July 21, 2015Updated September 12, 2017
U.S. Agency for International Development: An Overview
Background
Figure 1. USAID-Implemented Program Funding by
Region: FY2013FY2016
The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)
is the leading international humanitarian and development
arm of the United States government. Its programs also
support the political and strategic aims of the United States
by providing assistance to strategically important and
conflict countries, and assist U.S. commercial interests by
furthering the economic growth of developing countries and
building these countries’ capacity to participate in world
trade.
In FY2015FY2017, USAID is responsible for more thanover $20 billion
in in
appropriations, representing more than one-third of the
International Affairs 150 budget function and more than
half of total foreign assistance encompassed by the State,
Foreign Operations Appropriations (SFOPS) and
international food aid appropriated under the Agriculture
Appropriations. USAID’s annual appropriations come from
1314 different budget accounts—most “solely-owned” and
some shared with the Department of State and other
agencies, —making any
calculation of its current budget
somewhat imprecise.
We partner to end extreme poverty and to promote
resilient, democratic societies while advancing our security
and prosperity. USAID Mission Statement
USAID maintains more than 60 country and regional
missions that design and manage a wide range of
development projects,
most intended to meet specific
development objectives as
formulated in a Country
Development Cooperation
Strategy. Most projects are
implemented through some
form of grant, cooperative
agreement, or contract by one of
thousands of potential
development partners—such as U.S.
nonprofit private
voluntary organizations and other non-governmental
nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), U.S. for-profit
contractors,
universities, international organizations, and
foreign partner
governments, civil society, and the private sector.
USAID currently provides assistance to over 100 countries,
including 78
sector.
In FY2016, the most recent year in which detailed data is
available, USAID provided assistance to over 120
countries, including 74 of the 84 low and lower-middle income
income countries. Foreign aid allocations reflect both recipient
recipient needs and U.S. foreign policy priorities.
Suggestive of the
strong foreign policy purpose behind
many USAID
activities, the top 10 recipients of USAID-implemented
funds in FY2013USAIDimplemented funds in FY2016 were Afghanistan, West Bank/Gaza,
Jordan, Pakistan, Ethiopia,
Syria (for refugees), Ethiopia, Kenya,
South Sudan, Nigeria, and Egypt. In FY2013, nearly 40%
of funds attributable to South Sudan, Kenya, Jordan, Nigeria,
Pakistan, Iraq, and Democratic Republic of Congo. In
FY2016, about 52% of USAID funds attributable to
countries and regions went to subSaharan Africa and more than 19% went to Afghanistan
and Pakistan (Figure 1).
Latin
America,
7.4%
Asia/
Pacific,
8.0%
Africa,
39.2%
MENA,
23.5%
Af/Pak,
19.2%
Europe/
Eurasia,
2.7%
Source: USAID U.S. Overseas Loans and Grants
(https://eads.usaid.gov/gbk/) and CRS calculations.
Note: Af/Pak = Afghanistan/Pakistan; MENA = Middle East and
North Africa.
Ofsub-Saharan Africa and 17%
went to the Middle East and North Africa (Figure 1).
Source: USAID, https://explorer.usaid.gov and CRS calculations.
Of FY2016 funds attributable to a specific sector (Figure
2), 36%
41% went for health programs and 1920% for
humanitarian efforts.
Since the early 1990s, health
programs have consistently
been the largest USAID
assistance sector, bolstered since
2004 by billions of dollars
in transfers from the Department
of State’s President’s
Emergency Program for AIDS Relief
(PEPFAR).
Humanitarian aid, too, has increased
significantly in recent
years, particularly in response to the
2004 Indian Ocean
earthquake and tsunami, the 2010 Haiti
earthquake, and the
2014 Ebola epidemic.
Figure 2. USAID-Implemented Program Funding by
Sector: FY2013
Education
4%
Health 36%
Agriculture
6%
Democracy
13%
Environment
3%
Other
7%
Humanitarian
19%
Economic
Growth
11%
Source: USAID, U.S. Overseas Loans and Grants
(https://eads.usaid.gov/gbk/) and CRS calculations.
www.crs.gov | 7-5700
U.S. Agency for International Development: An Overview
USAID Forward
Since 2010, under its USAID Forward agenda, the agency
has undertaken numerous reforms. Among these:
• Local Solutions. In order to help ensure that USAID
objectives are maintained after its project efforts end,
i.e., are made more sustainable, USAID has focused
increasing amounts of funding on working with local
governments, civil society, and the private sector to
implement development programs and develop local
capacities. Excluding Afghanistan and Pakistan, 15.1%
of program funding went through local entities in
FY2014.
• Evaluation. To improve its learning process, USAID
has required more evaluations and has established
improved indicators by which it can measure project
progress.
• Science, Technology, and Innovation. To invigorate
its historic leadership in applying science and
technology to development problems, USAID
established a Global Development Lab and multiple
programs seeking solutions from scientists, universities,
and the broader public for a range of development
challenges.
• Private Sector Funding. Building on existing efforts to
leverage contributions to development from private
resources, USAID has expanded public-private
partnerships and increased use of its Development
Credit Authority.
• Policy and Budget Capacity. To restore capacities lost
to the State Department in a 2006 reorganization,
USAID re-established offices of policy and budget.
While these reforms are on-going, most are associated with
former-USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah (January 2010February 2015). A new administrator may bring a different
set of operational and policy priorities to the agency.
Challenges
USAID faces multiple challenges in the process of fulfilling
its mission, in part due to the setting in which it often
operates—developing countries. Among the continuing and
new challenges that observers have noted and the Congress
may track closely are the following:
Local Solutions. Working more closely with local
governments, civil society, and private business presents
multiple challenges to USAID, the greatest of which is
accountability concerns as increasing amounts of U.S.
taxpayer dollars are directed through local entities in at
times corrupt societies. Efforts to mitigate risk generally
require more personnel and consequent funding to monitor
local entities and build their FY2016
Source: USAID, https://explorer.usaid.gov and CRS calculations.
USAID Under the Trump Administration
Administrator Mark Green was sworn in August 7, 2017.
While no new policies have been announced under his
https://crsreports.congress.gov
U.S. Agency for International Development: An Overview
leadership, in testimony he cited accountability, focusing on
what works, incentivizing local capacity-building and
implementation, and leveraging partnerships with the
private sector among his guiding principles. Prior to
Administrator Green’s confirmation, the Trump
Administration proposed an FY2018 budget that would cut
USAID funding by nearly 40%. Congress is likely to
modify the Administration’s proposal, but account and
programs cuts could have a major impact on how USAID is
able to address operational challenges.
Challenges
USAID faces numerous challenges in the process of
fulfilling its mission, in part due to the setting in which it
often operates—developing countries. Among the
continuing and new challenges that observers have noted
and the Congress may track closely are the following:
Reform. A March 2017 executive order seeking a
comprehensive plan to reform government and reduce the
workforce requires agencies to propose efficiencies and
program cuts. It remains to be seen whether any proposed
changes will complement the so-called USAID Forward
reforms undertaken during the Obama Administration,
which sought to improve the way USAID did business, or
take a markedly different approach. The congressional role
in approving executive-initiated reforms is unclear at this
point as well.
USAID Status. The Administration reorganization effort
has stimulated multiple reform proposals from NGOs,
including calls for making USAID the coordinator of all
government humanitarian and development assistance, for
the absorption of USAID into the Department of State, and
for creation of an entirely new aid agency, among others.
Deputy Secretary of State Sullivan has said absorption into
State is not planned. Any change in USAID’s institutional
status must have congressional approval.
Local Solutions. Under USAID Forward, the agency
sought, with variable success, to push an increasing amount
of assistance through local entities—15.9% of mission
program funds in FY2016, down from a high of 18.6% in
FY2015. Ensuring accountability for use of U.S. taxpayer
dollars by local governments, civil society, and private
business in at times corrupt societies requires special efforts
to mitigate risk, including a need for more personnel and
funding in order to monitor local entities and build their
capacities.
Sustainability. How can USAID ensure that project efforts
are maintained by local governments and organizations
after U.S. financial and technical support ends? One
USAID response is the Local Solutions initiative that seeks
to build “country ownership” for development objectives.
Another is more domestic resource mobilization efforts—
projects to
develop a government’s capacity to collect
revenue to
support development. A clear path to sustainability remains
a work in progress.
Human Resources. Despite increased number of USAID
Foreign Sustainability is
increasingly viewed as a measure of aid effectiveness.
missions are insufficiently staffed, especially in crisis
countries. Despite an increased number of USAID Foreign
Service Officers in recent years, the agency still
faces faces
shortages of specific skill sets—for example, contract
officers and program officers to meet the needs generated
by the on-going effort to work more closely with local
government and private sector partners, and agricultural
specialists to develop and implement Food Security
Initiative projects. Staff retention, especially of foreign
nationals, and lack of language and skill training, and a lack of
travel funds to monitor projects are are
continuing human
resource concerns.
Program Flexibility. Congressional funding mandates,
specifying amounts for health, biodiversity, and other
sectors, account for as much as two-thirds of USAID’s
annual program budget. These, plus a host of presidential
initiatives, are viewed by many observers as restricting the
ability of USAID mission personnel to program project
activities in accordance with development professional and
partner country priorities. Some critics believe that many
legislative conditions further stymie flexibility—most food
aid, for example, must be provided in the form of U.S.
produce and shipped on expensive U.S. freighters instead of
purchased with cash locally near a food emergency site.
Scaling-Up. Innovations in science, technology, and
development practice are usually tested with pilot programs
in one province in one country. Seeing successful ideas
from pilot through to maturity and making them work at the
country, region, and international level likely requires a
long-term funding horizon, programming flexibility, and
mechanisms to spread ideas throughout the agency—each a
challenge in itself. Each of
these elements represents a challenge in the current aid
policy and planning process.
Evaluation. To improve its learning process, USAID has
required more project evaluations and has established
improved indicators by which it can measure project
progress. The next step and challenge for the agency is to
ensure that lessons learned are applied to future projects so
that actual change results in how things are done.
Security. Security concerns in non-permissive
environments, such as South Sudan and Afghanistan, raise
numerous obstacles to successful project implementation,
including including
restricted access to local projects for monitoring
purposes purposes
and finding contractors willing to take the risk of
establishing a local presence. InEven in “normal” countries,
security concerns have often caused the co-location of
USAID in isolated and extremely secure U.S. embassies
that discourage the interaction with local government and
private sector considered necessary by many observers for
successful development programs.
For further background on the agency and related
issues, see CRS Report
R44117, U.S. Agency for
International Development
(USAID): Background,
Operations, and Issues, and CRS In Focus IF10183, U.S.
Foreign Assistance.
Curt Tarnoff, ctarnoff@crs.loc.gov, 7-7656
www.crs.gov | 7-5700
IF10261 Operations, and Issues.
Curt Tarnoff, Specialist in Foreign Affairs
Human Resources. A 2015 study of the stress faced by
USAID staff suggests that employees are overburdened and
https://crsreports.congress.gov
IF10261
U.S. Agency for International Development: An Overview
Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to
congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress.
Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has
been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the
United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be
reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include
copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you
wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.
https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF10261 · VERSION 6 · UPDATED