• To provide strategic recommendations to strengthen transatlantic cooperation in development
• To support the creation of conditions for reform.

The taskforce recently launched a blog series to explore what it identifies as a major challenge to development: coordination among the three Ds.  The series is jointly written by former USAID Administrator Andrew Natsios and former chair of the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) Richard Manning.

In a new post, Natsios notes the “policy paralysis” in the development debate and argues for what will need to happen in Washington in order for development to be elevated alongside diplomacy and defense in a blog titled, “Development and Security: Can the United States overcome beltway disputes and elevate Development alongside Defense and Diplomacy?” He lists three decisions made by the Obama Administration that have weakened USAID, as well as Secretary Clinton’s decision to build on the architecture put in place by Secretary Rice at the State Department during the Bush Administration.  Most importantly, Natsios echoes MFAN’s Reform Within Reach call to action when he specifically urges the President to show leadership and create a strategy for U.S. development that will ensure the U.S. is an effective partner and leader in foreign assistance.  See excerpts from Natsios’ post below:

“In the absence of a clear, unified vision for U.S. foreign assistance – particularly long-term economic development – the United States will continue to be limited in its ability to lead and partner with Europe, other donors, and host-countries in addressing major global challenges – from global health to fragile states.”

“Absent direct, personal intervention by President Obama to define his own vision of aid reform and to take the actions needed to enforce the reforms, the stalemate will continue, and plans to strengthen the third D will suffer.  In the absence of a robust and institutionally independent foreign aid program underpinned by a strategy for U.S. foreign assistance, the United States will be unable to lead and strengthen global and transatlantic development partnerships, which are so critical to our success in spurring economic growth and poverty alleviation.”

Also see Richard Manning’s post for a European perspective on the issue.

To join MFAN’s effort to urge President Obama to show leadership on foreign assistance reform and strengthen the U.S. commitment to development, please sign our Open Letter to the President, which has already been endorsed by more than 70 organizations and prominent individuals.

CQ WEEKLY – IN FOCUS
July 19, 2010

Backers Say Time Is Ripe For Foreign Aid Overhaul

By Emily Cadei, CQ Staff

The earthquake that slammed Haiti in January also rocked the U.S. Agency for International Development and its brand-new administrator, Rajiv Shah, who were promptly assigned to head up the civilian U.S. response to the disaster. The experience of the next several months afterward was eye-opening and “helped me shape my agenda for reform for the agency writ large,” Shah said in a speech last month.

That agenda is packed, given the multitude of challenges facing USAID, an agency once viewed as the country’s lead repository for expertise on international development. But its role has declined over the past decade into what the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Democrat Howard L. Berman of California, describes as “somewhat of a contracting agency where money passes through without a creative and well-staffed process.”

Shah says the rapid mobilization of USAID after the quake demonstrated that much of that expertise, although often dormant, still exists. The Haiti response, he said in an interview, shows there are “so many different ways where this agency could be nimble, it could move quickly, it could be focused on results,” as opposed to “just getting money out the door.”

Development experts say that while Shah is moving ahead with a package of operational changes at USAID, both President Obama and Congress will ultimately need to weigh in to better delineate both the over-arching strategy and the chain of command for U.S. international development operations in the 21st century. While there is a broad consensus about the general changes that need to be made, many of the more controversial details still need to be decided, including how the authority gets divvied up among the government agencies involved.

Congress is driving the reassessment of development policy already under way with a series of legislative initiatives from Berman and the two leaders of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: Chairman John Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat, and top Republican Richard G. Lugar of Indiana. But before progressing further, these lawmakers and development officials are waiting for the White House to deliver its vision for development as a pillar of its foreign policy, as well as demonstrate the political leadership to implement that vision.

Backers of a foreign aid overhaul say they will need buy-in across parties, congressional chambers and branches of government. These development boosters say that Obama elevating the role of foreign aid in places such as Afghanistan, combined with a group of allies in important positions — including Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and top Senate and House leaders — makes the next 18 months a rare window of opportunity to reconfigure the architecture for international development to an extent not seen in half a century, since Cold War foreign aid policies were set by the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. If they don’t succeed, backers of an overhaul worry that it could be another 50 years before they get as good a shot.

Beyond the Crisis

A disaster like the quake in Haiti “plays to AID’s strength, because it has a very strong, positive history in responding to humanitarian emergencies,” says George Ingram, a former deputy assistant administrator at the agency who’s now co-chairman of the Modernizing Foreign Assistance Network, a coalition put together two years ago to advocate for aid changes.

“What doesn’t get attention is those 50 to 60 countries that are relatively stable, not-so-well- or moderately well-performing, and are really the countries that are struggling for how to do development better,” Ingram says. “That’s sort of the day-to-day meat and potatoes of USAID.” The challenge, he says, is to put in place a structure that lifts some of the stifling bureaucracy and allows USAID “to do what Shah wants to do — be more creative, be more responsive, be more analytical, engage your local stakeholders more.”

Shah, who before joining the Obama administration spent seven years working on global economic development for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, expressed the desire to introduce “some of the flexibility we have in our humanitarian relief operations,” such as in Haiti, more broadly across the organization. “I would like to replicate that capability throughout our agency,” he says.

Flexibility is exactly what Berman is hoping to achieve with a rewrite of foreign aid policy that he and his committee staff have been working on for the past two years. After a series of meetings and discussions with lawmakers, government officials and representatives of nonprofit aid organizations, Berman unveiled an initial draft this month. If Democrats hold the House this fall, he hopes to win passage of the legislation next year.

Drafters are hoping to write a bill that, in the words of one Berman committee aide not authorized to speak about the matter, would embody “a new grand bargain” of “accountability in exchange for flexibility.” The president would have to provide more detailed information about his international development plans and set ways to measure their results, the aide says, and in exchange Congress would “lighten up on the very specific directives and earmarks.”

The trick will be in getting all involved — lawmakers, the White House, the State Department and the non-governmental organizations — to endorse that system. Of course, the legislation would have some specific mechanisms for limiting congressional earmarks for specific projects — by creating, for example, accounts that would be reserved for certain countries or types of aid, such as for farmers or HIV/AIDS eradication.

But mostly, the drafters are hoping an overhaul of the system will by itself reduce the inclination to earmark. “When you have a coherent, intelligent process, where there is a rational examination by the agency, a rational process of determining some national priorities and a built-in flexibility to allow a significant amount of resources to be shaped by the mission and the country,” says Berman, “I think the temptation to do this becomes less.”

Forging Consensus

Such a grand bargain would also require an unprecedented level of coordination between the executive branch and Congress. “The biggest thing that needs fixing is to get the Congress and the administration maybe not on the same page but on the same playing field,” instead of everybody “going at it in their own little way,” says Ingram.

The Obama administration is in the midst of two major policy reviews — the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review being run by the State Department, and a National Security Council review of foreign aid, both of which have dragged on longer than initially intended.

The administration kick-started the reviews last year after Berman wrote language into the State Department reauthorization bill that would mandate the processes. The bill quickly stalled in the Senate after passing in the House, but it’s clear that “Congress got this process going,” says David Beckmann, president of the anti-hunger advocacy group Bread for the World, and Ingram’s co-chairman at MFAN.

Until both policy reviews are complete — likely by early fall — the administration has declined to provide any formal feedback to Congress’ activities to overhaul the foreign aid process. But development experts are starting to get restive, with several former USAID administrators issuing calls in the past few days for faster action.

One thing they would like to see the president outline is an over-arching rationale for American foreign assistance programs. “Only the president can clarify the mission,” says Gregory Adams, aid effectiveness director at the global humanitarian group Oxfam. Obama, he says, needs “to define what we are going to do and what we’re not going to do and how we make choices about that.” The legislation from Congress, Adams says, can then provide “the statutory framework to support that.”

The same groups of people are also looking for the president to take a stand on the long-running debate over the relationship between the State Department and USAID. During George W. Bush’s presidency, the aid agency was effectively subsumed more deeply under State. But for years, there has been a debate over how much autonomy USAID should have — something that has played out most recently over Caribbean earthquake relief.

“The Haiti response has made clear a lot of the divisions going on between State and USAID over who should be in charge and what should happen,” one senior congressional aide says. This split in authority was evident in something as simple as the State Department’s briefing last week on the six-month anniversary of the quake. Cheryl Mills, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s chief of staff and lead counselor on issues surrounding Haiti, fielded questions while Shah played backup.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee was so concerned about the lack of a clear government head of the Haiti rebuilding effort that it proposed, as part of a relief measure it approved in May, establishing a new coordinator position under Clinton to oversee the government’s policies.

Clinton’s involvement in development, as well as that of some of her key deputies — including Jacob J. Lew, her deputy secretary for management who was tapped last week to become White House budget director — is lauded by many development boosters, but it has added heat to the turf battle still playing out.

State has already signaled its displeasure with part of Berman’s plan. An internal department e-mail, sent earlier this month to solicit comments on the chairman’s draft, noted it would create a development policy committee that included the secretary of State “only as a co-equal member as opposed to placing her as the lead, as had been earlier requested.” Other provisions “do not vest authorities in the secretary, as had been requested for comparable provisions.”

Berman has held off taking an explicit position on just how the relationship between State and USAID should break down. But, he says, “As a general principle I want to elevate the role of development, and therefore I want to elevate the role of AID.”

Clinton, he acknowledged, is “a big friend and big booster of development,” but to make the changes enduring, “you can’t make decisions based on any one person that is in any one position at a given time.”

FOR FURTHER READING (Note: a subscription to CQ is require to access additional reading.): Lew, p. 1759; fiscal 2011 foreign aid spending, CQ Weekly, pp. 1629, 1274; State Department reauthorization (HR 2410), p. 44; fiscal 2010 foreign aid spending (PL 111-117), p. 28; background, 2009 CQ Weekly, p. 1303; Foreign Assistance Act (PL 87-195), 1961 Almanac, p. 293. The Senate Foreign relations’ Haiti relief bill is S 3317 .

June 28, 2010 (WASHINGTON) – This statement is delivered on behalf of the Modernizing Foreign Assistance Network (MFAN) by Co-Chairs David Beckmann and George Ingram:

MFAN commends President Obama for showing leadership on development with his statement at the G8 Summit in Muskoko.  We continue to strongly support the Administration’s efforts to elevate and institutionalize the idea, most recently articulated in the National Security Strategy, that fighting global poverty is a “moral, strategic, and economic imperative for the United States,” as well as a key component of our “comprehensive, integrated” foreign policy in a world of complex challenges.

We eagerly await the impending release of the development policy directive highlighted in the G8 statement, and we support the general themes of growth, innovation, partnership, and accountability that were affirmed in the document.  We are particularly hopeful that the directive will answer a critical question that has not yet been addressed by the Administration: How will the U.S. foreign assistance system be modernized to institutionalize the importance of development, make U.S. assistance more responsive to local priorities, and deliver transformative results for the poor people we are trying to help?

In conjunction with the release of the directive, we call on the Administration to take three important steps to catalyze and strengthen the reform process:

• Fill the senior leadership void at the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), which currently lacks the full complement of Deputy Administrators and Assistant Administrators needed to effectively execute the Administration’s new approach;

• Prepare America’s first-ever Global Development Strategy ahead of the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) Summit in September, in order to set a strategic foundation for U.S. development efforts and deliver on the President’s pledge to announce “a plan” for how the U.S. will contribute to eradicating extreme poverty by the MDG deadline in 2015; and

• Announce now that the Administration will work with Congress to modernize foreign assistance in a durable way, including by rewriting the antiquated Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.

We look forward to continuing to work with the Administration and Congress to make U.S. foreign assistance more effective in support of global development and poverty reduction.

For details on the amendments to the authorization bill follow this link.  To read more about how the authorization bill’s new provisions for the MCC relate to reform, read CGD’s Rethinking U.S. Foreign Assistance blog.

Chairman John Kerry (D-MA) opened the hearing by calling food insecurity “a challenge to our broader development efforts” as well as a challenge to our national security.  He also referenced the proposed $4 billion cut in international affairs spending in the budget resolution passed out of the Senate Budget Committee, saying, “Even in a tough budget environment, short-changing programs like these, in our judgment, will deliver little budget relief at enormous negative consequence to our global efforts… And it seems to me that it is wrong, and we will fight against any efforts to reduce the president’s request for a small increase, which is essential to the transformation of our foreign policy efforts and frankly to the recalibration of the allocation of resources between defense and diplomacy and humanitarian efforts.”

In his opening remarks, Ranking Member Richard Lugar (R-IN) promoted legislation he introduced with Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA), the Global Food Security Act (S.384), and noted how the bill and the GHFSI both “focus on increasing agricultural productivity and incomes, promoting research and technology, being attentive to the special role of women farmers and emphasizing the nutritional needs of children.”  They would also develop partnerships with host-country governments, indigenous organizations, institutions of higher learning and the private sector.  Sen. Lugar plans to unveil a new bill in the coming weeks that represents a consensus among the administration, House and Senate sponsors and nongovernmental partners.

In his testimony, Lew reiterated the six points that define Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s vision for development, of which the food security initiative is a manifestation: 1) concentrating our work in specific sectors where the U.S. has a comparative advantage; 2) aligning diplomatic and development efforts; 3) adopting a whole-of-government approach; 4) leveraging partnerships, including those with multilateral institutions, foundations, NGOs, the private sector, and other donors; 5) placing women and girls at the heart of the initiative; and 6) focusing on results and on progress that can be sustained over time.  “We seek to balance, align, and leverage these three Ds as we pursue our national objectives in accordance with our fundamental values,” said Lew. “This is a core characteristic of smart power and a guiding principle of our work around the world.”

Shah followed with remarks about USAID’s role in implementing the initiative:

“First, we are advancing a strategic and robust research agenda that promotes innovation in science and technology. Second, we are supporting entrepreneurial, market-based approaches to agricultural growth; and third, we are making targeted investments to meet the unique needs of women who make up the majority of the farming labor in our countries of focus.”

He highlighted the importance of gender equality given that 70 percent of African farmers are female.  He also talked about operational and strategic challenges, and said that “the programs of USAID will only be effective if aligned with other donors and, importantly, with the broader work of the U.S. Government in each of our countries.”  He went on to call for cooperation and coordination across agencies, including a streamlined process for reporting on collective progress. Shah made a plea to Congress, asking for their “commitment to having an outcomes- and learning-driven foreign aid agenda” that includes the allocation of future funding based on progress. “Such an outcomes-oriented approach requires us to be nimble in our funding – advancing funds where progress is great and being bold in reprogramming funding where countries’ commitment to change is not there,” he said.

During the questioning, Sen. Casey asked about interagency coordination, to which Lew responded that since developing countries are often limited in capacity at the governmental levels, “we owe it to them to be able to do the coordination and to have the capacity ourselves to go to them with a coherent program where the different pieces fit together.”  Lew went on to say, “…you have our firmest commitment from the executive branch that we don’t consider whole of government to be just a rhetorical phrase; it’s a philosophy of how to get the job done.”

Sen. Lugar followed with a question about who would be leading the coordination process for the GHFSI within a whole-of-government framework. Lew replied that on a day-to-day basis, the initiative will be led by the two recently installed deputy coordinators—Ambassador Patricia Haslach, deputy coordinator for diplomacy, and Ambassador William Garvelink, deputy coordinator for development.

In response to a question from Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) regarding building capacity at USAID, Shah listed four major operational reforms he is prioritizing this year: 1) rebuilding the agency’s policy and budget capabilities “so that we can exercise thought leadership and organize our own thinking and speak with one voice and do that in a coordinated way;” 2) procurement reform; 3) expanding certain technical expertise; and 4) increasing monitoring, evaluation and transparency.

Sen. Menendez also inquired about the status of the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR), and Lew answered that the QDDR is part of an overall effort that includes the White House Presidential Study Directive on U.S. Global Development Policy and the National Security Strategy.  He also said they expect to brief Congress in detail on the review’s findings within weeks.  “What we’ve done up ‘til now is identifying target areas of opportunity, the kinds of issues we should drill more deeply into, different kinds of considerations that we should make in terms of choosing — we can’t take on every challenge that’s ahead of us,” added Lew.  “But the core issue that we’re dealing with is how do we have the capabilities at the State Department and USAID to address the challenges that we face over the next number of years.  I think we’ve made a lot of progress defining what the tradeoffs are.  We’ll have to make more progress between now and when we have final review, and having your input during that process will be very helpful.”

On the second panel of experts were the co-chairs of the Agriculture Task Force at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, former Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman and former Executive Director of the World Food Programme Catherine Bertini.  Both forcefully called for USAID to lead the GHFSI and be given an independent relationship with the White House Office of Management and Budget, with with Bertini stating, “…we are unanimous and very strong in the view that USAID should be strengthened and supported as the lead institution in order to advance U.S. global food security initiative, and therefore, it needs to be not only given the resources but the flexibility in an effort to be able to achieve that.”  Glickman added, “…in this case, in my judgment, to be successful there’s got to be somebody, someplace clearly in charge.”

Bertini closed with a strong testimonial for USAID and Administrator Shah:

“…when I was with the World Food Programme and spent much of 10 years traveling in the developing world, I was able to see USAID up close in many, many countries. And I could see the depth of their knowledge and their leadership in the aid community beyond representing the U.S. but also leadership among the other bilateral aid agencies.  And they were very, very important as advisers to us in the international organizations.  But today, when we sit here, we constantly hear both publicly and privately, even from the strongest defenders and supporters of AID, hear about their weaknesses.  And we can see what’s happened over time.  They’ve been micromanaged by Congress and by various administrations.  They have lots of earmarks about what they have to do that cuts back on their flexibility.  They no longer have a relationship with — a direct budget relationship — with OMB.  And they have outsourced so much of their work that it’s hard to manage all these other entities that are even part of the U.S. government.  So there are a lot of things at USAID that needs to be fixed or else we’re going to sit here two years from now still talking about how AID needs to be strengthened.  It has, as you have pointed out now, a terrific new administrator.  Dr. Shah and I worked together closely at the Gates Foundation.  In fact, he brought me in there.  And I know how brilliant he is and what a good strategist he is and how goal-oriented he is.  And that alone can be tremendously useful for the U.S. government in his role at AID, but he needs support.  He needs senior political people nominated and confirmed.  He needs some budget authority.  He needs to have — as my colleague, Dan, was saying, he needs to be in charge and to be respected as being in charge in terms of how the rest of the operation — Congress should let up from a lot of the telling you what to do things that they do with AID.  So he needs space and flexibility. He has the talent, but he needs all of us to be supporting AID in ways that haven’t been done before or, at least, not in the recent past.”

U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) Administrator Rajiv Shah testified earlier this week before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on State and Foreign Operations on the FY2011 Budget request for USAID.   In his opening remarks, Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) expressed his appreciation for Shah’s leadership at the beleaguered agency, which he characterized as a “formidable task.”  He continued, “USAID is in urgent need of reform… I don’t think USAID is living up to its potential.”  He went on to say, “I think that USAID has to change its culture, change the way it does business if it wants the kind of money that you’re here legitimately asking for… in this committee, in the Senate, Republicans and Democrats, you will not find stronger supporters of your mission among the men and women on this committee anywhere else in the Senate.  We want nothing more for you to tell us how you can change.”

Shah began his remarks by noting the “once-in-a-lifetime or a once-in-a-generation type of opportunity” we face on foreign assistance reform, saying, “the president, the secretary, members of this committee, yourself, members of Congress have all called for a more effective, a more transparent, and a more capable development enterprise.”  Shah listed specific areas that need reform at the agency:

“Before the end of this month, we hope to roll out a new policy-planning, evaluation and budget capability at AID that will allow us to be more accountable and make smarter decisions and real resource trade-offs so that we’re not just chasing every need in an environment where needs are endless…In June, I hope to launch a series of procurement reforms… And we will take that further in having really specific, detailed guidelines for procurement reform that are fundamentally based on the premise that we should be doing much more work in-house, especially related to program design and oversight.  And, finally, we will focus on H.R. and evaluation in a very substantive way over the course of the summer and the fall.”

During the Q&A, Chairman Leahy asked Shah about the number of positions still vacant at USAID, to which Shah replied they are waiting on 62 names recently submitted to the White House.   “Of the Senate-confirmed,” said Shah, “roughly half of them are through an initial vetting process, but that only gets concluded when the White House, of course, announces the formal appointments.”

Shah also spoke about Haiti and how the team there had an ongoing dialogue about what was working and what was not working – allowing them to be flexible in their policy.  Ranking Member Judd Gregg (R-NH) asked how, given the difficult budget environment, resources will match up to numerous programs to ensure effectiveness; Shah noted that USAID is looking to sharpen its focus, “especially country-by-country narrowing the number of sectors we might work in so that in each of those sectors we can build real technical excellence, stay committed for five or 10 years, and see the kind of big, transformative outcomes we hope to see.”

Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) brought up the issue of coordination at USAID – internally and among partners and multilateral organizations, particularly in Haiti.  Shah mentioned how the small grant awarded to MFAN partner InterAction to serve as a hub for coordinating NGOs working on disaster relief “was a good first step and it made a big difference…and it gave us someone to engage with when we wanted to address the NGO community specifically.”

In response to a question from Chairman Leahy on whether USAID should follow the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) model with respect to meeting certain criteria in order to receive U.S. aid, Shah said, “I think in general efforts to have long-term effective sustainable development that’s broad enough that it reaches a large percentage of a population in-country does require some significant degree of country ownership.”  He went on to discuss similarities between the MCC model and what he believes is the Administration’s new perspective on assistance:  “…country ownership is a precondition to long-term success.”

Chairman Leahy closed by reiterating to Administrator Shah his support for the mission of USAID:

“I hope you understand when I ask these questions I think that you are and will be an inspiration to the people at USAID.  There are some superb men and women working at USAID.  There are many who worry about the mission being overwhelmed by bureaucracy.  They want you to give them the direction.  They want to break through. They want to do the things that inspired them to come to USAID in the first place.  And so we’re putting in your lap years and years and years of neglect and problems and saying please fix it…”

Watch the full hearing here.

What are your views on the current state of USAID?  How much reform is needed, and where?  Post your comments below!

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-MA), along with Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Benjamin L. Cardin (D-MD), yesterday introduced legislation to address the challenges of urbanization in developing countries and expand existing U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) efforts to craft better strategies for sustainable urban development.

The Sustainable Urban Development Act of 2010 (S. 3229) seeks to deal with unprecedented growth from enlarging slums, increasing levels of pollution, overburdened transport systems, and the lack of affordable housing.  The bill would direct the USAID Administrator to: 1) develop a strategy to foster sustainable urban development; 2) consider establishing a senior advisor for urban development; and 3) establish a pilot urban strategies initiative that will help a select number of cities create a policy framework for future growth and development.

“We all recognize that the 21^st century is the century of the city.  There is an explosion of urban growth around the globe – already the majority of the world’s population lives in urban areas, with approximately one billion people residing in slums.  The phenomenon of urbanization will be ignored at our own peril.  Responsible citizens of the world must consciously harness their creativity and ingenuity to increase the livability, economic viability, and environmental sustainability of our cities,” said Chairman Kerry.

“For the first time in recorded history, the majority of the world’s population lives in cities,” said Senator Durbin. “Rural flight strains cities’ ability to provide clean water and sanitation, safe housing and basic infrastructure.  This bill will put an emphasis on smart growth that will ensure that today’s cities not only meet the basic human needs of their residents, but also become the economic and cultural hubs of the future.”

“Half of all the world’s poor live in cities and town.  To tackle the growing poverty at the root of this problem, we must pursue solutions that increase the sustainable capacity of local and national actors, boost cooperation between stakeholders and focus on the needs of those most affected, particularly women,” said Senator Cardin, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations International Development and Foreign Assistance Subcommittee.

MFAN partners International Housing Coalition (IHC), Habitat for Humanity, and InterAction all hailed the introduction of the Sustainable Urban Development Act.

Peter Kimm, Chairman of the IHC Board, said, “This legislation represents a milestone in the thinking about current foreign assistance. This legislation would be an important first step toward ensuring access to basic shelter and affordable housing, particularly by residents of slums, informal settlements and impoverished urban areas.”

Jonathan Reckford, CEO of Habitat for Humanity, said, “This important and timely legislation will act as a crucial vehicle for supporting sustainable solutions to expand access to basic shelter and affordable housing.  Additionally, the bill’s focus on security of tenure, access to basic services, and other essential programs will ensure a more holistic and effective approach to U.S. development assistance.”

Samuel A. Worthington, MFAN Principal and InterAction’s President and CEO, states, “Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) recognize the overall strategic importance of urban issues in the 21st century.  We are particularly concerned about the plight of the urban poor and the rate at which urban poverty is accelerating.  Meeting today’s urban challenges will require a focus on the causes and effects of poverty, including housing, governance and livelihoods, and the engagement of all stakeholders, including the urban poor, in order to achieve more equitable, inclusive and prosperous cities around the globe.”

The ONE Campaign — another MFAN partner — recently launched a grassroots campaign urging senators to support the International Affairs Budget.  Read the letter of support and fill in the form here to find your elected official.   Below is a list of senators who have already signed on to the bipartisan letter:

Senator John Kerry
Senator Richard Lugar
Senator Dick Durbin
Senator George Voinovich
Senator Dianne Feinstein
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse
Senator Robert Menendez
Senator Patrick Leahy
Senator Jeff Bingaman
Senator Joe Lieberman
Senator Carl Levin
Senator Al Franken
Senator Ben Cardin
Senator Ron Wyden
Senator Sherrod Brown

Because the International Affairs Budget affects foreign assistance reform efforts down the road, be sure to help out all of MFAN’s Partners during the budget season.

In a new report – “Capacity for Change: Reforming U.S. Assistance Efforts in Poor and Fragile Countries” – by co-authors Noam Unger (Fellow, Global Economy and Development, Brookings Institution and MFAN Principal), Margaret Taylor (Council on Foreign Relations International Affairs Fellow with the Center for Strategic and International Studies Post-Conflict Reconstruction Project), and Frederick Barton (former co-director of the CSIS Post-Conflict Reconstruction Project), policymakers are presented with key recommendations to inform a coherent and effective national approach to both stabilization and broader development.

As the Obama administration moves through two strategic reviews – the Presidential Study Directive on U.S. Global Development Policy and the State Department’s first-ever Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review – the report concludes that “there is a stunningly broad consensus that improvement is needed across the board” on how the U.S. government provides foreign aid.  The report also predicts that “new presidential decisions and policies are expected” from the administration this spring on key questions around foreign assistance and the elevation of development as a strong pillar of U.S. foreign policy.

The authors go on to argue that “it is a critical national security priority to develop effective strategies and strengthen the civilian capacity of the U.S. government to better assist poor and fragile countries.”  This includes high-priority conflict zones such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and Yemen, as well as nations ranging from Haiti to Sudan, and Chad to Vietnam.

The report is also critical of the return on investment of donor efforts, including the U.S., in poor and fragile countries.  In particular, it highlights the lack of a National Strategy for Global Development and how “this nonstrategic approach has resulted in a lack of capabilities to effectively direct and implement assistance.”

First, on developing an effective strategy, the report recommends that the U.S. government:

• Pursue selective bilateral engagement, balanced with leveraged multilateral engagement;
• Pursue specialization and a division of labor among partners in development; and
• Establish a National Strategy for Global Development and ensure close alignment between its recommendations and successive Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Reviews.

Second, on interagency balance and structural changes, it recommends that the U.S. government:

• Adopt a unified security budgeting process and increase funding for the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID);
• Elevate and empower USAID, beginning with the amendment of PPD-1;
• Divide up and reassign the functions of the Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization, with interagency coordination responsibilities housed at the National Security Council; and
• Craft a civilian-military road map for transferring assistance authorities and responsibilities to civilian agency control.

Finally, on institutional changes, it recommends that the U.S. government:

• Build up the cadre of technical experts in partnerships and the design, management, monitoring, and evaluation of projects and programs;
• Develop robust policy planning capacities at both the State Department and USAID;
• Prioritize training on assistance issues and preparation to perform assistance functions; and
• Transform the executive branch’s congressional relations and public communication on assistance issues.

To read the full report, click here.

The President’s FY11 International Affairs Budget request represents only 1.4% of the entire federal budget and less than 7% of national security funding.    Knowing the great need that exists for more funding for development and diplomacy, the military leaders close their letter saying, “we urge you to support no less than the Administration’s request of $58.5 billion for the International Affairs Budget.”

The Modernizing Foreign Assistance Network, of which USGLC is a member, identifies increased funding and accountability of foreign assistance as a priority action in “New Day, New Way: U.S. Foreign Assistance for the 21st Century.”

Click here to view the letter.