Opinion: Let USAID’s legacy live on through thoughtful NGO programming

The destruction of the U.S. Agency for International Development and reduced budgets by other traditional bilateral donors have provoked a reckoning in the broader development and philanthropic communities about how best to respond. The global development sector must take this crucial lesson forward: Sustainable development assistance requires strategic, government-backed approaches that build self-reliance, not well-meaning charity that creates dependency. Critics of USAID and other bilateral donors are right to call out unsuccessful projects and wasteful spending. In many instances, however, because foreign assistance has been a part of the U.S. government’s foreign policy apparatus, such initiatives are directed by the U.S. Congress or are administration priorities. As with other government development professionals, USAID staff are public servants who follow the directives of their country’s elected representatives, which are often contained in law. With the nongovernment community considering how to step up to the task of supporting sustainable development globally, it must now draw on the experience of decades of bilateral assistance programs. Here are key lessons I have learned from my 30-year career at USAID. Development as foreign policy tool Contrary to opinions appearing in various periodicals, including Devex, bilateral donors, including USAID, are not charities, vehicles for distributing reparations, or clandestine agents of colonialism. Rather, they are part of a nation's foreign policy architecture — in the case of USAID, a part of America's national security enterprise. Bilateral development assistance advances numerous foreign policy objectives, depending on context. In Egypt, for example, USAID for many years provided almost $1 billion in economic assistance annually as informal support for the Camp David Peace Treaty between Egypt and Israel. In Pakistan, a $2.5 billion USAID budget authorized by a 2009 law signed by then-President Barack Obama helped the country address its development challenges as its government promised to secure its border with Afghanistan. In Myanmar, legislation signed in 2022 by then-President Joe Biden supported opposition entities seeking to restore democracy and protect civilians against aerial and artillery attacks from a cruel military regime. Bilateral donors also provide humanitarian assistance, which is a reflection of values rather than more direct foreign policy imperatives. Bilateral donors are often in the lead on responding to crises affecting millions, whether natural or human-made. The response reflects the value placed on human life, no matter where it is threatened or the politics involved. “Development involves creating and strengthening institutions so that countries can lead their own development with dignity and purpose.” --— The self-reliance imperative But bilateral donors are also development players whose objective is to help countries help themselves rather than just handing out money to the needy. When I arrived in Morocco as the new USAID mission director in 2009, for example, the mission had already graduated its health program, as the Moroccan government successfully established a functioning and government-funded national health care system. Shortly after I arrived in South Africa as mission director in 2017, USAID ended a project with the University of South Africa whereby its Institute for African Renaissance Studies trained election officials and poll watchers throughout Africa on conducting democratic elections. The university was able to maintain the initiative on its own, without any donor support. In Egypt, USAID staff helped the Ministry of Justice to reform the country’s judicial system in 2003 by permitting women to become judges. These are examples of what successful development looks like. Localization done right Development involves creating and strengthening institutions so that countries can lead their own development with dignity and purpose. It is not disbursing funds to nongovernmental organizations because they are doing good deeds. I believe this is where the dichotomy lies with “localization”: directly funding local groups while promoting broader foreign policy goals. Funding local organizations directly without considering foreign policy and self-reliance objectives cannot be an end in itself. In South Africa, for example, $453 million of the U.S. government’s 2024 HIV/AIDS budget went directly to local organizations. These organizations had, over many years, developed the financial and programmatic capacity to manage donor funds and were filling gaps in the HIV/AIDS response not covered by the South African government’s program. Strengthening and funding these local organizations ensures the durability of the HIV/AIDS response and clears a path for the eventual exit of external donors. The corruption challenge Perhaps the largest failing of bilateral donors is their inability or unwillingness to tackle effectively what may be the biggest obstacles to development: corruption and nonadherence to the “Prime Directive” — guiding principles that include the ethical imperative to “do no harm” and to recognize that donors cannot be more committed to development than its host government recipient. All USAID bilateral programs are made pursuant to agreements with host governments that reflect the sovereignty and priorities of the host government. In my experience, the problem is that many do not follow through on these commitments to development. Donor government agencies and bureaus often act at cross purposes, with some seeking host government reform and action against corruption while others just aim for good bilateral relations. And too often, donors are more committed to program success than the host government, thus violating the prime directive. The result is suboptimal development programs. Economic growth investments cannot be successful in countries where the host government is not committed to an open business environment and the rule of law, for example. Haiti is a case in point. When I served as USAID mission director there from 2013-2015, I saw a government culture ambivalent about development, while its people had been turned into passive recipients of charity after years of misguided development priorities. What this means for NGOs Nongovernment groups play a vital role in development. Bilateral donors depend on them for collaboration and the implementation of their programs. I have long admired the courage and commitment of NGO staff members. With a decline in bilateral donor support, however, these groups will need to reexamine their priorities and their objectives. Learning from the successes and failures of bilateral donors will help NGOs better navigate a world in which development success is ever more uncertain. Building institutions, program durability, and eventual country self-reliance are key elements of a successful strategy, as is planning to confront the staggering corruption and economic mismanagement so pervasive in the developing world. USAID may be gone, but the need for development endures.