Will USAID’s Office of Transition Initiatives Transition to State?

This is a joint post with Sarah Jane Staats.The long-awaited Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR) of USAID-State operations has been nearly eighteen months in the making.  We’ve heard bits and pieces about the process, the players, the substance, and timing.  The latest rumor is that at least one last debate is occurring prior to its release:  whether USAID’s Office of Transition Initiatives (OTI) or other types of humanitarian assistance should remain at USAID or be moved to the State Department.  If true, this would fly in the face of the administration’s own rhetoric of rebuilding USAID and elevating development.While it is unfortunately hard to know from the outside whether this debate is really occurring, ongoing, or has been decided, it’s important – even if only for the sake of argument – to explain why it matters that OTI stay at USAID.1.  If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. While USAID and the administration are working hard to build the agency into the world’s premiere development agency, USAID is already considered the world’s premiere humanitarian response agency.  USAID’s Bureau for Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance (DCHA) is the ER for disasters. It is regularly the first one on the scene, directing the most resources, in funding and expertise, in crisis settings.  It is recognized and well-regarded as such by other donors, and U.S. government agencies, the NGOs with which it works, and even Capitol Hill. Since 1994, USAID’s DCHA bureau has managed OTI’s work in post-conflict and post-disaster settings.  OTI has received high marks in Indonesia, East Timor, Iraq, Lebanon, Liberia, and Rwanda.  It currently has programs in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Yemen, and Haiti. In other words, it has a proven track record.2.  It’s all about development. While there is certainly a diplomatic component to work in fragile states, OTI and the work of DCHA more broadly is development-focused. The strategic, short-term interventions (lasting two to three years) in fragile states aim to jumpstart economies and support democratic institutions.  In short, OTI helps to transition states from a conflict or crisis environment to one that is conducive to long-term development. The danger of having these types of programs managed by the State Department is that development can become further subordinated to political and diplomatic considerations.3.  It shows a huge disconnect between deed and rhetoric.  The presidential policy directive on U.S. global development and numerous speeches from President Obama and Secretary Clinton promise to elevate development, in part, by building USAID into the world’s premiere development agency.  USAID is making great strides to fulfill this vision, it is still unclear who will be in charge of new White House initiatives such as Feed the Future and the Global Health Initiative and much of the work on both has come out of the State Department.  This begs the question: how does removing one of USAID’s core functions support the administration’s rhetoric?Admittedly, U.S. emergency and humanitarian assistance has been split in recent years among a number of agencies, including State’s emergency migration and refugee assistance and reconstruction and stabilization office, as well as DoD’s quick response delivery capabilities.  It makes sense for the QDDR’s review to look at these programs and rationalize who does what, where, and why. And there is more OTI could be doing to bridge the important gap between USAID’s disaster response and longer-term development investments.  But in the absence of further evidence, it’s troubling to hear that USAID should be doing less of what it does well, and State should be doing more of what is not its strong suit.Taking OTI out of USAID is a rumor we hope is unfounded.  But if it is under consideration, this is a debate that should include the voice of the development community.