We dig into the other half of USAID Administrator Samantha Power’s localization promise.
Also in today’s edition: Upheaval rocks one of the U.K.’s largest aid organizations, and why AI could be a development “job mine.”
Most of us know about USAID Administrator Samantha Power’s well-publicized vow to shift a quarter of the agency’s funding to local organizations by 2025.
But there’s a second, less-known but possibly more meaningful part of her localization pledge.
This is a preview of Newswire
Sign up to this newsletter for an inside look at the biggest stories in global development, in your inbox daily.
Power has also promised that by the end of the decade, half of USAID’s programs would “place local communities in the lead to either co-design a project, set priorities, drive implementation, or evaluate the impact of our programs.”
In other words, USAID would give real agency and decision-making power to locals. But first, it has to define what exactly that amorphous goal entails.
Enter the Locally Led Programs indicator, a framework of 14 “good practices” grouped into four categories. For a project to be considered locally led, it must adopt at least two of those practices, across two different categories.
Arguably, two out of 14 is not a whole lot. There are also questions about whether this will become a tick-the-box exercise that does little to reduce the burden of onerous approval and reporting requirements that act as a barrier to local organizations securing USAID contracts. To find out more, Devex Senior Reporter Michael Igoe talked to Sarah Rose, USAID’s special adviser on localization.
Read: Inside USAID's new 'locally led' indicator (Pro)
+ I talked about the locally led indicator, along with what else to expect in development in 2024, including U.S. elections, in the latest episode of the This Week in Development podcast. Join me as I speak with economist Stefan Dercon and Devex Editor-in-Chief Raj Kumar by listening to the episode.
One way to tell if USAID is living up to its promises is to delve into the nitty-gritty of who’s on the receiving end of contracts — something we regularly cover thanks to our data sleuth Miguel Antonio Tamonan.
And we have some interesting figures for fiscal 2023, a period in which USAID doled out $16.2 billion through grants and cooperative agreements. As always, there were winners and losers.
On the latter, The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and the World Food Programme altogether received $5 billion less than they got in 2022.
Our analysis also shows that a significant portion of the obligations — more than half — went to just 20 organizations.
Read: Who were USAID’s top grantees in 2023? (Pro)
+ Devex Pro members can read our expert analysis on USAID funding data and business forecasts. Not a Pro member yet? Start your 15-day free trial period and get access to all our exclusive events, insider insights, career resources, and more.
ActionAid, one of the United Kingdom’s largest international aid organizations, is hunting for its fourth chief executive (including one interim) in less than two years, following the surprise resignation of Halima Begum after just four months in the post.
The rapid turnover has shined a fresh spotlight on the charity’s recovery from a scathing internal audit that identified structural racism, prompting it to apologize to its staff members in January 2022.
Last July — before Begum was poached from the Runnymede Trust — ActionAid’s annual report acknowledged “slow” progress on its “anti-racism journey,” blaming “a significant turnover in both ActionAid UK’s Board and senior management team.”
Begum made clear that her departure to Oxfam, when she completes her notice period in March, is unconnected to the fallout from the race audit, saying she could not turn down a job at an organization that was “part of my childhood.” “When the offer came, it was very difficult to say no,” she told The Times.
Devex U.K. Correspondent Rob Merrick understands that staff members were disappointed to see the chief executive go, praising her “open door policy” that was contributing to ActionAid making the necessary changes, albeit more slowly than hoped.
The Charity Commission, the sector’s watchdog in the U.K., is taking a fresh look at ActionAid’s leadership, telling Devex: “We will assess the information available to determine whether there is a role for the Commission as regulator.”
It stressed this does not mean a formal inquiry has been launched, only that it is carrying out an assessment. The move was prompted by media reports about the upheavals, rather than any group or individual requesting an intervention.
+ For weekly updates on our industry's job moves, read the Weekender, a weekly newsletter of insider tidbits exclusively for Pro members. Join Devex Pro to get it in your inbox every Sunday.
The target for wealthy nations to spend 0.7% of gross national income on international aid is well known, but a separate benchmark — for 10% to go toward sexual and reproductive health and rights programs — is rather less so.
A Donor Funding Atlas, launched by a group of European Parliament members, charts how 30 donor countries are performing toward this “moral imperative.” The results show we’re nowhere near to meeting the targets although they’ve been around for two decades, Rob reports.
In fact, it would cost $69 billion a year to deliver all the unmet needs in low- and middle-income countries for contraception, maternal and newborn care, abortion services, and treatment for sexually transmitted infections, according to a 2020 study by the Guttmacher Institute.
That’s an extra $31 billion per year — and while an 83% increase sounds steep, the institute says it would amount to an increase of only $4.80 per person in low- and middle-income countries.
The European Parliamentary Forum for Sexual and Reproductive Rights says this means the cost of giving access to modern contraceptive care is the same as a cup of coffee — and that the wage bill run by the Real Madrid soccer team could prevent more than 3.1 million unsafe abortions.
Read: Which countries are good and bad at sexual and reproductive health aid?
Back to USAID, because there are a lot of exciting, though uncertain, evolutions underway that don’t all involve localization. Some relate to a technology we’re all trying to wrap our heads around: Artificial intelligence.
In an opinion article for Devex, Haneen Al-Rashid, a doctoral student at George Washington University who worked with USAID Jordan, outlines how the agency is integrating AI into its programs. “In health, for example, USAID used AI to optimize COVID-19 vaccine allocation, to predict bed occupancy at hospitals, and to forecast tuberculosis drug quantities,” she writes.
But she also warns of the downsides: “Data can be inaccurate (due to data entry errors), incomplete (due to lack of data entry), or simply not available (does not exist). Other related challenges manifest in the unwillingness to share data for reasons of privacy, private ownership, security, or authority, to list a few.”
But one counterintuitive plus that’s not often talked about? AI can be a “job mine,” Al-Rashid argues.
“While many fear they might lose their jobs to AI, this is not a major human resources concern in the development world. In fact, the AI ecosystem could be a job mine for certain economies once they are equipped with the proper skills.”
Opinion: AI in global development is more than just a set of tools
+ Pro members can get the most out of our coverage on how AI is getting integrated into globaldev work, including WFP’s and ICRC’s applications and explorations.
Three months into Israel’s conflict with Hamas, U.N. humanitarian chief Martin Griffiths described Gaza as “uninhabitable,” cautioning of an impending famine and an unfolding public health disaster. [AP News]
WFP plans to provide food for 270,000 Zimbabweans over the next three months amid an anticipated poor harvest due to an El Niño-induced drought. [Reuters]
U.K. Foreign Secretary David Cameron said hundreds of people promised resettlement in the U.K. are still stuck in Afghanistan more than two years after the Taliban takeover. [The Independent]
Sign up to Newswire for an inside look at the biggest stories in global development.