The UN Summit on the Millennium Development Goals kicked off in New York today, and will continue through Wednesday, Sept 22^nd.    World leaders are gathering to discuss the progress made and work to be done toward meeting the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).  On Wednesday, the event will culminate with an address by President Barack Obama.

If you are looking for background and general information on the MDGs and the Summit, take a look at some of Global Washington’s previous blog entries on the MDGs.  Bono also wrote an opinion piece in the New York Times on the importance of the MDGs, which serves as a primer for New Yorkers who are fed up with the Summit-related traffic jams on the upper east side.  The UK newspaper The Guardian has a whole page devoted to live MDG Summit updates and news.  Finally, the Brookings Institute has a page full of links with research and commentary on the MDGs.

This morning, the Gates Foundation sponsored a TEDxChange event, featuring a live broadcast from New York City coinciding with the Summit kickoff.  Speakers at this event included Melinda Gates, Hans Rosling (“the most entertaining statistician in the world” according to Tom Paulson on the Humanosphere), India’s own “Mr. Condom,” (a family planning and AIDS activist), and Graca Machel (Nelson Mandela’s wife).  You can view a recording of this highly engaging webcast here.

You can also view the actual Summit live on the UN Webcast, which features 6 different channels- you can watch each world leader’s statement with English translation or in the original language, if you want to practice your French or Croatian.  The UN News Center also has rather comprehensive live Summit news.

MFAN puts the spotlight on the prognosis for US foreign aid reform, and tells us what to watch out for at the Summit.  If you are interested in US policy, you should also take a look at a new bill introduced by Representative Barbara Lee (CA-9) last week, which is a resolution supporting the ideals and objectives of the UN Millennium Declaration and related MDGs and calling on the President to ensure the United States contributes meaningfully to the achievement of the MDGs by the year 2015.

The Center for Global Development offers a different perspective in What’s Not to Like about the MDGs? – a critical look at the MDGs.

Submitted by Linda Martin

On September 8, the world focused its eyes on education, in honor of International Literacy Day 2010. Yet as millions celebrated, results from the Millennium Development Progress Report 2010 concluded “Hope dims for universal education by 2015, even as many poor countries make tremendous strides.” Is it possible to mobilize the resources and political support necessary to turn the tide? Can a more integrated approach help accelerate progress in reaching all the MDG goals?

“A quality inclusive education for all is the key to achieving each and every one of the Millennium Development Goals, from reducing poverty to improving health, empowering women and ensuring environmental sustainability,”

Irina Bokova,
Director-General, UNESCO

UNESCO’s new Web site Education and the Millennium Development Goals illustrates ways in which education acts as a potent catalyst for human development. Examples include:

MDG Goal 6: Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases – A study covering thirty-two countries, “found that women with post-primary education were five times more likely than illiterate women to know about HIV/AIDS”.

MDG Goal 1: Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger – According to UNESCO, “Doubling primary school-age attendance rates for rural populations is associated with an average 20 to 25 per cent decrease in food insecurity”.

MDG Goal 4: Reduce child mortality – Examples of the impact of primary education include “Having a mother with primary education reduces child death rates by almost half in the Philippines and around one third in Bolivia”.

What does it mean to be literate?
A “bare bones” definition of literacy is the ability to read and write. UNESCO provides a definition more applicable to our increasingly complex and inter-connected world. Literacy is the “ability to identify, understand, interpret, create, communicate, compute and use printed and written materials associated with varying contexts. Literacy involves a continuum of learning in enabling individuals to achieve their goals, to develop their knowledge and potential, and to participate fully in their community and wider society.”

Monitoring adult and youth literacy, and global trends.
UNESCO’s Institute for Statistics (UIS) monitors international literacy targets associated with the MDGs. Adult and Youth Literary: Global Trends in Gender Parity-UIS Fact Sheet, September 2010, states that in 2008, 796 million adults worldwide (15 years and older) reported not being able to read and write, of which 64% were female. The overall adult literacy rate was 83%. Adults who lived in Southern Asia and Sub-Sahara Africa comprised three quarters of adults worldwide, who did not read or write. Gender disparity was greatest in Southern Asia, where almost three quarters of all men but only half of the women had the ability to read and write. The literacy rate in Southern Asia was 62%, and in sub-Saharan Africa, 63%.

In comparison, the global youth literacy rate was 89% (92% for males and 86% for females), with 131 million youth worldwide lacking basic reading and writing skills, of which 61% were female (3% less than adult female rates).  Southern Asia and sub-Saharan Africa were home to 86% of all youths unable to read and write worldwide.

According UNICEF’s report, State of the World’s Children 2009, “although improving, the educational status of young women is still low in several developing regions”.

“Literacy programs, especially when linked to life and livelihood skills, empowerment and peace-building initiatives, have the potential to improve human security, promote reconciliation and prevent future conflict.”

The Global Literacy Challenge

Female net secondary school attendance

• World 44%
• Sub-Saharan Africa 22%
• South Asia 43%

Female youth (15-25 years) literacy rate

• World 85%
• Sub-Saharan Africa 68%
• South Asia 74%

*http://www.unicef.org/sowc09/docs/SOWC09-Figure-2.2-EN.pdf

At the primary level, the newly published report, Progress for Children – Achieving the MDGs with Equity (Sept. 2010), notes that 100 million children of primary school age were out of school in 2008, 52% of them girls. South Asia had 33 million children out-of-school, followed by West and Central Africa (25 million), and Eastern and Southern Africa (19 million).Learn more about Monitoring and Evaluation studies from UNESCO’s monitoring Web site.

MDG  Summit in New York, September 20-22
Leaders in the international community will have an opportunity to suggest ways to accelerate progress at a High-Level MDG Summit being held in New York, September 20-22. This is an opportunity to share information about successful cross-sector programs, best practices learned from experienced INGOs and other innovative players, and to forge ahead in partnership to address unreached goals.

Stay tuned for Part 2 of this article, Barriers to Education and Bridges to Achieving MDG Goals.

Related Links

Education and the Millennium Development Goals

UNESCO – Education

Progress for Children: Achieving MDGs with Equity
Millennium Development Progress Report 2010

The Global Literacy Challenge

MDG Info 2010 and MDG Data Wizard

United Nations Girls Education Initiative

UNICEF- education and gender equality resources
UNESCO- The Global Literacy Challenge
The State of the World’s Children 2009
Global Literacy Program, Inc.

Safe Schools – Amnesty International

Center for Global Development

National Institute for Literacy

On Tuesday, September 8^th, a standing room-only crowd gathered at the Montlake Library to hear Congressman Jim McDermott and Kimberly Ann Elliott of the Center for Global Development discuss opening markets for the poor by reforming and expanding trade preferences.

The United States currently provides special access to its markets to products from developing countries through a few different trade preference programs.  The program that reaches the most countries is called the Generalized System of Preferences, or GSP, and this program covers the fewest products and has the most restrictions.  It has been in place since the 1970s and needs to be renewed by Congress every few years- in fact, it expires at the end of 2010, so if Congress doesn’t act, many countries will lose their special access to the U.S. market.  Other trade preference programs are for specific geographic regions, which are the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), the Andean Trade Preference Act (ATPA), and the Caribbean Basin Initiative (CBI).  There are also special trade preferences for Haiti. 

Under AGOA, African least developed countries (LDCs) get the most product coverage and the most flexible rules of origin of any U.S. trade preference program.  As Kim Elliott pointed out in her presentation, AGOA covers about 98% of products for African LDCs, and includes flexible rules of origin on apparel items, which is where AGOA has had the greatest economic impact.  She noted that the main omission from AGOA is in the area of agricultural goods, where African countries are still subject to U.S. quotas in a number of key products, not to mention competition from subsidized U.S. cotton.  Agriculture is very important to African economies, with about 60-70% of the workforce directly involved in agricultural production.  AGOA was initially passed in 2000, and is set to expire in 2015 unless Congress renews it.

Kim Elliott’s presentation included the recommendations and findings of the CGD Working Group on Trade Preference Reform.  They have five main recommendations:

1. Expand coverage to all products from all least developed countries.  The reason for expanding coverage to all products is that even when only 3% of products are excluded (as in the current Doha agreement), countries have room to leave out all of the products in which an LDC is most competitive.  The Working Group found that allowing 100% product access to all LDCs would have a minimal effect on competing producers in rich countries – LDCs account for less than 1% of non-oil imports in rich countries.
2. Relax restrictive rules of origin.  Rules of origin can prevent developing countries from taking advantage of preferential market access, because they are often vague and opaque, and commonly stipulate that all inputs must come from one country.  Poor countries must be able to source inputs globally, as they do not have the capacity (or the market size) to vertically integrate their industries.  They also do not have the resources to wade through heavily bureaucratized processes to prove origin.
3. Make trade preferences permanent and predictable.  Investors need to know that the market access will last long enough for them to get a return on their investment.  Without this guarantee, they will not invest in a country.  Most poor countries need foreign investment to spur growth.
4. Promote cooperation between countries giving and receiving preferences.  This includes trade capacity building to help countries improve their infrastructure to promote export growth, and identifying other non trade barriers to exports, such as difficulty meeting technical standards for imports.  Kim Elliott pointed out that African agriculture is a good example of this- African agricultural exporters have a difficult time meeting U.S. sanitary and phyto-sanitary standards, so they export very little to the United States.  These same exporters are able to meet European standards, which are no less strict than U.S. standards from a safety perspective, but for some reason they are easier for Africans to meet.  18% of European agricultural imports come from Africa, where less than 2% of U.S. agricultural imports do.
5. Encourage advanced developing countries to implement trade preference programs that adopt the above principles.  Advanced developing countries such as Brazil, China, Turkey, and India have recently announced trade preference programs for LDCs.  These programs would have greater impact if they adopted the above principles.

Congressman McDermott added his thoughts on why better market access for LDCs is important- and what else is needed to make market access work.  He said that it is important to help poor people from all developing countries, not just those from a certain geographic region.  During the question & answer session, he remarked that trade and development are complex, and when large projects or policy changes are undertaken without an appreciation of the complexity involved, unintended consequences may arise.  He offered the example of building dams in developing countries without regard for the potential consequences- something that was problematic in Ghana and elsewhere.  Congressman McDermott has been working on trade preferences for developing countries for many years- he is the author of AGOA, which he first introduced in 1995 and it took five years to pass Congress and get signed into law.  He has since introduced the New Partnership for Trade Development Act of 2009, which includes some provisions similar to the CDG working group’s recommendations.

“Like many who call the Rainier Valley home, I feel as if I live in two communities: The one where I wake up each morning and the one where my web of cultural and personal connections links me to. Nothing represents this as clearly as my work with the Blue Nile Children’s Organization.”

Local Diversity Drives Global Impact (OP-ED)
Rainier Valley Post |  Selamawit Kifle, Blue Nile Children’s Organization | September 2, 2010

Global Partnerships Closes $20 Million Fund Aimed At “Microfinance Plus”

Social Investment Fund 2010 will provide capital to 20 MFIs across Latin America

Seattle, Wash., – Global Partnerships (GP), a 16-year-old nonprofit that supports microfinance and other sustainable solutions to poverty, announced today that it closed its fourth social investment fund at $20 million. Over the next five years, Social Investment Fund 2010 (SIF 2010) will provide much-needed loan capital to up to 20 select microfinance institutions (MFIs) in Latin America.

“By investing in MFIs that are having exceptional impact, this fund will help hundreds of thousands of people living in poverty earn a brighter future for their families,” said Rick Beckett, President and Chief Executive Officer of Global Partnerships. “The fact that we raised $20 million in a challenging economic climate is a testament to the strength of our model.”

Like GP’s three previous funds, SIF 2010 is a five-year debt fund that will provide affordable loans to a select portfolio of MFIs that are financially sustainable and that reinvest profits in programs that benefit people living in poverty. With this fund, GP has sharpened its social criteria even further, prioritizing MFIs that reach people most in need of credit, such as the rural poor, and that provide innovative “microfinance-plus” programs, including preventive health services, business education, and assistance related to rural economic development.

Forty-one investors have contributed to SIF 2010, including the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) and Overseas Private Investment Corp (OPIC), which both invested in two previous GP funds. Other investors include Linked Foundation and Perls Foundation; Seattle University; faith-based institutions including the Mercy Partnership Fund; and 23 accredited individual investors. The law firm Strasburger & Price provided pro bono assistance to establish the Fund.

Investors cite a range of reasons for their interest in the fund, including the combination of well-managed risk and moderate returns, the excellence of GP’s fund management and the fund’s focus on social impact.

Elizabeth Littlefield, President and CEO of OPIC, which invested $6.9 million in SIF 2010, said, “OPIC’s longstanding collaboration with Global Partnerships has yielded impressive and sustainable results for MFIs by providing vital capital to the small business owners and farmers who serve as the engine of economic activity in emerging markets.”

Elizabeth Boggs Davidsen, principal investment officer of IDB’s Opportunities for the Majority Initiative, which invested $5 million in SIF 2010, said: “We’ve been very impressed with Global Partnerships’ approach to social investment. By working with microfinance institutions to offer additional services, they are helping to bring microfinance to the next level.”

Seattle University has invested in SIF 2010 and GP’s 2006 fund because of the alignment with the University’s mis sion and GP’s rigorous due-diligence processes. “It’s a win-win. We’re doing the right thing, seeing a social return, and still getting a financial return on our invest ment,” said Ron Smith, Seattle University’s Vice President for Finance and Business Affairs. “The more you learn about GP the more impressed you are.”

GP will begin disbursing loans to new MFI partners in October of 2010. MFIs to receive initial loans include Pro Mujer in Mexico, which serves women borrowers with an integrated package of microcredit and health services and education; Fondesurco, an MFI in southern Peru that provides loans and technical assistance tailored to their agricultural clients; FRAC, a World Vision affiliate that works in some of the poorest areas of Mexico; and Comixmul, a savings-and-credit cooperative in Honduras that serves very poor women with financial and non-financial services, including training in specific trade skills and access to basic health services.

Out of the 48 million people in Latin America who could benefit from access to microcredit, only an estimated 15 percent, or 9 million, are being reached. Microfinance, especially when combined with other high-impact services, can improve the lives of borrowers who use the profits from their business to improve the living conditions for their entire household. GP estimates that over the five-year lifespan of SIF 2010, it should fund more than 200,000 microloans.

About Global Partnerships: Global Partnerships (GP) is a 16-year-old nonprofit organization that expands opportunity for people living in poverty by supporting microfinance and other sustainable solutions in Latin America. As of June 30, 2010, GP had $37.7 million invested in 27 microfinance institutions, which in turn provide microcredit and other services to more than 845,000 borrowers. Find out more at www.globalpartnerships.org.

More information:

Backgrounder on Social Investment Fund 2010 (pdf)

1-minute animation of how the investment fund model works

Microcapital Q&A with GP CEO Rick Beckett on GP’s strategy, June 2010

Both the Senate and the House Appropriation Committees have recently approved a cut in the FY2011 foreign aid budget, despite pleas from many, including Secretary Clinton.  The amounts approved are $54.06 billion by the Senate and $52.6 billion by the House; both lower than the $56.6 billion requested by the Obama Administration.  In the atmosphere of budget deficits and economic constraints, the cut did not come as a surprise.   However, as the 2015 deadline for the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) is soon approaching, the need for continuing U.S. efforts to reach these goals has never been greater.  There is a conflict here, between the great need for foreign aid, and the current economic difficulties.  It leads us to ask: do Americans identify with the urgent need to continue to provide foreign aid to meet the MDGs?  Also, do Americans agree with the international development community on the U.S. responsibility to contribute to the millennium development goals?  

To answer these questions, a national poll was conducted in April 2010 by Public Opinion Strategies and Hart Research, on behalf of the United Nations Foundation.  It surveyed American’s attitudes toward foreign aid and the MDGs.  Here are some key findings:

• – For the first time in five years, Americans’ view of the United Nations (UN) rose from above 50% favorable to 60% favorable.  This increase in positive impressions of the UN is due to the positive stories they have seen in the news on events such as the Haiti relief effort, humanitarian efforts in Africa, relief efforts in Chile and Peru, WHO humanitarian efforts, UNICEF humanitarian efforts and the earthquake relief effort in China. 
•  – Two-thirds of Americans believe the UN is still needed today.
•  – 59% of Americans believe international issues have an impact on them personally and only 15% believe international issues have no personal impact on them.
•  – Although 89% of Americans say they are not familiar with the specifics of the MDGs, after hearing a brief description of the eight goals, 87% of Americans believe the U.S. should be very or somewhat involved in a worldwide effort to accomplish the MDGs by 2015.  50% of Pacific residents stated that the U.S. should be very involved in accomplishing the MDGs.
•  – When asked to choose which MDGs are the most important to accomplish, Americans chose those goals that address the most basic human needs for survival.
•  – The top 3 choices for the most important MDGs were: access to safe drinking water (47%), alleviating extreme hunger and poverty (36%), and eliminating gender disparity in completing primary education (27%).

Though it is discouraging to know that a huge majority (89%) of Americans are unfamiliar with the MDGs, one positive realization did emerge from this rather negative finding.    Most Americans are supportive of U.S. involvement in accomplishing the MDGs once they learn about the specifics.  If we want to accelerate our progress towards meeting the MDGs by 2015, one thing we cannot undermine is the power of the collective action from this majority of Americans.  In addition to the strategy that the U.S. government has recently mapped out for meeting the MDGs (see recent blog post), we need to educate and engage our communities, local leaders of all sectors, local media and audience about this collective responsibility toward eliminating global poverty.  We can start by taking part in the 2010 Stand Up Against Poverty movement, when individuals and organizations around the world will stand up and make noise against poverty around September 17^th, 2010.

As Global Washington’s Conversation with USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah came to a close last Friday, Congressman Jim McDermott (D-WA) left the audience with a new way of looking at an old question.

As Congressman McDermott explained, when faced with contemplating the future of global development, one can readily apply the age-old question “is the glass half-full or half-empty?” Similarly, we can ask ourselves is this the time in world history that the human race bands together to solve the critical problems of our time, or will we allow the global financial crisis to stifle our humanitarian spirit and maintain the status quo? Can we capitalize on the momentum building up to the Millennium Development Goals and eradicate hunger, disease, and extreme poverty, or are we setting ourselves up for a big disappointment with such lofty goals?

But these questions, however important, are insufficient in finding the solutions to the world’s ills. To solve these problems, Congressman McDermott exhorted the audience to consider how to fill the glass, rather than consider how full it is already. Indeed we must not ask ourselves if we will succeed, but how we will succeed in meeting the basic needs of all. And technology is inevitably a part of the answer to that question.

Such was the purpose of this panel discussion. Bringing together the USAID Administrator, two Congressmen, and representatives from Microsoft, Washington State University, PATH, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the panel discussed the role innovation and technology plays in development projects, particularly in the health and agriculture sectors.

Before introducing Dr. Shah, Congressman Adam Smith (D-WA) opened the discussion with a case for investment in development, saying funding foreign assistance can create a more stable and secure global environment. However, as Congressman Smith pointed out, the current foreign assistance structure is not efficient enough to get the most out of our resources.

Dr. Shah echoed Congressman Smith’s sentiments on the state of the foreign aid system, saying that programs are too often ineffective because projects are not guided by results and evidence from the ground. Fortunately, Dr. Shah has committed to basing programs off of conditions on the ground, beginning with the two new development initiatives Feed the Future, and the Global Health Initiative.

Using the right technology and the right means of delivering that technology may ultimately decide the success or failure of many development programs. Innovative new pieces of technology have already played a large role in improving development programs. For instance, M-Pesa allows you to safely and securely transfer money via cell phone, giving people without steady access to a bank a way to easily access their money.

With such promising technological innovations and committed leadership from our panelists, I can’t help but see that glass filling up quickly.

The Obama administration recently released the U.S. Strategy for Meeting the Millennium Development Goals, a 28-page document that emphasizes innovation, sustainability, and accountability.  After a brief recap of progress achieved to date and the serious challenges ahead, the document outlines the three pillars of the U.S. strategy: innovate, sustain, and make it work.  According to the strategy, innovation can be a “powerful force multiplier,” and can be fostered in many ways: funding research, expanding access to technology, building partnerships, and stimulating innovation through prizes and the like.  The key to ensuring sustainability is found in broad-based economic growth, well-governed institutions, investments in women and girls, sustainable service-delivery systems, and mitigating shocks.  And to make it all work, the U.S. must build the enabling environment through strengthened monitoring & evaluation, accountability, and coordination with other donors.

In order to put these ideas into practice, the strategy promises to “marshal the full range of our development policy instruments.”  This includes pledges to fund innovation, invest in sustainability, and improve accountability.

Many of the initiatives discussed in the strategy are ongoing efforts that the U.S. government has worked on for years.  Some are newer, such as the Feed the Future and the Global Health Initiative.  There is not much news in this new document.

One new and promising initiative in this strategy document is a major aid transparency initiative, where the U.S. government will work with other donors and partner governments to streamline the dissemination of country-level information about aid flows.  If this works as planned, it will make it a lot easier to figure out who is doing what in each country, what money is being spent on which project where, and what the expected and measured results are.

What is missing from this strategy?  Any mention of who is in charge- who will coordinate this government-wide response?  If no one is in charge, there can be no real accountability.  Also, there is no talk of a Global Development Strategy, which is widely recognized as an important step towards greater transparency and accountability.  In general, this strategy is sparse on details, and leaves much to the imagination.

For more commentary on this strategy, see the Devex rundown here.

To read the full strategy document, click here.

It has been nearly 50 years since the U.S. foreign assistance system was formally established through the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (FAA). In that time, the structure of U.S. foreign assistance has become bloated and unwieldy. Currently, 12 Departments and 25 government agencies are charged with implementing foreign aid policy as defined through over 400 development objectives. To complicate things further, numerous amendments to the FAA and over 20 additional pieces of legislation were passed to direct U.S. foreign aid in the time since the FAA’s passage. With such a muddled structure, it is no wonder U.S. foreign assistance has come under assault in recent years, as calls for serious reforms have continued to mount. Luckily, reform efforts are moving ahead at full steam.

Two weeks ago, Representative Howard Berman, Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, introduced the first two sections, or preamble, of a draft of the Foreign Assistance Act rewrite. This draft marks an important step in the process of overhauling the U.S. foreign aid system to make it more coherent and effective in achieving the goals of global development. While the preamble is meant more as a formative document, designed to provide the development community with a first glance and guide a discussion, it offers insight into some of the new initiatives and strategies to be included in the final draft.

For the most part, this draft presents a broad picture of the direction in which the reform effort is moving. Through a declaration of general principles, policies, and goals of U.S. foreign assistance, the preamble offers insight to the guiding tenets of the reform process. Within these broad principles and goals, all four of Global Washington’s principles of effective development are accounted for: coherence and coordination, transparency and accountability, local ownership, and targeting aid to those most in need.

To ensure coherence and coordination, the draft calls for a streamlined foreign assistance structure to clearly delineate authority and responsibilities and to ensure consistency across all policy areas.

In order to improve transparency and accountability, the draft’s “principles of assistance” include a call for improved monitoring and evaluation mechanisms, as well as the need for detailed information regarding foreign aid budget and expenditures.

With regards to local ownership of aid projects, the preamble offers several principles to increase local capacity and ensure local ownership of development programs. According to this draft, it should be the policy of the U.S. government to develop assistance programs in partnership with local stakeholders that increase local capacity in the government and civil society. As a result, foreign assistance programs can be more effective and sustainable.

As a means of ensuring aid is targeted at those most in need, the preamble recommends that assistance be based on “poverty measurement tools and gender analysis.” Included in such measurement tools would be, among others, the Human Development Index rankings, per capita incomes, local capacity, and prior performance records.

Apart from the statement of general principles and policies, the preamble does introduce new, specific initiatives and organizational structures. Most important amongst the specific items in this draft is the designation of a national development strategy to guide foreign assistance activities and to ensure coherence across all foreign policy objectives.

The preamble also suggests that a rewritten Foreign Assistance Act would establish Development Support Funds to provide the USAID Administrator with the authority and resources to provide assistance to developing nations that will support local capacity and ensure aid is targeted at those most in need. Such an initiative offers stark contrast to the current policy planning strategy. Instead of using sector-specific goals and objectives to guide development policy, USAID would be afforded the flexibility needed to create effective programs.

To ensure that development activities reflect the needs and priorities in the field, each Development Support Fund will contribute a percentage of its funding to the administration of Country Investment Strategies for Development. Each Country Investment Strategy for Development will be prepared every three to five years by each USAID Mission Director. This is another departure from the previous policy of allowing specific goals and objectives to guide development policy. As a result, conditions in the field would inform the creation of development policy much more significantly than in the past, making programming more flexible and responsive to the needs in the field.

Paramount to the success of any reformed foreign assistance structure is consistency and coherence. In an effort to ensure development policy is consistent throughout the government, a rewritten Foreign Assistance Act would create a newly established Development Policy Committee. Such a committee would be composed of the USAID Administrator and a representative from each department and agency that has a stake in global development such as the Departments of Agriculture, State, and Defense, as well as at least eleven others.

While this draft is a mere outline of what a rewritten Foreign Assistance Act will look like, it provides a great deal of hope that reform is truly within reach. However, with only a few weeks of legislative business to go before Congress recesses for the mid-term elections, whether the new Foreign Assistance Act will even be considered in this Congress remains to be seen.

To review the draft preamble in its entirety, please follow the link here. To read more about Global Washington and our recommendations for a reformed foreign assistance structure, please visit the Policy Work section of our website.

Village Reach 
Announces
 National
 Expansion
 Of
 Last
 Mile 
Health
 Program
In
 Mozambique

New
 funding 
appeal 
targets 
$4
million 
to
 support 
six year 
program
Charity 
evaluator
 Give Well 
continues 
to 
rate
 Village Reach 
its
 #1
 charity

SEATTLE, WASHINGTON, July 27, 2010 VillageReach, the Seattle‐based social enterprise that increases access to healthcare for remote, last mile communities in low‐income countries,
today announced a $5.6 million program to strengthen the national health system in
Mozambique. Contributions for the six‐year program total $1.2 million to date. The new
program is supported by the Mozambique Ministry of Health ‐ MISAU – and follows a successful
five‐year demonstration project of the VillageReach vaccine and medical commodities
distribution model. Results of the demonstration project recorded improved population
vaccination rates from 68% to 95%, with corresponding cost decreases of as much as 20%.

VillageReach also announced today that GiveWell, the independent, non‐profit charity evaluator,
will continue to rate VillageReach its #1 charity. To date, more than 400 domestic and
international charities have been reviewed. GiveWell conducted an extensive review of
VillageReach to evaluate the Mozambique program in terms of its impact and cost effectiveness
in saving lives. See www.givewell.org for the VillageReach review.

The Mozambique challenge

Mozambique has a national vaccination coverage rate of 72%, significantly below the World
Health Organization’s (WHO) goal of 90%. Like many low‐income countries, Mozambique
suffers from high child mortality rates. UNICEF estimates that for every 1000 live births in
Mozambique, 154 children will die before they turn five, many from vaccine‐preventable
diseases. In addition to low vaccination rates, Mozambique has a weak and poorly resourced
health system to support its population of 23 million. Rural health facilities are geographically
isolated and chronically understaffed.

The VillageReach Model

VillageReach strengthens health systems in low‐income countries by designing new approaches
to address common rural health infrastructure challenges. VillageReach combines proven
practices in logistics and supply chain management with new approaches for health system
performance measurement, supervision, and information management to build new models
that meet the unique challenges found in last‐mile settings. As a result, frontline health workers
can dedicate more time each day to saving lives, more families can be served, and community
confidence in rural health systems increases. For more information on the VillageReach model
and details of the Mozambique program, see www.villagereach.org.

“In our view, VillageReach has developed a unique approach to saving lives, and is the best
organization we’ve found by the criteria of proven impact, cost‐effectiveness and scalability,”
said Holden Karnofsky, co‐founder of GiveWell. “We reiterate our #1 rating for VillageReach
and its Mozambique program because of this demonstrated effectiveness, and in recognition of
the organization’s efforts to be as transparent as possible to its donors.”

“We are engaged in an ambitious initiative to demonstrate that improving logistics for health
systems in low‐income countries is highly effective and can have lasting impact to benefit
millions across a national population,” said Allen Wilcox, president of VillageReach. “We take
great pride in GiveWell’s evaluation and appreciate the insight their independent assessment
can provide for donors seeking non‐profit organizations that openly document both their
challenges and results.”

About VillageReach

VillageReach is a non‐profit social enterprise that extends the reach of healthcare services to
remote, underserved communities by creating dynamic delivery and information monitoring
systems. Its mission is to save lives and improve well being in developing countries by
increasing last‐mile access to healthcare and investing in social businesses that address gaps in
community infrastructure.

• For further information, please contact:
• John Beale, Director of Strategic Development
• Tel: +1‐206‐925‐5200
• Mobile: +1‐206‐755‐0145
• Email: john@villagereach.org
• Website: www.villagereach.org