USAID"s experience conducting development programs with limited field mission presence

In situations with limited official U.S. presence, the U.S. PVO community has been the principal mechanism for delivering development and humanitarian assistance and it has performed with great effectiveness. In longer-term development situations, USAID has also had a variety of programs which used less frequent and more geographically distant management approaches. No one approach is demonstrably better than another. Success has been greatest where the approach is tailored to the problem being addressed, the strengths and needs of the developing country, and the capacity of the program implementors. The lessons derived from the models discussed in this paper suggest that several factors are particularly important for success. Implementation appears to be most successful under the following conditions. (1) There is consensus on program outcomes and the strategy to achieve those outcomes. The more distant USAID management is from the developmental process, the more important this partnership and the process of building and renewing consensus become. This is best accomplished through a truly joint strategic analysis and program design process. (2) The initial consensus is regularly renewed by a disciplined coordination process. Having a common workplan, reporting, and evaluation system, with the responsibilities and outcomes identified for each implementor, is especially important. (3) Grants are used as implementing instruments. This is necessary since reduced oversight means that greater responsibility must be given to field implementors to make the in-country adjustments needed to achieve the agreed development results. The corporate values and vision of implementors increase in importance in such situations. (4) High priority is accorded to institution building, indigenous ownership, and sustainability. This is best accomplished by local participation in the design process and greater use of local experts in implementation. USAID staff are concerned that policy influence, program coordination, strategic direction, and accountability will suffer in the absence of resident direct hire field staff. These legitimate concerns must and can be addressed through the joint planning envisioned by USAID"s reengineered programming system. As USAID completes or substantially reduces its assistance relationship with a number of countries, it should give priority to building the private institutional strength and relationships that will sustain the development of democratic civil society and open market economies. The U.S. PVO community possesses institutional and management strengths that make it especially suited to pick up the development administration and implementation load in this new situation. They are value-driven development implementors, employ a grassroots planning process, and have extensive field presence. Many have foreign affiliates and partners that are already important participants in building civil society. Their management style is cost-effective and emphasizes local participation. They have particular competence in building low-cost sustainable institutions, because that is where many have their corporate roots. (Author abstract, modified)