|
This is an archived USAID document retained on this web site as a matter of public record.
EMPLOYEE NEWS
In this section:
Employees Express Views in Annual Agency Survey
Employees Express Views in Annual Agency Survey
For the first time in the five years that USAID has been
conducting an annual survey of its employees, scores went
down in customer service, and morale ratings took a hit as
well.
Employees cited cuts to the Agency’s operating expenses
budget, State Department takeover rumors, and cramped cubicles
as three of the key reasons for the decline in the online
survey, which included a section for written comments about
morale. More than 2,500 people typed in their complaints,
praise, and suggestions on subjects like career development,
pay, leadership, and training.
Overall the survey was the biggest yet. Employees from almost
every division received the anonymous questionnaire in the
fall. The questions covered personal job satisfaction and
morale as well as the quality of services provided by the
Bureau for Management, pillar and regional bureaus, and independent
offices.
“Over 5,000 people responded,” said Robert Baker,
a management analyst in the Bureau for Management, who helped
design and conduct the survey. “No matter what, the scores
are telling you that the employees believe in the Agency.
You’re investing in where you work.”
Staffers gave some of their highest marks to the statement
“The work I do is important.” In response to that
statement, the Office of Security showed the highest favorable
margin—at 100 percent. Offices that neared a 90 percent
favorable margin included the Bureau for Latin America and
the Caribbean, the Bureau for Asia and the Near East, the
Office of Acquisition and Assistance, the Office of the Inspector
General, and the independent offices.
Morale was a key concern this year. The 2005 survey beefed
up this section and received enough written comments to fill
189 pages. The comments were tabulated by bureau or office,
but no names of employees were recorded.
“I am not sure USAID can help here,” said one
person from the Bureau for Europe and Eurasia. “Unclear
future and strong potential for downsizing decreases the morale
in our mission. If you add to that constantly increasing workload,
the picture gets even worse.”
A contractor said: “Poor morale is a serious subject
and efforts to address it should be given more importance.”
There were also words of praise, particularly from foreign
service nationals who complimented the Agency for naming 2005
the “Year of the FSN.” Several people offered suggestions,
such as an Agency-wide picnic and a mentoring program.
Lack of space was a recurring theme for a number of employees
who work in the Ronald Reagan Building in Washington. “Physical
conditions are very problematic: We are squeezed for working
space, don’t have sufficient meeting room space, and
the noise level is high,” said one worker. “These
conditions negatively affect productivity.”
A desire for more and better communication also showed up
in the survey. “While we have made some inroads and improvements
in communications, the main point on morale is that a lot
of people don’t know what’s going on,” said
Agency Counselor Mosina Jordan.
Change in that area has already begun. Executive Diversity
Council meetings are slated to be web cast on the Agency’s
intranet to allow as many people as possible in Washington
and in the overseas missions to participate, said Joe Fredericks,
chief of public information, production and on-line services
in the Bureau for Legislative and Public Affairs.
Again this year, managers have been provided responses to
the 2005 survey that relate to their divisions. How the information
is used varies among divisions. The Bureau for Policy and
Program Coordination (PPC) has been among the most active
with the results, Baker said.
Although former Administrator Andrew S. Natsios introduced
the annual survey shortly after he arrived at the Agency,
this was the first year PPC participated in the survey. About
14 percent of respondents commented on the bureau’s services—a
number of them positively.
For example, many respondents expressed appreciation for
the strategic direction provided by the White Paper, said
Susan Wallace, chief of the Center for Development Information
and Evaluation’s Development Information Division, which
is part of PPC.
In response to survey results, PPC contracted a communications
and outreach specialist to help communicate better with other
parts of the Agency. Other measures such as online collaboration
tools and video conferencing will be used to improve dialogue
within the Agency, Wallace added.
For more details on the survey, go to For more details
on the survey, go to www.usaid.gov/careers/survey2005.
U.S. to Double Aid to $2.7 Billion to Help Developing Countries
Boost Their Trade
HONG KONG—At the World Trade Organization meeting
in Hong Kong Dec. 14, the United States announced it would
increase support for trade by developing countries from $1.3
billion this year to $2.7 billion by 2010.
The goal is to provide “developing countries with the
tools needed to benefit from the global trading system,”
said Deputy U.S. Trade Representative Karan Bhatia, who noted
that “the U.S. today is the leading single country provider
of aid for trade.”
Speaking at the world meeting, USAID Administrator Andrew
S. Natsios said food aid provided by the United States does
not greatly affect world food markets as some critics at the
meeting alleged.
Natsios and the Bush Administration have sought congressional
permission to use some of the $1.4 billion in U.S. food aid
each year to purchase food in local markets near hunger zones—instead
of continuing to supply all U.S. food aid from American farm
surpluses.
But he said Europeans went too far in calling for a complete
end to sending U.S. farm surpluses to deal with hunger abroad.
When Europeans recently switched from supplying their home-grown
food to giving cash, they then cut the total funding by two-thirds.
“There are now 852 million people around the world
who are hungry, according to the United Nations’ statistics,”
Natsios said.
“Hunger and malnutrition are still the greatest threats
to health worldwide. They claim 10 million lives each year.
And acute malnutrition is growing, particularly in the sub-Sahara
Africa, where agricultural productivity has been in decline
for a decade.
“The United States provides nearly 60 percent of all
global food aid at the United Nations World Food Program…about
three times the level of food assistance provided by the European
Union and all European aid agencies.”
However, U.S. food aid “was less than 2 percent of
U.S. agricultural trade—so it does not have any effect
in global prices,” Natsios said.
Natsios warned that “in 2005, the United Nations expects
to experience a $1 billion shortfall in total food aid contributions.”
He noted that in 1995, Europe and the United States each
gave about 4 million tons of food aid. But after Europeans
shifted entirely to a local purchase option—giving money
rather than European surplus food—European Union aid
is now down to around just under 1.5 million tons a year while
U.S. aid remains at the same 4 million tons.
“This has had a significant consequence for emergency
relief operations around the world,” Natsios said.
He added that food experts should have a greater say in
decisions such as the European shift to local purchases.
“We don’t think these kinds of situations, these
sorts of negotiations, should be the place that life or death
issues should be decided on assistance issues dealing with
food aid, unless experts are at the table, and they are not,”
Natsios said.
He noted that in some famines or food shortages, if a donor
tries to buy up food locally it would drive prices even higher
and make hunger worse.
Natsios, who leaves USAID Jan. 12 to teach at Georgetown
University, said that it is very troubling that “famines
that used to occur every 20 years then started occurring every
10 years, then every five years, and now it’s every two
years. That’s a result of bad agricultural practices
and policies within Ethiopia.”
“Ethiopian farmers cannot trade easily with Kenyan
[and] Ugandan farmers,” Natsios said. “We believe
if there was a free trading system—I believe, as a development
person—if there was a free trade system in the Horn of
Africa, there would be a reduction in the level of emergency
requirements in Ethiopia, which would be good for the Ethiopian
people and it would be good for the donors.”
He also said Ethiopia needed to develop a market economy
capable of storing, shipping, and marketing surplus food from
one season to the next or among its regions.
“So the absence of a free trading system in Africa
in food is leading to more emergencies, more malnutrition,
more hunger, and more famines,” Natsios said.
“Food aid is not the answer to Ethiopia’s problems
with famine,” he added. “The answer is development.”
He said some progress has taken place. “We are seeing
some economic growth in the country… We are putting a
lot more money into agriculture—the Canadians are and
the European Union is and the World Bank is.”
Back to Top ^
|
RSS Feed for Recent HIV/AIDS WebSource Articles
