Lessons From a Twenty-Year Career Delivering U.S. Security Assistance

Throughout my 20 years managing security assistance programs for the U.S. Department of State, I became more and more astute at forecasting if a project would succeed.  The framing of the assistance, as well as the implementation plan, would offer me ample data to predict a project’s fate.  While changes to the availability of funds or to conditions on the ground might force a project off track, the success of security assistance projects often hinge on a set of controllable factors.

Following are ten recommendations for U.S. government policymakers, program managers, and implementers (i.e., interagency partners, contractors, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), or international organizations) to consider when designing and executing security assistance projects.

1. Define success at the outset.  Articulating a clear goal establishes a common understanding of project expectations.  The purpose of some assistance might be solely for the U.S. government to signal support for the recipient or to receive something in exchange for the assistance.  A public announcement and carrying through on the delivery of the goods or service may be all that is required.  For example, the U.S. government may provide foreign military training and equipment in exchange for maintaining use of a military base in a country.  The purpose of other assistance might be to improve the conditions for the recipient or build the capacity of a foreign entity to assist with a specific operation or mission.  With projects that contribute to a recipient’s capacity and further their path to self-reliance, the design and delivery will require more thoughtful planning, including the development of implementation plans, a framework for monitoring and evaluating progress and milestones, and a timeline for meeting intended goals.  A clearly stated theory of change and vision of success at the outset ensures that: the project aligns with policymaker expectations; assistance recipients understand what they will be receiving; and implementers are pointed in the right direction.

2. Keep it simple.  Foreign assistance is most often provided to address the most complex national security, diplomatic, and humanitarian issues.  Yet, the design and implementation of the assistance do not need to be complex.  The simpler the design and mechanism for execution, the more likely the project will meet its goal.  In addition to clear objectives, plans should include a reasonable timeframe for implementation, defined roles and responsibilities of all of those involved, and expectations for internal and external communication about the project.  Simple and clear plans can provide a road map to success.

3. Understand feasibility and sustainability.  Assessing the conditions in which a project will operate is critical information for its design.  This includes anticipating challenges to project implementation, and whether the environment and capacity of the recipient is conducive to sustaining goals following project completion.  A more difficult operating environment may require additional time and measures to address anticipated challenges, protect implementers and equipment, or mitigate other threats.  Establishing a baseline understanding of the recipient’s capacity before a project begins helps shape project design and set realistic expectations for the return on investment.

4. Involve the embassy throughout implementation.  Embassy commitment to a project’s success before it starts bodes well for the project.  This can be achieved by involving embassy representatives in the initial phases of project planning, including defining objectives and assisting with the selection of the implementer.  During the execution phase, identifying embassy points of contact with whom the program office and implementers can share project updates and regularly engage make it more likely that the project will remain aligned with evolving embassy priorities and interests.  When an embassy is invested in the success of a project, embassy representatives, including the ambassador, will be more willing to intervene and put a project back on track if challenges arise that require direct U.S. government engagement with host nation counterparts. Since embassy personnel transition about every 2-3 years, policymakers and program managers must proactively introduce ongoing and multi-year projects to new embassy team members and garner their commitment to remain invested and involved. When embassies are not involved or lose interest in a project, program managers and implementers miss out on an important source of information, guidance, and support. Consequently, policymakers and program managers must reassess a project’s value to the U.S. government and engage with senior embassy representatives to encourage support, explore modifications to better align with embassy interests, or make the decision to end the project.   

5. Select the right implementer and mechanism.  Implementers play a significant role in the delivery of foreign assistance.  They are often the face of the assistance being provided and are the ones to communicate directly with the recipient during the delivery of the equipment and/or service.  Taking the time to select an implementer that exhibits an appropriate demeanor, expertise, and capability is worth the investment and directly contributes to project success.  Past performance, along with a demonstrated understanding of the project objectives and operating conditions, are key indicators that an implementer is capable of meeting the demands of the task.  While for some projects it is appropriate to draw from the experience and expertise within the U.S. interagency community to implement, other projects may benefit from contractors, NGOs, or international organizations to bring unique skills, efficiencies, and experiences.  Selecting the correct implementing mechanism, as well as the most appropriate procurement mechanism for selecting a contractor or grantee, will ensure policymakers and program managers have the desired level of control over project execution.

6. Respect and keep implementers informed. Treating implementers as an extension of the U.S. government program management team sets up the implementers, and the project, for success.  This includes keeping implementers informed of even minor changes in policy guidance and interests, listening to implementers’ ideas and concerns prior to and during project execution, and acknowledging implementers’ hard work and commitment to the project.  Implementers will work harder when their effort is acknowledged and respected.  As discussed in the point about selecting the right implementer, implementers are also the ones in direct contact with the assistance recipient, so it is imperative they have the most current message that the U.S. government wants to accompany the assistance delivery.   

7. Establish milestones to evaluate path to success.  Ending a project prematurely that is not achieving intended results can save time and money. Conversely, ending a project can also incur unexpected costs and impact, or signal a change in, diplomatic relations.  Establishing project milestones at the outset that demonstrate progress, or lack thereof, provides program managers and policymakers important information to consider when determining whether to continue, modify, or terminate the assistance.  Technical and diplomatic objectives should be considered when establishing milestones, and milestones should be reported and continually reviewed to ensure they accurately reflect changes in the environment, feasibility, or priorities throughout the life of the project. While ending a flailing project may be the most practical option, it is important to understand at the outset whether diplomatic or other sensitivities would preclude an early termination. Regardless of the willingness to end a project before it reaches its desired end state, drafting a mitigation plan, an internal and external communication plan, and a practical offramp in advance helps ensure that policymakers and program managers are prepared if the project goes off track or fails to meet key milestones.

8. Align project objectives with U.S policy interest.  A project that aligns with U.S. policy objectives and interests will likely maintain support and funding.  As politics, interests, and priorities change, or if Congressional interests are at odds with administration interests, projects are likely to be closely scrutinized.  Clearly connecting project goals with U.S. policy objectives and interests illustrates a project’s relevance and value. Identifying other U.S. government efforts (diplomatic and programmatic) that complement, reinforce, or rely on the success of the project demonstrates its relevance and role in advancing U.S. policy interests.  For example, a project that assists a recipient to establish a national cybersecurity plan can ensure that a recipient’s approach aligns with U.S. cyber interests and establishes a framework for sustaining cyber-related technical assistance such as training and equipment.

9. Establish implementation roadmap with the recipient. The assistance recipient plays a role in the success of the assistance delivery.  Whether accepting goods/equipment or services, partaking in training or workshops, or undertaking operational or institutional reforms, the recipient’s understanding of the assistance will facilitate smoother project implementation.  This may include recipients showing up to a distribution, training or workshop site; providing access to people and information; and/or committing to maintaining the equipment provided and sustaining the reforms implemented. Discussions with the recipient (and the leadership) at the outset of a project to agree in writing upon the roles, responsibilities, and objectives for project implementation minimizes misunderstanding and manages expectations.  These discussions also demonstrate respect for the recipient and are likely to result in a greater investment by the recipient in the success of the assistance.

10. Request flexible funding, if possible.  While the funding authority used to execute the foreign assistance may not be in the program manager’s control, requesting not-withstanding authority if the situation requires it or seeking funds with flexible authorities to administer a complex assistance requirement will allow the delivery of assistance to withstand unforeseen challenges.  Foreign assistance that relies on funding authorities that are constrained by fiscal years or limits recipients to a specific category (e.g., military only, law enforcement only) may fall short or experience delays if an obstacle arises.  A project may also miss the opportunity to engage constructively with individuals or groups in restricted categories. Having flexibility in time and reach of the assistance allows for slight modifications to overcome unanticipated obstacles.