Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the hard realities of managing large, multimillion dollar contracts in a do-gooder aid organization with limited accountability is that this is not an easily transferrable "skill".

You obviously know very little about these contracts when you say limited accountability. The accountability procedures would make anyone in the private sector run for the hills. It’s by far the worst part of the job.

Every USAID employee I have encountered thinks VERY highly of themselves, I think this is part of the problem. As much as it was doing good work, the metrics for success are almost impossible to measure (that's why accountability was impossible -- I'm sure they made you go through hoops to appear to be accountable with those procedures, but fundamentally its an impossible task for the scale of a project). But again, the casual arrogance seeps through, the brashness about the size of the contracts (spending other people's money on people and countries far from home -- most private industry is about earning money or at least minimizing spending), it's just toxic in an economy where many people don't really have enough here at home. I think the soft diplomacy of USAID was of value, but perspective of the true cost and modesty on the impact of any one person was not held by the personnel there.

This. I've been to parties with USAID employees and I agree that the arrogance seeps through. They had local workers to drive them and clean and cook for them on assignment out of the US. They also seemed to go to cocktail parties all the time in their assigned countries. A lot of their time seem to be spent schmoozing at cocktail parties in their assigned countries.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the hard realities of managing large, multimillion dollar contracts in a do-gooder aid organization with limited accountability is that this is not an easily transferrable "skill".

You obviously know very little about these contracts when you say limited accountability. The accountability procedures would make anyone in the private sector run for the hills. It’s by far the worst part of the job.

Every USAID employee I have encountered thinks VERY highly of themselves, I think this is part of the problem. As much as it was doing good work, the metrics for success are almost impossible to measure (that's why accountability was impossible -- I'm sure they made you go through hoops to appear to be accountable with those procedures, but fundamentally its an impossible task for the scale of a project). But again, the casual arrogance seeps through, the brashness about the size of the contracts (spending other people's money on people and countries far from home -- most private industry is about earning money or at least minimizing spending), it's just toxic in an economy where many people don't really have enough here at home. I think the soft diplomacy of USAID was of value, but perspective of the true cost and modesty on the impact of any one person was not held by the personnel there.

Anonymous wrote:Care international has US based roles, Milken Institute, Center for American Progress has careers if did Health or education, Save the Children has us-based roles. They might not pay what he was paid before, but it is easier to get a job if you have a job.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I say this with respect because I know there’s a lot of affected people here (in addition to the OP), but could someone please explain how/why the people at this org were paid so much before when it seems like their actual skills just didn’t warrant that high level of pay? Is this typical in government orgs? I knew government positions paid a lot more than I originally expected, but I was told that they need to pay those salaries (in addition to the security that has historically also come with government positions) in order to staff the positions.

I worked for a USAID contractor. For sure the management skills are transferable, but the challenge is that what I did was super specialized and no longer exists. Do you need someone to design and implement a low-cost program to get women in Nigeria or Malawi to take their prenatal vitamins and give birth in a birth facility with a trained midwife? Or maybe you need to figure out how to reduce the biases among midwives that lead to infant and maternal mortality. I’m your woman. I’ve done it and have the studies to prove the programs reduced death.

But the jobs here in the US that reduce infant death are few and far between. Who funds them? Some counties and states, but they are not funded to the level we funded these sorts of programs abroad. Sad, isn’t it? And I would understand and even sort of approve if we pulled all that money from USAID and instead used it for health programming in the US. But we didn’t. And now we are losing not just the work, but the expertise. I was a known, respected expert in my field. I’m now doing something different, and can’t mentor the next generation should we decide maternal health is important again. Poof. A generation of knowledge is just gone.

I don’t want anyone’s pity - I’m doing fine. But I would like people to understand that the skills USAID people had were real and valuable and necessary for the work we did. We just don’t seem to find helping poor people a needed skill anymore.

Your work sounds interesting and fulfilling but I’m not sure that you answered the question. Why were you paid so much money to do that work?

I don’t know that I was paid that much. I was in senior leadership, managing programs and budgets totaling $100 million/year and overseeing a staffing structure of 800 people. I made $140,000. I’m always told here on DCUM that makes me poor. I thought it was very fair pay for a job that meant a lot to me.

Who paid the salaries of the staffing structure of 809 you oversaw?

You did, for the most part. As you pay for the staffing structures of thousands at defense contractors, consulting companies, and now AI companies. When the government awards a contract for something to be delivered (airplanes, lives saved) the organization hires staff to do the work. It’s not a gotcha. The government contracts out a large percentage of that work, and those organizations need staff to do the work. That is how work gets done.

So USAID contracted companies and consultants for things like AI and airplanes under the claim they were saving lives. And USAID "supervised" these hundreds of contractors and companies (who also had their own layers of supervisors)?

Yikes...I'm starting to see why so many people claim USAID was a scam.

No - the government, in the form of the DOD (sorry, Department of War?), as well as every other department contracts for things like airplanes and AI services and a gazillion other services and products.

USAID did too. Same structure, same type of contracts and awards. Same types of oversight. It’s just that instead of preventing infectious disease in Florida or Maine we prevented infectious disease in Malawi or Nepal. You can object that we shouldn’t be using our money that way. I disagree, but fine, that is your opinion. What isn’t opinion but a flat-out lie is that we engaged in fraud, or were incompetent, or that it “didn’t work,” or even that we have no useful skills. Hello, Ebola!