs that are  characterized by a commitment to the use of science, technology,  innovation, and partnerships. The American Association for the  Advancement of Science (AAAS) Science and Technology Policy  Fellowship and the Jefferson Science Fellowship both bring scientists and  technical experts to serve 1- to 2-year fellowships at the U.S. Agency for  International Development, contributing their knowledge and analytical  skills to development policy, research, and programming. Further, the  Research and Innovation (RI) Fellowship program connects U.S.  graduate student researchers research, or technical expertise, to address  pressing development challenges.

Research Policy Support: According to Lab documentation, the Lab  provides advice to the agency on implementing the USAID Scientific  Research Policy. This may include areas like peer review and open  access to research products including data and USAID staff publications.

Digital Inclusion: According to Lab documentation, the Lab helps improve  connectivity by expanding access to the internet in countries where  USAID works to help ensure that the most marginalized citizens have the  skills and resources to be active participants in the digital economy. The  team supports missions to integrate internet solutions into existing  programs to ensure health clinics, schools, and other critical facilities are  connected and offer access to modern internet services.

Development Informatics (portfolio): According to Lab documentation, the  Lab seeks to make development more adaptive, efficient, and responsive  to citizens and decision makers by helping transform the use of data and  technology throughout development. The Lab supports mission  investments in technology platforms that can collect and analyze data  more efficiently to improve strategic planning and program  implementation. The Lab also leads the public advocacy campaign for the  Principles for Digital Development, a set of agency best practices for  applying digital technology and data in development.

GeoCenter: According to Lab documentation, the Lab applies geographic  and other data analysis to improve the strategic planning, design,  implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of USAID’s programs. The  GeoCenter works directly with USAID bureaus and missions to integrate  geographic analysis, futures analysis (including scenario planning), and  data analytics to inform development decisions. The team also leads a  geospatial community of 50 geographic information systems specialists in  field-based missions and in Washington, D.C.

Digital Finance (portfolio): According to Lab documentation, the Lab’s  Digital Financial Services team is working with USAID missions and  bureaus through multi-stakeholder alliances and direct technical  assistance to help the world’s financially excluded and underserved  populations obtain access to and use financial services that meet their  needs. The Digital Finance team has worked with over 30 missions and  agency operating units to improve operational and programmatic  efficiency as a means to accelerating development objectives within  USAID projects and programs.

Development Innovation Ventures (DIV): According to Lab  documentation, DIV is the agency’s venture capital-inspired, tiered,  evidence-based funding model that invests comparatively small amounts  in relatively unproven concepts, and continues to support only those that  prove to work. It applies three core criteria to its application review  process—evidence of impact, cost-effectiveness, and potential to scale.  DIV accepts applications at three different funding stages from Proof of  Concept ($25,000-150,000); Testing ($150,000–$1.5 million); and  Transitioning to Scale ($1.5 million–$15 million).

Grand Challenges for Development: According to Lab documentation,  grand challenges call on the global community to discover, test, and  accelerate innovative solutions around specific global challenges. The  Lab is also leading efforts to apply innovation methods such as funding  for challenges and prizes to accelerate innovation or incentivize action  toward specific outcomes, such as the development of more efficient,  lower-cost refrigeration solutions in the recently launched Off-Grid  Refrigeration Competition.

The Global Innovation Exchange: According to Lab documentation, this  effort is an online platform to convene and connect innovators, funders,  and experts working on development innovations around the world. The  exchange is co-funded by USAID, the Australian Department of Foreign  Affairs and Trade, the Korea International Cooperation Agency, and the  Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Innovative Design (portfolio): According to Lab documentation, innovative  design tools and approaches can help make a process more open and  collaborative, incorporate human-centered design, or find a more  innovative approach to solving a development problem. The Lab works to  reframe development challenges, reach new audiences, and spur new  ways of solving problems. It seeks to equip USAID teams with skills to  design innovative programs using tools like design thinking and co- creation. It also builds diverse networks around critical systems  challenges and facilitates a dialogue on the practice of innovation and  design across USAID and the industry.

Center for Transformational Partnerships

Global Development Alliances (GDAs): According to Lab documentation,  GDAs are partnerships between USAID and the private sector that use  market-based solutions to advance broader development objectives.  These partnerships combine the assets and experiences of the private  sector to leverage capital, investments, creativity, and access to markets  to work to solve the complex problems facing governments, businesses,  and communities. GDAs leverage market-based solutions to advance  broader development objectives. GDAs are co-designed, co-funded, and  co-managed by all partners involved so that the risks, responsibilities, and  rewards of partnership are shared.

Partnering to Accelerate Entrepreneurship (PACE): According to Lab  documentation, the Lab’s PACE initiative catalyzes private-sector  investment into early-stage enterprises and helps entrepreneurs grow  their businesses.

Diaspora Engagement (portfolio): According to Lab documentation, the  diaspora engagement is a core focus area for the Lab, which works with  non-traditional partners in diaspora communities and organizations in  under-addressed technical areas to test and incubate innovative  partnership models.

Science, Technology, Innovation, and Partnerships (STIP) Agency  Integration (portfolio): According to Lab documentation, the Lab supports  the application of STIP across the agency by providing technical  assistance, training, and catalytic investments in mission-driven STIP  programs. In fiscal year 2016, the Lab worked closely with eight missions  to integrate STIP tools and approaches to accelerate their development  objectives. For example, the Lab is supporting ongoing efforts with the  Uganda mission and a range of local partners, including the government  of Uganda, to promote and source local, sustainable off-grid power  solutions to impact a majority of underserved citizens.

Digital Development for Feed the Future: According to Lab  documentation, the Lab is collaborating with USAID’s Bureau for Food  Security on integrating digital technologies into Feed the Future activities  to accelerate reductions in global hunger, malnutrition, and poverty. An  example includes facilitating greater precision agriculture through richer  data collection, analysis, and packaging.

Operational Innovation: According to Lab documentation, the Operations  Innovations Team collaborates with partners to test and demonstrate  viable disruptions which improve efficiency and effectiveness of Agency’s  internal business processes, practices, and procedures.

Appendix III: Description of 10 Grand Challenges for Development

Since 2011, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and  its partners have launched 10 Grand Challenges for Development. Grand  Challenges for Development mobilize governments, companies, and  foundations around important issues. According to USAID, through these  programs, USAID and public and private partners bring in new voices to  solve development problems through sourcing new solutions, testing new  ideas, and scaling (expanding) what works. Table 6 includes a description  of each of the Grand Challenges, identifies the founding partners, and  lists the primary bureau within USAID responsible for the programs.  According to Global Development Lab (the Lab) officials, the Lab  manages Securing Water for Food and Scaling Off-Grid Energy Grand  Challenges.

Appendix IV: Global Development Lab Program Fund Allocation and Obligation Totals by Account, Fiscal Years 2014-2017

The Global Development Lab’s (the Lab) funding comes from different  appropriations accounts. While the majority of the funding for fiscal years  2014 to 2017 is from the Development Assistance account, the Lab has  also received lesser amounts of funding from four other accounts (see  table 7).

Appendix V: Global Development Lab Managed Activities in Fiscal Years 2014 through 2017

In fiscal years 2014 through 2017, the Global Development Lab (the Lab)  managed a total of 339 activities addressing science, technology,  innovation, and partnerships implemented by partners and obligated  about $371 million for these awards. As figure 3 shows, the number of  activities the Lab managed increased each year during this period, from  149 in fiscal year 2014 to 226 in fiscal year 2017. Obligated funding for all  activities also increased annually until fiscal year 2017, when it declined  by 27 percent.

The Global Development Lab obligated funds to other activities it  managed during this period that are not reflected in the data presented.  These include obligations for institutional support contracts and staff  fellowships.

In fiscal years 2014 through 2017, four of the Lab’s centers managed a  variety of activities addressing the Lab’s science, technology, innovation,  and partnerships objectives.

The Center for Development Research managed 28 activities  addressing the Lab’s science objective. Obligations for these activities  totaled about $120.4 million. The majority of this funding went to two  programs, the Higher Education Solutions Network (about $81.2  million) and the Partnership for Enhanced Engagement in Research  (about $27.7 million).

The Center for Digital Development managed 17 activities addressing  the Lab’s technology objective, ranging from providing geospatial  satellite imagery to increasing the use of mobile money and e- payments in developing countries. Obligations for these activities  totaled $64.5 million, with the majority of this funding going to Digital  Finance activities.

The Center for Development Innovation managed 205 activities  addressing the Lab’s innovation objective. Obligations for these  activities totaled about $115.4 million. This funding went to three  programs: the Development Innovation Ventures program (about $57  million), the Innovation Acceleration program (about $19.3 million) and  the Innovation Design program (about $39.2). The Lab’s Innovation  Acceleration and Design program houses the Securing Water for  Food Grand Challenge.

The Center for Transformational Partnerships managed 37 activities  addressing the Lab’s partnerships objective. Obligations for these  activities totaled $39.8 million. For example, the Lab obligated about  $13.9 million for the Partnering to Accelerate Entrepreneurship  program, which aims to bring private-sector investment into  businesses at early stages of development, among other things.

In addition, other U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)  missions and bureaus have provided funding to Lab-managed projects  through buy-ins. From fiscal years 2014 to 2017, USAID missions and  bureaus provided funding to 55 Lab-managed projects, totaling $53  million. According to Lab officials, missions and bureaus can buy into  projects in the development stage and can also buy into existing projects.  For example, according to officials at USAID’s mission in Haiti, the Lab  developed and funded a Higher Education Solutions Network project in  Haiti, which provided the Haitian Ministry of Planning with capacity- building training to improve the collection of development and funding  data for all donors in the country. Because the USAID mission saw the  value of this project, it bought into the project, using its own funding, to  allow the project to continue for an additional 2 years.

Appendix VI: Global Development Lab Centers’ Direct Hires and Contractors, Fiscal Years 2015-2018

The Global Development Lab (the Lab) has numerous contractors who  provide technical expertise in the centers and fill gaps when direct-hire  staff are not available, according to Lab officials. In fiscal years 2016 to  2018, the Center for Digital Development had the most contractors of all  the centers (see table 8). The contractors in this center are technical  specialists mainly in the Lab’s GeoCenter, which uses geographic  information systems to collect data to help aid development decisions in  countries around the world. In fiscal year 2018, there were more  contractors than direct-hire staff in the Center for Digital Development.

Appendix VII: U.S. Agency for International Development Missions’ and Bureaus’ Views on the Global Development Lab

Officials in the five U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)  bureaus and six missions we spoke with provided positive feedback on  their interactions with the Global Development Lab (the Lab) but also  identified some challenges. USAID officials identified numerous positive  aspects or benefits of working with the Lab, such as the following:

Lab staff brings diverse expertise and outside perspectives to the  agency and provides technical assistance to projects that would not  have been implemented otherwise. For example, some USAID  officials mentioned that the Lab staff has insight into innovative  approaches—whether procurement-related or project design and  monitoring—and that the Lab has the ability to bring in contractors  with specific technical expertise that the traditional development arena  lacks.

Lab staff is responsive and often willing to help with technical issues.

Some USAID staff mentioned that Lab staff provide expertise and  answer questions on an informal basis, sometimes covering areas  where they are not the assigned point of contact with a particular  bureau or mission.

The Lab coordinates cross-cutting projects across the agency, such  as the Grand Challenges for Development. Some bureau officials  stated that Lab officials have been able to share their perspectives at  training and other activities which has allowed them to be aware of  what others across USAID are doing relevant to activities related to  science, technology, innovation, and partnerships (STIP).

The Lab funds projects and activities that missions and USAID  headquarters operating units cannot afford. Some USAID officials  mentioned that the Lab has sent staff out to provide STIP training,  with the Lab covering the costs. However, some officials also  mentioned that they have seen that recent budget cuts have had an  impact on the Lab’s funding for more recent activities.

The Lab holds trainings on topics such as procurement processes and  private sector engagement that have helped missions and bureaus  adopt new approaches to work and development partnerships.

USAID officials also noted problematic aspects or challenges in working  with the Lab, such as:

Some Lab services can be cost prohibitive. For example, some  mission officials mentioned that Lab resources are centralized in  headquarters and therefore the cost to missions might be high and not  affordable.

Staff turnover at the Lab is frequent, making it difficult for bureau or  mission officials to maintain relationships with the Lab. For example,  some officials stated there has not been consistent contact with the  Lab due to Lab staff frequently moving around or leaving. This has  included changes in contacts for agreement officer representatives  responsible for awards impacting the mission.

The centers’ services and the ways in which bureaus or missions  could work most effectively with the Labs are not always clear. For  example, some mission and bureau officials mentioned that Lab staff  does not always understand a country’s context when suggesting or  deploying potential programs or activities related to STIP. This  includes working to integrate STIP activities or innovations into the  Country Development Cooperation Strategy when these might not be  feasible for a country context or responsive to the needs of the  mission.

USAID officials noted that when they have provided feedback to the Lab,  the Lab has generally been responsive. In addition, bureau officials  mentioned that the Lab’s communications have improved.

Appendix VIII: List and Description of Global Development Lab’s Performance Indicators, Fiscal Years 2016-2017

The Global Development Lab (the Lab) established its performance  indicators when it created its strategy in fiscal year 2016 to cover fiscal  years 2016-2020. The Lab’s results framework, which is reflected in the  strategy, includes the Lab’s objective statements and intermediate results  statement from which the Lab’s performance indicators flow. See table 9  for a description of indicators for the Lab’s five strategic objectives for  fiscal years 2016 to 2017.

Appendix IX: Comments from the U.S. Agency for International Development

Appendix X: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above, Leslie Holen (Assistant Director),  Andrea Riba Miller (Analyst in Charge), Nick Jepson, and Kelly Friedman  made key contributions to this report. Also contributing were Martin De  Alteriis, Jeff Isaacs, Chris Keblitis, Reid Lowe, Aldo Salerno, and Nicole  Willems.

Since USAID’s Global Development Lab started in 2014, it has sought innovative solutions to international development problems such as hunger and illiteracy. The Lab has a goal of supporting some efforts with outside contributions from private and public partners.

We examined how the Lab uses and reports its funding. We found:

The Lab’s funds from USAID dropped from $170.7 million in 2015 to $77 million in 2017.

Some of the Lab’s public reporting on outside contributions was outdated or incomplete.

To improve transparency, we recommended the Lab revise internal guidance to ensure up-to-date and complete reporting on outside contributions.