Talk:United States Agency for International Development

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Cbahari.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

page does need some adjustments, but is a pretty good start!

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.157.171 (talk) 17:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

01 FEB 2005: This page does need some adjustments. In particular, we should refer to the most current Federal budget, not the 2003 one. I will try to find the information on foreign aid and return to update this entry.

Further, there have been recent articles on how the people of the USA contribute to foreign development not only through public organizations like USAID, but also through private contributions to religious (i.e., Catholic Relief Services) and secular (i.e., Save the Children) non-governmental organizations. So this means that the conventional wisdom about US taxpayers being stingy when it comes to foreign aid may not be true. This point is worth mentioning here.

It would be interesting to see some more about how USAID evolved over time, from its heyday in the 1960s with thousands of employees in the Vietnam Bureau alone, to today when we have only about a thousand foreign service officers and we mainly work through contractors and grantees. That is an interesting shift that's worth documenting here.

As for GNP for the USA... USAID deals only with assistance to people of foreign countries, so any discussion of USA national product is tangential to the discussion here; the reader Ashley should refer to the entry on GNP, not USAID, for that info.

R.M.Birkenes (rbirkenes@usaid.gov)

The page is somewhat misleading; the USAID organization is a primary source of U.S. aid but not necessarily even the main anymore. In 2005 the U.S. gave away 27 billion in economic aid; only 10 billion of that came through USAID (Source: US Overseas Loans & Grants [Greenbook] which can be accessed at http://qesdb.cdie.org/gbk/index.html). This amount is dwarfed by the private giving of the U.S. people, which was estimated by "Giving USA" to be 260 billion; 76% of which came from individuals. In fact as Prof. Arthur Brooks points out in his book Americans privately give 1.7% of GDP as compared to .7% for the U.K. The reason for this is simple, most Americans believe charity is a personal responsibility and most put their money where their mouth is. [Of course none of this includes U.S. military aid or the indirect subsidizing of the world free trade by protecting the world's oceans]

At least you had the honesty of declaring your interests. In reference to your point that US taxpayers being stingy may not be true, I'd like to point you to the [OECD web site] which shows that the contribution from the US in 2005, in terms of GNI, was only greater than Portugal and significantly behind that of the rest of the developed nations. So, sorry, it's not a matter of perceptions that the US is 'stingy', it's a matter of fact. 193.133.69.201 10:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree -- we (the US) agreed to deliver .7% for ODA (a paltry amount by any calculation) and have been making excuses for welching ever since. The amount provided through private donations was never part of the equation, as far as I know.

Regards.

Elrobino 09:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Despite the fact the percentages are less, the economy of the US is so much larger than the aforementioned countries, it is still giving more money, making "stingyness" an arbitrary and utterly ineffective label.

USAID and CIA

"Most claim that there was in the past, but no longer is, a relationship between the CIA and USAID. Others disagree."

So who exactly disagrees and who doesn't? That last sentence seems like it was added just to make the paragraph more neutral, but there's no argument backing it, and it just looks stupid the way it's put. Has the CIA or USAID said anything about the allegations? If they denied them then we could replace that sentence with their position.

Who does "most" referr to? 194.138.39.53 11:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)r.w.

Especially odd considering that the next paragraph confirmed the connection, citing the "Family Jewels". I've corrected the language, therefore, though I cannot speak to the claim's accuracy.Czrisher 12:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

References [1] and [2] about CIA connections lead to another WP article rather than to an original source, at it suppose to be per WP:Source. Can anyone provide correct references, please?Biophys 03:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course, this is still ongoing http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/us-sent-latin-youth-undercover-in-anti-cuba-ploy/2014/08/03/2c9f5786-1b5a-11e4-9b6c-12e30cbe86a3_story.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.222.187.239 (talk) 04:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

My God!

There has always been, is, and always be a relationship between the Agency and USAID. The apportionment of foreign aid to "particular" foreign groups, political parties, media outlets, labor unions (or their opponents), legal and student groups, etc... are the bread and butter of USAID. And only those groups that support the US agenda (political or economic) receive such aid. And what better cover for Agency operatives in foreign (and often hostile) climes than as the distributors of aid? There are no "ifs" about it. RM Gillespie (talk) 15:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

This thread about USAID and CIA is ridiculous, and it's really annoying to read. As a USAID career officer who (1) has never encountered any connection between CIA and USAID, (2) never met a CIA 'operative' working inside USAID under cover, and (3) knows that USAID is generally well outside the intel circles of the US Government... I say Stop! Stop writing about this, without hard evidence. RMGillespie's personal belief and assertion, without evidence, is really not helpful here. Of course USAID supports pro-market and pro-democracy groups overseas, and we act in the US national interest... we state that openly as our mission statement. There's nothing covert about it, and no nefarious connections to the intel world. Sorry, it's just not there. Not in the past thirty years, anyway. (Rmbirkenes (talk) 09:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC))

Further note on this subject: OK, yes, we admit there is a relationship: Both USAID and the CIA are part of the US Government, and both are involved in implementing US foreign policy as decided by the White House (including NSC), the Cabinet, and Congress. To argue there is currently a closer relationship is rather embarassing, since there is no evidence. To the contrary, I understand that thirty years ago there was legislation barring USAID from serving as a cover agency, and my 12+ years of USAID experience is consistent with that understanding.

With respect to support for specific parties, media outlets, student groups... this is also patently false. Unlike many other federal agencies and departments, USAID makes special effort to abide by Federal Acquisitions Regulations and Law with respect to competitiveness in procurement. This means criteria are transparent and applied to any solicitation, and award of contract and grant is according to the organization's ability to deliver meaningful developmental results. In cases where organizations fail to receive a contract, they have the right to protest and demand information on why they did not receive an award. This happens often, and that promotes fairness in selection process. Also, USAID has an Inspector General that looks into any fraud, waste, or abuse. Do you think this is all just on paper, but not real? No, it's very real. The IG is very active and successful. All award criteria are published in advance, and all awards (after selection) are also public information that must be reported to Congress and tracked/analyzed by State Department.

If you have knowledge of a different system, I'd love to hear about it. I've been among USAID's senior management for years, and have seen none of what you mentioned. Rmbirkenes (talk) 15:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

NPOV?

Apparently the Morales government has instituted a "concerted effort" to "discredit" US anti-drug operations. Ignoring the obviously biased word choice, do we have a citation for such a claim? Until we do, I'm removing a few sentences in the Bolivia section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.253.151.192 (talk) 15:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Important criticisms are missing

In my studies of a couple Latin American countries, I found a lot of criticism of USAID programs which is not covered here. Supposedly, USAID often supports the already rich and powerful instead of going to the people who actually need AID. For instance, in the book "Inside Honduras" by Kent Norsworthy and Tom Barry, a former vice president of Honduras "chraged that 30 percent of U.S. economic aid was lost to corruption, and another 50 percent was misdirected, going to the business elite rather than to programs to help the poor" (pg. 167). Thus, USAID's programs "aggravate and accentuate the deep social and economic divisions in Honduras." (pg. 168). USAID itself has acknowledged this, in "Honduras: Country Development Strategy Statement FY1986", May 1984, saying, "...implementation of a stabilization program will probably lower living standards and may well increase unrest among the country's already impoverished people in the short term."

How can we incorporate this into the article to show this viewpoint?

Rawgreenbean 22:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, some recent and not-so-recent hystorical research, specially done by latin-american writers, have find evidence that USAID was directly involved in the political overthrows that ocurred in Latin America during the 60-70's. USAID directly gave financial help to groups interested in overthrowing democratictly elected governments as João Goulart in Brazil and Salvador Allende in Chile, and later used as a mean of supporting the dictatorial governments (Pinochet in Argentina, Costa e Silva and following military presidents in Brazil). There are a lot of hystorical evidences documented by brazilian writer Elio Gaspari and others that show, for instance, that USAID money was used to organize the God's march for Family and Property in Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo, one of the biggest righ-wing manifestations that were supportive to the coming coup.

Andresacram, 19:31 01-07-2008 (GMT -03:00)

Update re this. Six Latin American countries have officially called for the expulsion of USAID from all ALBA nations in response to claims of political interference under aegis of USAID. ALBA Expels USAID from Member Countries. 86.159.14.44 (talk) 12:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

USAID programs & projects?

Is anyone thinking of developing a list of USAID programs and projects (past and present)? There may be a summary list somewhere - the effort would itself be encyclopedic. I ask as I just started a stub on the Leland Initiative which seems too big an "ICT4D" program to have been without an article so long. --A12n 01:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

A link to past USAID (and earlier agencies) projects has been added today in the external links section. -- Jpharold (talk) 16:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Many important criticisms are missing

Many intellectuals in Africa and, also, some in America (e.g William Robinson) so USAID as a key vehicle for contemporary imperialism. This is not explored on this page. You should site real sourses if you plan to make bold statements like this.

Also missing from this entry are criticisms of USAID's aid effectiveness, and its self-serving programs such as the Food for Peace. The level of tied aid provided by USAID should also be explored. Tied aid is when USAID provides aid to a country to build, say, a dam, and it requires that country to use American contractors. There is no open bidding process for the contract. As such, the recipient country loses out on the economic growth that such a project could have generated. Some actually deduct tied aid from the total aid provided to a country as a cost. While most DAC donors have agreed to untie their aid as part of their committment to the Paris Declaration, the U.S. has not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elizabeth Delph (talk • contribs) 08:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to add a voice to the chorus. That there is not a "Controversies" section on this page is a glaring, glaring error. Of course we're not going to agree on all the criticisms of USAID, but they ought to be listed all the same. (Unfortunately, I'm not in a position to do it...but it seems others posting here might be.) Thfump (talk) 12:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Deleting input from USAID staff will lead to biased Wikipedia entry

To contrast with the discussion about how there's not enough criticism here, I would agree with that but also add that there is nowhere near enough positive information on USAID.

Looking through the History of the main USAID page, I observe that inputs from Wikipedia users from IPs that are connected with USAID are routinely deleted. Information from USAID's web page are also routinely deleted. This may be in line with Wikipedia policy, I don't know.

The end result is that the people who have the most direct knowledge of USAID are barred from contributing. It does not improve Wikipedia to exclude authors with the most information. That in itself biases the submissions in favor of critics who do not work for USAID, and who may have an axe to grind and thus provide biased or even unsupportable information.

I concur that this page should be different from the official USAID webpage, and yet it should not be amateurish and crappy like it is now. Foreign aid is a very, very serious matter. USAID has some successes and some failures. Let's please move this Wikipedia entry forward by allowing disparate sources and points of view, not deleting anything that's positive. This page is a travesty, and an embarassment for Wikipedia and American taxpayers who support USAID. Moreover, it's an insult to the thousands of USAID staff--both Americans and local nationals--who are risking their lives every day in order to fight poverty, disease, corruption, illiteracy, and conflicts around the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmbirkenes (talk • contribs) 09:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.77.160 (talk) 18:02, 23 July 2022 (UTC) 

USAID to Israel?

Do these figures include the military shit, like bombs and stuff, we send to Israel as aid? Or not? Because I can't figure out why else Israel would get so much. 132.161.140.26 (talk) 15:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

There are MANY US foreign aid programs outside of USAID. USAID's official mandate does not include military assistance. Programs like arms for Israel fall under DOD -- foreign military sales or aid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.174.229.23 (talk) 02:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The University of Michigan political scientist A. F. K. Organski wrote a book about U.S. aid to Israel (36 Billion Dollar Bargain). This book concludes that substantial aid began after the 1967 War and especially after the 1973 War. Aid which has been continued by later administrations. Organski wrote that this was seen as providing a counter-weight against Soviet-allied or radical Arabic regimes, such as Nasser's Egypt. Aid was increased to Israel and of course to Egypt by Carter, as part of the Camp David Peace Accords. (Organski observed that American Jews had not suddenly increased in numbers or power in 1973, nor ran the Nixon White House, but that Nixon and U.S. strategists supported Israel for geopolitical purposes.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit Dispute

United States Agency for International Development footnote #3 and preceding paragraph is in dispute. Source in one editor's opinion is legit, in another source is non-neutral (biased) and information is dated. Rather than escalating an edir war, per Wikipedia:Third opinion, seeking 3rd opinion. Mikebar (talk) 17:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• The line in question doesn't belong in the article. The source in the foornote speaks about some incidents in cuba, not all of latin america. Therefore the the sentance Its role in Latin America has often been criticised for being overtly political is too broad. The term often implies mutiple reliable sources, which isn't the caase. Finally, the amounts allegedly given to dissident organizations in Cuba (ie USAID gave US$670,000 to three organizations...) are relatively trivial amounts within the context of the entire USAID program. --Work permit (talk) 08:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Massive Plagiarism

The bulk of the article is copied verbatim from the usaid website. here http://www.usaid.gov/about_usaid/usaidhist.html RobRedactor (talk) 04:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

There are rules for incorporating content from U.S. government sources, which is often allowed, although credit should be given.

If such copying creates an appearance of COI or POV or promotion, then such copying would be especially problematic (unlike copying information about statistical experiments, say).

Check at the most appropriate noticeboard, if you need help.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Iraq

An opinion article by a syndicated columnist isn't wp:rs, except for the fact that it was said.--Work permit (talk) 02:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely correct, and that is the way it was cited. Having said that, I'll also say that it would have been better to provide cite-supported info from a more solid source. I have replaced the opinion-piece cite with a cite to a USAID statement about this. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 01:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

By the way, he wasn't notable, much less a notable expert on Iraq. Thanks for getting rid of him and replacing with a more appropriate statement from an appropriate source--Work permit (talk) 05:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

this article "critisism" section, qoutes sources that are just opinion articles and essays, that provide no real sources themselves? an opinion piece that provides no real source of info other than the writers opinion is "spin" not a source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.110.2.187 (talk) 00:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Sterilization

In Peru, former president Alberto Fujimori (1990-2000) pressured 200,000 indigenous people in rural areas (mainly Quechuas and Aymaras) into being sterilized.[29] In July 2002, a final report from the Health minister proved that between 1995 and 2000, 331 600 women and 25 590 men had been sterilized. The program was mainly financed by the USAID (36 000 000 dollars) and the UNFPA (United Nations Population Fund).

How reliable is the source for this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmoloney (talk • contribs) 09:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

haiti???

the role of usaid in haiti gets only positive commentary? they played a chief role in the destabilization of a democratically elected government in 2004. they went behind closed doors to the preval government after that to prevent a minimum wage increase by threatening aid withdrawals. many haitians routinely refer to usaid economic preconditions as the "death plan." and they only get thumbs up from this article. what's the deal? 68.193.173.240 (talk) 02:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

USAID is only one part, frequently a small one, of USG foreign relations

To illustrate that USAID is only one part, frequently a small one, of USG foreign relations: for example, in the years when the USG made civilian cash transfers to the Israeli government as foreign aid, each year's Congressional appropriation law typically required that the full (rather large) amount of the cash transfer be made in a single transaction within 90 days of the appropriation's enactment. USAID acted as the transfer agent but obviously USAID as an agency and its staff had no role in making the policy and any USG agency could have executed the transfer mechanically as well as USAID did.

Wikipedia's "USAID" article should certainly include discussions of broader foreign relations topics that USAID is a part of, such as aid to Israel for example. However, the article should also provide the public with information about USAID itself, which is much less well known than most of the hot topics in widely publicized world events.

I suggest that specific topics like USG relations with Bolivia etc. merit their own Wikipedia articles, in which USAID's role in USG policy would naturally appear. Trying to squeeze all these topics into the "USAID" article, however, is not really possible and risks squeezing out the harder-to-find information about USAID itself.

So the important question for configuring Wikipedia's "USAID" article is "What are the things that are specific to USAID and thus should appear primarily in the USAID article?" In my opinion, there are several.

1. USAID's institutional organization and history. Given the continuous history starting from the famous Marshall Plan, this should be interesting to the public.

2. Operational capabilities in low- and middle-income countries. On the civilian side, USAID is far ahead of all other USG agencies in this respect, especially since the U.S. Information Service (the American libraries abroad) was abolished.

3. Development assistance. While the public instinctively understands charitable assistance and disaster assistance, as well as cash grants made for geopolitical reasons, "development assistance" refers to a different thing that is much less well understood and that is almost unique to USAID. There is a separate Wikipedia article on "Development Aid" (whose weaknesses illustrate the subject's difficulty), but USAID's predominant role in USG "development" work justifies including the topic in the "USAID" article, including some clarifying discussion of what is meant by "development" as distinct from poverty relief and so forth.

4. Technical assistance. While the public instinctively understands financial assistance (giving money away), technical assistance is quite different. In the context of USG international development it is almost unique to USAID, so that making this distinction among modes of assistance is essential to understanding USAID as an institution. Note also that Wikipedia's "Development Aid" article indiscriminately lumps "technical assistance" together with other terms like "overseas aid." The "USAID" article may be the best place for a more professional discussion.

Jsryanjr (talk) 14:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

FWD

It would be nice if the article explained the meaning of "FWD". Tad Lincoln (talk) 01:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

section on assistance projects

Thanks for adding this - it's a great addition. I hope you'll be all right with me helping to take this article to GA and hopefully FA in the next year or less. To get it there, we would probably need to really take pains to make this as free of "AID speak" as possible, accessible even to a fifth grader writing a report about the US government. At the same time, we'd want to make sure it's fairly comprehensive. In the section you've just added, for example, we could rephrase the header to be more specific to mechanisms or (in less jargon-y terms) maybe "Modes of assistance" or something. Then we'd want to talk about the difference between grants, contracts and cooperative agreements, I think, and we could touch on things like LWAs etc. Then we'll have the challenge of identifying the sources we can use to support all of this content. This is really a solid start and covers important content that was missing before. Thanks for all your hard work on this article. - Lemurbaby (talk) 01:35, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

How does the section on assistance projects look as of now?Jsryanjr (talk) 17:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Yemen expensive no vote

The Citations for that part are now all dead links, I suggest a new link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/fogofwar/archive/post012891.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.21.52.234 (talk) 23:22, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Clarify?

"USAID spent $95,000 US in 2005 on a seminar in the Brazilian Congress to promote a reform aimed at pushing for legislation punishing party infidelity." Could this be clarified in the article? Thank you. First, I do not understand the syntax (very possibly it's just me), second, the idea appears to be presented incompletely (what infidelity? how to punish?) - 89.110.30.3 (talk) 05:52, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

USAID support of the Laotian Civil War

Hello, all,

The use of USAID to supply food and munitions to Hmong guerrillas in Laos during the Vietnam War is well known. Among the sources available for this coverage are Shadow War: The CIA's Secret War in Laos by Conboy and Morrison, and Back Fire: The CIA's Secret War in Laos and Its Link to the War in Vietnam.

I might add that I was an eyewitness to this USAID supply operation. And before the screams of "ORIGINAL RESEARCH" begin, realize that while I mention my witness role here, there is not a smidgen of it in any article.

Georgejdorner (talk) 22:33, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Input Solicited from USAID Alumni Association

I will be soliciting input to the Wikipedia page on USAID from members of the USAID Alumni Association (UAA) through the Association's website. The Association's members include mainly retired USAID officials who have long experience in posts in other countries and in Washington, DC, many of whom rose to executive positions.

Jsryanjr (talk) 14:37, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Just keep the conflict of interest guideline in mind. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Excellent point. It would apply strongly to current USAID staff, who are subject to LPA's rules. Jsryanjr (talk) 16:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

"Poverty Alleviation and Poverty Reduction" ARE euphemisms for POPULATION CONTROL

THE declassified NSSM200 Implications of Worldwide Population Growth For U.S. Security and Overseas Interests. Is a VERY VERY DISTURBING DOCUMENT.

USAID is POPULATION CONTROL; more disconcerting is the focus on Population control of the Black Brown and Muslim peoples. Its most notable that Brazil,Nigeria, and Ethiopia are areas designated for USAID investment. As well as Egypt,Indonesia,Phillipines.

What is MOST disturbing is the report states that educating people and providing contraception would not be enough and they needed to use additional strategies for population control... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.19.143.113 (talk) 10:51, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Trump nominates Mark Andrew Green (May 10, 2017)

to be Administrator of the USAID:

whuitehouse.gov

Where is the best place to mention that in the article ? --Neun-x (talk) 19:48, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on United States Agency for International Development. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130329101241/http://transition.usaid.gov/our_work/global_health/pop/restrictions.html to http://transition.usaid.gov/our_work/global_health/pop/restrictions.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161228045845/https://www.mcc.gov/pages/about to http://www.mcc.gov/pages/about
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.irss.unc.edu/odum/content/pdf/Bollen_Paxton_Morishima2005AJE.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Discussion about an Editor

With regard to the notation at the head of the USAID article that "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject":

In respect of myself, on reviewing Wikipedia's guidelines and FAQ about conflicts of interest, particularly for "[a]ny external relationship—personal, religious, political, academic, legal, or financial" with the subjects written about in the USAID article, none appear to arise in my case. With respect to USAID in particular, this is made clear by the fact that, under USAID's guidelines, I am permitted to negotiate with the Agency on behalf of other organizations. Previous connections were observed in the page's discussion in 2013 but are no longer applicable.

Nor would issues appear to arise with respect to other organizations or persons written about. None of the persons or events mentioned in the article are known to me personally. Sources not connected with me are cited for material that is included in the article.

As currently an Adjunct Lecturer at Indiana University's O'Neill School of Public and Environmental Affairs, I am a Subject Matter Expert (SME) who teaches MPA courses in international development and international economics, including about USAID. Sources from which material is collected for the USAID article come in part from references provided by other SMEs who are my colleagues at IU and elsewhere. I regularly encourage others to review, edit, and contribute to the article. I hope that this is what Wikipedia is looking for.

Jsryanjr (talk) 00:47, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Jsryanjr, thank you for your explanation. If I understand correctly, you had a situation of conflict of interest in 2013, but it does not apply since then because you no longer have an employment relation with the Agency. Is that right? If you don't mind, I will bring this up on the conflict of interest noticeboard so editors with more experience in the topic can give their input. Best, --MarioGom (talk) 19:13, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Jsryanjr, nobody replied on the conflict of interest noticeboard, so I assume that former employment connection is not a problem. I have removed the COI tag from the article. Best, --MarioGom (talk) 00:15, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

MarioGom: Thank you, I think that's accurate and appropriate.

When I started contributing to the USAID page in Wikipedia (I was in Islamabad), the potential conflict I was concerned about was that LPA (the Washington office of Legislative and Public Affairs) generally wants to control USAID's public messaging. My contributions were independent, didn't represent USAID as an organization, and weren't guided by LPA. Self-interest pointed in the direction of my not exposing myself to LPA's potential concerns.

But it was also clear that neither LPA nor anyone else with any real knowledge of USAID was contributing. (Members of the public were occasionally retailing stray journalistic reports phrased as scandals.) A quick look at USAID's own website shows that no one is supplying foundational information about USAID there either.

On the assumption that no one was watching or cared, I went ahead with assembling basic descriptive information that is only available in scattered publications that only someone with a career of expertise could access with reasonable effort. That's what being a Subject Matter Expert is, I guess.

Next on my calendar is to include material on how USAID's work has been organized in combat zones (CORDS in Vietnam, PRTs in Iraq and Afghanistan, OTI), which needs to be contrasted with normal operations. Also, there's a detail about "P.L. 63," the legal basis for seconding USG experts to developing countries, mainly in Latin America, in the early 1940s, to clarify the difference it made to have permanent staff when USAID's predecessors were established.

Jsryanjr (talk) 16:06, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Iam mir agha rahimi

Your can help me 59.153.127.186 (talk) 06:46, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

What is your fesbok nam

Thank 59.153.127.186 (talk) 06:48, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Syracuse University supported by WikiProject United States Public Policy and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Spring term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 15:39, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Applied Plant Ecology Winter 2024

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2024 and 20 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MandevillaSherlockii (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Warmedforbs (talk) 01:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)