    [House Hearing, 117 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                   SHIFTING THE POWER: ADVANCING LOCALLY LED
                    DEVELOPMENT AND PARTNER DIVERSIFICATION
                    IN U.S. DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                          COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                               SEPTEMBER 23, 2021

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 117-76

                                   __________

            Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

           Available:  http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/, http://
                                docs.house.gov,
                           or http://www.govinfo.gov

                                   __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    45-955 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2021

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

                      GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York, Chairman

    BRAD SHERMAN, California              MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas, Ranking
    ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey                  Member
    GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia	      CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey
    THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida	      STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
    KAREN BASS, California		      SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania
    WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts	      DARRELL ISSA, California
    DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island	      ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
    AMI BERA, California		      LEE ZELDIN, New York
    JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas	              ANN WAGNER, Missouri
    DINA TITUS, Nevada		      BRIAN MAST, Florida
    TED LIEU, California		      BRIAN FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania
    SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania	      KEN BUCK, Colorado
    DEAN PHILLIPS, Minnesota	      TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee
    ILHAN OMAR, Minnesota		      MARK GREEN, Tennessee
    COLIN ALLRED, Texas		      ANDY BARR, Kentucky
    ANDY LEVIN, Michigan		      GREG STEUBE, Florida
    ABIGAIL SPANBERGER, Virginia	      DAN MEUSER, Pennsylvania
    CHRISSY HOULAHAN, Pennsylvania	      AUGUST PFLUGER, Texas
    TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey	      PETER MEIJER, Michigan
    ANDY KIM, New Jersey	              NICOLE MALLIOTAKIS, New York
    SARA JACOBS, California		      RONNY JACKSON, Texas
    KATHY MANNING, North Carolina	      YOUNG KIM, California
    JIM COSTA, California		      MARIA ELVIRA SALAZAR, Florida
    JUAN VARGAS, California		      JOE WILSON, South Carolina
    VICENTE GONZALEZ, Texas
    BRAD SCHNEIDER, Illinois

                        Jason Steinbaum, Staff Director
                   Brendan Shields, Republican Staff Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                                   WITNESSES

    Armistead, Meghan, Senior Research and Policy Advisor, Catholic
      Relief Services................................................     8
    Ali, Degan, Executive Director, ADESO............................    17
    Glin, C.D., Vice President of PepsiCo Foundation, Global Head of
      Philanthropy for PepsiCo, Inc., and Former President and CEO of
      the United States African Development Foundation...............    24
    Mohamed, Ali, Program Director, GREDO............................    28

                                    APPENDIX

    Hearing Notice...................................................    55
    Hearing Minutes..................................................    57
    Hearing Attendance...............................................    58

       SHIFTING THE POWER: ADVANCING LOCALLY LED DEVELOPMENT AND PARTNER
                  DIVERSIFICATION IN U.S. DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS

                          Thursday, September 23, 2021

                              House of Representatives,
            Subcommittee on International Development,
                                          International
     Organizations, and Global Corporate Social Impact,
                          Committee on Foreign Affairs,
                                                        Washington, DC.

        The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m., in
    room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Joaquin Castro
    (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Mr. Castro. The Subcommittee on International Development,
    International Organizations, and Global Corporate Social Impact
    will come to order.
        Good morning, everyone. Thank you to our witnesses for
    being here today for this hearing, entitled ``Shifting the
    Power: Advancing Locally Led Development and Partner
    Diversification in U.S. Development Programs.''
        Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a
    recess of the committee at any point, and all members will have
    5 days to submit statements, extraneous material, and questions
    for the record, subject to the length limitation in the rules.
        Mr. Castro. To insert something into the record, please
    have your staff email the document to the previously mentioned
    address or contact subcommittee staff.
        As a reminder to members joining remotely, please keep your
    video function on at all times, even when you are not
    recognized by the chair.
        Members are responsible for muting and unmuting themselves,
    and please remember to mute yourself after you finish speaking.
    Consistent with H. Res. 8 and the accompanying regulations,
    staff will only mute members and witnesses as appropriate when
    they are not under recognition to eliminate background noise.
        I also ask members who are present in the hearing room to
    keep their masks on when they are not speaking.
        I see that we have a quorum and will now recognize myself
    for opening remarks.
        Pursuant to notice, we are holding a hearing today on the
    role locally led development plays in the United States'
    international development efforts.
        Experience across multiple administrations, both Democrat
    and Republican, has found that locally led development has
    numerous benefits, including onsustainability and
    effectiveness.
        Each of the last four administrations has prioritized
    locally led development in one way or another--through reforms
    at USAID and at multilateral institutions in the Bush
    Administration, the USAID Forward policy in the Obama
    Administration, and the Journey to Self-Reliance framework in
    the last administration.
        The Biden Administration has stated their intention to
    redouble these efforts and is undergoing a review to establish
    policy positions. In her confirmation hearing, USAID's
    Administrator Power argued that locally led development is,
    quote, ``most effective development,'' unquote. She has
    returned to this theme in countless speeches since, including
    when she testified before this committee. The Administrator has
    also signaled to the USAID staff that this is a top priority.
    But we are still waiting for the results from this review.
        There are a few questions this hearing will be looking to
    answer for the members of the subcommittee. The first is to
    really discuss what we are trying to accomplish by pursuing
    locally led development.
        Evidence demonstrates that working with local partners
    improves the sustainability and effectiveness of our foreign
    assistance programs. Local partners have a stake in their
    communities, are part of local governance mechanisms that can
    create long-term change, and can be less susceptible to
    disruptions. Locally led development can also be more cost-
    effective and lead to more equitable outcomes.
        The second is to answer the question, what do we mean when
    we say, quote, ``locally led development,'' unquote? This is a
    basic, fundamental question which has different answers
    depending on who you ask.
        One consequence of multiple administrations pursuing
    locally led development in slightly different ways is the
    different interpretation of what it means within our own
    government. One outcome of USAID's review of its policies I
    will be looking for is a unified approach across foreign
    assistance, one that ideally prioritizes indigenous
    organizations that are independent from international NGO's or
    even U.S.-based corporations.
        This hearing also merits some discussion of the impediments
    to pursuing locally led development and what Congress can do to
    overcome them. These efforts will require USAID to change how
    it operates. Working with new local partners is worth it but
    will take extra effort.
        We know that USAID's contracting officers already have
    large caseloads and often do not have the time to experiment or
    try new things. Fortunately, the Biden Administration's budget
    request and the House of Representatives' planned
    appropriations would increase the size of USAID's staff. It is
    essential that this legislation is signed into law as quickly
    as possible.
        We also know that reporting and compliance requirements can
    pose challenges for local partners and smaller organizations to
    work with USAID. U.S.-based and international assistance
    organizations bill large administrative staffs and hire former
    USAID officials to ensure they write proposals that will appeal
    to the Agency as well as meet every compliance requirement, but
    that is not practical for small and locally led organizations.
        When we talk about building local partner capacity, we
    cannot define that as making these local organizations more
    like big U.S. organizations in terms of their administrative
    capacity. Instead, we need creative solutions to meet new
    partners on their own terms, while also ensuring, of course,
    they are good stewards of taxpayer dollars. Ideas like
    expanding the use and thresholds of firm-fixed-price contracts,
    Development Innovation Ventures, and other innovative tools can
    reduce compliance burdens, but more needs to be done.
        Of course, this is a two-way street, and Congress needs to
    do its part. USAID too often takes a risk-averse approach
    because they fear congressional blowback in response to
    critical GAO and inspector general reports. Congress needs to
    be nuanced in oversight and signal to the Agency that we
    understand there are different kinds of risks when dealing with
    new and local organizations but we believe the benefits far
    outweigh those risks.
        We will discuss all of this and more with our distinguished
    panel today, but I want to emphasize that this is just the
    start of our efforts. We will continue to work on this issue in
    various ways, including through legislation. This will not be
    easy or quick, but I believe that it is essential.
        And before finishing, I want to thank Congresswoman Sara
    Jacobs, the subcommittee's vice chair, for working with me on
    this hearing and for prioritizing this very issue in Congress.
        With that, I will turn it over to Ranking Member
    Malliotakis for her opening statement.
        Ms. Malliotakis. Thank you, Chairman Castro, for holding
    this hearing.
        And thank you to our witnesses for agreeing to testify and
    share their experiences with us.
        As we all know, the concept of localization in development
    and U.S. foreign assistance is not new. President Bush sought
    to institutionalize better connectivity with local partners,
    particularly through the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS
    Relief. The Obama Administration carried this through, as well,
    and sought to build better country ownership of programs. And
    in the Trump administration, Administrator Mark Green
    established the New Partners Initiative to more effectively
    design programs alongside local partners and direct funding to
    new and underutilized partners.
        Subsequent administrations have recognized that, until we
    meaningfully support local ownership of local challenges and
    build the capacity of local organizations to solve these
    problems themselves, our foreign assistance will not have
    lasting impact. It is the same concept here at home: Local
    solutions to challenges in our diverse communities across the
    country are more long-term and effective than any top-down
    solutions from Washington. In the same way, we must do a better
    job of consulting with and learning from our partners around
    the world and meet them where they are.
        This is especially important when considering some of the
    most pressing foreign policy challenges that require local
    solutions to local problems, like the root causes of migration
    from Central America and the Caribbean. Just this week, I met
    with the Ambassador of a Central American country who was very
    critical of this administration's open-border policy and also
    expressed how funds provided through USAID are not having the
    intended result of stemming the flow.
        Across Africa, where ISIS and al-Qaeda affiliates are
    gaining in strength and numbers, we need to listen to local
    actors who understand why terrorist recruitment is working and
    how to combat it.
        We also need better metrics and tracking to ensure, as we
    do with all U.S. foreign assistance dollars, that the money
    provided is used effectively and achieving results. And that
    means robust monitoring and evaluation and a willingness to
    stop funding when they are not working or ending up in the
    wrong hands.
        If we are to effectively rely on local community
    organizations to implement U.S. tax dollars, we must also work
    with these organizations to ensure financial systems and risk-
    management strategies are in place to prevent waste, fraud, and
    abuse.
        I am also interested to understand the role of the private
    sector. As the drivers of economic opportunity and jobs in the
    communities they work, private companies are central to
    spurring locally led economic growth and can and should play a
    major role in advancing community-led development priorities.
        Similarly, church networks and communities of faith in all
    parts of the world are also critical to any conversation about
    local ownership. Often the backbone of the community, we should
    continue to support faith-based organizations and their close
    ties with the communities where they work.
        As many have said before, the goal of our foreign
    assistance and development programs should be to put ourselves,
    USAID, and the international development community out of a
    job.
        I look forward to the discussion today about how to better
    support local ownership of development programs and build the
    capacity of these organizations to advance the health, well-
    being, and prosperities of the communities they serve.
        Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time.
        Mr. Castro. Thank you, Ranking Member.
        I will now introduce our distinguished witnesses on our
    panel today. Our witnesses for today's hearing are, first, Ms.
    Meghan Armistead, who is the senior research and policy advisor
    at Catholic Relief Services, where she works on local
    leadership, localization, civil society, and aid reform.
        Ms. Degan Ali has been the executive director of Adeso, a
    humanitarian organization active in Africa. Her insightful
    critiques of U.S. foreign assistance have kickstarted a
    necessary conversation on how we can do better in working with
    local partners.
        Mr. Ali Mohamed, who is the program director of GREDO, an
    organization that works in Somalia. He will contribute his
    experiences and discuss his experiences working with the United
    States and USAID on these issues.
        And Mr. C.D. Glin, who is the global head of philanthropy
    at PepsiCo and was previously the president and CEO of the U.S.
    African Development Foundation. The USADF is an important
    government agency that has a proven record on locally led
    development. I look forward to hearing from him his experiences
    in that role and in the role corporations like PepsiCo can play
    in this field.
        And I will now recognize each of the witnesses for 5
    minutes. And, without objection, your prepared written
    statements will be made a part of the record.
        And before I call on our first witness, Ms. Armistead, I
    just want to remind the members and the witnesses, our
    witnesses are testifying virtually. You will notice that there
    is a 5-minute counter--if you go to the grid view, you can see
    the counter--that will give the 5 minutes for your testimony.
        And I would just ask everybody, please, as much as
    possible, to stay on track with that. And, of course, to our
    members, if you can, as much as possible, try to keep your
    questioning within your 5 minutes so that we can stay on time
    today. If you go too far over, then I will have to gavel you
    out. So please do not think me rude, but I want to keep us on
    time. All right?
        So, Ms. Armistead, you are recognized now for 5 minutes.

       STATEMENT OF MEGHAN ARMISTEAD, SENIOR RESEARCH AND POLICY
                   ADVISOR, CATHOLIC RELIEF SERVICES

        Ms. Armistead. Thank you.
        Chairman Castro, Ranking Member Malliotakis, on behalf of
    Catholic Relief Services, the international relief and
    development agency of the Catholic community in the United
    States, thank you for calling this hearing and for the
    opportunity to highlight the need for the U.S. Government to
    advance locally led humanitarian and development assistance.
        Supporting local leadership is core to CRS's foundation and
    Catholic social teaching and, in particular, its principle of
    subsidiarity, the idea that communities who are closest to
    challenges are best placed to address them. Supporting locally
    led development reflects this subsidiarity ideal and our
    commitment to respecting the dignity and agency of each person
    and community that we serve.
        Working with thousands of local organizations has taught us
    that partners embrace opportunities to lead. And CRS is
    committed to supporting their growth because it is the right
    thing to do and because it is the most effective, efficient,
    and sustainable way to do development.
        [Audio interruption.]
        Mr. Castro. You may be on mute there. Did you get muted, or
    did we lose the audio?
        Ms. Armistead. Am I okay? Can you hear me now?
        Mr. Castro. Oh, you are back. Yes.
        Ms. Armistead. Okay. How about picking up with: Our work
    with partners has shown us that a new way is possible.
        One example is our $40 million USAID-funded SMILE project
    in Nigeria, which successfully provided critical services to
    orphans and vulnerable children while also strengthening the
    capacity of 49 local service providers. In addition to hitting
    all of its programmatic targets, SMILE's partner agencies saw
    real improvement in their organizational performance, and 10
    have now transitioned to become prime recipients of USAID
    funding. SMILE proved to us that effective local organizations
    exist and, with investment, can begin to take the helm for a
    sustainable solution.
        We also see this on the emergency side, where we have
    experiences like our PEER project, which worked with local
    faith-based institutions in India, Lebanon, and Indonesia. At
    the end of that project, all partners had measurable capacity
    improvements.
        More interestingly, though, in 2020, we returned to these
    partners to see how they were responding to the COVID emergency
    and found that all 22 continued to apply lessons learned from
    participating in PEER and found their improved systems helped
    enable an effective emergency response.
        These are just a few examples of many. In 20 years of
    working with civil society groups around the world, I can say
    that there are smart, capable leaders committed to advancing
    their communities. Listening, investing, and partnering with
    them and their institutions can make foreign assistance
    smarter, more cost-effective, and more impactful.
        Efforts to advance local leadership must be guided by a few
    core tenets. First, CRS believes that localization must go
    beyond program implementation to also include local ownership
    of development goal-setting, prioritization, decisions, and
    strategies.
        Second, we know that holistic capacity-strengthening
    underpins effective localization. Too often, local capacity is
    defined as the ability of organizations to comply with donor
    regulations. Real and enduring change happens when
    organizations own their capacity assessment and goals and when
    investments are made in organizational systems and procedures.
        Next, the business of aid may have to change too. Local
    capacity is important, but transformation also requires change
    in business processes on the funding side, including things
    like size and timelines of awards, mechanisms of procurement,
    flexibility in funding, and fair risk management.
        Finally, we stress the importance of supporting both a
    broad, inclusive civil society, including faith-based
    organizations, as well as local government in order to meet
    development goals.
        With these principles in mind and rooted in our values and
    experiences, we offer the following recommendations.
        One, local means local. Define the goal clearly. Donors and
    programs have developed a range of definitions of local civil
    society and other entities. There are significant differences
    across these definitions, causing confusion and raising a
    number of concerns. For both the integrity of the efforts to
    support locally led development and for effective transparency
    and funding, it is critical to clearly define the goal and what
    ``local'' means in a way that reflects the intent to support
    autonomous local institutions who are accountable to their
    nations and the communities they serve.
        Two, if you do not measure it, it will not get done.
    Improve data collection and transparency. While some data is
    available on how much congressional funding goes to local and
    national entities, holistic data from the Department of State,
    USAID, and other U.S. Government donors is not available. We
    encourage Congress and the committee to urge the Administration
    to provide better data on where resources go and include local
    entities as an ``implementing partner'' subcategory on
    ForeignAssistance.gov.
        Three, mechanisms matter. Fix funding vehicles to support
    localization success. Congress must ensure reasonable size and
    timelines of awards, align the choice of funding instrument
    with local actors' capacity, and embrace flexibility in funding
    and fair risk-management practices.
        And, last, four, no shortcuts. Invest in holistic, not
    transactional, capacity-strengthening. We ask that donor
    agencies fully fund comprehensive, holistic capacity-
    strengthening approaches that ensure locally led goal-setting
    and go beyond simple, transactional one-off activities.
        To close, we thank you, Chairman Castro and the committee,
    for your leadership and attention to this important matter. The
    time is now to reflect and make much-needed positive change to
    our foreign assistance. We look forward to working with you to
    make our foreign assistance dollars go further, do more, and,
    ultimately, support the dignity of every human person.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Armistead follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Castro. Thank you very much for your testimony.
        And I will now call on Ms. Ali for her testimony.
        Ms. Ali, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

           STATEMENT OF DEGAN ALI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ADESO

        Ms. Ali. Thank you, Chairman.
        Chairman Castro, Ranking Member Malliotakis, and members of
    the committee, good morning, and thank you for the opportunity
    to testify today.
        Adeso is an organization based in Kenya that has long
    advocated for more locally led development and the need for the
    system to shift power to local organizations. Adeso has
    provided critical humanitarian and development assistance to
    millions of people in Somalia, Kenya, and South Sudan with the
    support of many donors, including USAID.
        There are three major reasons that I will elaborate on. And
    this is not comprehensive; there are many other good reasons
    why we need to do locally led development.
        And one is inefficiencies. Chairman Castro already spoke
    about that. There are layers and layers of intermediaries
    between USAID funding and local organizations, in the form of
    U.N. agencies, who then subcontract to an INGO, who then
    contracts a member of their INGO family. For instance, one
    member of the family--the U.S. member of the family of these
    federations will give the funding to the international member
    of the federation or European member of the federation, who
    then contracts to a local organization.
        These inefficiencies in the system are costly and mean that
    there is huge wastage of resources, as organizations take a
    portion of the grant for their operational costs in each layer,
    ensuring that what reaches the communities has been reduced
    significantly. And this does not apply only to INGO's or
    American NGO's but also contractors.
        Impact. If the projects and programs are being designed
    with no or limited engagement of local organizations and the
    communities that we are aiming to serve, who understand the
    context and what they need best, it means that USAID's funding
    is having less impact than desired. There have been countless
    projects funded by USAID and other donors that have wasted
    funds on infrastructure not being utilized by the communities
    or activities that have no lasting benefit.
        Third, fairness and the issue of power. Imagine during
    Hurricane Katrina that organizations from France all of a
    sudden swooped in to respond to the crisis. They excluded
    American NGO'sfrom local coordination meetings and even wanted
    all the meetings to be held in French and not English. They
    took over all decisionmaking forums, marginalizing the American
    Red Cross, other very small State-level, county-level
    charities, State authorities, and even FEMA. Well, this is the
    reality of what local organizations and national governments
    experience every day during a crisis in our countries. What
    would never be accepted in the U.S. is commonplace treatment in
    Africa and Asia.
        So here are some recommendations for moving USAID's efforts
    on locally led development.
        No. 1, the large awards in RFPs and RFAs only incentivize
    the Agency to work with contractors and INGO's, as most local
    organizations do not have the capacity to submit a competitive
    bid nor manage an award of $75 million, $100 million, $45
    million, and so on. Some of the reasons for the desire for
    large awards is because of capacity constraints at missions and
    in D.C. to manage many smaller awards rather than one big
    award.
        No. 2, require that all American and European partners of
    USAID have a 3-year exit strategy out of a country, where they
    are start off as a prime to a local partner but transition to
    being subcontractors after 3 years and the INGO provides only
    technical support to the local partner. Meghan from CRS has
    already described some amazing examples from their projects.
    After 3 years, both humanitarian and development assistance
    should be led by the local organization or the local university
    or the government or the private sector, while the American or
    the European NGO or contractor has transitioned to becoming a
    subcontractor to a local partner.
        No. 3, USAID needs to develop strong tracking tools of how
    much of its humanitarian development funding goes directly to
    partners. It should also provide incentives for the missions
    that increase their percentage of funding every year while
    simultaneously investing in institutional capacity-
    strengthening of their partners. The missions that perform the
    best on various metrics should be rewarded and given public
    accolades and other ways of rewarding them.
        No. 4, USAID missions lack enough specialized personnel to
    support the capacity development of partners to manage many
    smaller local grants. The missions are often understaffed and
    overwhelmed. This is one of the reasons they do not want to
    manage multiple partners with small awards. Congress can
    support USAID and other development agencies engaging in more
    local partnership by supporting the staffing of those agencies.
        And, last, to say that, you know, there is already a great
    precedence with PEPFAR that has given, I think, over 40, 50
    percent of its funding to local organizations, USADF, and other
    U.S. Government institutions that are doing excellent on these
    metrics of supporting more locally led development. So the
    question needs to be asked, why is it that some parts of the
    U.S. Government agencies are doing well while others aren't?
        And I think this is a question of both not just capacity
    but also risk willingness on the part of USAID. And we need to
    provide as much support as we can to change the behavior and
    the attitudes of those who have--there are many in the
    institutions who are champions of locally led development, but
    there are many others who find it very risky and really find it
    a very scary concept. So we need to support those members of
    USAID who really need serious, strong capacity development on
    their part to understand the impact and the other benefits to
    locally led development.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Ali follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Castro. Thank you, Ms. Ali.
        I will now call on Mr. Mohamed for his testimony.

            STATEMENT OF ALI MOHAMED, PROGRAM DIRECTOR, GREDO

        Mr. Mohamed. Thank you, Chairman Castro, and also the rest
    of the committee.
        On behalf of GREDO, I believe locally led development aid
    would work if the donors and the international agencies can
    fundamentally change the way they think and also adopting ideas
    of giving the space to locally led initiatives.
        This means local communities set their own priorities and
    approach; hence, the INGO's can provide technical backup on the
    know-how and the technical expertise. It would also be locally
    owned, where INGO's start as an outsider but then hand over the
    implementation to local NGO groups to create a sense of
    ownership.
        But, unfortunately, what we normally see is that aid is
    locally delivered, where INGO's get the funds and subcontracts
    a national NGO to do a part of the project, which are called
    partnership agreements, while actually it is a delivery
    contract approach, which shouldn't be the case.
        Locally led initiatives could be effective and cost-
    efficient. For instance, in Somalia, we piloted a COVID-19
    response project with Save the Children which, within 3 months,
    benefited almost 103,000 beneficiaries. This has been piloted,
    and it was locally designed. And it came through the idea of
    GREDO developing a
        [inaudible] Project in response to the COVID-19 response
    mitigation. And what this gave us is the
        [inaudible] To absolutely be known by the project, which is
    also designed by the organization itself in a means that fits
    the community and the local context.
        Second pilot--what the added value of a
        [inaudible] Pilot project is, it is like it has created
    pride within the organization in delivering solely the whole
    project. It strengthened aid localization in the context of
    means to boost localization within Somali. Contextualized
    approach in delivering project among the community. Created
    sense of owner within the community, especially in the
    engagement of various community groups.
        To be effective, locally led aid should be part of the
    bigger picture. And to achieve this, you need context, specific
    knowledge, and local people on the ground willing to take the
    leadership and risk.
        In this scenario, what we really need is to rethink what
    partnership really means in the current context of aid
    structure. It shouldn't be only or limited to outsourcing and
    subcontracting national NGO'sfor delivery of projects in their
    respective countries and in this case Somali. It should be
    basis of local knowledge, initiatives, new ideas, and
    commitments to do better for the future. Donors and INGO's
    should get smarter on how they help local NGO groups to scale
    up.
        True partnership should be based on respect, trust, and
    humility, while locally led aid and a true partnership with
    INGO's will increase the appropriateness, establishing more
    connection to the local communities at risk and eventually
    increase aid effectiveness.
        True locally led development can happen, and it needs the
    willingness to trust and experiment locally driven approaches
    and ideas. It is important that we reform the aid sector,
    putting local actors--in this case, national NGO's, civil
    society, government institutions, and the local community--at
    the center and giving the space to fully respond locally.
        Recommendations to USAID on locally led development:
        One, to diversify USAID partnership approach with the
    engagement of national NGO's, government institutions, the
    private sector, and the local community.
        Two, establish a suitable funding bracket for NGO's to
    apply directly at a country level, or maybe establishing a pool
    of funding to increase the quantity and quality of funds
    channeled to local actors.
        Invest more in national NGO's' capacity-strengthening and
    systems. And this should go beyond the basic in-house trainings
    and invest more in the organization system.
        Facilitate open and honest dialog between all actors with
    regard to funding.
        Promote greater NNGO sustainability through multi-annual
    funding or fundraising support and equitable overheads.
        Localization on working with first responders. Increase and
    support multiyear investment in the institutional capacity of
    local and national responders, including preparedness,
    response, and coordination.
        Back to you, Senator.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Mohamed follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Castro. Thank you very much for that testimony.
        I now want to call on Mr. Glin for his testimony.
        Mr. Glin, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

     STATEMENT OF C.D. GLIN, VICE PRESIDENT OF PEPSICO FOUNDATION,
       GLOBAL HEAD OF PHILANTHROPY FOR PEPSICO, INC., AND FORMER
      PRESIDENT AND CEO OF THE UNITED STATES AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT
                               FOUNDATION

        Mr. Glin. Chairman Castro, Ranking Member Malliotakis, and
    members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to
    appear before you today and to share my perspective on this
    important and timely global issue.
        With the rise of the global pandemic, organizations in
    almost every sector have had to rethink, reshape, and retool
    their ways of working. This is especially true in the
    international development sector. Fortunately, for decades,
    PepsiCo has built strategic local partnerships to ensure the
    provision of locally driven solutions, enabling us to continue
    to execute and monitor our programs even in the face of
    pandemic-induced challenges.
        PepsiCo has experience realizing the benefits of locally
    led development, both for the business and for our communities.
    As the largest food and beverage company in the country and one
    of the largest in the world, our foods and beverages are
    consumed nearly 1 billion times each day.
        While our reach is global, we remain committed to a multi-
    local approach, believing that it is our duty as a company to
    contribute to the prosperity of the communities where we
    operate by contributing to the GDP, creating jobs for the local
    population, contracting and sourcing from local suppliers,
    while connecting and engaging with local community and
    stakeholders.
        At the PepsiCo Foundation, our local approach and local
    strategic partnerships are key to the success and the
    sustainability of our work. We have hired and empowered local
    staff to co-create programs with local partners. The result of
    our inclusive, locally led approach has been the development of
    innovative solutions that buildupon local insights.
        For example, in Peru, we have been working with small-scale
    women producers since 2019. The program with CARE Peru was
    disrupted by the pandemic. Instead of hosting in-person
    training for small-scale women farmers, we worked together with
    them to pivot to a virtual approach and, in doing so, created
    an e-commerce vehicle for these small-scale women producers,
    who now are able to advertise and sell their produce via
    WhatsApp.
        In Palakkad, India, frustrated community members have been
    independently trying to establish reliable infrastructure to
    access water. In consultation with WaterAid India and the
    People's Service Society of Palakkad, we established dialog
    with community members and co-created a program combining local
    insights and ideas with the technical expertise needed to build
    a functional water system. Through this participatory approach,
    a new pipeline was installed, and local leaders now operate and
    maintain a system that provides water to nearly every home in
    the community.
        That said, PepsiCo's decades-long global-to-local footprint
    has also exposed us to the barriers, risks, and limitations of
    going local, including limited implementation capacity of local
    partners; inadequate accountability, transparency, and
    oversight systems; nascent monitoring, evaluation, and
    reporting expertise.
        Our experience with these barriers hasn't stopped our
    international efforts; rather, they have informed our approach.
    For example, we engage third parties and grant intermediaries,
    who play a fundamental role in helping prospective local
    nonprofits to meet our requirements. They vet new projects,
    assess organizational capacity, provide training, and monitor
    performance to ensure that locally led projects remain on
    track, on time, and on target, adapting where necessary.
        To truly scale localization efforts, USAID will play the
    central role. PepsiCo and USAID have a strong relationship.
    While we celebrate our successes together, there are
    opportunities for improvement.
        We offer five critical lessons and suggestions that could
    accelerate the progress on the quest to shifting power and
    prioritizing locally led development: One, hire locally. Two,
    prioritize local co-ownership. Three, incentivize co-creation
    with the private sector. Four, modify monitoring and evaluation
    criteria to ensure mutual accountability. And, five, share
    local networks.
        In conclusion, this work is difficult. The barriers to
    locally led development are real and must be addressed
    thoughtfully. But we must prioritize progress over perfection.
    PepsiCo is committed to localization in our business and our
    philanthropic investment. And we are encouraged by the
    bipartisan commitment, from Bush to Biden, administration to
    administration, to locally led development.
        While we celebrate the progress the global development
    community is making, including that of international NGO's who
    are creating local entities with all local staff and local
    governance structures, at PepsiCo we are listening to and
    learning from our local partners, to empower them to lead long-
    term solutions. While far from perfect, we are making progress,
    and PepsiCo is proud to play our part in advancing the thinking
    and the doing, as we all seek to shift the power.
        Thank you, Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Glin follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Castro. Well, thank you, Mr. Glin, for your testimony.
        And thank you to all of our witnesses for your testimony.
        And I will now recognize members for 5 minutes each for
    questioning. And pursuant to House rules, all time yielded is
    for the purposes of questioning our witnesses.
        Because of the hybrid format of this hearing, I will now
    recognize members by committee seniority, alternating between
    majority and minority. If you miss your turn, please let our
    staff know, and we will circle back to you.
        If you seek recognition, you must unmute your microphone
    and address the chair verbally.
        And I will start by recognizing myself for 5 minutes of
    questions.
        As I mentioned in my opening statement, before we can
    embrace locally led development, we first need to come to an
    agreed-upon definition of the term. And different parts of the
    U.S. Government define the term differently. USAID is currently
    reviewing how it will define the term.
        And I believe it was Ms. Armistead--you spoke to this
    during your testimony. Can you elaborate on the different
    approaches the U.S. Government takes and what a single
    definition would be?
        Ms. Armistead. Thank you so much. Sure.
        I think what we have seen in recent years is a
    proliferation of a range of definitions, and it is that
    differentiation that sometimes causes some confusion and
    concern. We see ``local entities'' established in a number of
    ways in different places, whether that is in PEPFAR or within
    NPI. And then we have also seen the interaction of this
    ``locally established'' category, which is, I think, aimed at
    recognizing this entity that is affiliated with perhaps
    international organizations but has a local presence.
        And I think what we really are urging the committee to do
    is to clarify what the goal is. And I think we have heard
    across the witnesses and across the statements that the goal is
    really to shift the power and have local actors owning the
    development process and leading. And if we are talking about
    that as the goal, I think we have to talk about ``local
    entities'' and define ``local entities'' in a way that reflects
    that local nature.
        So clarifying that we are talking about organizations that
    are a part of the social fabric of the countries in which we
    are operating or talking about here with foreign assistance and
    who are accountable to those communities. So I think that those
    lines, the autonomousness, the autonomy of the organizations
    and the lines of accountability would be important lines to
    consider as we seek a common definition.
        I would also like to add that coming to that common
    definition is important for the goal, but it is also important
    for just doing aid effectiveness well and increasing our
    transparency. A number of witnesses have talked about needing
    to have a better picture of where funding goes. And without a
    clear definition and a common definition, it is very hard to
    see that.
        So, if we can come to a clearer definition of what ``local
    entities'' is, that can help inform our effort to really have a
    better picture and a more transparent system that shows how
    much of our foreign assistance is going to local institutions.
        I hope that is helpful.
        Mr. Castro. Thank you very much for that.
        And, Mr. Glin, you formerly led the U.S. African
    Development Foundation, which is a pioneer when it comes to
    locally led development. What lessons do you believe USAID can
    apply from USADF's model as the Agency tries to do more locally
    led development?
        Mr. Glin. Thank you, Chairman. I truly appreciate the
    question. And, as you mentioned, I was president and CEO of
    U.S. African Development Foundation for approximately 5 years.
    And that model of development, along with that of the Inter-
    American Foundation, we feel like is exemplary to locally
    driven, locally led development.
        Some of the tenets of that is being demand-driven and being
    demand-responsive to the local needs and challenges. So not
    developing solutions to problems from afar, whether Washington,
    DC, or writ large, but locally within the communities. So being
    demand-responsive, demand-driven, looking at bottom-up-driven
    solutions.
        But also supporting those entities directly, with direct
    support, grant support, but also having oversight by local
    organizations as well. ADF has a very cost-effective model,
    because not only do they grant directly to grassroots
    enterprises and organizations but they also leave it to local
    organizations to do some of the monitoring, evaluation, and
    support.
        And I want to appreciate the role that Congress led in
    creating and codifying USADF and the Inter-American Foundation
    by law. And, in that codification, it mandated that we had to
    support local organizations and provide them that support
    directly and build their capacity with local entities.
        If that mandate was not there, we might see a model that is
    not as transformational as currently exists, where local
    organizations are enabled to build their own capacity, are
    enabled and supported not through implementers or implementing
    programs for them, who really have to support and provide
    support with and through them, so that the entities are
    sustainable organizations, that they are long-serving, and that
    there actually is a pathway to prosperity. We talk about
    developing them, growing them, and scaling them so that they
    can take on some of the development challenges in their
    communities on their own.
        I think USAID could, at scale, take some of the tenets of
    USADF, with the local implementing partners, with direct
    support to organizations, and modify some of the current
    structures.
        But I will say that one solution is to scale up what is
    working. USAID and USADF consistently, on an annual basis, are
    somewhat under threat. And so by doubling down on those
    institutions to be complementary to USAID is also another way
    for the U.S. foreign assistance toolbox to really use some of
    the tools that are there--USADF and the Inter-American
    Foundation.
        Mr. Castro. Yes. Thank you. Thank you.
        I am over time, so I am going to turn it over to our
    ranking member, Ms. Malliotakis.
        Ms. Malliotakis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I have a question for Mr. Glin.
        You know, we are in a time where there are many who attempt
    to vilify corporate America. And I think that there are a lot
    of things that we can point to in terms of how corporate
    America has helped fill in the gap, where, you know, obviously,
    we cannot--it is not an endless stream of taxpayer money. We do
    rely on private-sector partners to implement some types of
    programs.
        And you, as the global head of philanthropy at PepsiCo, I
    would love for you to share some of the examples from your
    company's foundation, as well as perhaps others that you can
    give us from other private-sector entities.
        Mr. Glin. Thank you for the question.
        Yes, at PepsiCo, the PepsiCo Foundation, we see ourselves
    truly as a collaborator with others in development, whether
    those are communities where we live and work or whether it is
    other actors who are trying to meet some of the those community
    needs. So collaboration is key to all that we try to do at
    PepsiCo, collaborating with the communities. We are a true
    contributor, as I mentioned, whether that is directly
    increasing GDP, creating jobs, sourcing locally, and impacting
    the community.
        At USADF, we work with others to solve some global
    challenges in the local context. And so our priorities revolve
    around access to food security, creating more equitable access
    to nutritious foods, safe water access, as well as economic
    opportunity. And we work with other private-sector entities in
    collaboration and we also work with community organizations to
    bring about those solutions.
        We see ourselves also as a catalyst to, really, as you
    mentioned, using our corporate power and the power of business
    as a positive role in society to catalyze solutions and
    sometimes to go in earlier than maybe government and other
    entities want to, but to catalyze solutions to show what works
    and then have those scaled up by USAID and others.
        So I think that there are ways and with USAID and other
    corporations can also ``follow,'' quote/unquote, some of the
    corporation's lead in areas like food security, in areas like
    water or economic opportunity. There are ways to align to
    corporations investing in communities. And then also USAID and
    government entities that are involved in development, creating
    a local operating environment, an ecosystem where it is easier
    not only to do business but to do good.
        So we look at our impact as really creating local community
    impact, as well as engaging our employees in these countries--
    we have hundreds of thousands of employees globally--and also
    where we as a company can be a better corporate citizen. And so
    there are----
        Ms. Malliotakis. Mr. Glin, could you give us, like, one or
    two specific examples that you are most proud of of what your
    foundation has been able to accomplish?
        Mr. Glin. In the area of water is where we have had
    transformational impact, where we have a goal of impacting
    100,000 people to provide safe water access by 2030. In
    countless areas around the world with groups like WaterAid, we
    have been able to work on access, conservation, and
    distribution of safe water. We recently announced taking this
    globally--that was in South America and in South India--to sub-
    Saharan Africa.
        In areas of food security, partnering even with USAID in
    West Bengal, India, working with smallholder farmers to help
    them develop new solutions to agri-nomical issues.
        In Egypt, we work directly with empowering women farmers in
    a program called She Feeds the World, where we really are
    helping engage women, as the breadwinners of society, to build
    their capacity.
        So, in countless areas, the foundation comes together with
    local communities and with potentially other actors such as
    USAID to bring our corporate expertise, our convening power,
    and our resources to really amplify efforts of community-driven
    impact.
        Ms. Malliotakis. Thank you.
        Mr. Castro. Thank you, Ranking Member.
        I will next call on the Congresswoman from San Diego, Sara
    Jacobs.
        Ms. Jacobs. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you for
    convening this really important hearing about an issue that I
    know does not always seem sexy, kind of wonky and niche, but
    actually critical to getting our foreign aid right.
        In Fiscal Year 2020, only 5.6 percent of USAID funding went
    to local partners. And, you know, the question is, why does
    this matter? Why is it important to fund local partners
    directly? And the answer is: Power.
        Because we talk a lot about improving development outcomes
    in countries, but we do so from an ivory tower, and we often
    task largely White organizations to carry out this work in
    other countries, and when they leave, the development outcomes,
    if they worked to begin with, are no longer able to be
    sustained.
        We need to understand that people know what they need. They
    do not need us to tell them. They just need us to ensure
    access.
        And as a report from Peace Direct found, there remains a
    culture in the development field that oftentimes fails to
    recognize the strengths of local people and properly include
    those in the design of projects who understand the context
    best.
        I am encouraged by Administrator Power's commitment to this
    issue, and I think this hearing is an important step in making
    sure the Administration realizes their goal.
        So I wanted to ask our witnesses a question. The New
    Partners Initiative, established in 2019, streamlines USAID's
    partnering process to work with new and local partners. And the
    Administration is seeking to update programs and strengthen
    partners.
        So, Ms. Armistead, I was wondering, in your view, how can
    USAID effectively buildupon and improve this program to ensure
    that local communities, not just international organizations
    who hire local staff, are supported more effectively?
        And then, Ms. Ali and Mr. Mohamed, could each of you
    describe the top three specific barriers your organizations
    have encountered when trying to work with USAID?
        Ms. Armistead. Thank you so much for all of those important
    points.
        And I think the New Partnerships Initiative is a great
    example of the increased interest in locally led development.
    And we are very enthused by that and encouraged as the U.S.
    Government is taking more of an interest and a recognition that
    locally led development is the right way to do foreign
    assistance.
        I think one question we have is, where does NPI fit within
    the larger ecosystem of U.S. foreign assistance, and how can we
    integrate it into all the work that we do to support effective,
    efficient, and sustainable development, not just in a silo, but
    ensure that we are making efforts across the whole system and,
    within those efforts, always putting, as you say, local voices
    at the center?
        So, looking holistically. Also, ensuring participation, so
    opening up new avenues for getting input from a range of
    voices, as these new initiatives are designed and implemented
    is critical. I think looking at the definitions issue again is
    important.
        Thinking about making sure that we are aligning initiatives
    such as NPI with the goal of effective locally led development
    is important. So I think getting into the nitty-gritty about,
    you know, how we are actually designing this is an important
    thing to do as we look forward.
        And looking at, kind of, the business-of-aid side of
    things. So ensuring that, as we are looking at new ways and
    opening up new mechanisms for increasing access of local actors
    to lead development assistance programs, are we making sure
    that the business processes match those goals? So things like
    the size of those awards, the timelines of those awards, the
    risk-management strategies of those awards.
        And I know a number of witnesses have talked about this
    too, but those things matter in terms of how successful it will
    be as an initiative to support locally led development.
        Ms. Jacobs. I am just going to cut in so we can make sure
    that Ms. Ali and Mr. Mohamed have time to answer before my time
    runs out.
        Ms. Ali. Should I go ahead?
        Ms. Jacobs. Yes, please.
        Ms. Ali. Okay. So just three barriers. Well, I think the
    first one is that there is the rules and regulations are
    extremely vast, and they are complex, not meaning that local
    organizations cannot meet those challenges, but they are
    extremely complex. And the advantage that American NGO's have
    is 60 years ahead of us and they have developed these massive
    compliance departments.
        So, unless we have a more shared approach to compliance, a
    more shared approach to risk, and we think about how we can
    reduce some of these compliance burdens and think about what is
    the most important issues that we really need to address in
    these compliance burdens, rather than, you know, just the array
    of issues that are constantly there.
        Many of the rules and regs, in my opinion, could be done
    away with, and they are just too cumbersome. Some of them are
    very important and really necessary. So I think there needs to
    be a real reexamination of the usefulness that a lot of these
    rules and regs are serving and what that burden does to local
    organizations who are 60 years behind American NGO's and
    billions of dollars of investment behind. You know, they have
    had all of that time and resources to invest in their capacity.
        The second thing I would say is that there isn't a very
    systematic onboarding process that happens for local
    organizations. It is individual-specific. It is mission-
    specific. Sometimes you are lucky enough to get someone that
    really understands what you need and support you in the
    process. Oftentimes you are kind of left on your own to figure
    this machinery and this maze out on your own. So there has to
    be a consistent process on that.
        And the last thing I would say is the attitude and the
    behavior. I think there has to be more recognition and more
    capacity development of the USAID staff themselves to be more
    risk-sharing with the partners, rather than this very, I would
    say, racist attitude that, if you are a local NGO, you are
    fraudulent, you are corrupt, and if you are an American NGO, we
    can trust you--which, the data does not prove that.
        I am sorry to say, the data does not prove that. There is
    just as much experiences and issues and problems with
    corruption or fraud or mismanagement of resources that happens
    with U.N. agencies, American NGO's, as it happens with local
    organizations. So I----
        Ms. Jacobs. I am sorry----
        Ms. Ali [continuing]. Think we really need to change the
    perspective of the staff on that end.
        Ms. Jacobs. And I totally agree with you.
        I am over time, so I will yield back. Thank you.
        Mr. Castro. Thank you, Vice Chair.
        All right. We are going to go now to Representative
    Houlahan.
        Ms. Houlahan. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        And thank you to everybody for joining us today for this
    hearing, a very important one, where we are focusing on
    shifting the power to local organizations and local actors in
    this space of foreign assistance and foreign aid.
        I have a couple of questions related to the pandemic. What
    have we learned or gained from this very difficult time in the
    world's history that we can apply to help accelerate the
    timelines of being able to direct local owners and actors to be
    able to be helpful in foreign, I guess, assistance?
        I know that, Mr. Glin, you mentioned something about
    technology being something that was deployed because of the
    pandemic. Are there other things that the speakers can give
    examples to or breathe life into that would be helpful in
    understanding how to accelerate timelines?
        And I will start with Mr. Glin since you were the one who
    brought up the first example.
        Mr. Glin. Great. Thank you, Representative. I appreciate
    it. Good seeing you again.
        You know, the pandemic has exacerbated some challenges but
    also, as you said, brought about some positive solutions. So I
    think that one is just a sense of trust. We couldn't--quote/
    unquote, ``we,'' the international community, couldn't travel
    the way we were used to, so we had to rely on local capacity in
    ways that we had never been forced to do. And I think it has
    been proven successful, with individuals showing real
    resilience, local actors having the ability to survive, adapt,
    and then thrive, even in the face of the global pandemic.
        So I think it has really changed one of the things around
    credibility and familiarity, which are some of the barriers to
    why going local and using local organizations is sometimes
    challenging. So trust has been, I guess, strengthened.
        I would also say innovation, in that we had to come up with
    new solutions and doing things differently. And those solutions
    were typically driven locally, asking local actors, local
    providers, organizations: How might we--what can we do to
    improve? And so the power shifted, where they were on the
    ground, and we needed to engage them in the solutions because
    we weren't there, and we had to rely on their ability, again,
    to adapt to the solutions. So I think that innovation came.
        And, as I have mentioned, the use of digitization
    transformed a lot of how we deliver services, how we engage
    with those organizations. And it also really transformed the
    way in which we were able to see some locally driven innovation
    in new ways.
        I could go on, but let me stop there for the sake of time.
    But I think trust and innovation are two things that we have
    learned that also can lead to improvements in how we not only
    work with local organizations but also how we manage programs
    and projects.
        Ms. Houlahan. And perhaps, Ms. Armistead, would you have
    anything to contribute to that?
        Ms. Armistead. Absolutely. I would say that we have seen
    our local partners around the world responding to the crisis in
    their communities in flexible, smart, sustainable, and
    effective ways.
        I think that our recent experience going back to partners
    that had previously received some capacity-strengthening
    investment was a great example for us, too, of how local
    institutions exist, with great ability to respond best to the
    needs of their communities. And with investment, you can see
    real lasting change in their ability to do that effectively.
        And, especially, I think, one other thing that we are
    curious about, though, is, I think a lot of us felt that this
    was going to be the moment for localization. And I think what
    we are seeing is, our partners are there, our partners are
    ready, and we are ready to support them, but perhaps the
    funding itself has not flowed in the way that we expected.
        So I think it is also a moment of reflection for us to
    think about, you know, we have local institutions out there,
    they are ready to lead, they may need some investment to do so
    most effectively, but we know that it works. And we know that
    COVID was a moment when they were best placed, in many cases,
    to respond. But we are not seeing that the funding necessarily
    followed that.
        So I think it is a moment for examination, a moment for
    reflection, and a time to dig into seeing, OK, what are those
    enduring barriers and how can we help move beyond them.
        Thank you.
        Ms. Houlahan. Thanks.
        And with what is left of my time, I would like to kind of
    dive into--I know the purpose of this hearing was about foreign
    assistance and foreign aid, but I am also intrigued by the fact
    that we have Mr. Glin here from industry, you know, from the
    for-profit sector. And I was hoping to get reflections from
    each of you, for the record if we do not have time, on what the
    power is of business.
        Mr. Glin, you mentioned the ability for business to do
    good.
        What kind of partnerships can you guys see from your NGO's
    and your NGO positions where you could engage in the power of
    people who are focusing more and more on environmental and
    social governance issues? Is there something that we can be
    doing as a government and as a Congress to be able to enable
    that relationship to be even stronger between the for-profit
    sector and the NGO or nonprofit sectors?
        Mr. Glin. That is definitely a place where we could provide
    greater insights and recommendations.
        But I would say, you know, one of the things that we see
    government playing a strong role is being a, sort of, honest
    broker and bringing together companies and nonprofit partners
    and civil society leaders together in a way where we can have a
    shared understanding, where one is not necessarily dominating
    the conversation.
        And so, where we have in industry pre-competitive
    alliances, these are ways where the power of the government to
    bring us together for a shared purpose, where everyone can
    align their issues and the opportunities, is one area where I
    think that there is greater room for improvement.
        I think that there is also this opportunity of working
    directly with local organizations. And we are privileged that
    the same was true at USADF. Having local staff in the countries
    really gives you the local insights to be able to really figure
    out what needs to be done and listening and learning from them
    to be demand-driven and demand-responsive.
        And so using entities that have a strong ground game, such
    as corporations, with employees who are finding, funding, and
    supporting local organizations but also entities like USADF and
    IAF, who have local staff who are trusted and true community
    connecters, listening to them and allowing them to, sort of,
    bring up some bottom-up-driven solutions that we can then take
    forward to scale, whether through the private sector or through
    government.
        So I think that the power of government to bring us
    together but also to incentivize greater collaboration is a key
    area for greater exploration and an opportunity.
        Ms. Houlahan. I know that I have run out of time, but if
    any of our other speakers would be willing to provide that
    information or some ideas later on, I would really appreciate
    that.
        And, with that, I yield back.
        Mr. Castro. Thank you, Congresswoman.
        And I want to give, as a followup, an opportunity for Mr.
    Mohamed to provide an answer to Ms. Jacobs' question about
    essentially, you know, your experience with USAID or American
    NGO's and what you think needs to change or what could be
    improved.
        Mr. Mohamed. Thank you, Chairman.
        I think one issue that we sort of would like to see change
    is the idea of partnership, in the sense that there has to be a
    mutually direct partnership with the local actors or entities
    on ground.
        A couple of times,
        [inaudible] Includes the sort of perception that there is
    no capacity--so the capacity of responding to likes of
    pandemic, if there is a COVID outbreak or anything.
        But getting direct partnership, I think that that is the
    main issue that needs to be focused, and also to be, like,
        [inaudible] Downstream at any point.
        So, looking from the USAID, I think they can look into the
    structures that are in place, facilitate the environment that
    allows NGO's or local actors to have an equal opportunity in
    terms of funding access, so local ideas are driving innovation
    of creative
        [inaudible] Could be implemented in a wider reach and also
    with cost-effectiveness.
        So I think that the position has to be changing on the
    structure so nationals can have an equal opportunity in terms
    of
        [inaudible].
        Mr. Castro. Thank you. Thank you for that.
        And next we will go to Congresswoman Tenney.
        Congresswoman Tenney? I see you on the video, but I do not
    know if you can hear us.
        We will come back to Congresswoman Tenney. I know that
    Congresswoman Houlahan had a few more----
        Ms. Tenney. I am here. Sorry. Are you there?
        Mr. Castro. Okay. Yes, we will go to Congresswoman Tenney,
    uh-huh.
        Ms. Tenney. Sorry about that. I was trying to get my thing
    here set up, but thank you. Thank you, Chairman Castro, for
    convening this hearing.
        And thank you to the witnesses for your testimony as we
    look at these global development issues impacting our economy.
        And I am going to direct my first question to Mr. Glin.
        Could you tell me examples of success in assistance
    provision models that have proven effective in directing
    capital and capacity-building support to nongovernmental
    organizations and community leaders, if you could?
        Mr. Glin. Thank you, Representative.
        One example that I will cite is our work in Egypt. So, in
    Egypt, for example, we source 100-percent locally sourced
    potatoes, providing opportunities for 4,000 farmers who work
    across 40,000 acres. So this is PepsiCo, the business, but we
    also work in collaboration with CARE Egypt, the local arm of
    CARE International, to ensure that, as we are sourcing it, we
    are increasing the yields and incomes for small growers but
    also supporting for their families.
        So this is an example of using the power of business to
    engage local growers and the farming community but also linking
    to a nonprofit that is operating locally, CARE International,
    to implement a program that not only provides a sourcing
    opportunity for us but improves the lives and livelihoods of
    those growing the product, but also their families.
        And so PepsiCo, with CARE, with our local partners, but
    also with the local communities. And so those partnerships,
    tripartite and the like, are really critical to our ability to
    serve not only as a good corporate citizen but a real community
    connecter.
        Ms. Tenney. Okay. So on those--you are talking about those
    types of assistance. What type of grant structures can we use,
    like, to help local partners improve their capabilities and
    manage the assistance? Do you think that this is the best
    model? You said a tripartite model. Can you just expand on that
    with how you mean and how we would see the U.S. funds spent
    that way?
        Mr. Glin. No, great. So that is an approach where, looking
    at the model of global development alliances, which are public-
    private partnerships, where USAID can come in, where PepsiCo
    comes in, and then we support, for example, another program
    that is in agriculture in West Bengal, where we have an MOU
    with USAID. PepsiCo is bringing funding, resources,
    capabilities on the ground, USAID is supporting a local
    implementing partner, and we are going in, quote/unquote,
    ``aligned'' and together.
        There also are other models to really tackle the problem
    that we face with the capability and the accountability of
    local partners, and that is the USADF model, which really has a
    tiered grant structure that really is about building the
    organizational capacity of the entity that you are eventually
    going to want to see run the program. So you are going in and
    building their capacity, and then you are expanding their
    ability to perform, and then eventually they are in a position
    to run the program on their own.
        So it is going in with a long-term, sort of, graduation
    model in mind. We think of it that elementary school prepares
    for you high school, high school prepares you for college, and
    then you are out on your own. With these local organizations,
    sometimes we do need to go in and develop them, work with them
    to grow them, and then, hopefully, when they scale, they are
    able to absorb broader forms of capital from U.S. foreign
    assistance providers.
        So, if we look at AID and other development assistance
    programs, there is a dovetailing and a linkage and a continuum
    where one U.S. foreign assistance provider can hand off
    organizations and can look at ways to grow the organizations
    for the long term. So collaboration----
        Ms. Tenney. Just quickly, because I want to ask Ms.
    Armistead a question, so when you get to that higher level,
    when you develop them, we still maintain our oversight and
    ability to look at where the funds are spent, correct?
        Mr. Glin. A hundred percent. And it also leads to a
    difference in the relationship. It goes from not using
    international implementers to those international organizations
    really providing oversight and monitoring, which is less
    costly, which does not require the level of investment for
    using international organizations to implement programs. We
    then become more of a service provider, but they are the
    implementers. They own the solutions, and they own the
    sustainability of the interventions.
        Ms. Tenney. Great. Thank you so much.
        Ms. Armistead, I just wanted to ask you a quick question.
    How can the U.S. Government more effectively partner with some
    of the private foundations to utilize their pretty much vast
    local networks, their resources, and support some of the
    development solutions? Is that an option for us, you know,
    similar to what Mr. Glin just outlined?
        Ms. Armistead. Yes, thanks. I think that what we have seen
    is that partnerships among all development stakeholders can
    really be powerful in terms of bringing about a more locally
    led development landscape, whether that is with U.S.
    foundations, we also do public-private partnerships, support
    public-private partnerships, as well as with local NGO's.
        I think for us the key is investing in those partnerships,
    really understanding who the stakeholders are, what assets they
    can bring, and how we can invest in those partnerships to bring
    about the most optimal solution.
        So I think each one of these has a role to play. And I
    think investing in those trust-based, mutuality, transparent,
    equal partnerships can really be a powerful way to approach
    doing development better.
        Ms. Tenney. Thank you.
        I think I am out of time. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank
    you.
        Mr. Castro. Thank you, Congresswoman.
        We will go right back to Congresswoman Houlahan for a few
    more questions.
        Ms. Houlahan. Thank you again.
        My question this time will be for Ms. Ali.
        Data shows that when women are empowered communities are
    more prosperous and the world is, of course, a more stable and
    peaceful place. And so working with more women-led
    organizations and focusing on women's economic empowerment, I
    believe, should be a priority of this body and the United
    States as we aim to take a more locally led approach.
        Has failing to sufficiently fund and empower NGO's led by
    women and other marginalized populations negatively impacted
    the effectiveness of our foreign assistance? And if so, are
    there some examples that you might be able to share with us?
        Ms. Ali. Thank you, Congresswoman. Actually, that is a very
    good question because this is one of the things I always talk
    about.
        Lack of locally led development does not just mean that it
    harms the ability to have impact and it is the right thing to
    do, but it actually harms women-led organizations. Why do I say
    that? I will give you a very good example, Somalia.
        I am a Somali American, and I have been living here now for
    about 20-something years. And a majority of the strong, quote/
    unquote, ``strong'' organizations that most international NGO's
    and U.N. agencies partner up with are male-led, almost
    exclusively. There are very, very few real partnerships with
    women-led organizations.
        And why is that? Because the women-led organizations are
    oftentimes those small CBOs in country. They do not have access
    to these meetings in Nairobi. They cannot fly out to Nairobi as
    easily. They do not have as much grasp of the English language.
    And they are very local in nature. They are not trying to
    become these big--they are not trying to mimic the
    international NGO's, and they want to stay local.
        So the policies and what we are doing is actually harming
    our ability to have a real partnership, meaningful partnership,
    with those kinds of organizations. I am always in a room of
    male-dominated Somali NGO's, and that is commonplace.
        And I wouldn't say that that is unusual also in Somalia; I
    would probably say that is probably a global epidemic. Because
    the more professionalized you want the NGO to be, the bigger
    capacity they have, oftentimes the less grassroots they are,
    and they tend to be more male-dominated.
        Ms. Houlahan. Thank you.
        Would any of our other speakers like to comment on that
    question?
        Mr. Glin. Thank you, Representative. I couldn't agree more
    with Ms. Ali.
        And I also want to highlight that PepsiCo and the PepsiCo
    Foundation has for years prioritized women across its entire
    portfolio of work and sometimes specifically. And so we have a
    great partnership with CARE International, which is to reach 5
    million women farmers and their communities.
        And this focus on women, whether--and it is in our programs
    for access to nutritious foods. We have a focus on women there.
    Safe water access. We know women are the water bearers and bear
    the burden of carrying water for distribution essentially
    around the world, and so we focus on women there. And even in
    economic opportunity.
        So the three pillars of our work, women are integral to
    every aspect of the work that we do around the world.
        Ms. Houlahan. Anybody else who would like to weigh in on
    that?
        My next question, with my last minute and a half, is really
    a general question, which is: What can Congress do to better
    help here in the area of enabling USAID to work with new
    organizations, smaller organizations, and local organizations,
    in very specific terms?
        Perhaps Ms. Ali first.
        Ms. Ali. Yes, I mean, I think we need to--as I have said,
    we need to examine the legislative kind of support that can be
    given to USAID and to incentivize them. There are certain
    barriers that they have, some compliance, some real barriers.
        I think earlier there was a question around innovative ways
    to move capital to more local organizations. One of the things
    we have been advocating for for many years is to establish
    national funds. And the importance of that is because USAID
    staff are overworked and understaffed, so they want to write
    big checks, and that is why they like the $45 million, $50
    million, $100 million RFPs. But if they establish national
    funds that are led by civil society in the country that have
    maybe a humanitarian window, an education window, a human
    rights window, whatever it may be, they can pool their money
    into that fund with other donors.
        And that allows them to have a greater reach of local
    organizations. So, instead of having layers of intermediaries,
    you have one intermediary which is at a national level, led by
    civil society.
        So I think helping USAID to establish different kinds of
    mechanisms to move money would be really, really important.
        Ms. Houlahan. Thank you.
        And I have run out of time, and I yield back.
        Mr. Castro. Thank you, Congresswoman.
        And that concludes our questions for our witnesses today. I
    want to say thank you to each of our witnesses, also our
    members who asked questions.
        To our witnesses, thank you for lending your expertise on
    this issue and your experiences as we move in the direction of
    more locally led development.
        And, with that, this meeting is adjourned. Thank you.
        [Whereupon, at 11:15 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                    APPENDIX
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]