Change.org Survey: What's Your Priority for Foreign Aid Reform?

With the the Obama Administration, State Department, USAID, and the US Congress all - shockingly - talking about foreign aid reform legislation this winter, now is a wonderful opportunity for the Change.org community to prepare recommendations, have it signed by you, and send it to the decision-makers in Washington, DC, and beyond.

Note that each of the foreign aid agencies and human rights advocacy groups will be doing something similar. Typically, most if not all of the aid agencies put their recommendations together at a DC organization called, Interaction, which has a relationship with the US government.

Any letters of recommendation from an organization like Change.org will likely arrive parallel to others from organizations like the Human Rights Campaign, Human Rights First, Human Rights Watch, and Refugees International. We'll do our best to catch you up here on what each of these groups is doing. Perhaps we might join them, or write separately. But first, let's consider our priorities as a Change community. A starter question for ya:

If Change.org were to write a letter to the State Department, USAID Administrator, and Congressional foreign affairs committees recommending priorities for changing US foreign aid for the better, which of the following would you rank at as your top choice? Or if you have time, which would be your second and third priorities?

(These suggested options are necessarily broad. We'll tackle specifics in upcoming calls to action. They're also not in any particular order. They reflect arguments I've heard in aid communities. You may write directly to us via daniel@change.org or post your ideas here. Please don't let existing posts below affect your willingness to participate, if you disagree. Well-informed field and HQ aid workers are highly encouraged to write in. Of course this is not a "study" for stats, it's an informal gathering of ideas so we can consider options as a community, so we can begin to build a support base. And if you're answer is incoherent, unproductive or blanket-anti-foreign-aid, I reserve the right to jettison your response into oblivion. That is, unless it's really witty.)

• A - Write your own priority here. (Feel free to mix and match ideas from below or add something new; they are suggestions; some contradict the other.)
• B - Protect aid workers and aid programs by restoring the impartiality of aid and reducing interfaces with the Pentagon. (i.e less or no arms near aid workers and programs, less or no collaboration between aid and the military and security contractors, less or no labeling of aid if the country is at war in that location, otherwise undoing Bush era policies in favor of the aid security posture standards of the International Rescue Committee, Oxfam, and Doctors without Borders of the late 90s, with improvements. Note, this does not necessarily mean that you imply aid workers shouldn't be assisted by military aircraft for deliveries in areas where the military is not a billigerent.)
• C - Protect aid and its goals by increasing aid collaboration with the Pentagon. (i.e. the opposite of B, by utilizing aid as a tool the US military can better entice fighting groups to lay down their arms in exchange for better economic prospects, utilize the mutual advantages of aid agencies, defense, and corporate competitors to form a collective effort.)
• D - Dramatically increase the efficiency of USAID and related agencies by cutting corporate and Pentagon-related contracts, as well as middle men.
• E - Dramatically increase the efficiency of USAID and related agencies by relying on corporate competition for contracts and increasing offices for evaluating efficiency of programs. (somewhat the opposite of D)
• F - "De-Colonize" aid by shifting more trust and responsibility to local participants and NGOs. (i.e. stop and undo the building of huge USA facades and regulatory systems (a la US Embassy complex in Kabul which blocks dozens of blocks of traffic in the heart of the city and thus draws ire and rockets), encourage locals that USAID has an equal partnership with big open ears to local participants and is willing to sacrifice some American advantages for collective global health and progress (i.e. invest in regional farmers for food shortage response, rely on regional businesses for supplies rather than requiring US-made supplies to be shipped from afar.)
• G - "Embolden" aid by increasing US role, profile, and benefit, as well as oversite. (i.e. kind of the opposite of F, trust America above all, make sure local NGOs and governments do not misuse aid funds, make sure the US gets positive credit for all assistance for short term public relations benefit even at the cost of collective global benefit.)
• H - Prioritize the rights-based foundational strategy of global health, education, and women's protection and development, even if it means cyphening funds from counter-insurgency and democratization.
• I - Prioritize the governance and security-oriented strategy of rule of law, democratization, and US national security, even if that means drawing cyphening from other efforts like health, education, and democratization.
• J - Prioritize emergency preparedness and crisis prevention, alongside crisis response, to protect civilians from the most acute and tragic threats, even if that means leaving foundational sectors and governance more at the funding mercy of under-budgeted local governments.
• K - Increase USAID's global role, to make it THE top world aid agency, including increase it's size and scope, profile and expertise.
• L - Delegate USAID's global roles, make it leaner, sharper, and allow American and local NGOs to have more flexibility and decision-making power on US-funded programs. With guidelines and limits, of course.
• M - Radically investigate and root out corruption, graft, and nepotism in USAID and its partners in order to ensure a cleaner, more professional agency, even if that means drawing funds away from actual health and humanitarian efforts in order to pay for the reform.

To start y'all off, I'll openly list my choices:

1. A (Protect aid by restoring impartiality and reducing interfaces with Pentagon.)
2. F (De-colonize aid, i.e. make it about collective global benefit, rather than US advantage.)
3. L. (Make USAID leaner, delegating greater power to its partners, with guidelines and limits of course.)

You?

[Photo: US Army]