On April 11, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) told an overflow crowd of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in Washington, DC, that the agency is moving forward with the widely criticized Partner Vetting System (PVS) it proposed in 2007. PVS will require USAID grantees to submit highly personal information about key personnel and leaders to be checked against a secret government watchlist. Although USAID representatives said some changes have been made based on public comments, details are not available, and there will be no further public comment period before the final rule is announced. The stated purpose of the public meeting was "gathering feedback prior to the issuance of a final rule and initial implementation of the system." USAID representatives answered questions from over eighty skeptical NGO representatives who are likely to be directly impacted by the program. Acting Deputy Administrator Jim Kunder explained how PVS will be phased in, with the intention that it will eventually be enforced globally. Organizations likely to receive a grant will have to complete a Partner Information Form, including identifying information on "key individuals," including dates and places of birth, citizenship, phone numbers, and passport numbers. The information will be entered into USAID's database and will then be checked by USAID Office of Security (SEC) against non-public U.S. government databases. If there is a "match," USAID will conduct further analysis to determine whether it is a false positive and make a recommendation on moving forward with the grant.

According to USAID, the PVS is required by law because of the existence of the government database, although no legal authorities were cited. Kunder said the public comments were useful but did not change the need for PVS.

This argument is likely to be challenged as PVS is implemented.

USAID detailed changes that will be made to the program since the July 2007 Federal Register announcement. One significant change is that applicants that are denied a grant can present additional information and proceed with an administrative appeal within USAID. However, there will be no description of this appeal process or any other change before the program becomes mandatory.

At the meeting, Jim Bishop, Vice President of InterAction, a coalition of U.S.-based foreign aid groups, addressed numerous concerns, saying, "Our members spend billions of dollars every year in funds received from the public and from the U.S. government. Imposing the PVS described in last summer's Federal Register notices on NGOs because of unsubstantiated media allegations that some USAID funds may have gone to suspect organizations is using a flame thrower to kill an ant. And more than ants may be killed if the PVS is implemented." Participants broke into applause after Bishop's remarks, a sign of the strong opposition to the current program design.

InterAction issued a press release on April 11, which stated, "USAID is currently describing the PVS in terms different from those used in the Federal Register Notices last July. Even so, as it is currently envisioned, it will still compromise the civil rights of American citizens, undercut the effectiveness of NGO programs, and endanger the staff members of these organizations and their local partners. As USAID has made changes to the proposed PVS, it must reintroduce the PVS, following the applicable rulemaking processes, and provide: accurate descriptions of the appeal and correction process; a concise definition of those individuals in each applicant organization that will need to provide personal information; and a description of the processes for emergency vetting in appropriate circumstances."

Other NGO representatives present at the meeting reiterated concerns made in written comments to USAID in 2007. For example:

• PVS will undermine aid programs by damaging the groups' trust and relationships with local partners in other countries
• The program will be seen as a means of intelligence gathering for the U.S. government, which could create a security risk for staff on the ground
• The PVS proposal ignores the tremendous amount of due diligence already being performed by grantmaking organizations

Participants in the meeting said their work to alleviate poverty with humanitarian assistance is a means of fighting global terrorism, but humanitarian work suffers when groups are asked to perform intelligence-gathering activities. Kunder's response was that if assistance groups do not recognize that foreign policy and foreign aid depend on each other, "we'll eventually be having this conversation in the Pentagon."

Similar Program in West Bank/Gaza Illustrates Problems to Come

A program similar to PVS currently operating in the West Bank/Gaza (WB/Gaza) is already causing problems for NGOs. USAID claimed its experience with WB/Gaza shows improved timing for the vetting process. However, one representative at the meeting described a five-month delay for purchasing a fax machine.

Many meeting participants voiced concern that PVS would be overly burdensome for groups that have to report more detailed information on "key individuals." USAID tried to alleviate those concerns by reporting that in the WB/Gaza program, about 3.2 individuals were vetted per organization in a ten-month study period. "Key individuals" include senior management, officers within the organization, such as Executive Director, and those with responsibility over the funds' allocation. This vague standard leaves it up to the organization to figure out which key individuals to report. As one NGO representative said, this is problematic for a sector that takes compliance very seriously. Some groups in the WB/Gaza region have chosen not to receive USAID funding, and there will likely be more withdrawals if PVS is introduced on a large scale.