The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) is at a crossroads with its Global Health Supply-Chain Programme, facing a litany of issues ranging from mistakes and delays to outright mismanagement and fraud allegations. This turmoil has prompted a reevaluation of how USAID allocates its resources, particularly in the context of its NextGen suite of programmes, a massive $17 billion initiative aimed at overhauling the procurement and distribution of health supplies worldwide.
The previous programme, led by Chemonics International, was envisioned as a transformative effort to strengthen global health supply chains, enabling partner countries to manage their own systems effectively. However, what ensued was a saga of failure and controversy, according to reports by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ) and DevEx. Despite the lofty ambitions, the project was said I have faltered, with only a dismal 7% of shipments arriving at their destinations on time and in full during its worst quarter in 2017.
Subsequent investigations, including those by Devex and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, revealed alarming details of mismanagement, inflated success narratives, and even allegations of fraud. Such revelations have cast doubt on the efficacy and integrity of USAID’s operations, prompting calls for reform.
One key aspect of this reform effort involves redirecting funding to local NGOs. The rationale behind this shift is multifaceted. Firstly, it addresses concerns about the concentration of power and resources in the hands of large contractors like Chemonics, whose track record has been marred by inefficiencies and malfeasance. By empowering local organisations, USAID hopes to foster greater accountability, responsiveness, and cultural sensitivity in its aid delivery efforts.
In a Request for Information (RFI) issued on 30 January 2024, USAID in Nigeria explained that the organisation “is committed to shifting more leadership, ownership, decision-making, and implementation to the local people and institutions who possess the capability, connectedness, systems, and credibility to drive change in their own countries and communities. The localisation approach shifts the way USAID has done development internally and with our partners, including Nigerian organisations and government institutions.”
The RFI is USAID’s way of looking for the local organisations it would partner with in the near future, especially if they are deemed to have the “technical expertise and capacity to receive and manage (United States Government) USG funds.” The RFI defines localisation as “the process and action that USAID will undertake to ensure our work strengthens local systems, is responsive to local communities, and puts local actors in the lead.
Channelling funds to local NGOs aligns with broader development goals of promoting sustainability and capacity-building within recipient countries. By investing in grassroots initiatives, USAID aims to cultivate long-term resilience and self-reliance, rather than perpetuating dependency on external actors. To qualify, the organisation should have over 80% of Board of Directors consisting of Nigerian citizens, and it utilises and domiciles over 80% of income and profits in Nigeria. Sounds great.
However, the transition to supporting local NGOs is not without challenges. Skeptics argue that the entrenched procurement practices of USAID, characterised by opaque decision-making and favouritism towards established contractors, may hinder genuine reform efforts. Additionally, persons within USAID have concerns about the capacity and capability of local NGOs to effectively manage large-scale aid projects, especially in the face of stringent oversight and compliance requirements. But the latter is unlikely to be an issue if genuine reforms are intended.
The imperative for change is clear. The spectre of fraud and mismanagement looms large over USAID’s operations, necessitating a fundamental reevaluation of its procurement and distribution mechanisms. By embracing a more decentralised and inclusive approach that empowers local actors, USAID can not only mitigate the risks of fraud and corruption but also foster more sustainable and impactful development outcomes.
In conclusion, the tumultuous saga of USAID’s Global Health Supply-Chain Programme underscores the urgent need for reform within the agency. As allegations of fraud and mismanagement continue to surface, the imperative for change becomes increasingly apparent. Redirecting funds to local NGOs represents a step towards greater accountability, transparency, and effectiveness in USAID’s aid delivery efforts. Only by embracing genuine reform can USAID fulfill its mission of promoting global health and development in a manner that is ethical, equitable, and sustainable.
Follow the AkweyaTV channel on WhatsApp: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029Va7m7dvJuyA7h5XMc22i
