blog logo image

Archive for November, 2011

FWD The Facts

Wednesday, November 9th, 2011
Bookmark and Share

Today, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) launched USAID FWD Day – a massive push to spread awareness and ensure the Horn of Africa tragedy no longer goes overlooked. There are currently 13.3 million in crisis suffering from the worst drought in 60 years, the worst famine in 20, and non-stop violence.

With FWD Day, USAID hopes to reach 13.3 million people in one day (the same number of people in crisis). We need your help reaching this goal by using Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube to generate tweets and shares the FWD facts. Some specific actions include:

  • Tweeting with the #FWD hash-tag,
  • Sharing updates from the USAID Facebook page,
  • E-mailing your friends and telling people about usaid.gov/FWD,
  • Creating your own video on YouTube, or
  • Texting “GIVE” to 777444 to donate $10.

USAID’s website also has simple and helpful infographics (below) that illustrate the severity of the crisis. MFAN will be on Twitter and Facebook today to support FWD Day, but please share this with your networks and help to forward the facts!


Former and Current Administrators Celebrate USAID’s 50th Anniversary at CSIS

Friday, November 4th, 2011
Bookmark and Share

As the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) celebrates its 50th anniversary this Thursday, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) hosted a panel last week featuring a host of USAID administrators discussing past achievements, present challenges, and future hopes for U.S. foreign assistance. The panel included Peter McPherson, USAID administrator from 1981-1987; Brian Atwood (by video), administrator, 1993-1999; Andrew Natsios, 2001-2006; Henrietta Fore, 2007-2009; and Rajiv Shah, current administrator.

Shah focused on the importance of health, highlighting the success of sustained programs under previous administrators. Shah commented that “Health is a good example of where we are doing as much as we can to build upon our past successes”.  Programs including oral rehydration therapy, the President’s Malaria Initiative (PMI), and International Planned Parenthood programs have saved millions of lives because of key innovation, persistence in implementation, and continuity through changing administrations.

Going forward, Shah hopes to improve synergies between partner-country governments and USAID programs. Key to this synergy is tracking, reporting, and promulgating innovative ideas and technology, reforming procurement practices, improving interagency coordination, and continue promoting public-private partnerships to facilitate development.  The current administrator declared inclusive leadership, effective impact evaluation and transparency, and greater innovation will pave a successful path to more effective U.S. foreign assistance in a “diverse and decentralized development environment.”

McPherson commended the efforts of the succeeding administrators, commenting that “we build on who came before us.”  In this spirit, he stressed the continuation of bipartisan support, claiming “it is important to keep it that way” because “a hungry child has no politics.”

McPherson discussed issues of food security, drawing attention to the current World Bank report that food production must increase 70% to feed the projected 9+ billion world population by 2050. The Feed the Future initiative under President Obama and Administrator Shah shows promising steps, McPherson said, toward re-vamping USAID’s focus on agricultural development and food security. Sustaining and strengthening this approach would provide necessary global leadership in solving the impending challenges of hunger and food production.

Atwood appeared on a video commenting on the “challenges of fragmentation” and the need to coordinate interagency efforts and centralize spending authority to ensure the quality of development efforts.

Natsios, in recognition of the importance continuity of development programs, called for greater patience, saying that expectations for development must not demand immediate results. The products of sustained approaches, as evident by past administrators, and the nature of development’s “lag effect,” have meaningful impacts that are not measurable until years later.

Natsios argued that challenges to these sustained efforts include burdensome oversight. Natsios points out there are ten committees that oversee various aspects of USAID efforts, from which contradictory mandates may be given, confusing the planning and development process. Critical in moving forward is determining the “cost of oversight,” and through a proposal for no intrusion, no required reporting other than appropriation, and no regulation for five charter programs for five years – which is similar to an MFAN recommendation in From Policy to Practice — Natsios believes such an effort will provide substantive evidence needed to support peeling back regulatory layers.

Fore spoke on the importance of engaging the private sector through the Public-Private Partnerships initiative, saying that USAID should be “allowed to put the private sector to work in supply chains.” This greater engagement recognizes both the “private sector [as a] natural partner for all government programs” and the prospect of opportune private-sector investment in developing countries.

In addition to private-sector engagement, Fore emphasized the need for USAID to “focus on moving the center of gravity our programs to countries” and use partner country ideas and initiatives. Fore argued for the continued support of the Development Leadership Initiative started under President Bush, saying that additional Foreign Service officers and workers are critical to bringing project planning to the field. The challenges of budget austerity are threatening USAID’s Operating Budget, which would stymie much of the progress made through the DLI to rebuild the Agency.

USAID: Celebrating 50 Years of Progress

Thursday, November 3rd, 2011
Bookmark and Share

50 years after President John F. Kennedy established the U.S. Agency for International Development, the agency has made remarkable strides in the fight against global poverty. Celebrate USAID’s progress with this powerful video, and explore their work at 50.usaid.gov.

MFAN Statement: Celebrating the 50th Anniversary of USAID

Thursday, November 3rd, 2011
Bookmark and Share

November 3, 2011 (WASHINGTON)This statement is delivered on behalf of the Modernizing Foreign Assistance Network (MFAN) by Co-Chairs David Beckmann, George Ingram and Jim Kolbe:

Today, on the 50th anniversary of the creation of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), we celebrate the work done by thousands of committed and selfless public servants – both U.S. citizens and foreign service nationals – in helping to alleviate poverty, fight diseases, and create economic opportunity for struggling people in the world’s poorest countries. These efforts, which have resulted in tens of millions of lives saved or improved, have been as important to our security and prosperity over the last five decades as any defense or diplomatic program.

USAID has been a central player in some of the most astounding development successes in world history. Agency experts helped design and drive the Green Revolution, which brought modern agricultural practices to poor countries like South Korea in the middle of the 20th century. Today, South Korea is a stalwart U.S. ally and trading partner, as well as a foreign assistance donor itself. More recently, USAID played a key role in programs like President Bush’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), which delivered unprecedented U.S. assistance to African countries that were bowing under the weight of a spreading AIDS epidemic. Today, many of the countries that received PEPFAR assistance are experiencing unprecedented economic and democratic growth, in no small part because people are simply staying alive. The agency’s development professionals have also served courageously alongside soldiers and diplomats in Iraq and Afghanistan, where they will soon bear a heavier burden for future safety and stability in the wake of troop withdrawals.

USAID’s critical role in U.S. foreign policy is clear, as is the agency’s commitment to modernizing itself for the 21st Century. In the midst of growing challenges abroad and budget pressures at home, USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah has launched an unprecedented internal reform effort aimed at making sure every taxpayer dollar committed to development goes as far as possible towards helping those in need. Now more than ever, we urge policymakers to support the agency’s efforts to maintain U.S. leadership on global development. As President John F. Kennedy said at the dawn of the U.S. foreign assistance system 50 years ago, America’s development investments provide hope to people who are “under attack from widespread misery and social discontent which are exploited by our adversaries, and this permits us to speak with a much stronger and more effective voice.” The message still rings true today.

CGD Asks, “Is USAID Being Set up to Fail on GHI?”

Tuesday, November 1st, 2011
Bookmark and Share

Nandini Oomman, the Center for Global Development’s director of the HIV/AIDS monitor, co-wrote a blog piece with Rachel Silverman raising several important questions about the Global Health Initiative (GHI). The State Department-led Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR) – which next month will be one year into its implementation – stipulates that the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) assume leadership of GHI in September 2012, contingent upon fulfilling a set of 10 benchmarks. But what the QDDR does not make clear is exactly what leadership of GHI means. Oomman leaves the administration with three options going forward: move PEPFAR to USAID; keep the GHI at State; or remove PEPFAR from GHI. Read the full piece here and see below for details on the three options:

We know the deadline for the GHI’s transition to USAID is still a year away, but the administration has some difficult decisions to make, and quickly.  The President’s global development legacy is at stake if one of his biggest development initiatives is seen to fail. Here are the options, as we see them, along with their respective trade-offs–constraints, costs, and benefits:

1)  Move PEPFAR to USAID. Perhaps this option makes the most sense programmatically (unified leadership, horizontal integration with reproductive health, etc)., but it’s a non-starter politically. PEPFAR is protected as an independent structure until its authorizing legislation expires in 2013, and there is no political will to challenge that status quo.

2)  Keep the GHI at State. Under this scenario, the State Department would renege on its highly public QDDR plans to move the GHI to USAID, and would maintain control of the initiative under an executive director. State holds some authority over OGAC and could realistically serve as a coordination point between the GHI agencies, as it has done thus far. But there are two good reasons why this scenario doesn’t make sense: 1) global health is not the State Department’s area of technical expertise and the creation of another global health entity in State will be inefficient when plenty of expertise lies elsewhere in the USG. 2) This option could also be a public relations nightmare; the State Department would need to do serious damage control and protect USAID’s reputation. It will need to be clear about its rationale for the decision, emphasizing the structural considerations and why it’s best for the success of the GHI. However, this option will damage the administration’s efforts to build USAID as the premier U.S. development agency.

3)  Remove PEPFAR from the GHI. If USAID is to lead the GHI but not PEPFAR, then PEPFAR, operationally, will cease to be a part of the GHI, especially because it has its own reporting line to Congress. If we continue down this path, the administration should formally remove PEPFAR from the GHI portfolio and eliminate the targets for HIV/AIDS treatment and prevention as GHI targets. Under this “efficiency” scenario, USAID would be able to focus its energy on the remaining GHI programs and goals – those which it actually controls – and could be realistically accountable for the corresponding results. However, this course of action would fundamentally alter the original intent and design of the GHI to build on PEPFAR’s “platform” and would demonstrate the unfortunate reality that funds appropriated in a siloed, vertical structure don’t really lend themselves to policy and program level integration . Forfeiting the opportunity to integrate HIV/AIDS programs with reproductive health efforts, for example, will unfortunately turn the GHI in to a more “business as usual” health program approach to global health.