Paul S has it right!

I loved listening to this podcast. Paul's experience with village-level projects in Thailand ignited a spark he did not let die. Much later, he returned to let the spark start a wildfire that has benefited many. Congratulations! As a 40 year USAID field officer, I especially appreciate Paul's view that government foreign aid programs spend too much on overhead. But he quickly realized that, to support projects, you need to support the people who bring the ideas, train, build, oversee, and evaluate to ensure success. He solved that by creating two funds--one to directly fund projects, the other to support the process. Foreign aid does the same. Operational funds cover overhead, while project funds support the projects. Can the balance be distorted? Yes. Can foreign aid programs force projects not of a village's or community's choosing? Yes. That is why USAID field officers were such an important part of U.S. foreign aid. Those field officers, often recrited from Peace Corps volunteers, helped assure the right balance between project activities and the training and oversight needed. Congratulations to Paul for highlighting the importance of the "overhead" that necessarily accompanies foreign aid projects. Can foreign aid projects be successful without the USAID field presence? Of course, but the field presence is what assures quality, balance, and real success. Finally, can groups lie Paul's replace USAID as a deliverer of American assistance? Of course, but the problem is one of scale and span of control. Hopefully, a new U.S. foreign aid program is being formulated that builds on USAID's rich development experience over many years, on its successes, and its failures as well, and that groups like Paul's, IVS, Peace Corps, and so many other private, religious, and other nongovernmental group's experience and history will be a part of the rebirth in what I call USAID 2.0.