Blog

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.

“Back to the Future: Recent Evolutions in EU Development Policy and Its Implications for the Global Development Agenda”

The European Centre for Development and Policy Management (ECDPM) is an independent foundation established in 1986 to promote cooperation between the European Union and developing countries in Africa, the Caribbean, and the Pacific (ACP). Global Washington members heard a presentation by ECDPM’s Senior Executive for International Relations Andrew Sherriff, on the complex interactions between and among European nations, and how EU development policies might have implications for the global development agenda. Andrew asked the members present if there are parallel trends in the U.S. If you would like to share your thought, please feel free to “comment” in response to this blog.

Andrew presented the EU’s current role in providing “Official Development Assistance” (ODA) to the developing world. (By definition, ODA must be provided by the official (government) sector, its main objective must be the promotion of economic development, and it must have a grant element of at least 25 per cent.) The UN has established a target for each developed country to provide 0.7 per cent of its GNP to ODA by 2015. A few countries (Sweden, Luxembourg) have already met that goal. The U.S. is currently at <0.2 per cent of GNP. With the current worldwide financial crisis, many countries are backing off their current commitments; however, the U.K. and the European Commission are bucking the trend and proposing to raise their contributions. Another way to “increase” ODA would be to broaden the categories that ODA can fund. (The U.S. contribution, for example, would be considerably higher if military aid were included.) Some have suggested that support for security sector reform, such as police forces, be included within the ODA categorization.

Another major change that is influencing the EU’s outlook on its contributions to ODA is the rise of the “BRICS” – the emerging market countries of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. BRICS are investing in Africa in a different way from the EU model of investing ODA in good government; over 37 per cent of Africa’s trade is now with BRICS countries. Much of the BRICS investment is in infrastructure, such as roads and transportation routes to access raw materials that the developing countries have.

A further complication is that the fragile and conflict states, countries which could benefit most from outside investment, are often the least well performing. “How do you spend money well?” in fragile states, Andrew asked.

Andrew presented the conclusions of a European Commission “Green Paper” on Developmental Policy, prepared in 2010. [http://ec.europa.eu/development/icenter/repository/GREEN_PAPER_COM_2010_629_POLITIQUE_DEVELOPPEMENT_EN.pdf] The goal of the paper was to launch a debate on how the EU can best support developing countries' efforts to speed up progress towards the Millennium Development Goals centering on four main objectives:
• how to ensure high EU impact development policy, so that every euro spent provides the best value added and value for money, the best leverage and the best legacy of opportunities for generations to come (Andrew noted that ensuring high impact requires measuring results, but cautioned that overemphasis on short-term results may lead to perverse outcomes);
• how to facilitate more, and more inclusive, growth in developing countries, as a means of reducing poverty and providing a chance for all to have a decent living and a perspective for their future;
• how to promote sustainable development as a driver for progress (but noted that blending loans from the private sector may lead to unsustainable debt); and
• how to achieve durable results in the area of agriculture and food security (without additional “new” money).

However, he also noted that this paper was prepared before the Arab Spring of 2011, which could have long-ranging effects, particularly on Northern Africa.

Andrew ended his talk with the title of his talk: Back to the Future. He asked where the EU might be going “back” to:
• The early 1990’s, focusing on sustainable development?
• The 1980’s, focusing on competition and the Cold War?
• The 1960’s, focusing on economic growth?
• The 1950’s, focusing on the political strategy of the Marshall plan?
Do you have any thoughts? Feel free to “comment” below.