USAID (United States Agency for International Development) started publishing data to the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI) in 2013. You can find information about USAID’s programs using a range of sources, featured on this page.
As traditional aid shrinks, non-ODA financial flows are increasingly crucial. Their transparency, however, lags far behind. In this blog, Tessie San Martin, George Ingram and Sally Paxton assert that better visibility into non-ODA flows will unlock smarter investments and stronger outcomes. Therefore, extending transparency is essential to ensure new development funding achieves real impact
Aid transparency is the law. The 2016 Foreign Aid Accountability Act and 2018 Evidence-Based Policymaking Act mandate public access to U.S. foreign assistance data. The removal of key USAID data sets and websites limits the ability to assess program effectiveness and spending. Without transparency, accountability weakens. The solution isn’t less data, but better data. Expanding subcontractor details and evaluations would strengthen oversight—not erase it.
We’ve been tracking USAID’s localization journey since Administrator Samantha Power first announced the agency’s intention to provide 25% of its funding to local organizations in 2021. Our work has focused on the issue of how much money is actually channelled directly to local organizations. In this article, we reflect on USAID’s new FY 2024 localization progress report, highlighting where USAID is leading the way, identifying areas that still need attention, and looking ahead to what’s next.
Many bilateral donors have signed up to international agreements to take a more locally led approach and transfer a greater share of resources to local partners. But our new study finds that many of the same donors are not sharing any practical evidence of increased local funding. Commitments Without Accountability highlights that four out of five donors do not have localisation strategies or clear definitions, targets, or methods for measuring progress in funding shifts.
The US Agency for International Development (USAID) has made a bold
commitment to the localization agenda: it has set a target that 25% of its funding will go directly to local partners by 2025. However, our new analysis shows that how USAID defines and measures localization is actually undermining its progress and at odds with its aim to increase the diversity of local partners and amplify under-represented voices. It is allowing perverse incentives – such as affiliates of international organizations to be counted as local – and leaving significant funding opportunities – such as projectized funding that currently goes to UN agencies and multilaterals – untapped for local partners.
