Blog

New Approach to Development

For the last few months, foreign assistance has been one of the most prominent and recurrent topics of discussion. With the skeptics of foreign aid questioning its effectiveness and value and proponents considering it as a model investment to further US interests and address a few of the world’s ills, U.S foreign aid policy has suddenly caught everyone’s attention. The debate centers around whether slashing foreign aid is a viable plan to reduce our country’s deficit.

Foreign aid constitutes only a small portion of the federal budget. Although the average American believes that 25 percent of the federal budget goes to foreign aid (according to a January Gallup poll), the reality is that it’s total share in the budget is approximately 1 percent. The U.S. government will spend $39 billion on foreign aid in FY2011, a sum equal to 3 percent of the estimated $1.4 trillion deficit.

In terms of absolute monetary investment the United States is undoubtedly at the top of the foreign aid donors, but in terms of aid as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product, we are 19th, right behind Portugal.
Also just 25 cents of each Americans’ entire yearly taxes go towards helping other countries. This implies that ending or deeply cutting foreign aid will not contribute significantly to debt reduction. On the contrary as Sam Worthington, the head of Interaction, says, “If that 1 percent was gone, the only face America would be putting to the world is one of the helmets and boots on the ground. It would deeply impact our image in the world and our ability to relate to other peoples.”

Effective foreign assistance is a prerequisite for our national security. As State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley commented, “Whether helping shape strategically important countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Iraq, fighting narco-criminals in Latin America or battling HIV/AIDS in Africa, we have significant national interests associated with our foreign assistance. Cutting foreign assistance will increase the risk to the American people and reduce our ability to shape regional events and solve global challenges.”

In the light of these reasons, what is germane now is to put an end to all the discussion and discourse on eliminating foreign aid to cut deficit and work towards developing a new approach to development. It’s time to change the way United States does business and as President Obama said during the MDG summit, pursue the vision to ensure “development that unleashes transformational change and allows more people to take control of their own destiny.”

The new U.S Global Development Policy announced by President Obama in September 2010 during the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) Summit is an important step in this direction. Based on comprehensive review of America’s development programs and building in part on the lessons of Millennium Challenge Corporation, it is “first of its kind by an American administration.” It is (The Presidential Policy Directive ) rooted in America’s enduring commitment to the dignity and potential of every human being and is geared towards not just meeting but exceeding the Millennium Development Goals and sustaining them for generations. Let’s work in unison and support the new approach as outlined in the Policy Directive and contribute towards making United States a global leader in providing assistance.

For an in-depth discussion on how we can make it possible, join a Global Washington hosted special discussion of foreign assistance reform, principles in effectiveness and the effect of reform on global development work on August 30 from 3:30-5:30 in Kane Hall of the University of Washington. The event will feature U.S Representative Adam Smith, Kent R. Hill of World Vision, Sophia Belay of Oxfam America, and Paul Weisenfeld, Assistant to the Administrator, USAID. Come and join us to talk about the most pertinent issues.

For more information on the event and to register please click:
https://globalwa.org/our-work/reforming-aid-policy-event/

For full remarks of President Obama during the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) Summit and to know more about new U.S Global Development Policy, please refer to
https://globalwa.org/our-community/in-the-news/remarks-of-president-barack-obama-%E2%80%93-millennium-development-goals-summit/

Funding for Foreign Assistance – views from Washington DC

Every dollar of the U.S. discretionary budget is appropriated by one of 12 appropriations subcommittees, but each of these dollars can have more than one purpose. For example, a dollar spent on Education can be viewed as a dollar for a particular school improvement grant, or it can be viewed as a long-term investment in our Nation’s future. A dollar invested for the construction of highways can also be viewed as a dollar toward generating new jobs for unemployed citizens, or a dollar toward replenishing our country’s critical infrastructure.

Two of the appropriations subcommittees – Defense, and State, Foreign Operations , and Related Programs – may at first seem very different from each other. Defense funds the Pentagon (military personnel; operations and maintenance; research, development, test and evaluation for new weapons systems) and the National Intelligence Agencies (such as the CIA). State, Foreign Operations, and Related Agencies provides funding for State Department activities (such as maintaining our network of overseas embassies) and USAID (whose programs provide much of the U.S. foreign assistance).

Many people, however, are starting to “connect the dots” between these two sets of activities, making the point that both sets of activities are integral to our national security. Tom Nides, the new Deputy Secretary of State for Management, recently made exactly that point in an interview published in “The Cable.” He stated that the State Department and USAID have a national security mandate, and that American diplomats and development experts are part of the front line to keep the country safe and secure. He noted that diplomats and development experts become even more critical in a destabilized world, with potential food shortages and economic turbulence.

In a recent op/ed in the Seattle Times, Washington State representatives Adam Smith and Jim McDermott, along with Global Washington founder Bill Clapp, made a similar argument. “Foreign assistance is the first line of our national defense, making us safer by stabilizing volatile nations,” they said. They also quoted former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates as saying, “development is a lot cheaper than sending soldiers.”

As Global Washington continues to refine its advocacy strategy, we will work to find ways to explain why foreign assistance spending by the Federal government is an important use of taxpayer funds. Explaining how foreign assistance helps national security is one way of making that case.

On August 30, Global Washington will sponsor a panel discussion with Washington D.C. policymakers including Congressman Adam Smith (D-WA) and Gayle Smith (invited), Special Assistant to the President and Senior Adviser, National Security Council, to discuss foreign assistance reform. Please join us for the event!

Volunteerism: Finding the Perfect Match, and Then What?

It seems like the perfect match: nonprofit organizations need to accomplish their goals with less money and less staff, while unemployed professionals need to keep their skills fresh and their minds alert. Surely these two groups can help each other out. But, creating a mutually beneficial match isn’t as easy for organizations and individuals as it might seem. Sometimes it happens: Take, for example, Global Washington’s ability to corral a team of volunteers and interns to build and develop everything from blogs (this one included) to events to policy reports. But often, organizations struggle with how to handle the volunteer sector.

A couple of statistics, from the Volunteering in America Fact Sheet for 2009, get the mind spinning. (It’s a bit out of date, but socioeconomic trends haven’t changed that much, right?) One survey shows that the higher the education level and the more “robust the nonprofit infrastructure”, the higher the volunteering rates. But, contrary to all logic, higher unemployment rates lead to lower volunteering rates. Can we assume then that well-educated individuals volunteer less once they’re laid off?

Washington State, and Seattle in particular, have some more comforting statistics. Our state ranks 10th among the 50 states and DC in volunteers. Factors accounting for this are our above average level of education (30.7% state vs. 27.7% national with college degrees) and a slightly higher than average number of nonprofits (4.75 per 1,000 residents state vs. 4.45 per 1,000 residents national). But, despite rising unemployment, Washington State actually increased in volunteer hours in 2009, defying the national trend. Kudos to all, Seattle ranks 4th out of 51 large cities for the volunteer rate from 2007 to 2009. (Portland beat us though, coming in 2nd.)

Washington beats out the rest of the US with 20.6% providing professional and management services, versus the national average of 16.7%, with most of the work happening at religious institutions and at schools. The other top jobs in volunteerism are general labor (26.5%) and, no surprise, fundraising (25.2%).

Worth noting from these surveys is the retention rates of volunteers. In other words, once you get people to work for free, how do you keep them? Retention rates increased for volunteers providing activities that they do professionally, namely in management (69.5% to 82.3%) and administration (61.2% to 75.6%). On the other hand, fundraising is one of the few areas where retention rates decreased, from 63.4% to 61.4%.

Why? According to a study conducted for the article, “The New Volunteer Workforce” (Stanford Social Innovation Review, winter 2009), volunteers leave because the organization fails to do the following: match skills to assignments, recognize volunteer’s contributions, measure the value of volunteers, train volunteers (and train staff to train volunteers), and provide strong leadership.  Many studies, including those mentioned above, encourage nonprofit organizations to rethink how they manage volunteers. Considering that the value of one hour of volunteer time in Washington state is $21.62, according to the Independent Sector website, successful volunteer management makes financial sense.

How do organizations and individuals find one another? Online resource centers provide both parties a quick and easy way to detail skills, time frames, and expectations in such a way that both parties can make better choices. Global Washington’s Careers in Global Development site is a great resource for finding volunteer opportunities with member organizations, and for Global Washington members to find like-minded volunteers. With proper management and with volunteers able to treat their volunteer ‘gig’ with professionalism, it is possible to make a near perfect match.

Learn more about best practices in volunteer management and how to attract the skill set your organization wants at Global Washington’s workshop, Harnessing Volunteer Power, on August 23rd.