blog logo image

Broad Coalition Calls on U.S. Senate to Confirm Gayle Smith as USAID Administrator

June 15th, 2015
Bookmark and Share

Broad Coalition Calls on U.S. Senate to Confirm Gayle Smith as USAID Administrator

June 15, 2015 (WASHINGTON) – This statement is delivered on behalf of the Modernizing Foreign Assistance Network by Co-Chairs George Ingram, Carolyn Miles, and Connie Veillette:

MFAN, along with a broad coalition of international development organizations, policy experts, and the private sector, is calling on the U.S. Senate to swiftly confirm Gayle Smith as the next permanent USAID Administrator. Having a Senate-confirmed appointee at the helm of USAID is essential to advancing U.S. development goals and optimizing the use of U.S. foreign assistance resources. As we cautioned in our open letter to the President in April, when the Administrator position was vacant in 2009 for nearly a full year, USAID and its programs suffered.

Gayle Smith is a strong and experienced leader and is well-equipped to further implement and institutionalize important reforms at the U.S. government’s lead development agency. Smith has long been a champion of the aid effectiveness agenda while ensuring development has a strong voice at the policymaking table. In her time as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Development and Democracy, Smith has helped to foster a more robust interagency dialogue and coordination around U.S. development efforts.

At a time when we are responding to global crises in places like Nepal, Syria, and Yemen, and with the Millennium Development Goals expiring and a new set of goals taking their place, the United States cannot afford to be without a strong, permanent USAID Administrator to lead our engagement and represent our development interests internationally.  We are pleased to see that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has scheduled a confirmation hearing for this week and urge a swift confirmation process in order to sustain strong U.S. leadership on development programs and the accountability of our foreign assistance.

Country Ownership Metrics: An Underdeveloped Field in Development

June 4th, 2015
Bookmark and Share

See below for a guest post from former MFAN Country Ownership Working Group Co-Chairs Rodney Bent and Tessie San Martin.

***

The annual funding of U.S. bilateral economic assistance is generally a lengthy process, from the President’s request at the beginning of the year to Congressional action over the summer and early fall.  These budget resources are precious and scarce, which is why Congress spends considerable time reviewing the request.  According to the State Department, the FY 2015 budget estimate for bilateral economic assistance was about $21 billion; for FY 2016, the President is requesting $21.7 billion. At whatever the final level of funding that the President and Congress can agree upon, the U.S. needs to use these resources to best effect in promoting good governance and economic growth, and reducing human suffering.

A key driver of the effective and sustained use of U.S. bilateral economic resources is country ownership.   While this statement is no longer controversial, there remains some disagreement about how best to define country ownership. A 2011 Interaction  publication on Country Ownership notes that: “…Although practitioners and researchers have confirmed that broad-based participation is critical to sustainability, there is a wide range of interpretations of the meaning of the term ‘country ownership.’” This lack of consensus about what country ownership means makes it challenging for donors to align around how to support it.

From our experience, we’ve seen that what gets measured gets done. This is why MFAN’s Country Ownership Working Group asked the question: what do we know about and what do we want to see in terms of metrics for implementing country ownership?  Our efforts to identify metrics used the country ownership framework laid out in MFAN’s 2014 policy paper, The Way Forward: ownership of the priorities and resources for, and implementation of, development.  The result of these efforts was captured recently in a new MFAN paper, Metrics for Implementing Country Ownership. Below are a few highlights from this effort and the paper:

  • What to measure: outcomes or process? The answer may seem obvious, but think again.  For example, at Plan International, the ultimate measure of local ownership is when local authorities or the private sector or some combination fund an initiative that had been previously funded by Plan.  When this happens, Plan can step aside as a donor and exit a community.  But this takes a long time to nurture (10-15 years).  Plan can afford to be patient. Most donor funding cycles (dependent in some way on political cycles) are much shorter.  Due to this shorter cycle, it is no surprise that most measures look at process, something that can be watched immediately.
  • The role of proxy measures. Whether we are talking about outcomes or process, most of the things we want to measure (g., was the consultation process inclusive?) are really hard to observe directly.  Polling is an option, but it is expensive and the results can be ambiguous or even contradictory.  Perhaps over time mobile technology may make it more feasible – at least on key instances and purposes – and a number of organizations, including the World Bank, are testing this.
  • The importance of definition. Ownership of priorities is difficult to define, which therefore makes it difficult to measure. Every S. agency we spoke to in the process of building and refining the paper agreed that the diversity of views and the degree of inclusion in the process of designing or evaluating initiatives matters greatly for sustainability.  But how to measure the degree of consultation and inclusion in priority setting? If the most marginalized voices matter the most, how is this captured systematically in a measure?
  • Even measures that are seemingly easily quantifiable require a lot more refinement. Ownership of implementation has been the main focus of USAID Forward ’s procurement reform effort, specifically its target of having 30% all USAID acquisitions and procurements go through “local” organizations.  But one can oversimplify.  The recent Save the Children report (Tracking USAID’s Efforts on the Local Solutions Initiative) makes a number of excellent recommendations to refine this measure by including indicators like the value and percentage of project funds contributed by local institution and number of local institutions implementing sub-grants or sub-contracts. These additional measures could help ensure that USAID is better tracking the objective it is trying to promote.   But these are not always easy measures to impose, for example, in the context of the government’s existing data gathering and management systems.

We look forward to continuing the dialogue with the Administration and the community on the metrics we put forward in our paper, and on what else we should be considering.

Success is in the Eye of the Beholder

May 21st, 2015
Bookmark and Share

See below for a guest post from MFAN Accountability Working Group Co-Chair, Diana Ohlbaum.

***

A good evaluation will tell you whether a program achieved its intended results.

A better evaluation will tell you why.

But the best evaluation will tell you whether those were the right results — for the people they were intended to help.

As the global development community has begun to get serious about conducting evaluations, they have tended to focus so heavily on accountability to funders that they have often overlooked accountability to beneficiaries.  And all too often, this means findings and results that may be technically accurate, but functionally invalid.

For instance, as Carlisle Levine and Laia Griñó explain in a thoughtful new paper for InterAction, “when practitioners and evaluators listen, they might hear that, yes, shelters were provided, but the materials used were inappropriate for the climate, or the placement of the shelters reinforced community divisions, rather than helping to bridge them.”  If you don’t ask the right questions, you won’t get the right answers.

That’s why locally owned programs demand locally owned evaluations.  Program participants must be involved from the very start in defining what counts as success, as well as in monitoring program implementation and evaluating results.  Yet until now, calls for greater country ownership have focused almost entirely on program design and implementation, while overlooking monitoring and evaluation.  At USAID, for example, there has been little integration of the robust evaluation policy with the Local Systems Framework, which embraces a vision of development that is “locally owned, locally led, and locally sustained”.

To the extent that there has been local participation in evaluations, it is generally limited to using local communities as sources of data once a project is complete, or including local staff on evaluation teams.  Only rarely are the evaluations led and managed by local evaluation professionals.  But most importantly, partner country government institutions, civil society organizations, and beneficiary communities are given little role in designing the questions that will be asked or the indicators by which success will be measured.  As a result, unintended impacts, both good and bad, are often missed.

One exception is an approach being piloted by USAID’s Office of Transition Initiatives (OTI), whose quick-response and “just do it” culture was once quite resistant to any kind of evaluations.  Now, rather than just hiring an outside evaluator at the end of a project, who may spend a couple of weeks in the country and know little about the place or the program or the context, OTI is working with local evaluators from the very beginning to monitor results throughout the program cycle.

Local participation in evaluations not only ensures that outcomes are measured properly; it can also improve those outcomes.  The InterAction paper cites a study comparing the use of standard “expert-developed” scorecards to community-developed scorecards to monitor schools in Uganda.  The researchers found that introducing a participatory monitoring process, in and of itself, helped improve pupil test scores and reduce pupil and teacher absenteeism because community members felt a greater stake in holding schools accountable.

It’s time for the international development community to move beyond the concept of local “buy-in” and embrace the principle of local authorship.  By giving participants a meaningful role in evaluation – and, as the InterAction report reminds us, by ensuring that those evaluation findings are used to inform decision-making – we can make our assistance more effective, and make development more sustainable.  Doing so will require a few adjustments to the program cycle, and InterAction helpfully provides guidelines on how to put these principles into practice.

MFAN Welcomes Important Reform Elements in the Senate Global Food Security Act of 2015

May 12th, 2015
Bookmark and Share

May 12, 2015 (WASHINGTON) – This statement is delivered on behalf of the Modernizing Foreign Assistance Network

MFAN is pleased to see that the Global Food Security Act of 2015 (S. 1252), recently introduced by Sens. Bob Casey (D-PA) and Johnny Isakson (R-GA), includes important reform elements that would help strengthen accountability mechanisms and promote greater country ownership of U.S. foreign assistance programs related to food security and global agricultural development.

Most notably, the legislation promotes accountability by requiring that specific and measurable goals and benchmarks are set and that monitoring and evaluation plans be created that reflect international best practices related to transparency and accountability. The legislation also requires the establishment of mechanisms for reporting results in an open and transparent matter, including how findings from monitoring and evaluation have been incorporated into program design and budget decisions. In addition, the bill requires that reporting on progress be made publicly accessible in an electronic format in a timely manner.

The legislation also demonstrates a commitment to principles of country ownership. It requires support for the long-term success of programs by building the capacity of local organizations and institutions and by developing strategies and benchmarks for graduating target countries and communities from assistance.

We applaud the bill sponsors for the inclusion of these elements as they are essential to ensuring greater effectiveness and sustainability of U.S. global food security and agriculture programs. However, we believe the legislation could be made even stronger in several ways. First, the coordinating function within the U.S. government should be given to the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), as our principal development agency and as the lead agency on the Obama Administration’s Feed the Future initiative. Second, the legislation should specify that local, developing country institutions should be the first option for implementing programs where appropriate capacity and conditions exist. Third, the amount of U.S. assistance authorized by the bill should be determined by locally-driven priorities and plans.

We look forward to working with Congress to ensure the reform elements in the bill are strengthened.

Round-up: Community Welcomes News of the Nomination of Gayle Smith as Next USAID Administrator

May 1st, 2015
Bookmark and Share

President Obama announced this week that Gayle Smith, Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Development and Democracy at the National Security Council, has been nominated as the next USAID Administrator. We are pleased to see the White House nominate a strong and experienced leader to take the helm at USAID. See below for a round-up of MFAN partner statements. In addition, see here for a blog post from Oxfam’s Paul O’Brien and here for a Devex article featuring MFAN Honorary Co-Chairs and former Representatives Jim Kolbe and Howard Berman and MFAN Principal Ritu Sharma.

USGLC CEO Liz Schrayer: Gayle Smith is the right person to continue the game-changing transformations at USAID that are critical to advancing America’s economic and security interests. Throughout her career, and particularly over the past six years at the National Security Council, Gayle has played a critical role in driving reform-minded policies that are central for delivering results to American taxpayers while making a world of difference.

CGD President Nancy Birdsall and Senior Policy Analyst Casey Dunning: We hope for the same sense of urgency from the US Senate in confirming the President’s nominee. It’s critical to have an Administrator with a Congressional mandate and development expertise. Smith knows development after years working in Africa, and she knows how the US government works – or not – after years in the White House. She was a key architect of signature initiatives, like Feed the Future and Power Africa, that a revitalized USAID launched in the last several years — initiatives designed to crowd-in private sector investment to poor countries prepared to undertake business-friendly reforms.

Bread for the World President David Beckmann: I expect the Senate to move quickly to approve Gayle Smith’s appointment. It’s important to the implementation of urgently needed aid programs, and global poverty is an issue on which Congress and the president are on the same page.

Oxfam America President Ray Offenheiser: We are eager and ready to work with Ms. Smith to continue the modernization efforts afoot at USAID that will have a lasting impact on global poverty and that, over time, will enhance US moral standing and national interests and ultimately build a safer world for all. Ms. Smith will bring a powerful voice, vision and leadership to the agency.  We urge the Senate to quickly confirm her to ensure American leadership in fighting poverty does not suffer.

The Lugar Center President Senator Richard G. Lugar (Ret.): I was pleased to learn from the White House today that the President will nominate Gayle Smith, currently a Senior Director at the National Security Council, as the next Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development. Smith’s experience and expertise in both international development and in reforming aid to strengthen its impact make her an excellent selection for this important post.

Save the Children President and CEO Carolyn Miles: Gayle Smith has a wealth of experience, both from inside and out of government, to bring to bear in shaping USAID’s leadership for these summits. We look forward to working with her, and the rest of the Obama Administration, to support bold American leadership on ending extreme poverty and the preventable deaths of children, as well as ensuring the world does much more to prevent and respond to the suffering of people in Nepal, Syria, and the many other humanitarian crises around the world. Gayle Smith has been a leader on initiatives to make US international development assistance more efficient and effective, and she reflects the compassion that all Americans have for children and families in need.

Mercy Corps CEO Neal Keny-Guyer: Gayle Smith distinguished herself during the U.S. government’s response to the Ebola epidemic in West Africa. But that’s just the most recent example in her long and distinguished career as an effective policy maker and advocate on humanitarian and development issues. Her combination of policy, advocacy and operations makes Smith an especially strong leader for USAID. We are living in a particularly challenging time, in which the number and intensity of humanitarian crises is stretching our community’s ability to respond,” says Keny-Guyer. “Because of her experience, Gayle understands that the U.S. government must renew its focus on holistic, multi-sector, multi-year programs that address the root causes of vulnerability.