The OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) conducts periodic reviews of the individual development co-operation efforts of DAC members. The policies and programmes of each member are critically examined approximately once every five years. Five members are examined annually. The OECD Development Co-operation Directorate provides analytical support, and develops and maintains, in close consultation with the Committee, the methodology and analytical framework – known as the Reference Guide – within which the peer reviews are undertaken.

After almost eight years in office, the Obama presidency is coming to an end, with the next presidential elections scheduled for November 2016. For several consecutive years, Congress was unable to reach a timely agreement on budgets and debates on major political issues such as healthcare, and retirement entitlements have been hampered by disagreements, often divided by political lines. Congressional elections will be held alongside the November presidential ones for all 435 members of the House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate, which may offer an opportunity to negotiate a longer-term budget accord – the last hard-fought deal to raise the debt ceiling and set higher spending limits runs until September 2017.

As the world’s largest bilateral donor, economy and diplomatic power, the United States has played a major role in shaping ambitious global development policies – including Agenda 2030, the Addis Ababa Action Agenda and the Paris Climate Agreement. It regularly launches initiatives to tackle global public risks and provide global public goods. Combined and targeted actions on the diplomatic front and leadership in international fora – from the G7 and G20 to the United Nations – allow the US to engage partners and gain support for achieving shared objectives.

The 2010 Presidential Policy Directive on Global Development elevated development as a core pillar of US international engagement. Through this policy, which overarches all US development strategies and policy guidance, the US has set ambitious development goals aligned with its strategic national objectives of peace, security, global prosperity, universal values and human rights. The recent focus on ending extreme poverty as a global objective for US development co-operation is positive, but has not yet been fully operationalised.

As the largest bilateral donor of the DAC, the United States’ official development assistance (ODA) constitutes a significant share of global development co-operation funding. Its ODA volume has been broadly maintained since 2010, despite falling by USD 2 billion in 2015 (in real terms) from a record high of USD 33.1 billion in 2014 – a 7% drop. However, US ODA levels have not matched its economic recovery. While transparency has increased, the unpredictable nature of US ODA creates uncertainties for its partners.

The institutional system for development co-operation in the US is marked by multiple actors, a myriad of initiatives and budget lines, a difficult authorising environment, and complex procedures. In order to deal with this complexity, concerted efforts have been made to give USAID a pivotal role in the development co-operation system. Although still a work in progress, USAID’s expanded capabilities are already making a positive difference.

The US is committed to improving the quality of its aid. USAID places high priority on working with local actors, and responding to complexity, aiming to balance risk and reward. However, it continues to work mainly through US contractors and grantees, rather than through partner country systems. The programming cycle has improved effectiveness, but budget predictability and project procedures remain key constraints. The US could take inspiration from what the Millennium Challenge Corporation and President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, with more permissive legislation, have been able to achieve in terms of predictability.

The current US administration has developed a strong focus on results. US policy documents establish and report on outcomes, as well as outputs. USAID is also seeking to reflect its local systems approach in its results measurement, but no agency yet has plans to align results with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Mandatory tools for managing programmes support the focus on results and their use in informing budgets and decision making. However, the results system is complex and burdensome – with too many indicators, too much reporting and too little alignment with partner country results.

Humanitarian assistance is a policy priority for the US, both globally and in the field. The weight given to the programme is matched by a hefty humanitarian budget – making the US the dominant humanitarian donor globally. There has been some useful progress since the last peer review: increased predictability of the humanitarian budget, consolidated US government positions on key humanitarian issues, better financing and programming options for recovery and transition contexts, and a high-profile push for resilience programming. To improve the overall efficiency and reach of the US humanitarian programme, further steps are needed: to reduce the directives in budget appropriations, further untie food aid and reduce practical obstacles for partners seeking development funding for recovery programmes.