One year after USAID was disbanded and financing for development projects was drastically reduced, the consequences are playing out quietly—but profoundly—across many communities.
Having worked for decades with grassroots populations and local service providers, I have seen what this moment looks like on the ground. Clinics have closed or scaled back. Education, nutrition, protection, and livelihood programs have ended. Local NGOs that once delivered essential services are struggling to survive. Communities that depended—often imperfectly—on donor-supported systems are now left with fewer resources and little transition support.
This moment exposes a reality we have long avoided: decades of external aid did not sufficiently
prepare local systems to stand on their own.
The Cost of Dependency
External assistance was never meant to replace local responsibility. Yet over time, aid became the system itself. Governments deferred investment in social sectors. Civil society organizations became tied to short funding cycles. Communities were consulted, but rarely empowered to control decisions or resources.
When aid functioned as the foundation rather than a complement, its withdrawal inevitably became a crisis. The hardship communities face today is not simply the result of reduced funding—it is the legacy of a development model that did not prioritize resilience, ownership, or accountability from the start.
Where Responsibility Now Lies
Development must come from within. This is no longer a theoretical argument—it is an urgent
necessity.
Local governments must work with communities to:
- Increase domestic investment in health, education, and social protection
- Implement policies grounded in local realities
- Strengthen governance, accountability, and public trust
Civil society organizations must adapt by:
- Collaborating rather than competing for shrinking resources
- Exploring sustainable financing beyond donor dependency
- Re-centering their work on long-term community capacity
And communities—resourceful, knowledgeable, and deeply aware of their own needs—must be
positioned not as beneficiaries, but as drivers of their own development.Local people are not lacking ideas or intelligence. What has been missing are enabling policies, skilled personnel, sustainable financing, and effective governance systems that allow local knowledge to translate into lasting progress.
The Role of External Support Going Forward
External support can still be useful—but it should never again be the foundation. Its role should be to support local priorities, strengthen systems, and transfer authority, not to substitute for local leadership or accountability.
If development is to endure, it must be owned locally, financed domestically, and governed in ways that answer first to citizens—not donors.
The Questions That Matter Now
One year on, the most important questions are not about what was lost, but about what is being
built in its absence:
- Are governments increasing investment in critical social sectors?
- How are civil society organizations responding to the funding gap?
- What innovative, community-led solutions are emerging?
- Are we finally building on decades of lessons instead of repeating them?
The answers will determine whether this moment becomes another setback—or a long-overdue
turning point.
— ISDConsults:
LocalLeadership #DevelopmentFromWithin #PostAidReality #Governance #SystemsChange
About the Author
The author is a senior international development practitioner and policy advisor with many years of experience working across Africa, fragile and conflict-affected settings, and marginalized communities. Their work spans government advisory roles, civil society strengthening, and direct engagement with grassroots communities. Through ISDConsults, they focus on development approaches that prioritize local ownership, accountable governance, and long-term resilience, emphasizing that external support can be useful but should never be the foundation of development.
