Practising what we preach in development: closing the gap between practice and expressed values

Although the international development industry was born out of US national security and commercial interests after World War 2, and security and self-interest continue to influence aid policy, the industry’s expressed goals include improving the quality of life and expanding economic opportunity in communities worldwide in an inclusive, participatory way. When advising governments and communities, donors emphasize the importance of inclusion to ensure the long-term sustainability of interventions. If the goal is to improve diets, hygiene, and the use of nutrition services, then women must be empowered. If the goal is to build strong democracies, then all citizens must be able to participate freely in politics. If an energy project is to be sustainable, then all stakeholders must be engaged from the outset.

One of the major criticisms levelled against the industry is the lack of diversity and the prevalence of discrimination within its ranks. In 2023, the GWL Voices for Change and Inclusion, an advocacy group for multilateralism and gender equality consisting of 62 global women leaders, released a report highlighting that since the end of World War 2, women have headed the most important multilateral agencies only 12% of the time, and that of the 33 most prominent entities, 13 have never been led by a woman. A 2023 working paper released by the Center for Global Development revealed that while the number of women in senior management in international financial institutions (IFIs) has grown from 5 to 30% from 2000 to 2023, not a single IFI has achieved gender parity across managerial ranks. Women comprise 70% of administrative and only 35% of managerial positions. Less diversity exists in senior management roles, where the percentage typically ranges from 6 to 40%.

In the US, Social Impact’s BRIDGE survey of 160+ US-based international development and humanitarian organizations in 2020 found that 84% of organization heads and 73% of leadership teams are white. At the gender-race nexus, only four per cent of CEOs represented Black, Indigenous, and People of Color or BIPOC women. The BRIDGE 2.0 survey in 2023 found a slight increase to 8%, but the overall figure for BIPOC CEOs remained constant at 4%.

A global survey of close to 300 aid workers across 63 countries conducted by AidWorks and Thomson Reuters Foundation in 2020 found that 50% of respondents who identified as belonging to a racial or ethnic minority had experienced racism at work, ranging from being on the receiving end of racist comments, experiencing pay disparities, to having their contributions overlooked. Bond, the UK network for international development organizations, conducted a survey across 150 organizations in 2020 and found that high levels of racism have been keeping individuals from entering and staying in the industry. Women of colour, in particular, reported barriers to recruitment, encountering stereotypes, feeling marginalized, having limited access to mentors, and being marginalized in the workplace.

A 2020 Racial Equity Index survey found workplace culture and leadership to be respondents’ two most frequently mentioned indicators to measure racial inequity in the industry. A few years earlier, in 2018, Quantum Impact looked at the diversity of leadership teams and boards of development organizations and found that out of 200+ organizations, two out of three organizations do not have gender-balanced leadership teams, and four out of five do not have a representative proportion of BIPOC in leadership. It also found that boards of directors have even less representation of women and people of colour. Recruitment, promotion, and creation of a safe workplace were identified as the most critical challenges.

Finally, while the percentage of racial or ethnic minorities at USAID climbed from 33 to 37 per cent between 2002 and 2018, the proportions decreased in higher ranks, according to a 2020 study by the US Government Accountability Office. Promotion rates were also lower among early to mid-career racial and ethnic minority staff vis-à-vis white staff.

These numbers are particularly distressing in an industry that advises governments and communities to reduce disparities and promote equitable outcomes. Social Impact’s BRIDGE 2.0 survey revealed that most international development organizations have embedded DEI goals into their organizational strategy, hired dedicated focal points, established metrics, and implemented training. However, the statistics listed above point to a significant disconnect.

To be credible development practitioners and voices, donors and implementing partners must address these inequalities in their backyards. This can be done by:

· Acknowledging history and challenging implicit biases. Our industry has a colonial past. For decades, the Western standard has been the model most aspire to. It has been baked into program implementation and recruitment, management, and promotion processes, resulting in many inequities. We must critically examine how we have been making decisions in our programs and organizations, identify our prejudices, challenge them, and reframe our approach.

· Aiming for inclusion, not just representation. While diversity goals are admirable, we must create an environment where individuals with various identities feel safe, valued, respected, and heard. This entails developing inclusive workplace rules and ensuring they are carried out, providing opportunities for proactive employee involvement, facilitating ongoing coaching and mentoring to staff, and tracking and monitoring results. This requires a plan, a budget, committed personnel, and a setting where workers feel comfortable offering input. Accountability is vital and should be ensured through internal performance metrics and external audits like the Racial Equity Index and EDGE.

· Shifting power to those we seek to serve. In 2021, USAID unveiled an ambitious localization agenda to give local partners 25% of funding. FCDO is formulating its localization policy, and DFAT also prioritizes “locally-led solutions, creating local jobs and economic opportunities and building genuine, respectful partnerships.” Because of its fundamental structure, low tolerance for risk, and congressional funding pressures, USAID has not met its target. While it has been trying to address some of these obstacles, change will take time. Implementing partners can do their part by genuinely engaging with local partners as full and equal collaborators, creating and meeting targets for inclusive procurement and staffing, and putting in place internal systems and metrics to track accountability.

· Centering lived experience. Value the perspectives of people who aren’t typically regarded as “experts” but may have information gleaned from direct, first-hand experience in problems we are trying to solve. Because of their lived experiences, they possess unique insights into social health, public health, and other challenges. This uniquely positions them to enhance systems, strategies, research, policies, practices, and programs to address such concerns.

· Reframing old ways of thinking. We must acknowledge that Western methods and experiences are not always practical or applicable. Local knowledge and experiences must inform governance, policy formation, and decision-making for our work to be meaningful and sustainable.

(Originally published as a blog through Social Impact)