Strategy Tracker Update: USAID Publishes Two New Policies

USAID is moving full steam ahead in its efforts to hammer out Agency-wide policy guidelines with two new reports: a Counter-Trafficking in Persons policy and a Gender Equality and Female Empowerment policy. As part of our USAID Monitor Strategy Tracker, I’ve dissected the documents to determine whether the Agency’s Bureau of Policy Planning and Learning (PPL) is living up to its promise to rewire the USAID policymaking process.Before we get into the nitty-gritty, here is a quick overview of the two reports.Gender Equality and Female Empowerment Policy (GEFE): Launched ahead of last week’s international women’s day, this policy is the result of a continuing recognition within the international aid community that focusing on women is one of the most effective ways to fight poverty. In case you think USAID doesn’t need an upgrade in this arena, the last Policy Paper on Women in Development was issued 30 years ago. The policy is up to date with new data and analysis on how gender equality and female empowerment factor as major development objectives. The comprehensive reach of the policy and depth of detail which it presents are testaments to the premium the administration is putting on this issue as a primary focus of USAID’s operations moving forward. The report’s primary purpose is to integrate gender equality and female empowerment throughout the Agency’s programs and related processes – no small task.Counter-Trafficking in Persons (C-TIP) Policy: You can forgive yourself if you were unaware that USAID was involved in C-TIP work. The Agency has only programmed $163 million in C-TIP activities in the past 10 years. Nevertheless, USAID has engaged in C-TIP activities in 68 countries and regional missions, working on average in 20 to 25 per year with a focus on countries in Asia, Eurasia, and Europe. As part of a USG-wide endeavor on C-TIP, USAID plans on exploiting its strong in-country presence to program local prevention and protection centered interventions. Though not their focus, the Agency will work with the State Department and other agencies when possible to prosecute criminals engaged in trafficking in persons (TIP).One quick note of concern before diving into policy analysis. C-TIP is important, but should USAID really be focusing its attention and resources on this particular issue, especially with a tightening budget? The policy claims TIP “is a massive development problem,” but provides little evidence to suggest a relationship between the two issues. If USAID wants to make this a priority, it needs to do a better job of explaining (1) how TIP relates to development (2) how C-TIP fits into the Agency’s mission. Otherwise, the State Department, who issues a yearly report on C-TIP and is in-charge of the USG’s TIP Tier country ranking system, seems like the natural agency to lead this effort.Putting these issues aside, for USAID’s PPL Bureau to successfully implement these policies it will need to include a couple of important ingredients: clear strategic objectives, consistent principles, and a coherent plan for implementation. Here’s how the new policies line up based on these criteria.Clear Strategic Objectives: The C-TIP policy is unclear about the overarching goals of the policy. What does the Agency foresee accomplishing externally with better performance in the C-TIP arena? Without a set of development focused C-TIP goals, the strategy leaves USAID and the aid community with no concrete measures for overall success, and Agency Missions without goals to help focus programming. Conversely, the GEFE policy provides three overarching outcomes (nebulous as they may be) to be adapted and translated into specific targets and indicators at the country level.Consistent Principles: Both policies get good marks for incorporating principles from USAID’s two most influential policy guidelines: the USAID Policy Framework 2011-2015 and the USAID Forward reform agenda. That includes integrating the strategies into the rest of the Agency’s work, building partnerships across stakeholders, and harnessing science, technology, and innovation. For example, the GEFE Policy requires the use of output and outcome indicators on gender equality and female empowerment, the collection of sex-disaggregated data, and the use of rigorous qualitative and quantitative methodologies to measure the impact of programs. The C-TIP policy puts a premium on focusing on critical TIP conflict and post-conflict countries. Selectivity is a policy virtue in these budget-strapped times.Coherent Plan for Implementation: Implementation plans can make or break a policy. Clear channels of authority and accountability are critical components of good directives. The C-TIP strategy does a fairly good job of explaining where, how, and who will implement C-TIP policies, although some of the specifics are scattered throughout the document, making it difficult to keep responsibilities straight. The GEFE policy goes above and beyond to detail specific roles and responsibilities in institutionalizing the policy – from the Mission level through to the Administration. The report receives bonus points for promising a timetable for phasing in requirements over the next two years, and an evaluation with benchmarks to assess the implementation of the policy in 2015.Overall, both policies do a good job of covering nearly all the bases. As a strategy with implications for all aspects of U.S. development work, the GEFE policy is expected to be more comprehensive than the C-TIP strategy. Nonetheless, both are useful products, not only for policy implementers throughout the Agency but for members of the aid community eager to hold USAID accountable in these areas.