Blog

Another Step on the Path to Reform

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.

Millennium Development Goals: Only 5 years to go, are we on track?

With 5 years left to 2015, the target date for achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), is the world on track for achieving these goals?  Has the economic crisis in 2008 affected the progress? The good news is that though the global economic crisis has slowed progress, the world is still on track.  However, the 2010 progress report issued by the United Nations illustrated that success is uneven across the various goals.  While a number of goals are expected to be achieved, the UN still urges a major push forward by all international development partners to reach all of the goals.  UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon brought this key message to the G20 summit in Canada last month, urging world leaders to keep their promise and not to “balance budgets on the backs of the world’s poorest people.”  As a result of Mr. Ban’s urgent message, the next G20 summit in November 2010 will include development on the agenda for the first time.  Also, the UN MDGs summit will take place in two months in New York. A concrete action plan is expected to emerge to accelerate the realization of the commitments world leaders promised in 2000.

According to the 2010 UN Progress Report on the MDGs, goals in the following areas are expected to be reached with current trends:

• – Poverty reduction
• – Sustainable access to safe drinking water
• – Developing countries gaining greater access to the markets of developed countries

Some progress has been made in the areas below, but much more work needs to be done in order for these goals to be realized by 2015:

• – Universal primary education
• – Reducing child and maternal mortality
• – Stabilizing the spread of HIV and AIDS-related deaths
• – Malaria prevention and treatment
• – Forest conservation
• – Information and communications technology penetrating in the developing world

 If the world does not expedite progress in these areas, we may not reach these goals:

• – Ending hunger
• – Gender equality
• – Funding in family planning
• – Ensuring environmental sustainability
• – Increase in official development assistance

 All in all, in each of the target areas, extraordinary attention is demanded to eliminate the “stubborn gaps,” as described by Mr. Ban, between rich and poor, urban and rural, and men and women.

 To view the full version of the UN MDGs 2010 report, please click here.

Local Experts Weigh In On International Framework to Improve Development Effectiveness

by Danielle Ellingston and Linda Martin, Global Washington Volunteer

On June 11, Global Washington hosted one of 2 U.S. based consultations, as part of The Open Forum, an initiative driven by a global coalition of CSO’s, whose goal is “to define and promote the roles and effectiveness of the CSO sector in development, based on a shared framework of principles”.  The Seattle based consultation was one of hundreds of consultations occurring in over 50 countries by the end of 2010.   

Sixteen people attended the consultation, and provided insight and recommendations in three areas:  

1) Global Principles of CSO Development Effectiveness.
2) Best Practices and Methods for Implementing Principles.
3) The Enabling Environment for CSO Success.

What Defines a CSO?

The consultation kicked off with a discussion on the term, “CSO” which can be somewhat nebulous. The general consensus is that CSO is a broad umbrella term for organizations outside the government seeking to affect change in their society. Open Forum builds on this definition,”CSOs represent the engagement of people who have organized to promote human dignity and accompany people around the world in efforts to realize human rights and fundamental freedoms.”

Two recommendations which surfaced during this discussion include ensuring inclusion of the voices of local CSOs throughout the Open Forum process, whether they are formally recognized or informally constituted; and to more clearly delineate the roles of the Global North and Global South CSOs.

Principles of CSO Development Effectiveness.

Participants first reviewed a set of draft principles offered by InterAction, the organization coordinating the U.S. CSO response, before opening up the meeting to additional ideas for common principles. A lively dialogue followed, reflecting the group’s passion for inclusion, relationship building, and locally based leadership as keystones for successful CSO development efforts.

We offer the following 4 principles for consideration:

1.       Include local grassroots voices.
Allow local CSOs in developing countries a greater voice in the Open Forum, and in the design and application of development policies. These measures can help ensure long term, sustainable development solutions.

2.       Embody respect for local traditions and cultures.
Local people are the primary agents of change in their communities, not outside organizations. To develop culturally appropriate solutions, we must first learn about the existing conditions and forces – political, environmental, and familial – that created a need for assistance. Respect the local process for identifying needs, gathering information, implementing projects, and ensuring accountability.

3.       Consider impact on community and long-term relationships.
Increase the focus on long term project impact and outcomes. Aim to build relationships, trust, and leadership in a community, and not harm existing relationships or relationship structures.

4.       Build local capacity by letting locals lead.
Employ local people as the leaders of local projects whenever possible.  Include local voices at all stages of the development project life-cycle. 

 Implementing CSO Development Principles

1.       Be accountable by local standards.
Accountability measures must be informed by local norms. Define success well, using the local definitions of success. Increase grassroots participation and downward accountability in CSOs. Understand local assessment methods, and base monitoring and evaluation on those methods.

2.       Incorporate cultural capacity building training and ongoing coaching as a prerequisite for project planning and development, and monitoring and evaluation activities.

3.       Include relationship building goals and milestones, such as building trust, collaboration, and cross-sector and cross-issue solutions, as indicators of success.

 Standards Which Support an Enabling Environment for CSO Success.

1.       Increase donor responsiveness to local norms for accountability and data indicators, collection and use.
We believe donors need to do a better job of balancing the need to ensure funds are wisely spent, with increased sensitivity to the capacity of recipient organizations to provide such data. Data collection is often considered a resource drain on recipient organizations, and increases the administrative/overhead cost of running a project. Reporting requirements should not place an undue burden on recipient organizations.

Moreover, we encourage donors to consider local standards for accountability. Input from some consultation members suggests that funders collect too much data, with little explanation of what the data will be used for, and that decisions are sometimes made without using the data that was collected. We recommend that funding entities consider collecting less data, and using what is collected more thoughtfully.

We also encourage donors to be more transparent by sharing with recipients why certain indicators are chosen and how data will be used.

2.       Fund for long-term community development, with built in flexibility.
The funding process, from application to evaluation, should create incentives for programs that have a long-term positive impact on community and relationships.  We encourage programs which are nimble and responsive to the changing needs of communities, that offer greater flexibility in how funds are spent, and that are developed in partnership with local CSOs who have a hands on understanding of local conditions.  

Participants indicated that organizations are often hindered by donor funding schedules, preventing locals from addressing pressing needs. We recommend developing more responsive funding timelines which address time-sensitive needs, along with longer term programmatic support to help support sustainable outcomes.

3.       Support transparent and accountable hiring practices.
Ensure that CSO staff work in the interests of the organization’s mission; hire DSO staff on the basis of their qualifications.

4.       Be fair and inclusive.
Promote respect for local professionals and equality between north-south partners.

5.       Develop the cultural capacity of non-local DSCOs to help ensure effective use of resources. Increased cultural competency will help experts to work within local structures more effectively and with each other.

One of the most interesting ideas that came out of the discussion was the suggestion to move towards a resource or asset based development approach. CSOs would identify assets and resources available  to support development activity, along with capacity building programs to build local assets, essential for sustainability. Such an approach would take into account the resources and skills local and non-local CSOs bring to the table, making projects more geared to local capacity while facilitating an exchange of skills and ideas that would benefit both. Based on the assessment, capacity building programs can be put into place to build local assets, which are considered essential for sustainability. As one participant noted” Sharing power with the local leaders is integral to formulating an effective strategy in the field”.

Next Steps

InterAction is combining the recommendations from our Seattle consultation with the ideas that came out of the two-day consultation in Washington, DC, and will write a report based on the outcome.  They will present this report at the Open Forum Global Assembly in Istanbul, Turkey in September 2010.  Stay tuned for updates.  For further information, please refer to the links below.

The Open Forum
Interaction
2005 Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness
Accra Agenda for Action (AAA)