Insights from Six Decades of International Development Evaluations

As we enter 2025, it’s a fitting moment to reflect on USAID’s 60+ year journey in international development and consider what it tells us about the path ahead. To help distill these lessons from over half a century of international development, we turned to DECipher. DECipher is an Artificial Intelligence (AI) system built by the Institute for Development Impact that has analyzed USAID‘s Development Experience Clearinghouse (DEC) – a repository of over 13,000 evaluations documenting development efforts since 1961. The insights that emerged from this rich archive offer valuable perspectives for practitioners as we face the challenges and opportunities of a new year.

A Note on Methodology and Context

Before diving in, it’s worth noting that these insights come from AI analysis of formal USAID evaluations conducted across the entire timeline, from 1961 to the present day. While the DEC represents one of the most comprehensive collections of development learning globally, it has its limitations. 

Evaluation methods and reporting have evolved over time, and no matter how sound an evaluation is, formal reports cannot capture all aspects of development work, particularly the unwritten knowledge, relationships, and contextual nuances that often determine success or failure. AI itself, though powerful in identifying patterns, is constrained by the structure and scope of the data it processes, leaving gaps in understanding the lived realities of practitioners.

What follows, however, are patterns distilled from thousands of evaluations—offered to inform, not prescribe. These lessons are meant to provoke reflection and action for all development actors, from those working at the grassroots to those shaping strategies at the highest levels.

1. Country Ownership Requires Genuine Agency

Ownership has been a cornerstone of development rhetoric for decades, yet in practice, it often remains symbolic. Programs may claim to support local ownership, but decisions are too frequently predetermined by external priorities, leaving local actors in roles of implementation rather than leadership. Ownership cannot merely mean consultation or alignment with donor frameworks; it must involve the transfer of power to define and drive development priorities.

This requires trust and a willingness to step back, even when local approaches diverge from donor expectations. True ownership is messy—it may challenge timelines, metrics, or established norms. Without it, though, programs risk irrelevance and unsustainability. The path forward demands that development actors embrace the discomfort of relinquishing control and trust local systems to lead.

2. Sustainability Demands Systemic Transformation

Sustainability is often framed as the longevity of projects or interventions, but its true essence lies in reshaping the systems in which those efforts operate. Programs that rely on parallel structures—designed for short-term efficiency—may deliver results during their lifespan, but often weaken the very systems they aim to support. Development must shift its focus from sustaining outputs to sustaining capacity, resilience, and equity within local systems.

This is no small task. Addressing systemic issues—governance, market access, education, health, and environmental resilience—requires patience and perseverance. It involves not only working within existing structures but actively confronting the inequalities and inefficiencies that perpetuate vulnerability. Development actors must ask themselves: Are we strengthening systems to endure, or simply extending the life of our interventions?

3. The Public-Private Balance Must Serve People

Collaboration between public and private sectors has emerged as one of the most significant factors in achieving development goals. Markets can drive innovation, scale, and resource mobilization, but unchecked privatization risks deepening inequities and eroding public trust. Conversely, public institutions are critical for delivering services and ensuring equitable access, but they often lack the capacity to innovate or respond quickly to emerging challenges.

Striking the right balance is a continual process of negotiation. Development actors must actively engage in shaping markets to ensure they serve public good, while also investing in public institutions to regulate and complement private sector activities. The ultimate question is not whether one sector is better, but how their combined strengths can be harnessed to benefit the most vulnerable populations.

4. Inclusion Requires Redistribution

Inclusivity has become a hallmark of development programs, though it too often remains superficial. Frequently, inclusion is focused on representation rather than structural change. Genuine inclusion requires transforming systemic barriers, not just increasing diversity in representation. This includes redistributing resources, dismantling barriers, and reimagining systems that have historically benefited the few at the expense of the many.

Development practitioners must interrogate the power dynamics that underpin exclusion and prioritize programs that challenge these structures head-on. Equity cannot be achieved through good intentions alone; it requires intentional action to shift opportunities, decision-making power, and resources toward those who have been historically marginalized.

5. Local Knowledge Is Central, Not Supplementary 

Local knowledge has long been undervalued in development practice, often viewed as a supplement to external expertise rather than a central resource. However, evaluations consistently reveal that programs fail when they overlook the contextual insights of those living in the communities they aim to serve. Local knowledge is not merely anecdotal—it is deeply tied to lived experience, cultural systems, and ecological realities.

The challenge lies in integrating this knowledge into program design and implementation without tokenizing or co-opting it. Development actors must actively create spaces for local expertise to shape solutions, ensuring that interventions are not only technically sound but also culturally relevant and resonant. When combined with external innovation, local knowledge becomes a powerful driver of sustainable change.

6. Technology Must Be a Means, Not the End

The rapid advancement of technology has brought unprecedented opportunities to scale impact, improve efficiency, and enhance monitoring. Yet technology is not a neutral tool; its introduction often exacerbates existing inequalities, particularly in communities where access and digital literacy are uneven. Programs that overemphasize technology risk sidelining the very populations they aim to serve.

The focus must shift from showcasing innovation to ensuring its inclusivity and sustainability. We must design technology to amplify human capacity, not replace it, and its implementation must prioritize equitable access. Development actors need to ask hard questions about who benefits from technological solutions—and who might be left behind.

7. Institutional Development Requires Patience and Persistence

Building strong institutions is among the most challenging yet essential goals of development. Effective institutions provide the foundation for governance, service delivery, and resilience. However, instituitonal reform is a slow, nonlinear process. Short-term projects often prioritize quick wins over the deeper work of institutional change, leaving systems vulnerable once external funding ends.

Institutional development requires trust, long-term commitment, and adaptability. Development practitioners must resist the pressure to produce immediate results at the expense of lasting impact. Progress may be incremental, but it is through these small, sustained efforts that institutions are strengthened and communities empowered.

8. Accountability Must Be Reciprocal

Accountability has long been a cornerstone of development practice, but it often flows in one direction—upward to donors and funders. Local stakeholders are frequently subjected to rigorous reporting requirements, while those providing the funding remain shielded from scrutiny. This imbalance perpetuates mistrust and weakens the credibility of development efforts.

A more equitable approach to accountability requires transparency at every level. Communities must have mechanisms to hold donors and implementers accountable for their commitments, just as funders demand accountability for resources used. When all stakeholders share responsibility for outcomes, development becomes a more collaborative and credible process.

Navigating 2025: From Reflection to Action

The lessons gleaned from over half a century of USAID evaluations are good reminders of best practices, but also a call to confront the structural and systemic realities that shape development. They urge us to rethink our roles, challenge our assumptions, and act with greater humility and intention. Moving forward requires:

• Elevating Local Leadership: Empower communities to define and drive their own development agendas.
• Strengthening Systems: Focus on resilience and capacity rather than temporary fixes.
• Prioritizing Equity: Shift from representation to redistribution.
• Adapting Continuously: Embrace complexity and be willing to evolve.
• Fostering Mutual Accountability: Build trust through shared responsibility.

As we face the challenges of 2025—climate change, inequality, technological disruption, and policy challenges —the development community must hold itself to a higher standard. The question is not whether we can succeed, but whether we are willing to ask the right questions, make the hard choices, and stay the course.

To explore the DECipher tool on your own, we invite you to visit devme.ai