U.S. Foreign Assistance Dashboard

At the end of 2010, the U.S. government launched a website that helps examine, search, and track U.S. foreign aid investments across countries and sectors.

The “Foreign Assistance Dashboard" (click here) allows various development stakeholders explore and visualize data on U.S. foreign aid programs. The website allows for comparison of investments across aid-recipient nations, sectors, U.S. aid initiatives and year of investments. The Dashboard has already posted the OCO funding request of the State Department and USAID for fiscal 2012, as well as the U.S. government’s total OCO costs.

In an effort to provide more transparency, the online aid tool has been updated, and it now features explanations for overseas contingency operations.

According to State officials, future versions of the website will cover budget, financial and program data from all U.S. government agencies implementing foreign assistance. The dashboard currently includes the budget and appropriations data of the State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development.

Aid-related investments of the Department of Defense, Peace Corps, Millennium Challenge Corp., Department of Agriculture, Department of Treasury, Department of Labor and Export-Import Bank of the U.S. are eyed to be included in the new platform.

The State Department is welcoming feedback from the aid community on the new website. Comments can be submitted via the “Contact Us” section.

1st Quarter Update

This is an update on committee progress prior to the ISPI conference next month.  It has been a relatively quiet since the new year, but there has been movement in several areas:

Research -  This effort is off to a good start with Jessica Morse (an intern through George Washington University under the direction of Ryan Watkins) having created a reporting template.  She has started analysis of publicly available reports.  Ryan has indicated that another grant has been submitted for two more interns.  If successful, this will allow for another graduate student to analyze reports and one to work on constructing a search-able online database.

Journal Issue -  It has been suggested that the IDEAS committee work with the Performance Improvement Journal editor to organize an issue focused directly on international development successes and challenges.   If approved, this would likely include 6 – 8 articles drawn from both committee members and other interested authors.  Lead time is close to a year on this (publication next Spring).  To move forward we need to have a “guest editor” to manage the process and also insure that we have interested authors to write up the paper.  PLEASE CONTACT ME IF YOU HAVE AN INTEREST TO TAKE ON THE ROLE OF EDITOR FOR THIS or would like to submit a paper.

Orlando Conference Meeting -  For those of you coming to the ISPI conference in Orlando, I think it will be useful to find a time to meet during the event.  Make I ask you to please RSVP back to me if you will be at the conference – if no RSVP I will assume you will not be there.  Meanwhile, I will take a look at the schedule and try to find a time/place for an hour meeting.  

Chairperson Transition -  After 2 years leading the task force and committee start-up, I am handing the Chair over to Jim Ellsworth (with Board approval) to take on the 2011-2012 cycle.  Jim is looking for a deputy to help move things forward.  Please contact us if you have a potential interest in this role that could lead to the Chair position in the future.

In summary, I request three actions in response to this update:

 

*  Please indicate whether you would have an interest either to be an editor or contribute an article for a PIJ special issue.

 

*  Please contact Jim or me if you would like to move into the role of the Deputy Chair.

 

*  Please RSVP to me if you are attending the Orlando conference.

All the best to everyone.  Thanks for the wonderful support the past year as we have gotten this off the ground.  Mari

IDEAS Annual Report 2010 - 2011

TO: ISPI Board of Directors

Committee Name: IDEAS Influencing Donor Effectiveness

Chair: M Mari Novak

Deputy Chair: James Ellsworth

Committee Members:

• Brown, Matt

• Carew, Kevin

• Carr, Wendy

• Chevalier, Roger

• Coughlin, Patrick

• Duffy, Andrew

• Fickling, Susan

• Held, Larry

• Hill, Jim

• Honeyman, Steven

• Kelly, Steven

• Mayerchak, Martin

• Morse, Jessica (intern)

• Schwartz, George

• Spilka, Samantha

• Watkins, Ryan

• West-Meier, Maurya

• Wittkuhn, Klaus

Mission/Charter:

The ISPI board is promoting growth and expansion in the

International arena. The focus of the committee is to develop focus society energies to educate and influence the use of HPT among the government and NGO agencies involved in transitioning society development. This will include:

1. Position PI as a preferred methodology for achieving improvement of multilevel results and sustainability in global international development efforts.

2. Research and publicize PI effectiveness and success in the international development context and environment.

3. Engage donor agencies HQ and field leadership in using ISPI member expertise in designing and implementing programs.

4. Increase numbers of aid/development professionals (worldwide) as ISPI members and CPTs.

5. Develop ISPI and member capabilities in delivering PI results in developing and transitioning societies.

6. Market ISPI services in donor organizations and clients in HPT/HICD projects.

Summary of Accomplishments:

• Transition of TF into standing committee
• Expansion of committee to 20 people from 5
• Formation and action within 4 task areas
• Donor Agency HPT Value White Paper drafted
• Research agenda and plan completed / started
• Intern assigned (grant through George Washington University) and started on research
• Analysis of value of specialized certification started (ongoing)
• List of primary donor agencies / contacts started
• Introductory meetings with USAID management held
• IDEAS blog created and maintained (60 posts and reference sources)

Future Challenges:

• Fulfilling the research agenda (interns and volunteers)
• Finding entry points to agencies and educating key decision-makers (further identifying key donor staff)
• Integrating the research findings into the overall ISPI research program and portal

New Congressional Research Report on US Foreign Aid

Foreign Aid: an Intro to US Programs & Policy (link here)

Summary Extract

Foreign assistance is a fundamental component of the international affairs budget and is viewed by many as an essential instrument of U.S. foreign policy. Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, foreign aid has increasingly been associated with national security policy. U.S. foreign aid policy has developed around three primary rationales: national security, commercial interests, and humanitarian concerns. 

These broad rationales are the basis for the myriad objectives of U.S. assistance, including promoting economic growth, reducing poverty, improving governance, expanding access to health care and education, promoting stability in conflictive regions, promoting human rights, strengthening allies, and curbing illicit drug production and trafficking.

In FY2010, U.S. foreign assistance totaled $39.4 billion, or 1.1% of total budget authority. In real terms, this was the highest level of U.S. foreign assistance since 1985. The U.S. Agency for International Development and the State Department, the primary administrators of U.S. foreign assistance, provided $10.38 billion in security-related assistance; $10.93 billion for health, education, and social welfare programs; $3.64 billion for governance programs; $5.21 for economic growth activities; and $4.98 in humanitarian assistance. Assistance can take the form of cash transfers, equipment and commodities, infrastructure, or technical assistance, and, in recent decades, is provided almost exclusively on a grant rather than loan basis.

Key foreign assistance trends in the past decade include growth in development and humanitarian aid, particularly global health programs, and, in the wake of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, increased security assistance directed toward U.S. allies in the anti-terrorism effort. 

In FY2010, Afghanistan, Israel, Pakistan, Egypt, and Haiti were the top recipients of U.S. aid, reflecting long-standing aid commitments to Israel and Egypt, the strategic significance of Afghanistan and Pakistan, and emergency earthquake-related assistance to Haiti. Africa is the top recipient region of U.S. aid, at 29%, with the Near East and South and Central Asia each receiving 26%.

This is a significant shift from FY2000, when the Near East received 60% of U.S. aid, and reflects significant increases in HIV/AIDS-related programs concentrated in Africa and the expansion of security assistance to Afghanistan and Pakistan. 

Other notable trends since FY2000 include the increasing role of the Department of Defense in foreign assistance and aid targeted at countries that have demonstrated a commitment to good governance, exemplified by the creation of the Millennium Challenge Corporation.

This report provides an overview of the U.S. foreign assistance program by answering frequently asked questions on the subject. It is intended to provide a broad view of foreign assistance over time, and will be updated periodically. For more current information on foreign aid funding levels, see CRS reports on State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs appropriations.

Conference on Program Evaluation

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE FOURTH ANNUAL CONFERENCE

ON PROGRAM EVALUATION

“DIPLOMACY, DEVELOPMENT, AND DEFENSE – EVALUATING FOREIGN POLICY SUCCESS”

June 7 – 8, 2011

CALL FOR PRESENTATIONS

Deadline for Proposals: February 18, 2011

The State Department will hold its Fourth Annual Conference on Program Evaluation at the George Marshall Conference Center of the Harry S Truman building in Washington, D.C. on June 7-8, 2011. The theme for the 2011 Conference is “Diplomacy, Development, and Defense – Working Together to Achieve Foreign Policy Goals.”

The conference will bring together evaluation practitioners; program managers at State, USAID and the Department of Defense; other government agencies; academicians and students; representatives from international affairs and foreign embassies; non-governmental organizations; and the private sector. The conference represents a unique opportunity to gather with colleagues around a shared interest in exploring the role of evaluation in supporting and advancing successful defense, diplomacy and development initiatives.

Call for Presentations. The Program Committee cordially invites proposals under four different themes/tracks:

· Diplomacy

· Development

· Defense

· Building Evaluation Capacity

Diplomacy/Development/ Defense. Proposals within each of these three tracks should address effective evaluation methods to assess the coordination and implementation of the contributions of diplomacy, development, and defense to optimize military and civilian institutions at home and abroad. Proposal abstracts should clearly indicate the theme/track for the proposal and have that theme/track as its principal focus but incorporate a “3D” framework to managing today’s global challenges. For example, proposals under the Diplomacy track might discuss approaches to evaluate diplomatic programs (e.g., democracy, rule of law, anti-crime activities, non-proliferation) and specific recommendations for more effective engagement of state and non-state partners to work with development and defense institutions to address security threats and help build stable economies.

Proposals from government and non-government entities are welcome. Organizations whose proposals are selected will be invited to present on their topic in an individual 45-minute workshop at the conference. Workshop presentations can take any of the following formats:

· Presentation with Discussion will consist of a 20-25 minute presentation of research, theory, or issue followed by questions and discussion involving the attendees.

· Demonstrations will present a useful evaluation concept or tool and provide attendees with a step-by-step explanation and, if possible, demonstration of the concept or tool.

· Panel presentations will involve 2 or more presenters who will offer coordinated presentations on a similar topic.

· Roundtables will include 15 minutes of presentation followed by 30 minutes of discussion and feedback. Roundtable presenters should bring targeted questions to pose to others at the table in order to learn from and with those attending.

· Think tanks will focus on a single issue or question. A chairperson first orients attendees to the issue/question, attendees then break into small groups to explore the issue/question and finally reconvene for a facilitated discussion with the chairperson.

Building Evaluation Capacity. Proposals for workshops under the “Building Evaluation Capacity” track may range in length from 45 minutes to 1 hour and 15 minutes. We ask that you specify in your proposal the preferred length. Topics to be addressed include, but are not limited to, the following:

· Planning for an Evaluation

· Identifying Your Strategic Research Questions

· Preparing a Statement of Work

· Effective Methods in Evaluating Diplomacy

· Evaluation for Program Managers

· Monitoring & Evaluation: Two Sides of the Same Coin

· Integrating Evaluation into Strategic Planning

· Using Evaluation Information

What to Include: Proposal abstracts should not exceed two pages in length. They should include a brief description of the proposed presentation; the names, titles, affiliations, and a brief bio of presenters; an idea of the presentation format (if known); email and telephone contact information; and any audio-visual requirements.

Deadline. The Call for Presentations for the Department of State’s Fourth Annual Conference on Program Evaluation will close on Friday, February 18, 2011. Everyone who submits during this process will be notified on the status of their proposals by Friday, March 11, 2011. If you have any questions please contact Stephanie Cabell via e-mail at cabellsd@state.gov or call 202-647-2557.

Proposal Submission. PROPOSALS WILL ONLY BE ACCEPTED ELECTRONICALLY. Send proposals for presentations via email attachment in either MSWord or .pdf format to: Evaluation@state.gov.

Donors Aim for More Efficiency, Coherence in 2011

Article published by Devex - website here. Register with Devex for project and job announcements.

Aid effectiveness appears to top the priorities of several donors this 2011, with the new year ushering in the operationalization of Germany’s new aid agency, as well as the formal launch of a new directorate within the European Union.

Germany’s Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit, or GIZ, which began work Jan. 1, is the merger of three development agencies: the German Technical Cooperation, or GTZ, German Development Service, or DED, and Inwent. GIZ is the result of one of the most sweeping, and swift, reforms seen in German development cooperation in recent years.

GIZ is placed under the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development, or BMZ, giving the federal government complete control over German development aid operations once again. The creation of GIZ is likely to make German aid more efficient, but, as some critics note, not necessarily more effective.

Foremost among critics’ concerns is the vaguenesss of its organizational structure, which the German government has yet to unveil. Questions also abound on how the merger will affect staffing and procurement. While the German government gave assurances that there will be no layoffs following the merger of the three agencies, fears over staff shifts are still rife.

Meanwhile, the new Directorate-General for Development and Cooperation – EuropeAid, or DG DEVCO, became operational Jan. 3. The European Commission merged DG EuropeAid and DG Development following an announcement in October 2010. The goal of the merger, according to the commission, is to create a single voice for the EU on development and cooperation. Fokion Fotiadis will head the directorate. Its new structure is expected to be fully in place by April 2011.

The merger of the two directorates is part of the transitional measures on development that the EU is undertaking. Some former staff members of DG Development were among the 1,643 permanent officials from the European Commission and Council of Ministers who were transferred to the newly created European External Action Service on Jan. 1.

This year, more changes to national and international aid structures can be expected. The U.K. will release the findings of its sweeping multilateral and bilateral aid review in February and March 2011, while the U.S. is set to implement reforms outlined in the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review.

The development community is waiting to see whether or not these new and expected reforms will make aid more effective and efficient.

Read more development news.

IDEAS December Phonecon Summary

DEAR ISPI IDEAS team,

Here is the recap from yesterday's phone conversation.  Clearly there is both an opportunity and a need to step back and focus on the development arena's core problems.  Every day there is news of some decision by the agencies on structural changes, policy changes, funding changes, ideas to improve measurement -- of outputs or activities, polity and role of development, and data suggesting that the world is not flat.  I have never seen such a flurry of discussion and defense, challenge and questioning.  I refer you to the following:

1. New book by Paul Collier, well received and recommended

The Bottom Billion: Why the Poorest Countries Are Failing and What Can Be Done about It

2. USAID's webpages on "forward", especially Implementation and Procurement

see, www.forward.usaid.gov

3. web references to the comments of EU Commissioner for Development

Andris Piebalgs

4. and the expanding need and role for USAID, UN, and other multilateral and bilateral donors -- evolving their versions of...

Bureau of Crisis and Conflict Operations (USAID)

SUMMARY OF TELEPHONE DISCUSSION --

1. Research Task 

You all have received this task group's deliverables and dates, which they are doing a marvelous job of accomplishing! Thank you. Jessica Morse has joined the group (graduated student at GW) and will be working with the task team to develop a spreadsheet of categories of effectiveness.  This will be sent to the entire committee by the end of January for your review and comment.  Because of the diversity of our committee, there are several perspectives and kinds of experience which should be valuable in this review.  If you have any ideas that you want to share with the task team, please contact Ryan, Steven, or Jessica.  Their emails are included above.

This group wants more involvement, and would like more active involvement: IF ANYONE WANTS TO GET INVOLVED IN DEFINING THE RESEARCH OBJECTIVES and framework, please contact Ryan or Steven.

The critical need is to find people to conduct literature reviews, research, and networking -- networking in order to get more perspectives, examples/samples, and ideas.   Please consider contacting Ryan or Steven with ideas and information.

Lastly, at the conference in Orlando, April 2011, there is going to be a day dedicated to research.  The agenda is pretty set, AND Ryan and April and Miki have been asked to give the IDEAS committee (that is, research related to effectiveness of PI in the development context) some "face time" in front of the membership/attendees.  If you have any ideas, please contact Ryan.

2. Application of PI to Development context: certification? RfP design?  

Roger and Patrick and Klaus have drafted 2 documents or criteria, which have led to a serious consideration of the root cause of LACK or LESS effectiveness of aid strategy, programs and policy. The first document is comment on parameters and criteria that should be included in RfPs -- adding a systemic and systematic approach to identifying core issues and key solution sets.  The second is general criteria for performing PI in the context of development, that is, what is unique and required and exemplary performance.  This can be considered a basis for discussion on a special certification (included or additional) to CPTs. 

Fundamental problems or lack of basic understanding of "performance" and performance management on the part of aid administrative and organizational staff have emerged.  From the experience base of IDEAS committee members as well as recent news releases about improvement in operations and approach of USAID (and UN, UK, World Bank, etc) there does not seem to be an understanding of the difference between "activities" and "results".  

We need to go back to basics. Kevin and Roger also brought out the need to get this information to the operational level managers and decision makers.  As an organizational and industrial complex, the tool "training" has become both a panacea and a word/concept which means everything and nothing.  Going beyond that is a very difficult concept for many in the administration. I would add there is little incentive to think "systemically", and that "silo thinking" (within sectors and within sub-sectors) has blocked the staff from pursuing systemic, cross sectoral, integrated strategy, monitoring, evaluation, measurement, and understanding of results.

Local partners are both being touted as the way of the future, and yet they are not linked into these discussions or approaches. The decision makers for programming and projects are in the country missions (while the paperwork trails are developed in agency HQs).  ISPI IDEAS has got to figure out a way to get information to this operational level if there is to be any impact.

Education and research is needed!!

It was agreed that we need a conversation within the committee to probe and poke at this issue to discover core issues and where interventions would be best targeted.  Kevin, Wendy, and Roger will develop initial questions -- and put them out to the committee (in the manner of ISPI 2cents approach).  Please help by contributing to this dialog.  The conclusions and/or questions that emerge will form the basis of the next tasks this committee takes on.

3. Jim and Gay and Mari have spent some time together discussing best approaches into USAID and other key agencies. 

 Two things have emerged.  We are identifying key people in USAID who are interested and "need" an approach to reconfigure and align policy through tactics.  We have some interest from the bureau for Democracy and Governance and from the proto bureau for Policy and Programs.  This will mean presentations by ISPI staff and ISPI IDEAS committee people on value added, problem solving, measurement (design --> evaluation) of impact, etc. We will pursue this, and involve committee people as we gain access. There is a lot of flux within USAID right now.  There is also 3 additional burdens on the agency:

a. The budget is being contested, with powerful allies seeing the need to expand the role of development vis-a-vis diplomacy and defense.  This is counterbalanced by budget cutting advocates.

b. The new chair of the committee overseeing State and USAID (House Foreign Affairs Committee) is not an advocate of development, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen.  She will take over the committee in January.

c. USAID key staff are formulating  the role, value, and interplay of development to argue for its survival/heightened role.

Everyone agrees that we have to get the word out MORE TARGETED about ISPI, PI and our value added (membership in ISPI and use of PI and services provided by qualified CPTs).  Presentations to key decision makes, managers whose responsibility includes a systemic approach, and CRITICALLY field officers must occur.  Plus we need to write and contribute to the discussion boards, blogs, and other places where the "inside people'  go to for information.

4.  Klaus and team are attempting to develop a list of those people to target.  

We need to get any and all suggestions about this -- as well as WHAT AND WHERE AND HOW agency staff get their information.  What do they read? Blog? How to they receive information?  These discussions will be asked both internal to our committee and constantly asking these questions as we contact agency people for discussions and presentations.

To reiterate a concern expressed in reaction to the revelations and revamping that the development/aid agencies are putting out in press releases and on blogs -- the policies and strategies are being developed BUT HOW TO IMPLEMENT is not an area of expertise that is necessarily on staff or even in the frame of reference.  There is a need and an opportunity for PI professionals, at all levels of this discourse and discharge of projects.  Documents related to this are the US's QDDR (Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review) which is the administration's policy/strategy, and which is now under fire in the new congress.  

5. It is usual to rotate committee chair and co-chair each April.

Our committee can recommend, nominate, indicate who is interested in the chair and co-chair position -- to the ISPI Board of Directors, through our liaison Carol Lynn Judge.  Please let me know if you are interested in getting more involved IN ANY OF THESE TASKS AND DISCUSSIONS....and if you are interested in taking an administrative/leadership role.  We are supposed to give our suggestions to Carol Lynn by Jan 4, so she can discuss this at the Jan 6 Board Meeting.  Please let me (or Carol Lynn) know by Jan 3.

6. The holiday season is upon us, and we all survived the Full moon/equinox/eclipse -- so hopefully we will move into 2011 in a healthy, prosperous and peaceful manner.  In early January, I will send you all a reminder of the tasks we have taken on and the consideration of questions we need to debate and explore within the committee in order to move forward.

Thank you,

Please let me know if you have any additions, changes, or comments to any of this summary.

M Mari Novak

--
M. Mari Novak C.P.T.