[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]