Archive for category: Foreign Aid

Foreign aid coverage and information.

,

Aid to Education Decreasing

Aid to education has decreased by 10 percent since 2010. There are still 57 million children and 69 million adolescents who are not enrolled in school. Countries are beginning to worry that the goals set by the Education For All Act and the Millennium Development Goals will not be met.

For the first 10 years of the 21st century, aid to education has been steadily increasing. All three divisions — basic education, secondary education and post-secondary education — have seen rises in their funding. But educational funding hit its peak in 2010; since then, total funding has decreased, specifically in the basic education category.

Basic education is the level of education where children learn the foundational skills and core knowledge necessary to advance in the world. This is a vital step in the educational process for children across the globe, but seems to be neglected the most. Basic education is currently receiving the same amount of aid as it was in 2008.

The areas feeling the cuts most are those that are furthest from reaching their educational goals. Sub-Saharan Africa holds half of the world’s children who are not in school, and 12 of the African countries have experienced cuts totaling $10 billion since 2010.

South and West Asia have experienced the most severe cuts in their education aid. They saw cuts worth over a quarter of their total aid in 2010. India and Pakistan were hit the hardest with financial cuts.

Education seems to be a cause that is getting pushed aside when it comes to where aid is being allocated. Other sectors are receiving higher amounts of humanitarian aid; in 2013, the food sector received 86 percent of its requested funds and the health sector received 57 percent of its requested funds. Meanwhile, the education sector is struggling, receiving only 40 percent of its requested funds.

The Global Partnership for Education’s Replenishment Pledging Conference in Brussels is a two-day conference, beginning on June 25, during which donors will be asked to resubmit themselves to the global education cause. The goal is to raise $3.5 billion to support education in the poorest countries.

“We owe it to the children of the world — particularly the poorest and most marginalized — that both international donors and developing country governments step up and commit more funding to education,” said Julia Gillard, board chair of the Global Partnership for Education.

— Hannah Cleveland

Sources: World Education Blog, The World Post, RTT News
Photo: Teach

, , ,

World Food Program USA: What it Does

In the ever-evolving global fight against hunger, the World Food Program USA, an ally of the United Nations World Food Programme (WFP,) is leading the charge against the humanitarian issue.

With its headquarters in Washington D.C., WFP USA is thought of as the American arm of WFP. While WFP is the largest humanitarian agency fighting hunger throughout the world, World Food Program USA “builds support for WFP through fundraising, advocacy and education in the United States.”

Through its work to connect American businesses, organizations and philanthropists, WFP USA seeks to “transform the lives of hungry people across the planet.” The organization views its relationship with American citizens as key to solving world hunger.  

WFP USA releases an annual report each year detailing the state of hunger throughout the world. Its most recent report noted how the effects of conflicts in certain countries, including Syria, the Philippines, the Central African Republic and South Sudan, destabilize the ability for each nation to combat hunger and food security.

WFP has recently collaborated with such organizations as Yum! Brands, India Charitable Foundation and a bracelet line called The Brave Connection. These collaborations are sought to strengthen ties with different organizations.

Moreover, WFP seeks to alleviate the hardships caused by natural disasters or other emergencies, including a lack of adequate school meals and inadequate food security. The organization also strives to make a difference for women throughout the world.

A non-governmental agency, WFP received over $20 million last year through a combination of grants and fundraising. Both WFP and WFP USA rely upon contributions made by everyday individuals in order to continue to fight against global hunger and its related issues.

Through its relationship with WFP, WFP USA is one of the foremost leaders in the fight against world hunger. By working with businesses large and small and Americans of all socioeconomic classes, WFP USA is able to make an impact worldwide.

— Ethan Safran

Sources: World Food Program 1, World Food Program 2, Franchising, Huff Post
Photo: WFP USA

, ,

Islamic Relief USA

Founded in 1993 in California, Islamic Relief USA is a relief organization that works toward alleviating many of the issues that plague developing countries. Their mission statement explains that they work to “alleviate suffering, hunger, illiteracy and diseases worldwide regardless of color, race, religion or creed, and to provide aid in a compassionate and dignified manner.”

With partner organizations in over 35 countries worldwide, Islamic Relief USA supports projects revolving around health and nutrition, orphans, water and sanitation in close to 30 countries. The organization emphasizes implementing campaigns in response to problems like natural disasters and children in need, hoping to establish a more stable world.

Despite their humanitarian efforts, connections to the Muslim Brotherhood have pointed to possible corruption within the organization. The parent organization, Islamic Relief Worldwide, was founded by Hani Al-Bana, a former trustee of a group called Muslim Aid. There is question about how deep-seated the Muslim Brotherhood influence is within the organization.

In addition to possible corruption, the financial practices of Islamic Relief USA have come into question in the past few years as discrepancies in their reported numbers came to light. Prior to 2011, the organization claimed that 93.8 percent of its contributions were spent on charity, while the remainder was left for overhead. In reality, however, only 74 percent of the contributions were spent on charity.

As of 2012, Charity Navigator reported Islamic Relief USA had a score of 70 out of 70 for transparency and accountability, indicating that since the issues involving their finances, things appear to be on the mend. With a total contribution of $62,288,900 in 2012, 88.8 percent of this total went to charity.

With information about possible corruption and financial discrepancies competing with charity success stories, Islamic Relief USA is a challenge to decipher. The improvements in transparency and percentage of donations funneled toward charity are promising, however, for the future of Islamic Relief USA and its methods of aiding the world.

— Maggie Wagner

Sources: Charity Navigator, Islamic Relief USA 1, Clarion Project, Forbes
Photo: Islamic Relief USA 2

, ,

Direct Relief International

Direct Relief International is a nonprofit dedicated to improve the health and lives of people affected by poverty or emergency situations.

The nonprofit, Direct Relief International, works through donations, with volunteers and through the use of advocacy in order to mobilize and provide essential medical care for people in need.

The nonprofit opened its doors in 1948 in order to help people in need confront enormous hardships and recover from natural disasters that have taken away their livelihood.

Direct Relief International was founded by William Zimdin, an Estonian immigrant. He used his good fortune and wealth to send relief packages containing food, clothing and medicine to friends and former employees who were trying to rebuild their lives after World War II.

Zimdin then formed the William Zimdin foundation in California in 1948, which was a precursor to what the nonprofit is today.

When Zimdin died in 1951, just a few years after opening the William Zimdin foundation, his close business associate Dezso Karczag, a Hungarian immigrant, became the foundation’s main manager. Six years later, they changed their name from The William Zimdin Foundation to Direct Relief International.

Direct Relief International provides direct and targeted assistance and does so with respect and involvement with the people it serves.

The nonprofit spends 98.7 percent of all donations and gifts on the programs it runs and manages in needy countries. These programs provide relief packages, vaccinations, vitamin injections, food and assistance to impoverished and displaced peoples.

Much of their relief work, besides providing beneficial relief packages, focuses on the care of pregnant mothers, child health, preventing disease and emergency preparedness programs. This is to ensure that those who live in areas of high disaster risk can be prepared, and major loss of life can be prevented.

Direct Relief International has helped countless people by providing direct medical care and emergency assistance to nations who need it most.

They help provide relief for natural as well as man-made disasters and use contributions from pharmaceutical companies and medical equipment manufacturers to provide health care to those who need it most.

They employ 50 dedicated professional staff members and with the help of 400 volunteers, provide aid to thousands of people each year.

— Cara Morgan

Sources: Charity Navigator, Direct Relief International
Photo: SAP News Center

, , , , , ,

Hunger in Pakistan: Famine or Inadequate Policy?

Hunger in Pakistan has killed many people and affected the lives of many more, especially children. After a drought hit the Tharparkar district of Pakistan’s southern Sindh Province earlier this year, at least 132 young children died, many as a result of malnutrition.

The problem of hunger in Pakistan is not limited to Sindh Province, however. While Sindh certainly has the highest rates of malnutrition and least access to food, Pakistan’s National Nutrition Survey reported that 58 percent of all Pakistani households were food-insecure.

Malnutrition is also widespread; the Pakistan Demographic and Health Survey found that 24 percent of Pakistani children under 5 exhibited “severely stunted growth.”

Why is hunger such a prevalent issue in Pakistan? Some of it has to do with past inflation of wheat prices in the late 2000s, as it was more difficult for people to afford domestic grain. Infrastructural difficulty, such as providing electricity to flour mills, also poses a problem.

Still, the largest factor causing food insecurity in Pakistan is the nation’s own government and its policies that hinder food production and distribution.

Take, for example, the deaths from the drought: the government did not work to distribute food until after the crisis. As the Pakistan Dalit Solidarity Network reports, “the government didn’t act until [it received] reports of children dying” last December, even though animals had been dying since October and rainfall was decreasing. Moreover, government-run hospitals and clinics in the region have been constantly understaffed, making it difficult to get medical care to those who needed it.

Other government policies affect all of Pakistan, not just Sindh. Under the Corporate Farming Ordinance, the Pakistani government leases large tracts of land to foreign investors looking to stockpile crops for their own countries. This takes valuable land away from local farmers while keeping the food away from Pakistani citizens that need it.

The government of Pakistan seems to prioritize profits over its people. During the inflation of wheat prices in 2008, the government increased its wheat exports, depriving many hungry people of food. Even today, much of the wheat that large corporate mills produce leaves the country.

In reality, Pakistan should be capable of providing its citizens with enough food to survive, and there should not be as much food insecurity as there is now. Arif Jabbar Khan, Oxfam’s Pakistan director, affirmed that “missing public policy action and persistent economic inequalities are the main causes of malnutrition,” not droughts or famine.

How can hunger and malnutrition be reduced in Pakistan? Foreign aid providers may be able to earmark funds for the redistribution of grain to poorer areas, and this aid could be cut if the government does not comply.

Nevertheless, political pressure to change food distribution policy must come from within Pakistan itself. The citizens of Pakistan must demand change and hold elected officials responsible for their actions in the polls if the system is to be fixed.

 — Ted Rappleye

Sources: The Guardian, South Asia Masala, Triple Bottom-Line
Photo: Tribune

, , , , , ,

Global Health Investment is a Win-Win Situation

Economists, public officials and humanitarian leaders across the globe are all echoing a new stance on foreign aid: treat it like an investment.

Sure, many areas of the world still require immediate relief in the form of solid goods, but what these communities absolutely require is the stability and means to sustain themselves long-term. In order to break the cycle of poverty, impoverished people need a new cycle altogether characterized by improved economic infrastructure and stability.

The best aspect of the investment approach is that it promises profit. Business executives are now realizing the untapped workforce potential of the world’s destitute. By developing interest in these areas from an economic standpoint, companies are not only opening up access to the world market, but they are seeing positive returns as well.

Companies like Samasource, a Silicon Valley-based startup, have illustrated success in the private sector. Samasource’s model involves big data projects that they break down into manageable tasks for their overseas workers. American tech giants such as Google and LinkedIn benefit from the work and finance of the paychecks of their outsourced employees. As a result, Samasource is profitable and growing while people in rural areas have new access to the technological world market.

Now, imagine taking the approach a step further and funding industries that directly address the critical issues impoverished people face, such as global health investments. Could financing ventures that treat HIV, malaria and infant mortality help those in need and actually boost the economy? More and more people are answering this question with a solid “yes.”

The solution won’t be so simple, however. Devex editor Rolf Rozenkranz recently sat down with Annie Baston who is the chief strategy officer at PATH, an international nonprofit that specializes in long-term solutions to break cycles of poverty. Baston explained the common challenges faced when determining a “best buy” for global health investment. Multiple factors come into play involving technological solutions and systemic reform. These elements need to be carefully orchestrated and illustrated to investors to generate interest and maintain longevity.

In fact, organizations such as The Lancet and their team of researchers have laid out a complex global health investment plan, titled “Global Investment Framework for Women and Children’s Health,” that will secure high health, social and economic returns. Through simulation modeling, The Lancet has found that “increasing health expenditure by just $5 per person per year up to 2035 in 74 high-burden countries could yield up to nine times that value in economic and social benefits.” Their models, published late last year, approach maternal and newborn health, children’s health, malaria, HIV/AIDS, family planning and immunization.

– Edward Heinrich

Sources: DEVEX(1), DEVEX(2), The Lancet, Samasource
Photo: University of Delaware

, , ,

10 Ways to Make Every Foreign Aid Dollar Count

Foreign Aid Dollar
Public opinion about U.S. foreign assistance has remained unchanged for many decades. It is still not unusual for people to choose foreign aid when it comes to deciding where to cut funding to reduce the national deficit.

For decades, pollsters continue to show us how most people think that foreign aid accounts for over 20 percent of the federal budget. In fact, foreign aid accounts for only 1 percent of the federal budget. What is more, of that 1 percent, only half is dedicated to helping the world’s poor.

Despite the limited amount of foreign aid, and the fact that it is always in danger of being cut further, there are several ways in which we can make our foreign aid dollars count. Here are 10 ways to make every foreign aid dollar count; some of which are already being put in practice.

1. Engage recipients of foreign aid as part of the solution.

Instead of treating people in foreign countries as “passive recipients” of money and food, it has been demonstrated that it is much more productive to include them in the process of formulating and implementing poverty reduction initiatives.

2. Transfer some of the responsibilities to local authorities.

Following up with the previous point, another way of engaging with aid recipients is to delegate some of the work to local authorities. Involving local authorities in the design and implementation of aid policies promises to create better results.

3. Use technological advances to improve data management.

Putting to work the many tools available is crucial for gathering data and monitoring the achievements of each aid program. For instance, the State Department launched a website called “dashboard” where all foreign aid programs can be monitored.

4. Create new partnerships and strengthen existing ones with private businesses.

Partnering with businesses and nonprofit organizations provides additional funding sources that helps leverage the small amount dedicated to foreign assistance by the federal government.

5. No private without public.

At the same time, it is imperative not to deviate too much from public funding sources. In the last decade there has been a growing notion that private organizations can gather enough funding for foreign aid. However, according to Paul Farmer, no intervention can be brought to a scale large enough to make a difference without some input from the state.

6. Do independent scientific research.

This is another tool to determine what really works and what does not. More importantly, it is a means to disaggregate politically motivated foreign programs from the ones that would create a real impact on poverty alleviation.

7. Centralize data for better monitoring of aid programs.

Creating an integral database for foreign aid helps identify redundant programs, eliminating waste. In addition, it is an effective way to determine goal-based foreign assistance and monitor the achievements accordingly.

8. Move away from one-size-fits all policies.

In countries with relatively stable governments, it makes sense to implement programs that rely on “country ownership” and more “participatory processes.” However, this might not be possible in countries with governance and corruption issues.

9. Tie aid to goals with measurable results.

This way both donors and recipients can be held more accountable for specific achievements. This will require moving away from generalized goals toward specifying the particular quality and scope for each program.

10. Reassess the way in which foreign aid is allocated based on risk factors.

This last point speaks directly to reassessing expectation. It is important to be realistic when it comes to foreign assistance. Under the best circumstances, there are still many factors that can hinder the progress made in poverty reduction programs. However, studying the risk involved in each case specifically can be a way to improve the chances of success.

There is no single answer to development and poverty alleviation. Foreign aid can be a lengthy and risky business. But using the tools at our disposal and learning from past experience is still a good way to achieve a growing number of successes.

– Sahar Abi Hassan

Sources: Politix, Foreign Affairs
Photo: The Economist

,

In Search of How to Define Congress

The Oxford English Dictionary defines congress as “the action of coming together (of persons.)” In the United States, that definition takes on a literal meaning and forms one of the three branches of the federal government. Comprised of the House of Representatives and the Senate, the U.S. Congress is the country’s foremost legislative body.

Established by Article I of the U.S. Constitution, Congress convenes in two-year periods and is currently in its 113th session. With 435 members in the House and 100 in the Senate, Congress is a perfect example of the representational government which the Constitution seeks to impart. The results of the U.S. Census dictates the drawing of congressional districts which allow eligible voters to select their representatives. Historically, there is a high reelection rate among incumbents.

Congress draws most of its powers from those expressly written in the Constitution, but the principle of implied powers set forth by the Supreme Court in 1819 gives Congress an incredible amount of leverage. Congress also helps to maintain the system of checks and balances which is essential for the even distribution of power between the different branches of government.

One of the most important roles of members of Congress is their ability to appropriate funds. They are essentially tasked with directing the monetary commitments of the U.S. during any given fiscal period. This makes Congress an essential part of the United States’ government’s efforts to combat global poverty. In 1961, Congress passed the Peace Corps Act, which created one of the most well-known sources of American international aid in recent decades. In its first 50 years of existence, over 200,000 Americans served in nearly 140 different countries under the Peace Corps banner.

In recent years, international aid and American monetary commitments abroad have proven to be a divisive issue due to poor domestic economic prospects. According to the Council on Foreign Relations, in 2011 one percent of the United States federal budget was allocated to non-security foreign aid. Public support for increased foreign aid is substantial, but it often fails to engender significant changes in federal foreign commitments.

In any effort to define Congress, partisanship must be taken into account. Increased public scrutiny and media coverage created a politically polarized climate in the waning decades of the 20th century which has continued into the 21st century. In this climate, lobbying groups have gained influence, but topics like global poverty have also gained more prominence in the public sphere. As political coverage has increased in the media the attention given to the federal government’s commitments abroad has also increased.

As a legislative body it is Congress’s duty to enact legislation on behalf of its constituents, but to define congress a broader view of the interactions of delegates is necessary. Congress, both in its governmental and noun functions, is a forum for discussion. It is in this forum that global poverty asserts its presence and that the recognition process begins.

– Taylor Dow

Sources: OED, CFR, Gallup
Photo: The Washington Update

,

10 Photos of US Foreign Aid in Action

In theory, foreign aid is a great concept that many citizens support in the United States. But how often do we actually get to see our heart-felt donations, activism and support of U.S. foreign aid in action? Here’s to all of you who want to see some concrete results of your efforts. All of the work and investment going into U.S. foreign policy is making a difference, and here are some real life examples to prove it!

 

1. U.S. Actor, Matt Damon, and Haitian Singer, Wyclef Jean, Distribute U.S. Food Aid to Haitian Flood Victims

US Foreign Aid

2. USAID’s Nutrition Programs

US Foreign Aid

3. Haitians Waving to a Departing U.S. Helicopter After Delivering Food and Water to Port au Prince

US Foreign Aid

4. USAID’s Decrease in Maternal Mortality Rates

US Foreign Aid

5. USAID Funds’ Replacement of 187 CDA Tubewell Pumps in Islamabad, Pakistan

US Foreign Aid

6. USAID‘s Female Health Workers

US Foreign Aid

7. USAID Delivers Deworming Medication to Kindergartners in Nam Dinh Province, Vietnam

US Foreign Aid

8. USAID’s Increases in Life Expectancy and Decreases in Maternal & Child Mortality Rates

US Foreign Aid

9. Emergency Food Distribution by USAID in Agok, Sudan

US Foreign Aid

10. USAID’s  Tropical Disease Treatments

US Foreign Aid

Photo: USAID Flickr Slideshow , U.N. , Flickr

, , , , ,

5 Facts About the Food for Peace Reform Act of 2014

Food for Peace Reform Act of 2014
On Tuesday, U.S. lawmakers introduced the Food for Peace Reform Act of 2014. U.S. Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., and Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., jointly introduced this legislation, which would end restrictions on international food aid programs.

“More than anything else, the mission of America’s food aid program is to save lives,” Coons said. “Our current system for acquiring and distributing food aid is inefficient and often hurts the very communities it is trying to help.”

1. Feed More People
The reformed food aid legislation would feed about 9 million people around the world.

2. Greater Efficiency
The legislation would make hundreds of millions of dollars more available per year. Currently, the food aid program has restrictions that require food to be produced in the United States rather than purchased locally. It costs more and takes months to reach people in disaster areas. It would also allow U.S. locally or regionally acquired commodities, cash transfers or vouchers to be used for aid.

3. Small Effect on U.S. Agriculture
U.S. food aid contributed merely 0.86 percent of total U.S. agricultural exports between 2002 and 2011 and just 1.41 percent of net farm income.

4. Let USAID Ship Food on Any Available Vessels
Currently, half of food aid must also be transported on U.S. vessels, which takes months and costs more. The cargo preference requirement means that aid is shipped at 46 percent higher than the market rate.

5. End Monetization
“Monetization” is a requirement that says 15 percent of all U.S. donated food must be sold first by aid organizations, which produces cash that funds development projects. Removing this would save 25 cents out of every taxpayer dollar, would feed 800,000 more people and make about $30 million per year more available. Many development supporters argue that monetization upsets local markets.

“At a time when our budget is strained and U.S. resources are limited, Congress needs to find ways to be more efficient and effective with every dollar,” Corker said.

– Colleen Moore

Sources: Reuters, Agri-Pulse
Photo: Africa Green Media