So I began by giving you an idea of what the picture of extreme poverty is like in places such as sub-Saharan Africa. Next I gave a brief history of our (largely futile) foreign assistance efforts, followed by a succinct explanation of why we must continue to come to the aid of those nations that are in need. There are two things preventing us from being successful in our attempts to do so: a lack of a clear mission for our foreign assistance agencies, and their lack of clout within government. Only by dealing with both problems effectively can foreign assistance be successful in achieving its desired goal.
The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, the foundational bill that merged together many different agencies and created USAID, is outdated and operates under the assumptions of the Cold War. Not surprisingly USAID lacks a clear mission and role in the 21st century as it has not shown the ability to adapt on its own. There is no clear focus, goal or priority driving the agency; by one count, the Foreign Assistance Acts actually list over 150 policy directives and goals. When an organization prioritizes everything, then nothing is a priority. Due to its broad mandate, the United States has been known to to fund a program to solve an issue every time one arises in a developing country.
Further, because Congress directs where funds should be spent, including earmarks tied to contractors in the US, very little money reaches the local people in greatest need of support. Pressure for short-term success in long-term missions has led to criticism, reductions in staff, funding and influence, as well as an increased role for competing programs and agencies such as the Millennium Challenge Corporation, President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, and even the Department of Defense. The Agency’s decreased stature and its subordinance to the State Department has left it with virtually zero ability to create and modify policy nor defend its budget requests.
Last year, Congress was introduced to H.R. 2139 and S. 1524. The former was introduced in the House in late 2009 and the latter was awaiting a floor vote in the Senate as of February, 2010. They amend, but do not replace, the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. Their primary components are:
*Adding a second Deputy Administrator to model the State Department
*Adding an Assistant Administrator for Policy and Strategic Planning to direct U.S. government policy on development issues, provide long-term planning and budget management, and conduct research, monitoring and evaluation (in a new office of Learning, Evaluation and Analysis in Development).
*Creating an independent Council on Research and Evaluation (CORE) in the executive branch to objectively evaluate the impact of all (multilateral and bilateral) foreign aid programs funded by the U.S.
*Mandating a strategic review of USAID human resources needs at headquarters and in the field, with help from a public-private task-force.
The primary issue with the bills before the House and the Senate is they do not legislatively re-define the 1961 Act but rather primarily order a task force to offer recommendations. Certainly they do create another Deputy for the Director, and it task both individuals with reorganizing their resources but it does not actually provide the resources that are necessary to solve the problems of ambiguity and clout. Marginally, the increased focus on research, learning and analysis would make USAID more influential in policy circles, based on the empirical studies and the sharing of information with other governments and organizations. In an ideal situation, the bills would lead to more effective policy, and thus more clout. Yet this is by no means a guarantee, and earmarks would still be a problem. The bill also includes provisions to rotate Foreign Service employees to increase interconnectedness. Both of these cause the bills to be strong under the “strengthen and coordinate criterion.” Their incremental nature, however, leaves me doubtful that they can ever solve both of the problems that I identified in a meaningful way.
Currently the Obama administration has a task force looking into this policy dilemma. It will be interesting to see what they come up with, as it seems that despite bipartisan support, a passing a comprehensive and smart bill originating in the House and Senate is asking for too much.
