22 MARCH 2025 | THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL Tackle Inefficiencies in Foreign Assistance USAID and other U.S. foreign assistance agencies have programs that directly support U.S. business, trade, and investment interests that are easily justified to Congress and American citizens. They complement, but are not substitutes for, programs that address human resource strengthening, building infrastructure, improving regulation, promoting democracy that allows potentially disruptive minorities to have a voice, and strengthening institutions such as those that promote and enforce the rule of law. These programs attack the root causes of civil unrest, international terrorism, and mass immigration. Are there possibilities for greater efficiency and effectiveness in these programs? You bet. They generally don’t get their budgets on time from the Hill, causing some contracts to be issued in the fourth quarter in a rushed fashion. Also, too many scopes of work for contractors and grantees have weak performance targets and benchmarks that are easily met. This is the result of multiple factors, including: 1. Understaffing in these foreign affairs agencies. Contracting out work, instead of doing it with government employees, is actually more expensive to the U.S. taxpayer. Contractors and grantees tack on overheads, and the U.S. government must hire more people to oversee these contracts/grants. 2. Congressional annual reporting requirements. These favor reporting on annual outputs (such as delivery of inputs) rather than on results and impacts (such as immigration lessened, poverty lessened, health improved, and businesses started). 3. Political appointees. Reliance on employees with only a two- to four-year horizon to show impact has the effect of downgrading efforts on more sustainable but longer-term effects. 4. “Co-creation” of programs with contractors and grantees. This practice often improves the scopes of work but waters down measures of performance that are used to appropriately compensate contractors and grantees. As history shows, military force can remove bad governments, but it is not a guarantee that a better one will take its place. Consider Gaza, Ukraine, and Syria. The new Trump administration can again place excellent leadership in place for foreign assistance, as it did in its first administration, and refocus on getting at the root causes of unrest abroad that washes up all too often on U.S. and European shores to our collective peril. Strengthening ties with Asian partners is crucial to countering China’s aggressive locking in access to raw materials, trade routes, and markets. Robert Navin USAID FSO, retired Vienna, Virginia Know We’re Qualified Americans understand what it means to be called a “DEI hire.” Typically reserved for women and people of color, the term implies incompetence and unworthiness for the position or promotion. It negates one’s ability, dedication, and success. Although many of us joined the Civil and Foreign Service through the same hiring process as our colleagues, many have also joined through competitive recruitment initiatives and fellowships promoting diversity. Collectively, we are competent, committed individuals, qualified to serve the American people. Though I have not heard the term “DEI hire” used at the State Department, colleagues have approached me and other women and people of color doubting our proficiencies and with an expectation of failure. When we succeed, I have also witnessed an inability to look beyond our “differences” to fully appreciate our work. Despite our skills and desire to promote U.S. policy across the world, we are often treated as “DEI hires.” This negatively affects our ability to thrive in our profession and contribute to the mission. Some of us persevere and excel. Others succumb to the belief that our efforts are only to be critiqued, rather than seen as supporting diplomacy. Many of us disengage, grow tired, and give up on proving people wrong. Feeling defeated, we stagnate or leave. We do not want to be the focal point of the State Department. When we are made an “issue,” our presence and our work become a distraction to the overall mission. We want to be judged by the content of our performance, not by historical stereotypes or how we gained employment. If we seek any handout, it’s to be given the benefit of the doubt. As the new leadership enters the corridors of the State Department, we will remain resolute, alongside our peers, in carrying out the work that has traditionally been reserved for Ivy League–educated white men. The new administration should know that we identify not as DEI hires but as qualified Americans committed to serve our country. Foreign Service Specialist
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy ODIyMDU=