PSC
Oversight in Ensuring Effective Foreign Policy Implementation CIDC members embrace robust oversight of US foreign policy implementation, both to achieve results and to provide sound and transparent stewardship of U.S. taxpayer funds. Oversight promotes results and accountability with the public and private sector across all development objectives and can be broadly categorized into three main “buckets”: (1) measuring for results (2) compliance (3) financial performance. American international development contractors have long appreciated the linkage between oversight and both Congressional and public support for foreign assistance. As a result, we have the systems and processes to excel in Streamlined Procedures for Small Grants to Promote COVID Impact USAID for-profit implementers have successfully used streamlined grant procedures to quickly award hundreds of small grants to businesses negatively impacted by COVID-19 to promote economic recovery or help struggling health systems to respond to the crisis. We have used similar streamlining mechanisms in emergency situations without sacrificing compliance or results.
these areas and the experience and know-how to achieve U.S. foreign assistance goals in the most complicated and risky operating environments – in both the physical and fiscal sense. Contractors implement projects in more than 120 countries, with nearly 39 percent of funds programmed in sub-Saharan Africa. For USAID alone, contracts accounted for 29 percent of total dollars obligated in FY 2020.
Rule of Law Assistance In 2020, GAO completed several studies of the Department of State and USAID rule of law programs that accounted for more than $2.7 billion from fiscal years 2014 through 2018. During this period, USAID conducted 861 performance evaluations for its foreign assistance programs and projects. Of these, 53 (about 6 percent) were for global rule of law-related projects, often carried out by for-profit implementers. GAO concluded that USAID programs followed key practices for monitoring assistance in almost all cases.
Measuring Results For-profit implementers are held legally accountable for achieving tangible, quantifiable technical indicators – a key distinction for contracts. The Theory of Change model requires that each contract uniquely describe how and why the process of change is expected to take place and how we will work directly and or indirectly to influence the desired change and achieve the stated project purpose. To support the theory of change, all aid contracts include a Monitoring and Evaluation (MEL) plan. This MEL plan includes the project’s monitoring approach and performance indicators of activity outputs and outcomes, including a consistent process for data validation 12
by multiple parties. Progress against indicators in the MEL plan are reported by contractors on a regular basis enabling the US government to track project performance, take early corrective action when necessary, and ensure that projects achieve their intended results. Results of performance evaluations performed by third parties are disseminated to public via Development Experience Clearinghouse. The theory of change model and managing by results allows for contractors to promote collaboration, learning, and adapting to changing conditions on the ground to maximize results.
