The Foreign Service Journal, May 2013

10 APRIL 2013 | THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL activities in crisis countries? One can- not argue that outsourcing is the “new normal” if most of the increases related to such activities. Aside from such extraordinary and time-limited programs, has USAID in fact increased the funding allocated to con- tracts and grants? If yes, then the author can legitimately argue that a trend exists. But, without such data, such an argument becomes a matter of personal opinion disguised as fact. Second, underlying much of the article is another critical assumption: outsourcing is inherently bad. But is it? Most government-funded activities tak- ing place outside of government offices are already done by the private sector. So why is the use of private sources in an overseas context objectionable? And to what extent should the federal govern- ment perform functions and undertake activities in house, and therefore in com- petition with the private sector? Many nongovernmental organizations are already working overseas implement- ing development and assistance activi- ties, using private funds. When USAID decides to undertake additional, similar activities, should it establish overlapping organizations to do the work with govern- ment employees—or should it fund an expansion of the existing private-sector activities? The author appears to prefer the former, but provides no justification for this preference. Third, Ms. Stanger assumes that expanding the government work force in these agencies (“insourcing”) will elimi- nate the need for outsourcing. In other words, expanded federal staffing will result in a significant reduction in con- tract and grant levels. While both State and USAID have succeeded in expanding their labor forces, it is not at all clear that adding employees to their rolls means that USAID will take over implementa- tion of assistance activities: constructing schools and roads, staffing schools and clinics, etc. What it does mean is that USAID will improve its capacity to interact with host- country governments on policy, to design projects to address development needs, to monitor the implementation activities undertaken by its private-sector partners, and to evaluate the effective and efficient use of federal funding. Staff expansion will allow USAID to bring back in house some of the analyti- cal, design and evaluation activities it was forced to outsource, due to many years of staff attrition without replenishment. But I doubt that these actions affect more than a very small proportion of the total funds being allocated to contracts and grants. After all, most such funds support implementation rather than design and oversight. I certainly concur that the issue of outsourcing is an important one for both State and USAID. But Ms. Stanger’s article leaves three very important ques- tions unanswered: 1. Is the outsourcing “trend” described in the article real, or is it an illusion that instead reflects the expansion of activi- ties undertaken in connection with U.S. government interventions in several crisis countries? 2. If there is indeed a trend toward expanding outsourcing, why is that a bad thing? 3. If 1 and 2 are true, will an expansion of State and USAID work forces actu- ally produce a meaningful reduction in outsourcing? Linda Rae Gregory FSO, retired Chuluota, Fla. n AFSA Scholarship AFSA.org/Scholar Arlington Court Suites Arlingtoncourtsuites.com AKA StayAKA.com Clements Worldwide clements.com Diplomatic Automobile www.diplosales.com Embassy Risk Management Embassyrisk.com The Hirshorn Company hirshorn.com/afsa McGrath McGrathRealEstate.com ProMax promaxrealtors.com Tetratech Tetratech.com WJD wjdpm.com