What is it like to work for USAID?

[Anonymous]

Career progression? Job satisfaction? Morale? Colleagues? Leadership?

I've been working in "development" for several years (think Peace Corps-like stuff and State Dept. contracting in DC) and am intrigued by thought of pursuing opportunities with USAID.

Anybody here work for them or know people who do and have things to share?

[Anonymous]

I love it. Personally I think it attracts people who are naturally nice to others. USAID people are also more motivated and creative than folks at other agencies where I’ve worked. There are a surprising number of GS14 and above positions.

[Anonymous]

I think a lot depends on the division/dept. I have friends there who hate it (stifling bureaucracy, lack of productivity, creativity) and others who really enjoy it. Depends a lot of your boss like most jobs and the department. There is a lot of paperwork.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the feedback. It sounds better than the contracting game. I worked with the National Endowment for Democracy a while back and USAID was a supplemental funder. Never got a good sense of what it was like to actually work there, but seemed a bit like they maybe didn't get to do the "fun" stuff of implementing and working on the ground but spent their time managing contracts. The few USAID Foreign Service Officers I've interacted with have seemed incredibly happy and also less arrogant/more down to earth than State FSOs (though State seems to treat their people better).

[Anonymous]

2 of our former neighbors worked at USAID. Both were lovely lovely people, who were funny and nice and down-to-earth and told great stories. Their wives were also delightful. They have to move so much for work, but we still keep in contact with one couple.

We also have neighbors who worked as FSO. One member of the couple rose to the level of an ambassador. They were ok, but not overly friendly or nice. Not people who we were comfortable asking if we could borrow milk or a cup of sugar. It could have just been them, of course. I heard that they both came from money and they had impeccable academic credentials. They also had a big gorgeous house.

In summary, the USAID crew in our neighborhood is way more fun at a backyard BBQ.

[Anonymous]

Been there over 15 years. Was ok, now terrible but with Glick taking over should be better.

[Anonymous]

You will love it or hate it (or both in the course of day!) which will directly relate to three things:

1. The nature of your job. If I was admin or program office, I would have been miserable. I got to do interesting work that used all of my training and background and worked with really smart people who were experts in their field. Still, I chafed at feeding the demanding bureaucratic beast and dealing with politics (internal, external, and global).

2. Your Bureau/Mission/Office. Some are hot messes that you want to stay away from from strucural, leadership, or political scrutiny perspectives.

3. Your team. There are some amazing people, toxic messes, and looney (or ignorant, or power hungry, or smart) politicals. Do your due diligence and choose where you land wisely. I found people who were 1,000% devoted to their work, brilliant and so interesting to talk to/work with, working 60 hours weeks, and doing amzing things around the work. Then there were those who were barely functional or had given up and watched cat videos at work all day. This relates closely to #s 1 and 2.

To the PP: Glick is not in charge. Barsa is acting Administrator. I left the agency before I got to know his corridor reputation, but what I hear from those who remain does not bode well.

[Anonymous]

Basra will be a disaster. He is a political hack. No way would I join right now (I work for an organization that is one of the biggest recipients of usaid funding)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You will love it or hate it (or both in the course of day!) which will directly relate to three things:

1. The nature of your job. If I was admin or program office, I would have been miserable. I got to do interesting work that used all of my training and background and worked with really smart people who were experts in their field. Still, I chafed at feeding the demanding bureaucratic beast and dealing with politics (internal, external, and global).

2. Your Bureau/Mission/Office. Some are hot messes that you want to stay away from from strucural, leadership, or political scrutiny perspectives.

3. Your team. There are some amazing people, toxic messes, and looney (or ignorant, or power hungry, or smart) politicals. Do your due diligence and choose where you land wisely. I found people who were 1,000% devoted to their work, brilliant and so interesting to talk to/work with, working 60 hours weeks, and doing amzing things around the work. Then there were those who were barely functional or had given up and watched cat videos at work all day. This relates closely to #s 1 and 2.

To the PP: Glick is not in charge. Barsa is acting Administrator. I left the agency before I got to know his corridor reputation, but what I hear from those who remain does not bode well.

Thank you! Any thoughts on the area of Crisis, Stabilization, and Governance?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You will love it or hate it (or both in the course of day!) which will directly relate to three things:

1. The nature of your job. If I was admin or program office, I would have been miserable. I got to do interesting work that used all of my training and background and worked with really smart people who were experts in their field. Still, I chafed at feeding the demanding bureaucratic beast and dealing with politics (internal, external, and global).

2. Your Bureau/Mission/Office. Some are hot messes that you want to stay away from from strucural, leadership, or political scrutiny perspectives.

3. Your team. There are some amazing people, toxic messes, and looney (or ignorant, or power hungry, or smart) politicals. Do your due diligence and choose where you land wisely. I found people who were 1,000% devoted to their work, brilliant and so interesting to talk to/work with, working 60 hours weeks, and doing amzing things around the work. Then there were those who were barely functional or had given up and watched cat videos at work all day. This relates closely to #s 1 and 2.

To the PP: Glick is not in charge. Barsa is acting Administrator. I left the agency before I got to know his corridor reputation, but what I hear from those who remain does not bode well.

Thank you! Any thoughts on the area of Crisis, Stabilization, and Governance?

Under this administration and Barsa, this will suck. But, a lot sucks these days under this administration.

You also asked about career/growth potential. Assuming you're hired as Civil Service, you will have to take a number and get in line for office directors to retire or die to get promoted to that level. Then, if you've been with the Agency 30 or 40 years, you may get to the Deputy Assistant Administrator level. If you're hired as a institutional contractor or some kind of DG Fellow, you will pretty much remain doing that until a PSC or Civil Service or FSL slot opens up, and then be competing with the other 5,000 institutional contractors working for the Agency for that slot.

For Foreign Service, some backstops are so understaffed that within a few tours you've moved to FS-1. But promos and stretch roles are even more politically charged and related directly to kissing Mission Director/Ambassador ass, so if you're at a post where you don't gel with them you can get screwed. And, because there are so many staffing gaps and you're just seen as a cog in a wheel, decisionmakers don't think twice about assigning you to posts you didn't even bid on, regardless of what it means for your personal life.

Great Agency with a great mission. You feel like you make a difference. But that shine gets lost in the bureaucracy (it takes over a year just to get a RFP/RFA on the street), and political churn and politicals (worse than anyone can remember under this administration ) and some of the toxic staff.

[Anonymous]

One of the biggest jerks in my agency went to go work at USAID.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You will love it or hate it (or both in the course of day!) which will directly relate to three things:

1. The nature of your job. If I was admin or program office, I would have been miserable. I got to do interesting work that used all of my training and background and worked with really smart people who were experts in their field. Still, I chafed at feeding the demanding bureaucratic beast and dealing with politics (internal, external, and global).

2. Your Bureau/Mission/Office. Some are hot messes that you want to stay away from from strucural, leadership, or political scrutiny perspectives.

3. Your team. There are some amazing people, toxic messes, and looney (or ignorant, or power hungry, or smart) politicals. Do your due diligence and choose where you land wisely. I found people who were 1,000% devoted to their work, brilliant and so interesting to talk to/work with, working 60 hours weeks, and doing amzing things around the work. Then there were those who were barely functional or had given up and watched cat videos at work all day. This relates closely to #s 1 and 2.

To the PP: Glick is not in charge. Barsa is acting Administrator. I left the agency before I got to know his corridor reputation, but what I hear from those who remain does not bode well.

Thank you! Any thoughts on the area of Crisis, Stabilization, and Governance?

Under this administration and Barsa, this will suck. But, a lot sucks these days under this administration.

You also asked about career/growth potential. Assuming you're hired as Civil Service, you will have to take a number and get in line for office directors to retire or die to get promoted to that level. Then, if you've been with the Agency 30 or 40 years, you may get to the Deputy Assistant Administrator level. If you're hired as a institutional contractor or some kind of DG Fellow, you will pretty much remain doing that until a PSC or Civil Service or FSL slot opens up, and then be competing with the other 5,000 institutional contractors working for the Agency for that slot.

For Foreign Service, some backstops are so understaffed that within a few tours you've moved to FS-1. But promos and stretch roles are even more politically charged and related directly to kissing Mission Director/Ambassador ass, so if you're at a post where you don't gel with them you can get screwed. And, because there are so many staffing gaps and you're just seen as a cog in a wheel, decisionmakers don't think twice about assigning you to posts you didn't even bid on, regardless of what it means for your personal life.

Great Agency with a great mission. You feel like you make a difference. But that shine gets lost in the bureaucracy (it takes over a year just to get a RFP/RFA on the street), and political churn and politicals (worse than anyone can remember under this administration ) and some of the toxic staff.

Thanks, I have an opportunity to join as a Foreign Service Officer for Crisis, Stabilization, and Governance backstop 76. Was originally offered the position in 2015 then they froze hiring and are now re-offering the position (there was a Washington Post article about this). Kinda exploitative because I am now much further advanced in my career but am getting the offer at the same level (albeit higher step) ad I did nearly 5 years ago. If there is a huge backlog and it might thus be easier to get rapid promotion that would make me feel slightly better. Mostly though I am thinking about general career satisfaction and working conditions.

[Anonymous]

Obviously a lot of traveling. Those long international flights can really take a toll. You are basically commuting around the world. DH worked for USAID.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You will love it or hate it (or both in the course of day!) which will directly relate to three things:

1. The nature of your job. If I was admin or program office, I would have been miserable. I got to do interesting work that used all of my training and background and worked with really smart people who were experts in their field. Still, I chafed at feeding the demanding bureaucratic beast and dealing with politics (internal, external, and global).

2. Your Bureau/Mission/Office. Some are hot messes that you want to stay away from from strucural, leadership, or political scrutiny perspectives.

3. Your team. There are some amazing people, toxic messes, and looney (or ignorant, or power hungry, or smart) politicals. Do your due diligence and choose where you land wisely. I found people who were 1,000% devoted to their work, brilliant and so interesting to talk to/work with, working 60 hours weeks, and doing amzing things around the work. Then there were those who were barely functional or had given up and watched cat videos at work all day. This relates closely to #s 1 and 2.

To the PP: Glick is not in charge. Barsa is acting Administrator. I left the agency before I got to know his corridor reputation, but what I hear from those who remain does not bode well.

Thank you! Any thoughts on the area of Crisis, Stabilization, and Governance?

Under this administration and Barsa, this will suck. But, a lot sucks these days under this administration.

You also asked about career/growth potential. Assuming you're hired as Civil Service, you will have to take a number and get in line for office directors to retire or die to get promoted to that level. Then, if you've been with the Agency 30 or 40 years, you may get to the Deputy Assistant Administrator level. If you're hired as a institutional contractor or some kind of DG Fellow, you will pretty much remain doing that until a PSC or Civil Service or FSL slot opens up, and then be competing with the other 5,000 institutional contractors working for the Agency for that slot.

For Foreign Service, some backstops are so understaffed that within a few tours you've moved to FS-1. But promos and stretch roles are even more politically charged and related directly to kissing Mission Director/Ambassador ass, so if you're at a post where you don't gel with them you can get screwed. And, because there are so many staffing gaps and you're just seen as a cog in a wheel, decisionmakers don't think twice about assigning you to posts you didn't even bid on, regardless of what it means for your personal life.

Great Agency with a great mission. You feel like you make a difference. But that shine gets lost in the bureaucracy (it takes over a year just to get a RFP/RFA on the street), and political churn and politicals (worse than anyone can remember under this administration ) and some of the toxic staff.

Thanks, I have an opportunity to join as a Foreign Service Officer for Crisis, Stabilization, and Governance backstop 76. Was originally offered the position in 2015 then they froze hiring and are now re-offering the position (there was a Washington Post article about this). Kinda exploitative because I am now much further advanced in my career but am getting the offer at the same level (albeit higher step) ad I did nearly 5 years ago. If there is a huge backlog and it might thus be easier to get rapid promotion that would make me feel slightly better. Mostly though I am thinking about general career satisfaction and working conditions.

I have seen some people thrive in the foreign service. The are truly top-notch, wonderful, resilient human beings who are separated from their families when they have to do the mandatory tours to Critical Priority Countries (e.g., Afghanistan, Iraq, where it is an unaccompanied post) and still are devoted to the cause and do amazing work. I have seen others who lost their humanity, marriages, and families. Many people focus on the pros (you live around the world! you are a diplomat! you get paid housing, R&R, stipends, etc.) but I have seen so many sad things. I remember one FSO who flew to DC for a major bilteral meeting with a foreign government from the country she was posted in. Her spouse had dengue, she left her kids with him, and was going to take a detour to the West Coast to see her dying parent in hospice before flying out again. Or putting kids in boarding schools to give them some stability from moving every 1 to 2 years as people chase the post differentials in hardship posts. It sucks to be far away when families are sick, you have no help, you are stuck in a very insular (and prone to gossip) embassy bubble, the local health care systems suck, and life every day can be very, very hard (rolling blackouts, crushing poverty around you, infectious diseases your body is not yet used to, political upheaval, etc etc etc).

Yes, you're doing amazing things. But sometimes it comes at a very, VERY high price. We had staff that paid with their lives.