Critiquing U.S. Spending in Afghanistan, to Dramatic Effect
Critiquing U.S. Spending in Afghanistan, to Dramatic Effect by Ron Nixon, New York Times
When the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, an American government watchdog, requested information in June about health clinics in that country funded by the United States Agency for International Development, the aid agency handed over a database with the locations of more than 600 facilities.
But investigators quickly noticed something strange about the data: Coordinates for 13 of the clinics were not even in Afghanistan, and others were off by miles.
The findings were the latest in a series of reports and letters that the special inspector general has released over the past year and a half that have documented waste, abuse and fraud in government-sponsored programs in that country, often to dramatic effect.
Among them were aircraft bought by the United States that the Afghans cannot fly or maintain, troop rosters that cannot be verified and a $335 million taxpayer-supported electrical plant that is rarely used…
Via E-mail From Sigar
Today, SIGAR published its response to USAID concerning the accuracy of location data for health facilities supported by a $210 million USAID-funded program in Afghanistan.
The letter notes:
— An initial SIGAR analysis of the original data provided by USAID found that coordinates reported for 13 facilities were not located within Afghanistan, and coordinates for 30 facilities were located in a province different from the one USAID reported.
— A new analysis of an updated list provided by USAID in response to SIGAR's inquiry found the new coordinates for 513 facilities were an average of 55 kilometers away from the original coordinates. This led SIGAR to believe that either the original USAID data or this new data was terribly inaccurate.
— After further discussions, a critical error was identified in the updated data that USAID provided to SIGAR, which resulted in USAID's misreporting of geospatial coordinates for many of the facilities.
— SIGAR is puzzled by some of the statements made by USAID in responses and meetings with USAID staff regarding the usefulness of geospatial coordinates for monitoring the USAID investment in PCH-supported health facilities in Afghanistan. USAID officials seemed to assert that USAID does not view geospatial data as an important tool for monitoring programs or service delivery. These assertions are inconsistent with USAID's prior statements, and SIGAR believes that robust program oversight requires specific knowledge of the location where the service is provided.
— SIGAR is also concerned by statements attributed to an unidentified USAID spokesman regarding the USAID-provided data. These statements characterize SIGAR's initial request for data as "informal in nature," which is a gross mischaracterization of SIGAR's request. The coordinates were requested as part of a formal and ongoing criminal investigation and at no point did USAID alert SIGAR to the existence of a more reliable data set.
Letter to USAID: https://www.sigar.mil/pdf/special%20projects/SIGAR-15-82-SP.pdf
