Copy - World Bank CDD Programs Draft 1

World Bank CDD Programs: An Overview

Start

Purpose of this Module

Spark is working with the Ministries of Finance and Local Government in Malawi to scale village grants and facilitation in a phased manner. Partnership with the World Bank is a key part of our expansion strategy in Malawi. In order to position ourselves for success in this partnership, it is important that Spark staff have a good understanding of past World Bank CDD programs so that we are informed of the World Bank's history of CDD and their approach when discussing our own strategy. It is also important that we use their experiences to guide how we design and implement our program.

Optimizing our Model for National Scale

Design

What are the essential components of facilitation?

How might different project types necessitate different approaches to program structure?

Cost

Impact

How might different microgrant projects lead to different impacts?

Are program costs justifiable and feasible for governments to adopt at national scale?

What impacts are most compelling to our stakeholders?

Where are there opportunities to increase efficiencies in our programming, and how can we use those to drive down overall costs?

How might a menu/project restriction vs. open-ended project type steer to certain outcomes?

How do we think about impacts of our program beyond the 2 years of facilitation?

Programs of Focus

Development Response to Displacement Impacts Project Horn of Africa (Ethiopia, Djibouti, Uganda, Kenya) 2017 - Ongoing

Programme National Infrastructure Rurales Senegal 2001 - 2005

Participatory Local Development Project Senegal 2006 - 2012

GoBiFo Sierra Leone 2005 - 2009

Start

Start

Start

Start

Programme National Infrastructure Rurales (PNIR)

Scheduled: 2001 - 2012 Actual: 2001 - 2005 Funding size: $42.9 million

Highlights:

• The PNIR sought to improve rural infrastructure in Senegal through a CDD-approach, by enhancing decentralized local government capacity and establishing mechanisms for selecting, funding, and implementing rural community investment programs.
• The Local Investment Fund funded 850 microprojects; 80% were infrastructure-related. Projects were identified in Local Development Plans and Annual Investment Programs, which were designed through participatory engagement with communities.
• A separate fund was dedicated to building roads and road maintenance.
• The project significantly increased access to clear water, social services, and markets, decreased child stunting, and households in villages which received agricultural or educational projects increased per capita expenditures by 65%.

PNIR: Project Details

Geographic scope: Senegal Funding Size: $42.9 million USDObjectives:

• Improve decentralized local governance and local capacity;
• Establish participatory and decentralized mechanisms for selecting, funding and implementing rural community investment programs;
• Strengthen the national institutions supporting decentralization; and
• Implement basic infrastructure in a selected number of communities.

Duration: The initial project was scheduled to be from 2001-2012 as a multi-phased project; however, it was folded into the Senegal Participatory Local Development Project in 2006 as an attempt to streamline and consolidate multiple World Bank interventions that had a CDD component.

PNIR: Components

Support for Decentralized Rural Development. This was designed to support and strengthen the institutional, financial, and HR capacity of rural local governments.

Local Investment Fund. This was a fund for community sub-projects. It was broken into two pieces: a rural support fund, for financing basic public infrastructure, and an innovation support fund, which provided opportunities for financing non-infrastructure projects.

Community Roads Program.This component aimed to established 640 km of roads in 60 of the most isolated communities in Senegal. The communities were allocated $55,000 annually for the construction of roads. Roads for building were identified through a CDD approach.

PNIR: CDD Approach

Community Investments:

• A Local Investment Fund was broken into two financing windows;
• 80% to basic public infrastructure
• 20% to an innovation support fund, which funded non-infrastructure projects (ie: commerce, livestock, women's activities), identified through "action research" so the communities could brainstorm what other projects would be beneficial for their communities
• 15% of the total fund came from community contributions in the form of money, labor, and materials
• Block grants for communities were between $4 and $5 per capita

CDD Strategy:

• Communities became eligible for the investment fund once they provided an approved Local Development Plan (LDP) and Annual Investment Plan (AIP)

• Local governments engaged communities in the design of these plans through a participatory approach
• The LDPs identified local development priorities, and the AIP proposed the prioritized investments based on the LDP
• Community roads for construction were also identified in these plans.

Projects prioritized through Local Development Plans and Annual Investment Plans

80% of the fund was for public infrastructure

20% of the fund was for non-infrastructure projects identified through action-research

PNIR: Local Investment Fund

Management

Disbursement

Allocation

In order to receive funds, local governments had to design local development plans and annual investment plans in partnership with communities. Local governments were then provided funds based on subprojects identified in local development plans.

Sub-projects were co-financed by local governments and beneficiary contributions. Local governments then allocated funds to the appropriate CBOs for the implementation of sub-projects.

Local investment funds were managed by the project coordination unit, established under the Ministry of Agriculture and supported by eight regional coordinating offices.

PNIR: Key Results (2000-2005)

• High Community Demand: Community demand was higher than expected for this project, so many project targets were surpassed. The initial project planned for 2-3 projects for community and to cover 90 communities; at the end of the project, 110 rural communities were covered by 7-8 projects.
• Improved tax base: The rural tax base over doubled (a multiple of 2.8) due to increased economic activity and tax reforms.
• Increased household expenditures: Researchers found that villages which received agricultural or education infrastructure projects increased per capita household expenditures by 65%. These results appear to be driven by increased primary education opportunities and the income generating potential of agriculture projects. This effect was not found for health or potable water projects (which is not surprising, as these do not provide income-generating opportunities).
• Better Child health: Residing in a project area reduced stunting among children.
• Access to markets and services: The project significantly increased access to clean water, health facilities, social services, and markets.

Access to Markets and Services

High Community Demand

Improved Tax Base

Better Child Health

Increased Household Expenditures

PNIR: Challenges

• Political Capture: Village chiefs and subregional politics played a strong role in which of the eligible villages received projects - the probability of a village receiving a subproject significantly increased when the village had a resident from the majority party on the inter-village council that determined sub-project funding. Despite this, they found that the poor were still the biggest project beneficiaries.
• Global Inflation: The devaluation of the US dollar during the project period increased the cost of the project, leading to less funding available than was originally planned for.
• Natural Disasters: Several natural disasters (flooding, off-season rainfall, drought, and locust upsurge) impacted agricultural and rural activities, impacting beneficiaries’ financial capabilities.
• Government Instability and Disagreements: A disagreement over how the project should be implemented led to wavering commitment, a period that was also marked by instability in the Ministry of Decentralization, both of which affected project implementation.
• Management Challenges: There were management challenges both at the central and local government levels. At the central government level, there was weak project management capacity among implementing government bodies, leading to delays in field activities. A new Technical Manager position was created to address this challenge. There were also major issues in rural financial management early in the project, which led to several important reforms.

Gov. Instability & Disagreement

Management Challenges

Global Inflation

Political Capture

Natural Disasters

PNIR: Lessons Learned

• Decentralization must be multisectoral - political support beyond that of technical ministries is critical for success.
• Decentralization is a long-term effort, requiring the establishment of new systems, education, stakeholder buy-in, and change management.
• Government planning processes need to be modified to reflect the importance of local development in the larger picture of national development.
• Local buy-in is essential for project sustainability. Local governments’ capabilities to plan, implement, and monitor investments using participatory processes depends on their ability to raise funds and maintain high levels of community mobilization.
• Mobilizing and allowing local governments to choose and implement infrastructure projects according to their own priorities was critical to the success of the infrastructure component.

PNIR: Pop Quiz

PNIR: Pop Quiz

Discussion Break

Design

What are the essential components of facilitation?

How might different project types necessitate different approaches to program structure?

Cost

Impact

How might different microgrant projects lead to different impacts?

Are program costs justifiable and feasible for governments to adopt at national scale?

What impacts are most compelling to our stakeholders?

Where are there opportunities to increase efficiencies in our programming, and how can we use those to drive down overall costs?

How might a menu/project restriction vs. open-ended project type steer to certain outcomes?

How do we think about impacts of our program beyond the 2 years of facilitation?

Sierra Leone GoBiFo

Timeline: 2005 - 2009 Funding size: $1.88 million

Highlights:

• The GoBiFo project was designed to deliver local public goods while strengthening local institutions and making community decisions more inclusive and democratic.
• Communities received grants to implement projects identified in village and ward development plans. These projects did not include inter-community competition for funding and were open-ended, meaning communities were not required to choose projects from a set menu.
• Facilitators supported communities to establish a village/ward development committee, articulate a development plan, and implement the projects identified in the plan using the grant.
• This project led to an increase in the number and quality of local public goods, increased household asset ownership, and heightened village market activity. However, there was no evidence of changes in the way that communities made decisions, diversity of participation, or collective action outside of the project.

GoBiFo: Project Details

Geographic scope: Sierra Leone at the village and ward level Funding Size: $1.88 million USD Co-Funder: Japan Social Development Fund (JSDF)Objectives:

• Strengthen social capital by enhancing the capacity of villages and local governments to design and implement strategic development plans at village and ward levels; and
• Enhance the accountability of decision makers through mechanisms that foster open and transparent governance.

Duration: 2005 - 2009

GoBiFo: Components

Facilitation. Local facilitators were selected to work across six villages to support them in establishing a development committee, articulating a development plan, and implementing a project. Facilitators were trained in and used participatory tools such as village mapping, dream maps, and venn diagrams.

Community Grants. Each community was given approximately $5,000 USD to implement a project that they designed. Importantly, there was no inter-community competition for funding and the grants were open-ended, meaning communities were not restricted to certain types of projects. These grants were given out in three tranches over the course of one year.

Community Development Planning.Communities articulated a development plan, which began with a 10-year vision, narrowed in on a three-year strategic plan, and then a one year action plan which included the uses for the grants. Communities also selected development committees, who were trained in financial management, project planning, and other project management tools.

GoBiFo: CDD Approach

Facilitation:

• Project facilitators were selected locally and were assigned to six villages. They were required to reside in one of the villages and spend approximately one day per week in the other villages assigned to them.
• Facilitators supported communities in:
• Establishing a village/ward development committee
• Articulating a development plan
• Implement projects using the grants
• Facilitators deployed techniques focused on promoting inclusion and strengthening social capital, including allowing women and youth to design their own development plans, activities focused on identifying community social capital, and requiring at least one woman to be a co-signatory on community bank accounts.

Local Development Planning:

• Community development committees were established by the community and then were trained in important project management skills, including bookkeeping, budgeting, procurement, and project oversight.
• Facilitators supported communties in developing local development plans, starting with a 10-year vision, narrowing in to focus on a three-year strategic plan, and then a one-year action plan that included uses for the grant.

Facilitators deployed techniques focused on promoting inclusion and strengthening social capital.

Facilitators were selected locally and assigned to six villages.

Communities developed a one-year development action plan including uses for the grant.

GoBiFo: Project Timeline

GoBiFo: Key Results (2005-2009)

• Community Development Planning: Compared to control, treatment communities had more village development committees, more development plans, and increased the number of open bank accounts.
• Links to local governments: Communities were more likely to have been visited by a member of the ward development committee and members of local government were more likely to be directly involved in the planning, construction, maintenance, or oversight of local public goods.
• Local public goods: The project led to an increase in number and quality of local public goods. There were particularly large increases in the proportion of villages with community centers, latrines, traditional birth attendant houses, and seed banks, and increases in the overall construction and quality of four common goods (primary school, grain drying floor, water well, and latrine).
• Village and household level economic welfare: Households increased their asset ownership and had higher participation in skills training, and villages saw an uptick in market level activity, such as in the number of petty traders and the local availability of goods.
• Limitation of GESI and social capital impacts outside of project: There was no evidence of changes in the way that communities make decisions, diversity of participation (youth, women), or collective action outside of the project. Furthermore, there were no impacts on measurements of social capital.

More Community Development Planning

Limitation of GESI and social capital impacts

Increased links to local government

Improved economic welfare

Higher number and quality of local public goods

GoBiFo: Challenges

• Financial disbursement delays: There was a delay between the approval of community projects and disbursement of funds due to challenges recruiting financial management staff and completing the operations manual. This created frustration among community members and project staff. It also lengthened communities exposure to the facilitation beyond that initially planned for - projects were approved in between January and March and funds were not disbursed until October. However, it is not clear what the facilitation process or intensity was during that time of delay. Overall the evaluation reports that each village received roughly six months of direct facilitation over a period of three and a half years.
• Tension between communities: The project was randomized, meaning that some communities received the project while others did not. This caused tensions between control and intervention communities, as it was not clear to some control communities why they were not able to benefit from the GoBifo project.

Tension between communities

Financial disbursement delays

GoBiFo: Lessons Learned

• It is important to consider the appropriate balance between investing in building capacity and in building assets. Social capital plays an important role in catalyzing successful project outcomes and therefore investment in building social capital can potentially lead to a higher return on investment.
• Locally selected field teams were critical for the success of the project. The success of the project can be in part contributed to the local knowledge, experience, and dedication of these teams.
• The project built strong levels of trust in targeted communities when there were high levels of transparency and accountability practiced at the village and ward levels.
• It is important to have clear communication and expectation setting regarding why some communities do and do not receive the program.
• Local and participatory M&E processes are important for social accountability and capacity to influence change.

GoBiFo: Pop Quiz

GoBiFo: Pop Quiz

Discussion Break

Design

What are the essential components of facilitation?

How might different project types necessitate different approaches to program structure?

Cost

Impact

How might different microgrant projects lead to different impacts?

Are program costs justifiable and feasible for governments to adopt at national scale?

What impacts are most compelling to our stakeholders?

Where are there opportunities to increase efficiencies in our programming, and how can we use those to drive down overall costs?

How might a menu/project restriction vs. open-ended project type steer to certain outcomes?

How do we think about impacts of our program beyond the 2 years of facilitation?

Senegal Participatory Local Development (PLD) Project

Timeline: 2006 - 2012 Funding size: $50 million

Highlights:

• The project supported the Government of Senegal to create the framework for participatory local development and decentralization, through the updating and development of legal, fiscal, regulatory, and organizational environments.
• Local governments engaged communities in participatory planning to design Local Development Plans, which local governments could then use to identify subprojects for financing through a local investment fund.
• Communities could access grants for technical advice on improving economic activities, using local development plans as a guide.
• At the end of the project, the Government Senegal had the framework for participatory local development and decentralization, but by closure of the project there were no attempts at operationalizing such an agenda.
• As a results of subprojects, communities had improved access to water, more schools, better educational outcomes, and increased health services.

PLD: Project Details

Geographic scope: SenegalFunding Size: $50 million USDObjectives:

• To assist the Government in setting up an effective framework for participatory local development, decentralization, and resource mobilization and transfer to local governments and communities, in order to deliver services in rural areas and targeted poorest cities efficiently.

Duration: 2006 - 2012

PLD: Components

Policy Support. The government was supported in creating a policy and governance framework for CDD and decentralization. This included adjusting sector policies to support decentralization, redefining relationships between central and local government, and developing guidelines for CDD implementation.

Financing for Local Development. There were several mechanisms designed for financing local development. Local governments were able to access funds to implement subprojects that were identified in their local development plans, CBOs received funds to subsidize small-scale economic infrastructure, and communities were provided grants to purchase technical advice.

Capacity Building.This component provided capacity-building services focused on efficient and quality service delivery to the poor at multiple levels. This included training of local and central governments, financial institutions, private sector, NGOs, and communities.

PLD: CDD Approach

Strengthening governance and policy for CDD:

• The project aimed to update and develop the environment for CDD implementation at all levels. This included updating the legal, regulatory, and organizational decentralization framework for the integration of CDD, through actions such as adjusting sector policies for decentralization, developing guidelines for CDD implementation, and reorganization of local consultation frameworks.
• Mechanisms for financing participatory local development were set up, which strengthened the ability for local governments to properly collect resources (such as taxes) and the implementation of resource transfer from central government to local government and local government to CBOs.

Local Development Planning and Financing:

• Adopted a similar approach as the PNIR program.
• Local governments designed local development plans using CDD approaches, including methods such as public consultations, participatory poverty assessments, and participatory budget formulation.
• Local governments were then able to access investment funds to implement social subprojects that were relevant to these local development plans.
• Communities were able to apply for grants to purchase technical advice for improving their economic activities, using the local development plans as a guide.

Local governments designed local development plans using a CDD approach, and were able to access investment funds to implement subprojects relevant to the plans.

The legal, regulatory, and organizational decentralization frameworks were updated for the integration of CDD.

Communities could access grants for purchasing technical advice on improving economic activities.

PLD: Local Investment Financing

Management

Disbursement

Allocation

In order to receive funds, local governments had to design local development plans in partnership with communities. Local governments were then provided funds based on subprojects identified in local development plans.

Sub-projects were co-financed by local governments and beneficiary contributions. Local governments then allocated funds to the appropriate CBOs for the implementation of sub-projects.

Local investment funds were managed by the project secretariat, embedded in the Ministry of Local Government and Decentralization.

PLD: Pop Quiz

PLD: Key Results (2006-2011)

• National Framework for Participatory Local Development and Decentralization: At the end of the project, Senegal had the framework for participatory local development and decentralization, and if they chose to commit to participatory development and decentralization, all that was needed was the reallocation of resources, as the process, systems, mechanisms, and tools were in place. However, by closure of the project, a local development strategy had not been formulated and reforms to operationalize a local development/decentralization agenda had only been partially achieved.

• Improved access to water: Water supply projects increased household water consumption by 13 liters per day, reduced the average distance for collecting water, and decreased the cost of water by 10% annually.
• Educational outcomes: Education projects increased the number of schools, therefore decreasing class sizes from 40-50 to 36. These projects also substantially decreased drop outs - the drop-out rates in supported schools was 2.1% at the time of evaluation, compared to a national drop-out rate of 9.1%.
• Health services: Health projects increased the quantity of health activities at supported facilities - 60% higher than health facilities in comparable, non-project areas. However, there was no assessment of the quality of the services provided at the health centers.
• Infrastructure projects: No outcomes are reported for the impacts of other types of infrastructure (economic, agricultural, etc).

Framework for Participatory Local Development and Decentralization

Improved access to water

No impacts reported from other types of infrastructure

Increased local health activities

Decreased drop-outs and increased number of schools

PLD: Pop Quiz

PLD: Challenges

• Project timeline: The project initially only had a three year implementation period. However, activities started 10 months late, and the disbursement rate was only 40% two years into the project, which led to an extension of the initial timeline from three years to six years.
• Government Instability & Turnover: There was high instability/turnover of project staff and subsequent reshuffling of project governance (moving from the Office of the Prime Minister to the Ministry of Local Government and Decentralization) during the first 18 months of the project
• Management Challenges: There were delays in putting together the project implementation team at the field level, and delays in creating an appropriate system for public financial management and transfers to pay for the local projects.

Gov. Instability & Disagreement

Management Challenges

Project Timeline

PLD: Lessons Learned

• Combining policy reforms and investment activities is risky, as the two follow different logics and time paths. Investment loans may not be appropriate vehicles for effecting major policy changes, especially in terms of the way a country is organized and distributes resources between the national and regional/local levels.
• Institutional instability is a fact of life and has to be factored into project design.
• There are no shovel-ready projects at the local level, so it is important to consider the appropriate implementation length of such projects.
• Participatory local development is highly people intensive and requires a considerable amount of training of local actors in all aspects of the project cycle to play their role effectively - this cannot be organized only at the national level as it requires a strong institutional presence at the regional level.
• Microprojects alone cannot develop a village. To encourage growth and development, there is a need for larger projects that involve and affect a larger number of communities.

Discussion Break

Design

What are the essential components of facilitation?

How might different project types necessitate different approaches to program structure?

Cost

Impact

How might different microgrant projects lead to different impacts?

Are program costs justifiable and feasible for governments to adopt at national scale?

What impacts are most compelling to our stakeholders?

Where are there opportunities to increase efficiencies in our programming, and how can we use those to drive down overall costs?

How might a menu/project restriction vs. open-ended project type steer to certain outcomes?

How do we think about impacts of our program beyond the 2 years of facilitation?

Development Response to Displacement Impacts Project (DRDIP)

Timeline: 2017 - ongoing Funding size: ~$608 million

Highlights:

• Designed as a series of projects to address the regional spillover effects of conflict and forced displacement in the Horn of Africa (Ethiopia, Uganda, Djibouti, Kenya).
• The project focused mainly on improving conditions in refugee hosting communities. Uganda was the only country that also focused specifically on improving conditions for refugees.
• Communities went through a mapping exercise to identify and prioritize subprojects, areas to be addressed under environmental rehabilitation, and potential livelihoods activities.
• Steering and technical committees for subprojects were established at the national, subnational, and local levels, building on existing community structures, such as community development committees, and establishing new institutions as needed, such as community facilitation teams.

DRDIP: Project Details

Geographic scope: Ethiopia, Uganda, Djibouti, KenyaFunding Size: ~$608 million USDObjectives:

• Improve access to basic social services, expand economic opportunities, and enhance environmental management for communities hosting refugees.

Duration: The initial grant was planned for 2017 - 2022, with most countries now in an extension phase. The extension phase in Uganda is now meant to end in June 2024. A Phase II has been added for Ethiopia, spanning 2022 - 2027, with potential for additional phases in the other countries.

DRDIP: Pop Quiz

DRDIP: Components

Social and Economic Services and Infrastructure. Projects aimed at improving service delivery and infrastructure were identified, prioritized, implemented, and monitored by community members, funded via a Community Investment Fund. This was supplemented by capacity support for local planning and decentralized service delivery.

Sustainable Environmental Management. The DRDIP also funded sub-projects related to natural resource management (soil and water management, use and management of irrigated water systems) and access to energy (more efficient use of energy resources and alternative energy solutions). Where approrpiate, projects were implemented through a labor-intensive public works program.

Livelihoods Program.In order to improve livelihoods and support the incomes of refugee hosting communities, activities under this component focused on commercialization of both traditional and nontraditional livelihoods and capacity support of CBOs for livelihoods in areas such as group management, financial literacy, and savings.

DRDIP: Components

Project Management and M&E Steering and technical committees for the projects were established at the national, subnational, and local levels. The project aimed to build on existing community-level structures, such as community development committees, and established new local-level institutions as needed, including the community facilitation teams, community project management committees, procurement committees, and social audit committees.

Regional Secretariate on Forced Displacement.This component aims to consolidate regional efforts towards addressing displacement and mixed migration through policy dialogue and engagement, research, capacity support, knowledge management, and partnership functions. To achieve this, the project established a Regional Secretariat (RS) on Forced Displacement and Mixed Migration.

DRDIP: CDD Approach

Community Investment Planning:

• Planning for all investments were undertaken as a single exercise.
• Communities went through a mapping exercise where they identified and prioritized subprojects, areas to be addressed under environmental rehabilitation, and livelihoods activities. This exercise led to a community development plan and an associated budget, and the establishment of a community development committee who were responsible for overseeing the implementation of subprojects/the community development plan.
• Projects endeavored to employ local labor, and local governments were responsible for the operation and maintenance of all projects.

Capacity support for local planning and decentralized service delivery:

• Local government and implementing institutions were trained in the community-driven planning process, local development management, service-delivery capacity enhancements, and coordination of stakeholders at the local and community level.
• Livelihoods-focused CBOs were trained in project management, conflict resolution, savings, bookkeeping, et cetera.
• CBOs and communities were linked to technical advisory services to identify and implement livelihoods activities.

CBOs and communities were provided capacity building and technical assistance for identifying, managing and implementing livelihoods activities.

Communities underwent a mapping exercise where they identified and prioritized sub-projects, areas for environmental rehabilitation, and livelihoods activities.

Local government and implementing institutions were trained in the community-driven planning process.

DRDIP: Funding Flows (Uganda)

Management

Allocation

Disbursement

Community project management committees were responsible for requesting project funds from the sub-project accounts based on budgets developed for community sub-projects.

The OPM distributed funding to sub-project accounts managed by local governments at the district level.

Funds were managed by the Uganda Office of the Prime Minister.

DRDIP: Project Management Structures

DRDIP: Pop Quiz

DRDIP: Key Results (2017-2023)

Projects are closing out and undergoing endline evaluations in Uganda, Ethiopia, and Djibouti, so the results provided below are preliminary results from an endline survey in Kenya.

• Households experienced improved access to infrastructure and facilities, but that did not translate to improved satisfaction with access.
• Groups (communities and livelihoods subgroups) reported increased income, livestock ownership, and selling of livestock products.

• Households increased expenditures (both food and non-food).
• Significant improvements in social cohesion between refugee and host community members, including more positive attitudes towards refugees.

Despite objective measures of improved access to infrastructure and facilities, self-reported satisfaction with access did not improve.

Improved livelihoods through increased income, livestock ownership, and household expenditures.

Significant improvements in social cohesion between refugee and host community members.

DRDIP: Challenges

• Regional Instability: In Ethiopia, project operations were suspended in the Tigray region in 2021 and project activities were impacted in several other conflict-affected areas. In Uganda, a large influx of refugees necessitated changes in the project's financial needs and scope.
• Natural Disasters: Natural disasters delayed and interrupted project activities, including COVID-19, flooding, and desert locust infestations.

• Resistance from Program Beneficiaries: Uganda in particular cited challenges from community members, including resistance to participating in project activities, noncompliance to project guidelines, and challenges with landowners adjacent to areas earmarked for natural resource management.

Resistance from Beneficiaries

Regional Instability

Natural Disasters

Discussion Break

Takeaways from Senegal program: very decentralization focused, potential for that. Structure for Senegal program - money to local gov to communities, interesting to know about negotiation processes there. Malawi - more likely for money to move directly to village level, but worth exploring DRDIP - for Uganda specifically, how they approached livelihoods programming - livelihoods and environment, used to get money in peoples pockets through labor intensive public works. Allowed communities to pick what the livelihoods were invested in; brought in VCA, MSA to inform implementation. Neat approach in terms of analysis with freedom of community choice. Interesting to look at how they did they at scale. Design - learning from GoBiFo; two phase microgrant disbursement - first tranche determined second tranche. Looking at inclusivity in first tranche, helped determine allocation of second tranche. Helped with quality.

Design

What are the essential components of facilitation?

How might different project types necessitate different approaches to program structure?

Cost

Impact

How might different microgrant projects lead to different impacts?

Are program costs justifiable and feasible for governments to adopt at national scale?

What impacts are most compelling to our stakeholders?

Where are there opportunities to increase efficiencies in our programming, and how can we use those to drive down overall costs?

How might a menu/project restriction vs. open-ended project type steer to certain outcomes?

How do we think about impacts of our program beyond the 2 years of facilitation?

Spark Titukulane FCAP

Timeline: 2022 - ongoing

Highlights:

• Spark began work in Malawi in February 2022, trialing the FCAP in three phases: pre-pilot, pilot, and scale up phase.

Spark Titukulane FCAP: Key Results

• Based on your visits to communities and dashboard data, what are the key results/benefits that you have seen so far?

- Social cohesion: Have seen communities come together and achieve projects of common interest. Program has strengthened unity, bonding amongst community members. Improved trust due to transparency from leaders in community. FCAP has brought that - when doing things, it has to be transparent and accountable. - Civic engagement: Collaboration has improved - Inclusive decision making: In FCAP, there is "no old people" - everyone has to contribute something, cannot say people are not able to contribute, everyone is encouraged to contribute. Livelihoods: - Budgeting, financial management: One of the benefits at community and household level. Community members are able to self report in terms of budgeting @ household level. - Savings at household level: better savings, greatly improved Gender norms: - Reduction in discrimination; men support household work, reduced burden of women at household level, women can participate in productive work - savings groups, volunteering, income generation Households are able to sit down, plan together financially, contribute to hhd

Spark Titukulane FCAP: Challenges

• What have been the challenges that we have faced so far? How have we adjusted? Where have we struggled to adjust?

Last year, difficult famine/food shortage all over country. Animals died, had to sell animals to buy food for other animals to survive. As a result, reduction in the animals - however, helped households in buffering challenges from famine to have access to animals. Significance of having two tranches of disbursement. Communities still have adequate resources to deal with challenges. Hunger, dry spells - compounded by devaluation of kwacha, but households were also able to use their savings. Priorities shifted to having adequate food at hhd level Implementing partners - want money for all activities, even monitoring data collection; as a result, limited data. Have recruited two trainers (field officers) who will be able to follow up, take over from implementing partners, to engage with communities on regular basis, resolve challenges quickly Devaluation of kwacha - money was fluctuating against dollar, challenges for how communities can spend money Natural disasters - flooding (Nkhotakhota), affected program in terms of diseases, relocation, destabilizing project area Issues around timelines of programming - how long should it be for each phase, issues around awareness for community level for setting expectations clearly around timelines. Drops in terms of community engagement between planning and receipt of microgrant, communities not understanding why they needed to plan before receiving money/writing proposals, changes in attendance. Overall, finding optimal pieces (timeline, partnerships, gov involvement) - we are learning these in pilot phases, not challenges now but if we do not commit to learning ,will be. Straddling line btwn learning/challenges Challenges in pre-pilot that proposal development phase was too short - tried shortening it, but feedback was that it was too rushed.

Spark Titukulane FCAP: Lessons Learned

• What lessons have you learned in this experience so far that will help inform our approach in this next phase?

Trying different grant size x community size - coalescing around idea that 12k is the right amount. Initial 8k or 10k was too small, going much larger may shift the way that communities invest funds (and funding restrictions) Period of program implementation itself - it takes time to prepare to implement; ie, building a shelter takes more time - think about timeline in terms of when to receive expected benefits Engaging government is crucial; they can provide TA. Learning from other country experiences, local and central gov are dedicated, committees have helped open doors for awareness across various ministries - will be important to us under national program, multisectoral program, investment towards that. Local gov level - invited to codesign, useful exercise; they felt more ownership and understanding of porgram, helped us think about TA provision, deepened them as stakeholders for input rather than just awareness Engaging TA at early stage. TAs were involved after the pathways have already been prioritized, brainstorming in terms of which pathway to go with - a little delayed/later; engaging them at early stage minimzes risk. CBFs: Using two CBFs, depending on size of community, has proven beneficial - many hhds, for one CBF is challenging, for pilot - there were like two CBFs for certain categories of household villages, numbers. That was introduced in terms of ranking the village size. This was mainly about microgrant size, but should also be considered in terms of CBF allocation.