I got a tip that things were not going well with this project, the largest project that USAID has funded so far. Chemonics spent $10 billion of US taxpayer money to improve supply chains, but key performance indicators suggested that something was really wrong.

USAID and Chemonics were open about initial challenges in the project but insisted they had taken the necessary steps to turn it around. We found reasons to question that narrative. For example, the time to procure and deliver orders actually increased during the contract, from 174 days in 2017 to 263 days in 2022. Technology delays, oversight problems, and the overall structure of the contract undermined the project. As a result, the goal of helping countries take responsibility for their own health supply chains suffered. For example, we found an independent evaluation from Nepal that found that the project was “unlikely to have any transformative or sustainable effect.”

As a journalist, I don’t want to make prescriptions as to what should or should not be done. But it’s important to create an evidence base for conversations about U.S. foreign assistance by looking into whether the approach that dominated the previous decades has been effective.