Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Community
driven
development
(CDD)
in
action:
three
case
studies
of
international
nongovernmental
development
organizations’
(INGOs’)
CDD
practices
by
Meghann
Rhynard-‐Geil
MPP
Essay
Submitted to
Master
of
Public
Policy
Essay
Presented
on
June
14,
2013
APPROVED:
Sarah
Henderson,
representing
Political
Science
Elizabeth
Schroeder,
representing
Economics
David
Bernell,
representing
Political
Science
I
understand
that
my
thesis
will
become
part
of
the
permanent
scholarly
collection
of
Oregon
State
University
Libraries.
My
signature
below
authorizes
release
of
my
thesis
to
any
reader
upon
request.
Meghann
Rhynard-‐Geil,
Author
Acknowledgements
I
would
like
to
thank
several
people
for
their
support
throughout
this
project:
Thank
you
to
my
family,
Bonnie
Rhynard-‐Buhl,
Walt
Buhl,
and
Shannah
Rhynard-‐
Geil,
without
whom
I
never
would
have
had
the
opportunity
to
pursue
my
academic
and
professional
goals.
The
time,
love,
and
understanding
you
have
given
me
throughout
this
(rather
lengthy)
process
have
been
invaluable
and
much
appreciated.
David
Vieru,
your
faith
and
confidence
in
me
always
push
me
to
believe
in
what
I
am
capable
of
and
strive
for
more.
I
know
I
can
always
trust
in
your
strength
and
steadfastness
to
help
me
find
my
own.
Martina
Hagan,
Jordan
Lueras,
and
Erica
Curry,
your
understanding
and
constant
words
of
support
were
always
there
to
get
me
through
the
rough
patches.
My
committee
chair,
Sarah
Henderson,
the
hours
and
energy
spent
on
helping
me
make
this
a
project
of
which
I
am
truly
proud
are
something
I
will
always
remember.
You
pushed
me
to
expect
more
of
myself
than
I
ever
had
before.
My
committee
members,
Liz
Schroeder
and
Dave
Bernell,
your
expertise
and
guidance
throughout
this
process
have
been
vital.
Thank
you
all!
LIST
OF
FIGURES
Figure
1
–
Identifying
CDD
Elements
in
a
Project
Cycle………………………………………19
Figure
2
–
Arnstein’s
Ladder
of
Participation……………………………………………………
20
LIST
OF
TABLES
Table
1
–
Scoring
Elements………………………………………………………………………………22
Table
2
–
Community
Focus
–
Organization
Performance………………………………….29
Table
3
–
Participatory
Planning
–
Organization
Performance…………………………..33
Table
4
–
Community
Control
of
Resources
–
Organization
Performance…………..38
Table
5
–
Community
Involvement
in
Implementation
and
O
&
M……………………..41
Table
6
–
Participatory
Monitoring…………………………………………………………………..45
Table
7
–
Organization
Scores………………………………………………………………………….46
2
models
within
the
development
industry,
the
relationship
between
INGOs
and
the
communities
they
serve
is
also
complex
and
personalized
on
a
case-‐by-‐case
basis
to
each
locale
making
extrapolation,
deconstruction,
and
application
of
CDD
on
a
broader
scale
difficult.
This
also
makes
assessing
INGO
performance
in
relation
to
CDD
a
challenge.
Research
and
evaluation
are
plagued
with
potential
externalities
that
either
add
to
or
take
away
from
a
development
project’s
results
(Banerjee
&
Duflo,
2011).
However,
for
this
aid
approach
to
evolve,
a
greater
understanding
of
it
must
be
reached.
Being
more
aware
of
comparisons
between
the
theory
of
CDD
and
its
application
on
the
ground
will
help
reveal
its
strengths
and
weaknesses
in
relation
to
a
variety
of
different
organizational
models
and
types
of
projects,
contributing
to
the
ability
to
perfect
and
define
when,
how,
and
why
CDD
approaches
should
be
used.
This
project
compares
the
practices
of
three
American
small-‐scale
development
INGOs
in
relation
to
the
theoretical
approach
promoted
by
the
World
Bank
to
gauge
the
degree
with
which
individual
organizations
are
able
to
carry
out
and
maintain
CDD
ideals
and
goals.
What
parts
of
CDD
work?
What
parts
don’t?
When
and
Why?
Through
the
three
case
studies
conducted
in
this
paper,
it
was
found
that
organizations
conducted
participatory
planning
and
participatory
monitoring
practices
quite
well.
However,
due
to
several
reasons
(discussed
later
in
this
paper),
maintaining
a
project’s
community
focus,
ensuring
community
control
of
resources,
and
giving
the
community
control
of
implementation
and
operations
and
management
proved
to
be
more
challenging.
This
reveals
that,
either
the
two
elements
of
CDD
being
done
successfully
are
the
easiest
to
implement,
or
they
have
been
independently
identified
by
these
three
organizations
as
the
most
important
for
maintaining
CDD
practices.
3
Literature
Review
The
participatory
approach
to
development
is
now
the
favored
approach
to
development
aid
by
most
bilateral
and
multilateral
aid
organizations
(Platteau
&
Abraham,
2002).
Rather
than
simply
focusing
on
the
delivery
of
aid
to
communities
in
need,
the
focus
on
organizational
culture
of
INGOs
to
be
more
inclusive,
transparent,
and
focused
on
aid
recipients
allows
us
to
“explore
the
ways
in
which
meanings
are
constructed
and
contested
within
development
projects
and
also
draws
attention
to
the
local
and
international
relationships
that
form
part
of
these
processes”
(Lewis,
2003).
As
it
stands,
three
themes
are
important
to
understand
when
discussing
CDD
practices:
how
and
why
CDD
evolved,
the
unintended
consequences
of
that
evolution,
and
the
practical
applications
of
CDD.
The
development
industry’s
movement
toward
more
participatory
approaches
can
be
attributed
largely
to
social
scientists
such
as
Escobar
(1995)
and
Scott’s
(1998)
use
of
Collective
Action
to
describe
top-‐down
perspective
as
both
disempowering
and
ineffective.
Work
by
Cernea
(1985)
showed
how
large
organizations,
like
the
World
Bank,
could
“put
people
first”
by
systematically
working
at
the
local
level.
Ostrom’s
(1990)
work
on
common-‐pool
resource
management
shifted
the
perception
of
the
potential
for
collective
action
in
poor
communities.
Her
work,
along
with
others,
assembled
considerable
evidence
from
case
studies
to
show
that
endogenous
institutions
often
managed
common-‐pool
resources
quite
well,
suggesting
that
putting
faith
in
a
community’s
ability
to
take
care
of
itself
(if
given
the
right
resources)
was
not
un
called
for
(Mansuri
&
Rao,
2004).
It
was
through
studies
and
experiences
like
these
that
CDD
was
developed.
The
World
Bank’s
CDD
centers
around
initiating
development
through
local
people
by
means
of
projects
that
enhance
both
the
social
and
human
capital
of
the
beneficiaries,
assuming
that,
once
people
are
empowered,
development
becomes
both
attainable
and
sustainable
(Botchway,
2001).
As
mentioned
in
the
introduction,
though
it
is
difficult
to
ascertain
the
correlation
between
community
4
5
(false
and
misleading)
sense
of
identity,
harmony,
cooperation,
and
inclusiveness”
(Head,
2007).
Currently,
community
involvement
has
more
of
a
symbolic
power
than
any
tangible,
implementable
meaning.
A
more
explicit
definition
of
the
theoretical
approach
that
is
“community
involvement”
must
be
decided
upon
by
the
development
industry.
Something
cannot
be
measured,
evaluated,
or
duplicated
until
there
is
an
agreed
upon
rubric
by
which
to
define
it.
The
debate
surrounding
both
defining
and
implementing
community
involvement
and
its
effectiveness
often
falls
into
means/ends
classifications,
which
distinguishes
between
“the
efficiency
arguments
(participation
as
a
tool
for
achieving
better
project
outcomes)
and
equity
and
empowerment
arguments
(participation
as
a
process,
which
enhances
the
capacity
of
individuals
to
improve
their
own
lives
and
facilitates
social
change
to
the
advantage
of
disadvantaged
or
marginalized
groups)”
(Cleaver,
1999).
These
two
approaches
significantly
change
the
opinion
with
which
community
involvement
is
viewed.
One
requires
measurable
efficacy
to
justify
the
inclusion
of
the
beneficiaries,
whereas
the
other
views
it
as
a
philosophical
and
moral
necessity
regardless
of
outcome
–
where
participation
is
the
goal
just
as
much
as
the
physical
project
embarked
upon.
It
is
seen
as
“empowering
in
creating
a
sense
of
ownership
and
the
related
perceptions
of
responsibility”
(Cleaver,
1999).
Emphasis
is
now
being
placed
in
program
and
project
strategies
on
inclusiveness
–
ie:
recognizing
beneficiary
interests
and
viewpoints
in
regards
to
project
planning
and
implementation.
Dialogue
and
deliberation
among
all
stakeholders
in
the
process
of
deciding
priorities
and
actions
are
now
being
stressed
(Head,
2007).
This
process,
though
it
appears
central
to
the
success
of
CDD,
is
often
the
most
difficult
to
enact
due
to
the
amount
of
time,
preparation,
and
additional
funds
it
requires.
The
primary
concept
of
CDD
-‐
maintaining
the
beneficiary
community
as
the
focal
point
of
development
projects
–
is
very
good,
but
it
presents
significant
difficulties
when
instituted
on
the
ground.
Regardless
of
where
one
falls
on
the
community
involvement
spectrum,
there
is
no
denying
that
participatory
development
takes
a
significantly
longer
time
than
more
hierarchical
approaches.
To
really
understand
a
6
community
and
its
dynamics,
the
planning
phase
of
a
project
must
be
extensive.
Though
it
can
extend
the
life
of
a
project
(and
increase
its
effectiveness
and
reach),
time
is
money,
and
donors
like
to
see
the
results
of
their
funds
in
tangible
ways.
Despite
an
organizational
culture
to
the
contrary,
donors
ultimately
control
the
funding
of
projects.
Without
their
support,
nothing
happens.
Thus,
it
is
very
difficult
for
organizations
to
maintain
a
true
loyalty
to
the
community
before
cultivating
a
relationship
with
their
donors.
There
is
an
inherent
difficulty
in
incorporating
project
concerns
with
participatory
discourses.
Ultimately,
“a
project
is,
by
definition,
a
clearly
defined
set
of
activities,
concerned
with
quantifiable
costs
and
benefits,
with
time-‐limited
activities
and
budgets.
The
project
imperative
emphasizes
meeting
practical
rather
than
strategic
needs;
instrumentality
rather
than
empowerment”
(Cleaver,
1999).
It
is
difficult
to
simultaneously
follow
both
a
project
timeline
in
addition
to
remaining
loyal
to
an
(admittedly
slower)
approach
that
enables
the
community
to
be
active
and
involved
(Lyons
et
al,
2001).
It
is
not
particularly
surprising
that
NGOs
are
not
entirely
pragmatic
and
selfless
in
their
actions.
After
all,
these
organizations
are
businesses.
They
must
make
a
profit
to
survive,
and
as
a
result,
while
they
may
make
improvements
in
quality
of
life
for
their
beneficiaries,
it
is
in
the
INGOs’
best
interest
to
remain
relevant.
There
is
the
constant
threat
that
if
an
INGO
is
too
selfless
in
its
actions,
and
does
its
job
too
well,
they
will
make
themselves
obsolete.
As
a
result,
all
too
often,
whether
entirely
purposeful
or
not,
NGOs
often
produce
relationships
of
dependency,
exclusivity,
and
paternalism
with
those
communities
they
serve
(Sacouman,
2011).
Though
INGOs
are
in
agreement
about
the
desire
to
aid
the
developing
world,
they
have
antagonistic
interests
where
output
is
concerned
(Olson,
1965).
Often,
the
actions
of
development
organizations
can
be
interpreted
as
somewhat
self-‐
interested.
Contrary
to
the
prevailing
positive
view
of
INGOs,
financial
interests
are
often
the
motivations
behind
actions
and
strategies
implemented
(Sacouman,
2011).
The
struggle
INGOs
are
constantly
facing
is
one
of
individual
versus
collective
good.
While
their
purpose
(and
very
existence)
is
supposedly
for
the
benefit
of
others,
7
they
must
protect
themselves
as
well,
and
are
thus
constantly
caught
between
motivations
of
self-‐interest
versus
the
pragmatism
of
their
mission.
Often,
a
difficulty
that
arises
when
utilizing
CDD,
is
that
true
focus
and
loyalty
cannot
always
remain
with
the
community.
INGOs
are
not-‐for-‐profit
organizations.
Their
funds
generally
come
from
donations
and
grants.
As
a
result,
INGOs
must
often
choose
to
focus
their
energy
not
toward
the
community
but
rather
toward
funding
agencies
(Sacouman,
2012),
each
with
their
own
individual
agendas
and
goals.
This
is
a
direct
departure
from
CDD’s
definition
and
goals,
but
without
donors,
many
aid
projects
would
be
impossible
regardless
of
how
involved
a
community
was.
A
solution
as
to
how
to
fix
this
issue
of
loyalty
and
focus
has
not
effectively
been
addressed
by
the
literature
to
date.
That
being
said,
an
organization’s
lack
of
knowledge
about
community
desires
and
goals
may
be
just
as
harmful
as
not
having
enough
funds
to
support
grand
development
projects.
Failed
projects
and/or
unhealthy
organization/community
relationships
and
involvement
due
to
an
organization’s
lack
of
community
awareness
have
begun
to
wear
away
at
INGO
legitimacy.
Increasing
case
studies
and
reports
have
revealed
that
all
too
often,
aid
efforts
actually
create
dependency
by
treating
symptoms
rather
than
long-‐term
solutions
(Lempert,
2009).
These
aid
delivery
issues
are
highlighted
in
Sierra
Hawthorne’s
case
study
of
an
INGO
called
PLAN
and
its
projects
in
the
Dominican
Republic,
which
she
called
a
“well-‐
intentioned
but
ineffectual
effort
to
improve
Dominican
living
standards
through
an
outpouring
of
American
dollars”
(Hawthorne,
2009).
Millions
of
dollars
were
sent
to
sponsor
the
construction
of
a
primary
school.
However,
the
community
was
not
involved
in
the
planning
or
construction.
This
not
only
alienated
the
community
from
the
project,
and
did
nothing
to
address
the
structural
reasons
initially
responsible
for
the
project.
In
only
four
weeks,
local
delinquents
systematically
vandalized
and
destroyed
the
school.
In
that
time,
not
a
single
community
member
intervened
(Hawthorne,
2009).
Plan
found
that
this
community
response
was
common
across
most
of
their
projects.
As
a
result,
they
dramatically
shifted
their
approach
to
a
community
participation-‐based
model
in
2004,
and
since
that
shift,
8
the
organization
has
seen
many
successes
in
relation
to
their
projects
in
relation
to
engaging
the
youth
and
community
members
(Hawthorne,
2009).
Hawthorne
claims
that
the
developed
world’s
compulsion
to
aid
the
Dominican
Republic
as
a
paternalistic
better
rather
than
a
partner
caused
resentment
among
beneficiaries,
expectations
that
handouts
would
continue,
and
subsequent
dependence
on
such
handouts.
Historically,
the
evolution
of
INGOs
is
full
of
the
inheritance
of
their
predecessors
–
the
missionaries
and
voluntary
organizations
that
cooperated
in
Europe’s
colonization
and
control
of
Africa
(Manji
&
O’Coill,
2005).
Many
assert
that
traditional
aid
strategies
–
often
those
that
emphasize
subsidy
and
gifting
over
truly
sustainable
development
and
education
–
are
actually
an
extension
of
paternalism
and
post-‐colonialism;
that
aid
and
NGOs
are
simply
colonialism
by
another
name
(Orakwue,
2002).
As
a
result,
though
Western
organizations
may
enter
with
the
best
intentions,
they
are
doing
so
while
operating
with
racially
charged
tools
that
focus
on
assimilation
and
sameness
as
necessary
instruments
for
success
rather
than
emphasizing
and
recognizing
the
autonomy
of
those
they
serve.
History
and
context
situate
current
identities
and
beliefs
in
relation
to
past
experiences
and
views,
and
development
literature
and
critics
are
coming
closer
to
the
conclusion
that
motives
may
still
stem
from
paternalistic
feelings
of
superiority
and
guardianship
(Baaz,
2005).
CDD
practices
attempt
to
steer
aid
strategies
away
from
this
post-‐colonial/paternalistic
influence
as
much
as
possible.
The
tenets
upon
which
the
five
elements
were
built
greatly
reflect
the
work
of
dependency
theorists
such
as
Paolo
Freire.
The
concept
CDD
espouses
of
promoting
sovereignty
and
equality
in
relationships
with
serious
power
differentials
(like
that
of
INGOs
and
the
communities
they
serve)
is
not
new.
Theorists
like
Freire
have
long
been
advocating
for
the
independence
and
autonomy
of
marginalized
groups
to
creating
lasting
change.
Freire
was
deeply
connected
with
the
use
of
education
for
development
and
societal
evolution
and
citizenship
building
(Gadotti
&
Torres,
2009).
He
developed
several
ideological
approaches
to
changing
the
9
10
CDD
seeks
to
eliminate
(or
at
least
mitigate)
the
oppressor/oppressed
power
binary
between
INGOs
and
the
communities
they
serve.
By
creating
an
environment
of
open
discussion,
debate,
and
questioning,
community-‐focused
dialogic
discourse
creates
a
space
for
all
local
narratives
to
exist
autonomously
(Salm
&
Ordway,
2010).
Aid
strategies
that
function
in
a
dialogic
way
allows
far
greater
opportunities
for
community
independence
due
to
the
fact
that
INGOs
must
always
bring
their
attention
back
to
the
community
before
every
action
in
regards
to
the
development
projects
being
implemented.
Grassroots
approaches
allow
access
to
local
knowledge
(Gourevitch
et
al,
2012).
In
the
past
two
decades,
there
has
been
a
definite
shift
away
from
a
managerial,
or
top-‐down
approach
in
development,
toward
a
greater
emphasis
on
community
engagement.
The
importance
of
building
effective
capacity
for
all
to
participate
is
emphasized
(Head,
2007).
Efforts
are
being
made
to
learn
a
community’s
needs
and
values
through
extensive
research
on
the
part
of
the
INGO
in
the
form
of
social
impact
analyses
and
social
sustainability
analysis;
the
idea
being
that
projects
personalized
to
each
individual
community
will
be
more
successful
in
the
long-‐term
than
anything
the
INGO
could
develop
on
its
own.
Thus,
this
ensures
that,
despite
a
potentially
more
time
and
labor-‐intensive
development
process,
community
involvement
will
ultimately
increase
a
project’s
efficiency,
effectiveness,
and
sustainability
(Cleaver,
1999).
The
benefits
of
CDD
are
most
often
framed
to
in
terms
of
a
project’s
sustainability.
A
project
must
be
embraced
by
the
community
for
it
to
really
be
maintained
and
create
a
lasting
change.
The
World
Bank’s
internal
evaluation
unit
has
found
that
community-‐based
development
(CBD)
projects
in
the
Africa
region
have
performed
better
than
the
region’s
projects
as
a
whole.
Yet
only
one
in
five
CBD
projects
were
likely
to
be
sustainable
(Toledano
et
al,
2002),
indicating
the
key
to
sustainability
has
not
yet
been
isolated.
Sustainability
continues
to
be
a
concern
for
development
projects.
World
Bank
evaluators
consider
this
to
be
due
in
large
part
to
a
weak
institution-‐building
approach
in
a
project’s
early
stages.
In
many
project
evaluations
11
conducted
by
the
Bank,
there
was
some
allowance
for
participation
of
local
people
in
project
design
and
implementation,
but
in
most
cases,
projects
were
already
typically
slated
for
specific
sectors,
disempowering
communities
from
setting
priorities
and
development
goals
(Toledano
et
al,
2002).
Thus,
though
participatory
practices
were
being
implemented
in
certain
aspects
of
a
project,
community
ownership
was
not
strongly
emphasized,
posing
problems
for
community
investment
in
the
project,
and,
by
default,
in
project
sustainability.
The
International
Association
for
Public
Participation
(IAP2.org)
defines
Public
Participation
as:
Involve[ing}
those
who
are
affected
by
a
decision
in
the
decision-‐making
process.
It
promotes
sustainable
decisions
by
providing
participants
with
the
information
they
need
to
be
involved
in
a
meaningful
way,
and
it
communicates
to
participants
how
their
input
affects
the
decision”
(IAP2.org).
IAP2’s
ideals
reflect
dependency
theorists’
emphasis
on
the
legitimacy
and
necessity
of
local
narratives
(Rozas,
2007).
It
is
important
that
any
rubric
gauging
CDD
within
a
development
project
takes
into
account
not
only
the
presence
of
CDD
practices,
but
also
looks
at
how
well
they
are
actually
being
implemented.
Though
involving
the
community
from
the
start
of
a
project
may
be
more
time-‐
intensive,
potentially
more
expensive,
and
less
efficient,
the
World
Bank
and
other
development
partners
are
increasingly
arguing
that
CDD
projects
must
devolve
the
grandiosity
of
project
goals
to
increase
community
empowerment,
thus
simultaneously
increasing
the
likelihood
of
a
project’s
sustainability
in
the
long-‐run
(Toledano
et
al,
2002).
True
sustainability
must
be
considered
on
many
different
levels:
financial
(referring
to
a
project’s
ability
to
generate
resources
from
a
variety
of
sources
with
the
goal
being
to
eventually
reduce
its
reliance
on
development
funds),
organizational
(meaning
the
capacity
of
organizational
arrangements
to
continue
to
provide
a
framework
to
the
project
through
which
the
delivery
of
benefits
can
be
maintained),
12
13
Methods
Despite
the
fact
that
the
industry
seems
to
have
agreed
participatory
approaches
are
optimal
for
determining
project
success
and
sustainability,
there
still
hasn’t
been
much
time
spent
breaking
down
how
to
do
it
and
why.
There
are
several
critiques
regarding
the
ambiguity
of
CDD
(Mansuri
&
Rao,
2004),
but
very
little
in
terms
of
solutions
to
this
problem.
The
initial
stage
of
executing
CDD
was
informing
the
aid
community
about
it
and
getting
the
industry
to
embrace
the
approach.
Initially,
the
concern
was
over
quantity
–
whether
organizations
were
employing
a
community
focused
aid
strategy
or
not.
It
did
not
address
what
means
were
being
taken
to
do
so.
However,
it
is
time
to
move
beyond
that
and
also
start
examining
the
quality
of
the
CDD
approaches
being
utilized
(Sacouman,
2012).
Organizations
are
interpreting
CDD
in
ways
that
they
perceive
are
mutually
beneficial
for
themselves
and
the
communities
they
serve.
However,
little
is
being
done
to
understand
how
and
in
what
ways
you
can
change
CDD
principles
before
threatening
its
efficacy
as
a
methodological
approach.
This
paper
seeks
to
look
at
both
the
presence
and
quality
of
CDD
elements
within
small-‐scale
American
INGOs
with
the
hopes
of
gauging
which
areas
of
CDD
are
strongest,
which
areas
are
being
changed,
and
why,
giving
a
clearer
idea
of
best
practices
for
CDD
implementation
on
the
ground.
As
stated
previously,
one
of
the
reasons
CDD
is
a
difficult
approach
to
deconstruct
and
evaluate
is
because,
by
its
very
nature,
it
is
personalized
and
local
to
the
community
in
which
it
is
being
enacted.
While
large
organizations
such
as
the
UNDP
and
World
Bank
fund
yearly
development
reports,
these
require
prohibitive
amounts
of
monetary
resources,
manpower,
and
reliable
data
collection.
Currently,
there
is
no
feasible,
broadly
applicable
evaluation
system
for
small-‐scale
INGOs
to
gauge
how
they
are
enacting
CDD
methods
and
approaches.
In
many
cases,
though
CDD
may
appear
to
be
occurring,
the
quality
with
which
it
is
performed
is
debatable.
CDD
methods
are
being
utilized
by
many
small-‐scale
INGOs,
but
the
question
is:
to
what
extent,
and
how
well?
This
is
important
to
answer
because,
it
could
be
argued,
the
bulk
of
development
projects
are
being
done
by
small-‐scale
organizations.
14
The
current
belief
in
the
development
industry
(WorldBank.org)
is
that,
to
promote
project
sustainability
and
the
building
of
human
capital
and
marketable
skills,
the
community
must
be
involved
as
much
as
possible
in
INGO
projects.
To
do
this,
a
baseline
(or
rubric)
that
identifies
markers
for
a
“healthy”
relationship
between
an
INGO
and
its
beneficiaries
must
be
established.
For
the
purposes
of
this
paper,
a
“healthy”
relationship
would
be
one
in
which
the
INGO
and
the
community
they
serve
each
has
an
independent,
equal,
and
interactive
role
in
project
design
and
implementation.
The
focus
must
be
on
a
clear,
participatory
plan
of
action
either
for
after
the
project’s
completion
or
for
INGOs’
continued
relationship
with
a
community.
Independence
and
local
growth
must
be
the
primary
directive
(Yunus,
2011).
The
aim
of
this
paper
is
to
evaluate
CDD
practices
of
three
American-‐based
INGOs
using
the
World
Bank
to
pinpoint
not
only
the
use
of
CDD
in
a
development
project/organization’s
mission
and
goals,
but
also
the
quality
with
which
it
is
delivered.
The
purpose
is
not
to
produce
a
formal,
quantitative
analysis
of
the
INGOs’
CDD
practices,
but
rather,
to
create
a
tool
for
building
small-‐scale
INGOs’
capacity
to
better
direct
their
projects
and
approaches.
It
is
intended
mainly
for
practitioners
to
enable
them
to
monitor
and
evaluate
their
projects
in
relation
to
CDD
best
practices
and
in
partnership
with
the
communities
they
are
serving,
thus
gauging
the
sophistication
and
sensitivity
of
their
initiatives
to
their
beneficiaries’
needs.
Viewing
development
interventions
as
experiments,
we
need
to
use
the
work
currently
being
done
as
learning
opportunities
–
an
ongoing
tool
to
increase
our
understanding
of
the
successes
and
failures
we
encounter
(Wassenich
&
Whiteside,
2004).
Using
the
experiential
knowledge
of
small-‐scale
INGOs’
operations,
we
can
see
how
CDD
approaches
are
being
implemented
on
a
more
informal
basis.
My
objective
is
to
see
if
the
actions
of
small-‐scale
INGOs
are
reflective
of
the
goals
and
best
practices
of
the
World
Bank’s
CDD.
Case
studies
can
provide
a
nuanced,
contextualized
picture
of
CDD
processes
in
particular
contexts,
and
yield
insights
that
can
be
difficult
to
generate
with
quantitative
techniques
(Mansuri
&
Rao,
2004).
15
It
is
important
to
see
what
ways
organizations
are
meeting
the
elements
of
CDD,
and
if
they
are
not,
why
and
how
does
that
affect
the
efficacy/legitimacy
of
the
CDD
elements
they
do
incorporate
into
their
model(s).
Observing
how
they
have
adapted
CDD
best
practices
to
fit
their
individual
mission
statements
and
goals
will
help
create
an
understanding
how
to
best
evolve
and
sophisticate
the
application
of
CDD
in
more
scenarios.
World
Bank
Elements
of
CDD
The
World
Bank
advocates
using
a
CDD
approach
in
the
case
of
local
institutional
failure
as
well
as
in
the
provision
of
goods
and
services
that
are
small
in
scale,
not
complex,
and
which
require
local
cooperation
for
effective
provision
(WorldBank.org).
The
goal
is
to
utilize
community
knowledge
and
resources
as
much
as
possible,
while
supporting
these
efforts
with
the
knowledge
of
development
aid
professionals.
The
success
of
the
CDD
approach
is
more
likely
when
it
builds
upon
existing
collective
action
initiatives,
and
has
political
champions
to
support
it
at
the
local
level.
There
is
also
a
significant
emphasis
on
project
planning
with
longer-‐term
horizons
and
explicit
exit
strategies
in
mind
which
support
scaling
up,
sustainability,
and
ownership
(WorldBank.org).
The
elements
of
the
CDD
are
informed
by
the
umbrella
themes
of
equity,
inclusiveness,
and
efficiency.
Equity
and
inclusiveness
include
effective
targeting,
putting
resources
in
direct
control
of
the
community,
and
inclusion
of
vulnerable
and
excluded
groups.
Efficiency
addresses
the
demand
for
responsive
allocation
of
resources,
better
quality
and
maintenance,
reducing
corruption
and
misuse
of
resources,
and
lowering
costs
and
better
cost-‐recovery
(WorldBank.org).
The
World
Bank’s
Elements
of
CDD
will
serve
as
the
quantifying
agent
of
my
case
studies,
answering
the
question
of
whether
or
not
there
are
participatory
elements
within
the
models
of
the
organizations
being
studied.
However,
it
does
not
contribute
to
the
discussion
regarding
the
quality
of
services
being
delivered.
Figure
1
is
a
graphic
on
the
World
Bank
CDD
website
that
illustrates
the
ideal
CDD
process.
16
It
is
an
example
of
how
CDD
elements
can
be
identified
at
each
stage
of
a
development
project:
planning,
implementation,
and
post-‐project
monitoring
and
evaluation.
What
is
emphasized
here
is
that,
at
each
stage
of
the
development
process,
the
community
is
the
primary
indicator
of
the
health
of
an
initiative.
Below
is
a
description
of
each
element
of
CDD.
Limitations
of
these
elements
will
be
discussed
later
in
this
paper.
Community
Focus
–
A
focus
on
communities
and/or
community
groups
(rather
than
individuals).
This
ensures
that
a
project’s
design,
implementation,
and
eventual
goals
are
aligned
with
the
community’s
developmental
needs.
In
the
planning
phase,
this
can
by
enacted
through
surveys,
social
impact
assessments
(SIAs),
country
social
analyses
(CSAs),
and
working
directly
with
grassroots
organizations
(GROs)
and
community
leaders.
This
is
the
element
of
CDD
that
continually
ensures
the
project
is
designed
in
a
context-‐specific
manner.
This
is
also
where
community
dynamics
can
be
observed
and
taken
into
account.
Awareness
of
both
positive
and
negative
impacts
of
“local
knowledge”
on
project
implementation
and
success
(such
as
power
relations
and
marginalized
populations)
must
be
understood
when
identifying
need
within
a
community
(Easterly
&Williamson,
2011).
Participatory
Planning
–
A
participatory
planning
process,
including
inclusive
consultation
with
members
of
the
community.
This
keeps
a
project
on
track
with
original
goals
and
objectives.
It
safeguards
against
possible
mission
drift
(due
potentially
to
changing
donor
goals),
while
simultaneously
allowing
for
evolution
and
the
ability
to
adapt
to
local/changing
conditions
on
the
ground.
This
is
the
arena
for
feedback
from
aid
recipients
to
be
taken
into
consideration
(WorldBank.org).
Community
Control
of
Resources
–
Resources
channeled
directly
to
the
community,
although
they
may
come
through
a
sectoral
ministry
or
local
governmental
agency.
This
is,
at
times,
a
difficult
element
of
CDD.
It
requires
that
an
INGO
eventually
hand
over
control
of
project
funds
to
local
project
initiators
and
community
leaders.
This
eliminates
a
certain
element
of
power.
However,
it
also
provides
the
space
for
the
17
18
Source:
WorldBank.org
These
five
elements
of
CDD
are
important
for
identifying
CDD
principles
within
a
development
project.
They
are
a
first
attempt
at
operationalizing
and
breaking
down
what
it
means
to
utilize
“community
driven
development”
when
administering
development
aid.
However,
as
stated
earlier,
these
elements
identify
the
presence
of
CDD
within
a
project,
and
not
necessarily
the
quality.
It
was
for
this
reason
I
use
additional
sources
to
inform
my
scoring
of
the
three
organizations
studied
–
to
be
discussed
below
in
greater
detail.
19
Rubric
It
is
important
to
be
able
to
not
only
locate,
but
also
evaluate
participatory
principles
within
a
INGOs’
practices.
As
Sherry
Arnstein
states:
“Citizen
participation
is
a
categorical
term
for
citizen
power”
(Arnstein,
1969).
Arnstein
focuses
on
the
redistribution
of
power
to
allow
previously
marginalized
groups
presently
excluded
from
political
and
economic
processes
to
be
deliberately
included
in
future
activities.
Her
“Ladder
of
Participation”
helps
to
evaluate
whether
an
organization
is
approaching
CDD
as
“an
empty
ritual”
(Arnstein,
1969)
versus
with
the
intention
for
beneficiaries
to
truly
have
an
effect
on
the
development
process.
The
“Ladder
of
Participation”
(see
Figure
2)
is
a
typology
of
eight
levels
of
participation
(1
being
no
participation
and
8
being
full
participation).
It
helps
to
illustrate
the
point
that
is
often
missed
–
that
there
are
significant
gradations
of
citizen
participation
(Arnstein,
1969).
Knowing
these
gradations
helps
in
the
evaluation
of
an
organization’s
approach.
Below
is
a
description
of
each
step
on
Arnstein’s
Ladder.
Types
of
Participation
1-‐2:
Manipulation
and
Therapy:
The
real
objective
of
these
rungs
is
not
to
enable
people
to
participate,
but
rather
to
enable
power
holders
to
“educate”
the
participants.
3-‐5:
Informing,
Consultation,
and
Placation:
At
this
stage,
though
citizens
will
be
heard,
under
these
conditions,
they
lack
the
power
to
ensure
that
their
views
will
be
heeded
by
the
powerful.
There
is
no
availability
for
follow-‐through,
and
hence,
no
assurance
of
changing
the
status
quo.
6:
Partnership:
Enables
citizens
to
negotiate
and
engage
in
trade-‐offs
with
traditional
power
holders.
7-‐8:
Delegated
Power
and
Citizen
Control:
“Have-‐not”
citizens
obtain
the
majority
of
decision-‐making
seats,
or
full
managerial
power.
20
Source:
Arnstein,
1969
Arnstein’s
Ladder
is
helpful
in
supplementing
the
evaluation
process
by
providing
a
way
to
gauge
not
only
the
presence
of
CDD,
but
also
the
quality.
Despite
the
presence
of
CDD
elements
in
a
project,
the
way
they
are
administered
can
still
be
somewhat
technocratic
or
paternalistic.
There
is
the
danger
that
community
input
can
be
“co-‐opted
and
captured
rather
than
accorded
independent
vitality”
(Head,
2007).
Using
a
scoring
method
of
each
element
of
CDD
within
a
development
project
helps
reveal
the
quality
with
which
it
is
being
delivered.
It
is
important
to
be
able
to
operationalize
the
World
Bank’s
Five
Elements
of
CDD
beyond
either
their
presence
(or
lack
thereof)
within
an
organization’s
model.
Initially,
for
this
paper,
Arnstein’s
Ladder
of
Participation
was
going
to
be
used
as
the
rubric
to
gauge
the
quality
of
CDD
delivery.
However,
not
all
parts
of
her
rubric
were
applicable
to
the
relationship
between
INGO
and
beneficiary
community.
Thus,
her
rubric
was
strongly
used
to
inform
a
five-‐point
rubric
I
have
developed
with
which
to
evaluate
the
performance
of
each
INGO
studied
in
relation
to
the
World
Bank’s
five
elements
of
CDD
(described
below).
21
Scoring
0-‐1:
No
presence
of
participatory
practices.
The
real
objective
is
not
to
enable
people
to
participate,
but
rather
to
enable
power
holders
to
“educate”
the
participants.
Often,
in
these
cases,
community
members
are
placed
on
“rubberstamp
advisory
committees”
(Arnstein,
1969).
2:
Community
members
are
involved
and
informed
about
purposes
of
project,
but
lack
powers
to
ensure
their
voices
are
being
heard.
No
availability
for
follow-‐
through,
and
thus,
no
assurance
views
will
be
heeded.
Risk
of
unilateral
information
flow.
3:
Community’s
opinions
are
actively
invited,
though
still
may
not
hold
leadership
positions.
Movement
toward
project
independence
and
sustainability,
but
no
concrete
plan
in
relation
to
complete
community
take-‐over.
In
many
cases,
the
community
itself
has
recognized
the
problem
being
addressed,
and
has
taken
the
initiative
to
build
a
relationship
with
an
INGO.
However,
the
INGO
still
has
majority
control
of
the
project
once
it
is
implemented
and/or
there
are
no
plans
for
eventual
community
independence/control.
4:
Power
is
distributed
through
negotiation
between
community
and
INGO.
Planning
and
decision-‐making
are
shared
through
structures
such
as
joint
policy
boards,
planning
committees,
and
dialogic,
mediatory
mechanisms
for
resolving
impasses
are
in
place.
Community
approached
INGO
in
regards
to
the
project,
and
has
maintained
decision-‐making
power
in
relation
to
project
implementation.
Community
education
and
training
are
beginning
to
be
emphasized
to
encourage
eventual
independence
and/or
culmination
of
that
project.
5:
Community
members
achieve
dominant
decision-‐making
authority
over
a
project.
They
have
genuine
specified
power,
position,
and
responsibilities
within
project
hierarchy
and
organization.
Community
has
full,
unlimited
and
uncontrolled
access
to
project
resources
and
funds.
Community
training
and
education
are
required
22
elements
of
a
project
plan,
with
the
idea
being
the
ability
of
the
community
to
expand
the
scope
of
the
project
beyond
itself.
There
is
a
clear
goal
for
eventual
project
independence
and
sustainability
without
the
presence
of
the
INGO.
Below
is
a
table
laying
out
necessary
elements
for
each
score
received.
By
no
means
is
this
an
exhaustive
list,
but
these
were
the
key
practices
used
to
score
each
organization
studied.
Table
1:
Scoring
Elements
Information
Public
Community
Workshops/
Community
Community
sessions
Comment/Focus
Determines
Community
Leadership
Polling/Citizen
Community
Groups/Surveys
Project
Trainings
and
Advisory
Control
of
Decision-‐ Committees
Resources
making
1
2
A
S
3
A
A
S
S
S
S
4
A
A
S
S
S
A
S
5
A
A
A
A
A
A
S
23
Sample
As
mentioned
above,
the
findings
of
this
study
will
be
most
useful
for
small-‐scale
INGOs
not
functioning
under
the
jurisdiction
or
in
partnership
with
larger
organizations
such
as
the
UNDP
or
the
World
Bank.
This
gives
a
relatively
simple
and
efficient
way
to
evaluate
performance
of
CDD.
Often,
small-‐scale
INGOs
are
functioning
with
a
very
limited
number
of
staff.
Thus,
in-‐depth
project
evaluations
are
the
first
elements
to
be
dropped
from
a
model.
Providing
a
quick
way
to
appraise
CDD
elements
in
a
program
will
(ideally)
encourage
a
greater
emphasis
on
not
only
the
presence
of
CDD
within
an
organization’s
business
model,
but
also
the
quality
of
its
delivery.
Seven
small-‐scale
American
development
INGOs
were
asked
to
participate
in
the
study,
and
four
responded:
Mercy
Corps,
Global
Ade,
VIllage
Volunteers,
and
Cross
Cultural
Solutions.
VIllage
Volunteers
and
Cross
Cultural
Solutions
utilize
volunteers
both
nationally
and
internationally.
Global
Ade
and
Mercy
Corp
utilize
volunteers
strictly
in
their
national
office
(both
based
in
Portland,
OR).
However,
funding
structures
of
the
four
organizations
differ
quite
significantly.
I
have
had
previous
experience
with
two
of
the
four
organizations.
I
volunteered
through
Cross
Cultural
solutions
in
2009,
and
I
interned
with
VIllage
Volunteers
the
summer
of
2012.
Data
were
gathered
mainly
through
interviews
with
employees
and
founders
of
the
aforementioned
organizations,
the
organization
websites,
and
project
reports.
Analysis
focused
on
project
planning,
implementation,
and
post-‐project
evaluation
practices
in
relation
to
the
World
Bank’s
CDD
elements
of
CDD.
Originally,
I
had
intended
to
study
individual
projects
related
to
a
single
category
of
aid
(such
as
education
programs).
However,
the
organizations’
policies
and
selection
processes
appear
to
remain
relatively
similar
across
all
types
of
projects.
I
chose
to
drop
Mercy
Corp
from
the
study
due
to
the
fact
that
its
size,
scope,
and
practices
are
quite
different
from
the
other
three
organizations.
Whereas
Mercy
Corp
generally
works
with
communities
on
a
more
short-‐term,
individual
project
24
basis,
the
other
three
organizations
remain
in
long-‐term
relationships
with
the
communities
they
serve,
participating
in
many
different
projects
with
the
same
communities
for
several
years
as
opposed
to
the
prolific
reach
of
Mercy
Corp,
which
serves
in
14
different
countries
on
thousands
of
projects
and
initiatives
(MercyCorps.org).
The
other
three
organizations
simply
do
not
have
the
scope
to
compare
with
the
actions
and
abilities
of
Mercy
Corp.
Below
is
a
brief
description
of
each
organization
studied.
Village
Volunteers
Village
Volunteers’
model
is
based
on
all
village
projects
being
initiated,
executed,
and
managed
by
locals.
It
provides
grant
writing
assistance,
develops
income-‐
generating
projects,
mobilizes
the
resources
of
international
volunteers,
and
works
with
community-‐based
organizations
in
the
implementation
of
development
projects.
Village
Volunteers
has
initiatives
in
agriculture
and
sustainable
farming,
business
development,
building
and
construction,
childcare,
cultural
studies,
education,
environmental
conservation,
healthcare,
public
health
awareness,
special
needs
programs,
gender
equality,
and
entrepreneurship.
Global
ADE
Global
ADE
(Alliance
for
Developing
Educaiton)
is
a
non-‐profit
organization
dedicated
to
improving
education
in
developing
countries.
They
fund
grassroots
organizations
(GROs)
spearheaded
by
individuals
and
organizations
that
live
in
the
communities
in
which
they
work.
Their
goal
is
to
connect
these
organizations
with
resources
from
both
domestic
and
international
sources
to
create
the
opportunity
for
projects
to
be
taken
on
that
otherwise
would
not
be
possible.
Global
ADE
works
mainly
in
Cambodia,
but
also
has
a
partner
in
Kenya.
25
26
Findings
As
stated
previously,
these
case
studies
sought
not
only
to
identify
the
presence
of
CDD
elements,
but
also
gauge
the
quality
with
which
they
were
being
implemented.
A
few
themes
emerged.
While
all
organizations
exhibited
each
aspect
of
CDD,
there
were
areas
that
seemed
easiest
for
all
to
execute.
Participatory
Planning
and
Participatory
Monitoring
were
the
strongest.
Village
Volunteers
and
Global
Ade
both
earned
a
5
in
Participatory
Planning
and
Cross
Cultural
Solutions
scored
a
4.
All
three
organizations
earned
a
5
in
Participatory
Monitoring.
The
weakest
element
for
all
three
was
Community
Control
of
Resources
(Village
Volunteers
4,
Global
Ade
3,
Cross
Cultural
Solutions
3).
Possible
explanations
behind
this
similarity
will
be
discussed
later.
Below
is
a
more
in-‐depth
discussion
of
each
element
of
CDD
in
relation
to
the
organizations
studied
and
the
score
it
received.
Community
Focus
-‐
A
focus
on
communities
and/or
community
groups
(rather
than
individuals)
(WorldBank.org).
Village
Volunteers
–
5
Global
ADE
–
3
Cross
Cultural
Solutions
–
4
All
three
organizations
espouse
a
community
focus
and
make
some
attempt
at
it
in
their
models.
However,
because
of
each
organization’s
variance
in
mission
and
ability,
this
presents
itself
in
different
ways,
with
variable
success.
All
are
strong
in
program/partner
selection.
The
organizations
understand
what
types
of
relationships
will
be
the
most
beneficial
(for
all
stakeholders
involved),
and
do
not
take
on
projects
that
do
not
match
their
mission
and
core
philosophies.
This
is
due,
in
large
part,
to
the
fact
that
all
three
organizations
do
not
choose
partnerships
and
locations,
but
rather
require
communities
and
organizations
to
approach
them
with
specific
projects
and
goals.
Village
Volunteers
looks
for
partners
that
“really
get
it
and
understand
we’re
not
a
funding
organization.
People
work
right
alongside
us
in
27
the
marketing
of
their
program
and
the
choosing
of
projects”
(Village
Volunteers
Interview).
In
all
cases,
before
offering
assistance,
the
project
or
partner
is
vetted
quite
stringently.
For
Village
Volunteers,
only
organizations/communities
that
have
a
“similar,
holistic
point
of
view
and
the
same
core
values”
(Village
Volunteers
Interview)
are
chosen,
ensuring
that
there
aren’t
disagreements
in
relation
to
project
objectives
later
in
the
relationship.
All
three
organizations
require
an
extensive
application
process
in
which
the
potential
partner
organization’s
past
history
and
reputation
is
reviewed,
as
well
as
the
feasibility
of
their
future
goals
–
“We
see
how
they
work,
look
at
recommendations
from
people
who
know
them
–
sometimes
they’ve
already
gotten
funding
from
people,
so
that’s
an
indication
that
they
passed
that
vetting.
We
also
require
that
they
are
able
to
report
on
what
is
going
on”
(Village
Volunteers
Interview).
This
selectivity
helps
prevent
problems
with
expectations
later
in
the
partnership.
In
the
case
of
Village
Volunteers,
partners
must
show
they
can
house
(and
host)
volunteers.
In
the
application,
they
“must
be
able
to
provide
clean
water,
mosquito
nets,
keep
volunteers
safe,
provide
quality
food…we’re
asking
them
to
really
provide
something
decent”
(Village
Volunteers
Interview).
The
Village
Volunteers
volunteer
hospitality
fee
covers
these
expenses,
but
partner
organizations
are
required
to
provide
private,
clean
housing
for
the
volunteers
as
well.
This
creates
some
self-‐
selection,
which
may
exclude
communities
that
have
projects,
but
don’t
have
the
means
to
support
volunteers.
Cross
Cultural
Solutions
is
more
driven
by
volunteers,
as
that
is
where
the
entirety
of
their
funds
comes
from.
They
are
even
more
selective
of
their
partner
organizations
in
order
to
avoid
issues
of
dependency
–
“We
look
for
ensuring
that
our
volunteers
can
provide
service
and
can
provide
the
service
they’re
looking
for…so
we
look
for
people
who
understand
what
we
do
and
have
a
clear
understanding
of
how
they
would
use
volunteers,
or
at
least
what
will
work
with
28
our
staff
to
figure
out
how
volunteers
can
be
best
utilized
because,
again,
that’s
the
most
important
thing
–
that
effective
utilization
will
create
results
both
in
terms
of
meeting
their
needs
and
mission
and
also
really
provide
something
for
the
volunteers
who
are
going
all
that
way”
(Cross
Cultural
Solutions
Interview).
Though
Cross
Cultural
Solutions
does
not
require
partners
to
host
volunteers
(Cross
Cultural
Solutions
provides
all
housing,
food,
and
transportation
to
volunteers),
the
only
form
of
aid
they
give
is
in
the
form
of
volunteers.
This
puts
quite
strong
restrictions
on
what
services
Cross
Cultural
Solutions
can
provide.
In
order
to
avoid
dependency,
Cross
Cultural
Solutions
institutes
a
strong
policy
of
only
providing
volunteers
to
organizations
in
capacities
that
do
not
take
away
from
potential
jobs
that
could
be
given
to
members
of
the
community.
Global
ADE
ranks
lower
due
to
the
fact
that
most
of
their
initiatives
are,
as
of
yet,
very
small
in
scale.
They
currently
partner
mostly
with
scholarship
and
salary
aid
organizations
(they
are
currently
funding
ten
Cambodian
teachers)
(Global
Ade
Interview),
meaning
they
are
working
on
more
of
an
individual
rather
than
group
basis.
However,
they
do
not
have
the
international
volunteer
presence
that
both
Village
Volunteers
and
Cross
Cultural
Solutions
have.
Because
Global
ADE
does
not
have
to
worry
about
the
safety
and
demands
of
volunteers,
it
is
able
to
go
directly
where
the
most
need
is,
whereas
both
Cross
Cultural
Solutions
and
Village
Volunteers
must
constantly
be
balancing
the
needs
of
volunteers
against
those
of
the
communities
they
serve.
Table
2:
Community
Focus
-‐
Organization
Performance
1
2
3
4
5
Village
Volunteers
X
Global
ADE
X
Cross
Cultural
X
Solutions
29
Participatory
Planning
–
A
participatory
planning
process,
including
inclusive
consultation
with
members
of
the
community.
Village
Volunteers
–
5
Global
ADE
–
5
Cross
Cultural
Solutions
–
4
Village
Volunteers
is
very
strong
in
participatory
planning.
It
is
a
primary
concern
in
their
model,
and
as
a
result,
is
performed
well.
In
many
of
their
projects,
they
act
solely
as
the
fiscal
agent,
merely
holding
the
money
until
the
local
organization
is
prepared
to
institute
their
project
or
program.
Local
partners
are
“in
total
control.
It’s
autonomous.
Each
program
operates
quite
separately
from
one
another…their
mission
is
our
mission…and
so
their
long-‐term
goals
are
already
established
with
what
they’re
interested
in”
(Village
Volunteers
Interview).
Village
Volunteers
cultivates
long-‐term
relationships
with
their
partners,
allowing
for
great
flexibility
in
the
funding
of
different
types
of
projects.
For
example,
Village
Volunteers
helped
its
partner
organization,
Namunyak
Massai
Welfare,
build
the
Sirua
Aulo
Academy.
Opened
in
May
2008,
it
initially
served
76
children
(nursery
–
3rd
grade).
Since
then,
Village
Volunteers
has
helped
sponsor
several
different
projects
on
the
Sirua
Aulo
campus
(incuding
building
a
dining
hall/community
center
and
new
classrooms
that
will
support
250
children)
-‐
all
chosen
and
managed
by
the
founder,
Emanuel
Leina
Tasur.
Village
Volunteers’s
method
of
service
delivery
relies
very
much
on
the
CDD
tenet
that
“only
communities
know
their
local
conditions
and
issues
and
are
best
placed
to
decide
what
their
priorities”
(WorldBank.org).
Village
Volunteers’s
mission
and
goals
focus
on
a
holistic
approach
because,
“in
order
to
affect
any
change
at
all
and
really
impact
people,
it
ha[s]
to
be
holistic
in
scope”
(Village
Volunteers
Interview).
Global
ADE’s
projects
are
all
managed
by
their
local
partners,
also
making
them
very
strong
in
both
the
presence
and
quality
of
this
CDD
element
within
their
30
organization
–
“We
try
to
give
them
a
lot
of
autonomy
to
create
the
programs
that
they
know
will
work…They’re
working
in
these
schools
everyday,
so
they
know
a
lot
better
than
we
do
over
in
the
states
what
the
schools
really
need…We
really
kind
of
leave
it
up
to
the
people
on
the
ground
to
run
the
long-‐term
focus
of
the
actual
program”
(Global
Ade
Interview).
Global
Ade
is
in
weekly
contact
with
their
partner
organizations.
They
discuss
what
is
working,
what
isn’t,
and
how
best
continue
to
serve
the
local
NGOs
and
GROs
they
work
with.
Because
Global
Ade
is
so
small,
this
still
occurs
in
a
very
unofficial,
personal
way
–
“It’s
just
one
of
those
things,
always
being
open
to
listening.
And
if
they
call,
even
if
it
means
waking
up
at
two
in
the
morning,
we’ll
wake
up
and
talk
to
them”
(Global
Ade
Interview).
A
program
in
direct
response
to
community
needs
is
their
English
program.
It
is
open
to
all
ages
(including
adults).
In
Cambodia,
it
is
hard
to
get
a
job
if
you
don’t
speak
English.
This
program
was
initiated
at
the
behest
of
Global
Ade’s
partner
organizations,
and
opens
up
opportunities
for
participants
to
work
in
the
travel/tourism
industry
among
many
others.
Global
Ade
also
has
plans
to
begin
a
vocational
school
for
teachers,
but
that
is
in
the
future
(Global
Ade
Interview).
However,
the
flexibility
that
Village
Volunteers
demonstrates
in
terms
of
project
choice
is
not
there.
Global
ADE’s
mission
is
much
more
focused
(on
the
provision
of
education).
As
a
result,
some
of
the
structural
or
societal
externalities
contributing
to
the
difficulties
faced
by
the
population
in
attaining
education
are
not
necessarily
addressed.
This
is
due
in
part
to
the
size
of
Global
ADE
–
it
is
not
yet
large
enough
to
tackle
multiple
issues.
However,
this
can
result
in
a
bit
of
an
uphill
battle
in
regards
to
truly
changing
the
structural
issues
in
the
way
of
education
in
the
first
place,
leading
to
a
continued
dependence
on
Global
Ade
for
education
initiatives
to
be
sustained.
Cross
Cultural
Solutions
scored
slightly
lower
in
this
category
due
largely
to
the
hierarchical
structure
of
the
organization.
Though
participatory
planning
is
a
part
of
their
model,
Cross
Cultural
Solutions
HQ
is
not
always
in
direct
contact
with
their
31
partner
organizations,
but
rather
go
through
a
Cross
Cultural
Solutions
–hired
in
country
director.
Thus,
though
the
majority
of
people
working
in
country
are
nationals,
their
allegiances
lie
not
necessarily
with
their
community,
but
rather
to
their
employer,
Cross
Cultural
Solutions,
causing
potential
loyalty
issues
in
relation
to
community
concerns.
It
is
the
in
country
directors
that
identify
and
work
with
the
partner
organizations.
“Basically,
[Cross
Cultural
Solutions]
find[s]
that
country
director
figure
who
is
dynamic…has
a
ton
of
connections,
interests,
and
people
within
the
community
that
they
already
know”
(Cross
Cultural
Solutions
Interview).
While
this
third
party
grants
access
to
the
community,
it
also
potentially
creates
a
barrier
between
the
community
and
Cross
Cultural
Solutions
in
terms
of
actually
hearing
what
the
partner
organizations
and
community
members
have
to
say
in
regards
to
a
project
or
volunteer
interactions.
Generally,
it
has
all
been
filtered
through
a
country
director
first.
However,
this
does
not
always
mean
something
negative.
In
fact,
it
can
be
quite
beneficial
to
have
someone
representing
the
organization
on
the
ground,
able
to
respond
quickly
to
any
incidents
that
may
arise.
Cross
Cultural
Solutions’
in
country
directors
and
program
managers
are
in
constant
contact
with
both
the
volunteers
and
the
partner
organizations,
giving
Cross
Cultural
Solutions
a
very
well
rounded
view
of
the
activities
occurring
at
their
various
partner
locations
(Cross
Cultural
Solutions
Interview).
A
potential
issue
presented
in
both
the
case
of
Village
Volunteers
and
Global
ADE
is
that
they
do
not
have
in
country,
paid
employees
monitoring
the
projects.
Though,
to
date,
this
has
not
caused
a
problem,
due
to
financing
and
staff
limitations,
most
partnerships
are
carried
out
via
phone,
e-‐mail,
and
Skype.
While
Global
ADE
founders
have
visited
all
partners,
not
all
project
sites
have
been
visited,
or
evaluated
by,
an
actual
Village
Volunteers
staff
member.
This
creates
an
environment
for
complete
participatory
planning
(because
it
is
the
community
itself
evaluating
the
projects),
but
this
also
leaves
all
project
reporting
up
to
the
partner
organization,
creating
a
potential
for
deception
in
relation
to
the
true
achievement
of
project
goals
and
objectives.
For
Village
Volunteers,
this
issue
is
somewhat
mitigated,
however,
due
to
the
fact
that
they
send
volunteers
to
every
project
site.
32
Their
reports
provide
an
unbiased
third
party
perception
as
to
what
is
occurring
on
a
regular
basis.
Global
ADE
has
addressed
this
issue
by
being
quite
stringent
in
their
expectations
of
their
partners
–
“We
require
a
few
things
from
every
organization
we
fund.
We
require
a
monthly
financial
report
–
just
how
much
did
they
spend,
what
did
they
spend
it
on,
things
like
that.
We
require
a
monthly
update
with
that.
How
is
the
program
going?
It
doesn’t
have
to
be
much,
just
a
simple
e-‐mail
–
this
is
what
has
happened,
these
are
the
successes
we
found,
here’s
something
we
can
improve
on”
(Global
Ade
Interview).
Table
3:
Participatory
Planning
-‐
Organization
Performance
1
2
3
4
5
Village
Volunteers
X
Global
ADE
X
Cross
Cultural
X
Solutions
Community
Control
of
Resources
-‐
Resources
are
channeled
directly
to
the
community,
although
they
may
come
through
a
sectoral
ministry
or
local
governmental
agency.
VIllage
Volunteers
–
4
Global
ADE
–
3
Cross
Cultural
Solutions
–
3
This
is
the
weakest
element
of
CDD
for
all
three
groups
for
a
couple
of
reasons,
primary
among
them
being
that
community
control
of
resources
somewhat
suggests
a
greater
independence
between
INGO
and
beneficiary
than
is
present
in
any
of
these
organizations’
relationships
with
their
partners.
All
three
cultivate
long-‐term
relationships
with
their
partners,
thus
limiting
the
amount
of
autonomy
and
control
33
in
country
partners
can
truly
have.
True
community
control
of
resources
would
suggest
that
a
project
was
entirely
sustainable
within
the
community
without
the
aid/presence
of
its
INGO
partner.
Village
Volunteers
has
come
closest
to
this
with
an
example
being
its
Kenya
Ceramic
Project.
In
partnership
with
two
other
INGOs,
Village
Volunteers
supported
the
construction
and
development
of
a
ceramic
water
filter
manufacturing
facility
as
a
social
enterprise
in
Kiminini,
Kenya.
The
ceramic
water
filter
plant
has
the
capacity
to
produce
10-‐12,000
water
filters
per
year
that
eliminate
99.88%
of
waterborne
pathogens,
uses
materials
that
are
locally
sourced,
provides
jobs
for
local
people,
and
is
completely
independently
sustainable
by
the
community
(VillageVolunteers.org).
Since
both
Global
ADE
and
Cross
Cultural
Solutions
provide
services
that
fulfill
a
constant
need,
this
element
of
CDD
is
slightly
less
applicable
to
them
and
their
mission.
Many
of
the
organizations
Cross
Cultural
Solutions
partners
with
are
either
orphanages
or
homes
for
the
mentally/physically
disabled.
In
communities
where
resources
are
already
scarce,
it’s
not
uncommon
for
individuals
with
disabilities
to
go
without
vital
care
and
services.
As
these
local
organizations
serve
marginalized
members
of
the
community
and
are
often
low
on
funds,
they
are
always
in
need
of
support
(which
Cross
Cultural
Solutions
volunteers
provide).
At
Cross
Cultural
Solutions’
location
in
Guatemala
City,
Guatemala,
volunteers
help
primary
schools
watch
children
while
parents
are
at
work
–
“Local
parents
are
very
grateful
because
volunteers
give
children
the
care
they
need
while
the
parents
go
to
work
to
earn
income”
(CrossCulturalSolutions.org).
Though
Cross
Cultural
Solutions’
work
is
of
a
significantly
more
difficult
capacity
to
measure,
it
is
still
fulfilling
a
need
within
the
community
–
in
particular,
needs
that
are,
in
all
likelihood,
not
going
to
be
addressed
and/or
eliminated
in
the
near
future
due
to
local
power
relations
and
social
structures.
Though
Cross
Cultural
Solutions
offers
a
very
specific
service,
it
is
the
partner
organizations
that
determine
where
and
how
volunteers
are
utilized.
Essentially,
“[Cross
Cultural
Solutions]
trusts
that
[the
partner
organizations]
are
going
to
be
34
able
to
best
identify
what
the
goals
are
for
volunteers
in
that
community…what
[Cross
Cultural
Solutions]
focuses
on
is
really
letting
those
in-‐country
organizations
be
the
drivers”
(Cross
Cultural
Solutions
Interview).
So,
despite
the
fact
that
there
is
only
one
kind
of
service
offered
(that
of
volunteers),
the
capacity
in
which
they
are
used
is,
for
the
most
part,
up
to
the
organization.
Thus,
the
resources
Cross
Cultural
Solutions
provides
are
in
control
of
the
partners.
That
being
said,
if
an
organization
begins
showing
a
dependency
on
volunteers,
Cross
Cultural
Solutions
makes
a
significant
effort
to
restructure
the
volunteer
presence
within
that
organization.
When
asked
if
this
ever
caused
an
issue
in
relation
to
beneficiary
loyalty
versus
volunteer
loyalty,
it
was
said
that:
“If
we’re
connecting
the,
with
positive,
affective,
sustainable
volunteer
work,
99.5%
of
the
time,
they
are
happy…We
try
to
make
it
really
clear
to
volunteers
that,
from
the
very
beginning,
they
will
be
helping
out
where
their
fields
and
interests
can
meet
community
needs…We
basically
are
getting
volunteers
who
are
flexible
enough
in
saying:
‘These
are
my
interests,
but
ultimately,
I
want
to
work
to
address
the
needs
of
the
community.’
And
then
we
work
with
those
community
organizations
to
know
exactly
what
they
want
and
need
out
of
volunteers”
(Cross
Cultural
Solutions
Interview).
So,
though
no
funds
are
being
transferred
between
Cross
Cultural
Solutions
and
their
partners,
the
organizations
they
work
with
are
in
control
of
the
resource
Cross
Cultural
Solutions
does
provide
-‐
volunteers.
The
kind
of
service
they
provide
is
“not
so
high-‐level”
(Cross
Cultural
Solutions
Interview).
Cross
Cultural
Solutions
provides
strictly
volunteer
support
on
community
projects
(such
as
well-‐building
and
agriculture)
and
with
community
organizations
that
simply
need
manpower
and
support
(such
as
orphanages,
hospitals,
and
schools).
Rather
than
funding
development
projects,
Cross
Cultural
Solutions
provides
support
for
projects
and
initiatives
already
underway.
In
testimonies
from
partners,
“generally
the
number
one
thing
they
say
is…moral
support.
They
like
cultural
exchange”
(Cross
Cultural
Solutions
Interview).
Rather
than
a
concrete,
measurable
impact,
Cross
Cultural
Solutions
seems
to
have
a
much
35
more
subtle
one
–
that
of
exposure
and
interaction.
Part
of
Cross
Cultural
Solutions’
mission
is
to
“empower
community
organizations
and
affect
positive
change”
(Cross
Cultural
Solutions
Interview).
For
example,
In
India,
there
is
a
group
of
women
who
have
become
doctors,
inspired
as
children
ten
years
ago
by
a
previous
female
volunteer
that
tutored
in
their
classroom
who
was
studying
biomedicine.
Global
ADE’s
focus
is
on
education
outreach.
As
the
number
of
children
needing
an
education
is
not
going
to
diminish
in
the
near
future,
there
will
always
be
a
need
for
scholarship
opportunities,
more
teachers,
and
more
schools.
Thus,
it
would
actually
be
harmful
to
the
communities
Global
ADE
serves
if
they
were
no
longer
present.
For
this
particular
initiative,
reach,
growth,
scope,
and
targeting
are
arguably
more
important
than
community
control
of
resources
and
independent
sustainability
of
the
projects.
However,
again,
Global
ADE
leaves
most
decisions
in
regards
to
allocation
of
resources
in
the
hands
of
their
partners.
“The
people
that
know
[what
is
needed]
are
the
people
there
everyday,
the
people
that
were
born
there,
the
people
that
are
working
in
that
field
in
these
different
villages.
So…[Global
ADE]
funds
these
great
organizations
that
are
already
in
place
and
doing
amazing
work,
but
do
not
have
the
funding
they
need”
(Global
Ade
Interview).
The
second
challenge
is
that,
though
all
organizations
allow
their
partners
complete
control
in
the
decision-‐making
process
in
regards
to
which
projects
to
take
on,
once
the
project
is
determined,
the
resources
are
quite
restricted.
However,
that
is
not
to
suggest
this
is
an
entirely
negative
aspect
of
the
models.
Rather,
the
lack
of
community
control
in
relation
to
resources
is
serving
as
a
safeguard,
which,
given
the
lack
of
resources
for
constant
program
monitoring
and
evaluation
(M&E)
these
INGOs
have,
provides
a
certain
amount
of
assurance
that
the
money
and/or
resources
sent
are
going
where
they
need
to
be
going.
The
lack
of
community
control
of
resources
in
relation
to
fund
restriction
also
has
to
do
with
how
the
INGOs
themselves
get
(and
disburse)
their
funding.
For
Village
Volunteers
all
funds
(aside
from
grant
money)
come
from
volunteer
donations.
36
These
donations
are
often
given
for
specific
purposes
(sponsoring
a
particular
child
or
for
specific
small
projects
such
as
buying
school
supplies),
and
so
community
control
of
fiscal
resources
is
somewhat
limited
in
that
money
given
is
always
for
a
specific
project.
While
Village
Volunteers
does
not
require
strict
records
of
where
funds
are
allocated
within
a
project
(such
as
the
keeping
of
detailed
records
and
receipts),
it
also
does
not
provide
endless
amounts
of
money.
Funds
are
raised
for
certain
projects,
and
“if
they
run
out
of
money,
they
don’t
come
back
to
us.
This
is
what
they
said
it
[would
cost].
They
need
to
figure
out
how
to
do
it.
We’ve
actually
literally
never
had
that
happen
where
people
come
back
and
say,
‘We
don’t
have
enough
money.’
They
go
as
far
as
they
can”
(Village
Volunteers
Interview).
By
working
on
a
strict
project
–
by
–
project
basis,
Village
Volunteers
has
protected
itself
from
creating
issues
of
dependence
between
the
organization
and
its
partners.
In
general,
projects
embarked
upon
by
Village
Volunteers
partners
are
specific
and
yield
obvious
and
measurable
results,
thus
making
it
relatively
easy
to
determine
if
funds
are
going
where
they
are
supposed
to
be.
Global
ADE
is
also
very
careful
not
to
just
hand
out
money.
Their
model
looks
at
funding
projects
as
an
investment,
and
the
investment
must
be
returned.
For
example,
in
the
case
of
their
scholarship
program,
in
order
to
receive
the
family
stipend,
children
are
required
to
attend
school
for
a
certain
number
of
days
each
month.
“The
students
only
get
[the
scholarship]
if
they
are
in
class,
so
they
have
to
write
certain
reports
about
what
the
scholarship
has
done
for
them,
what
they
might
be
doing
if
they
didn’t
have
it.
And,
it’s
up
to
them
if
they
want
to
keep
it.
It’s
not
something
we
just
give
out
willy
nilly.
It’s
only
something
they
get
if
they
work
for
it.
School
is
their
job,
and
we
want
them
to
realize
it’s
their
job.
They
could
be
working
in
the
tourism
field
and
that
is
a
job,
but
we’re
paying
them
to
go
to
school,
so
we
need
them
to
have
the
same
type
of
results
that
they
would
have
if
they
had
an
actual
job.
So
I
think
it’s
just
kind
of
creating
that
mindset
when
you
talk
to
people
that
it’s
not
just
a
handout,
it’s
an
investment
in
them,
and
they
need
to
yield
a
return
on
37
that…We
like
to
say
that
whenever
people
donate,
they’re
not
donating,
but
they’re
investing”
(Global
Ade
Interview).
The
amount
of
emphasis
placed
on
partner
accountability
seems
to
help
protect
Global
ADE
to
some
extent
from
money
going
to
the
wrong
places
or
being
wasted.
Cross
Cultural
Solutions
is
donation-‐free.
Their
organization
is
funded
through
the
volunteer
fees
–
“Essentially,
the
volunteers
are
our
donors.
They’re
paying
their
own
program
fee
and
covering
all
those
costs”
(Cross
Cultural
Solutions
Interview).
While
on
the
surface
this
appears
to
give
Cross
Cultural
Solutions
quite
a
large
amount
of
freedom
with
their
money,
they
have
not
really
escaped
the
loyalty
to
donors
issue
faced
by
many
organizations.
They
still
have
to
provide
a
service
for
the
money
they
were
given
and
must
“make
volunteers
feel
like
they
are
satisfied.
We
want
them
to
be
happy.
We
want
them
to
have
the
experience
of
a
lifetime”
(Cross
Cultural
Solutions
Interview).
Table
4:
Community
Control
of
Resources
-‐
Organization
Performance
1
2
3
4
5
Village
Volunteers
X
Global
ADE
X
Cross
Cultural
X
Solutions
38
39
this
is
Village
Volunteers’
Feed
Villages
Sustainable
Agriculture
project.
A
program
run
in
partnership
with
the
local
organization,
Common
Ground
for
Africa,
Feed
Villages
Sustainable
Agriculture
promotes
sustainable
farming
methods
and
education
through
demonstration
farms,
workshops,
and
the
development
of
Moringa
tree
nurseries.
It
also
establishes
community
seed
banks
and
educates
on
seed
collection
to
enhance
sustainable
crop
production
and
support
enhanced
biodiversity.
Training
focuses
on
organic,
high
yield
Grow
Biointensive®
agricultural
techniques
and
includes
education
on
general
sustainable
farming
methods,
tree
propagation
and
development,
water
shed
recovery,
and
farm
management.
The
program
trains
a
few
community
representative
farmers
using
a
demonstration
farm
located
on
the
grounds
of
a
school
or
orphanage.
After
the
initial
training
is
complete,
each
farmer
must
then
train
five
additional
community
members,
who
are
then
required
to
train
more
community
members
themselves,
and
so
on.
Designed
to
have
an
exponential
effect,
the
program
is
entirely
self-‐
sustaining
once
the
training
is
completed,
providing
food
security,
reducing
environmental
degradation,
supporting
good
nutrition,
and
increasing
entrepreneurial
opportunity
(VillageVolunteers.org).
Global
Ade
functions
a
bit
differently
in
the
sense
that
it
is
not
as
holistic
in
its
approach
as
Village
Volunteers.
Their
initiatives
are
focused
specifically
on
education.
However,
under
that
umbrella,
they
do
function
in
quite
a
few
different
capacities
by
providing
scholarships
to
students,
teacher
salaries,
after
school
programs,
school
supplies,
etc.
That
being
said,
Global
Ade’s
partnerships
are
also
run
almost
entirely
by
their
partner
organizations.
Global
Ade’s
partners
are
“the
point
people
for
the
projects.
They
tell
us
their
best
ideas.
We
kind
of
vet
it.
Does
it
make
logical
sense,
can
we
afford
it…all
the
questions
you
need
to
ask
before
you
employ
the
program,
and
then
they
are
in
charge
of
running
it,
so
we
purely
are
just
an
overseer
role”
(Global
Ade
Interview).
Global
Ade
is
stricter
than
Village
Volunteers
in
knowing
how
and
where
the
funds
provided
go.
All
money
has
a
specific
purpose,
and
must
be
accounted
for
(as
mentioned
above
in
Community
Control
of
Resources).
40
Global
Ade
defines
sustainability
in
the
sense
that,
after
a
while,
their
partner
organizations
no
longer
need
them
-‐
“They
don’t
need
[Global
Ade]
to
go
in
there
and
fund
them
because
they’re
getting
funding
from…actual
sustainable
means,
whether
that
means
they
have
a
little
farm
attached
to
the
school
and
they’re
using
projects
with
that
to
pay
for
different
books
and
what
not”
(Global
Ade
Interview).
However,
there
are
not
currently
training
initiatives
in
place
by
Global
Ade
that
directly
encourage
that
type
of
entrepreneurial
behavior,
though
it
could
be
argued
that
all
of
their
projects’
outputs
are
children
who
are
educated,
and
thus
capable
of
creating
a
better
life
for
themselves
and
their
families
once
through
with
school.
Cross
Cultural
Solutions
does
not
score
very
well
in
this
section
due
to
the
fact
that
many
jobs
that
volunteers
participate
in
are
not
initiatives
designed
around
creating
community
independence
and
growth.
Most
capacities
volunteers
work
in
are
menial
positions
(such
as
childcare
of
orphans)
for
which
there
is
not
much
growth
possible.
That
is
not
to
suggest,
however,
that
the
service
they
provide
is
a)
not
needed
or
b)
detrimental
or
limiting
to
the
community.
Cross
Cultural
Solutions
simply
does
not
function
in
a
capacity
in
which
community
takes
a
huge
role.
Table
5:
Community
Involvement
in
Implementation
and
O&M
-‐
Organization
Performance
1
2
3
4
5
Village
Volunteers
X
Global
ADE
X
Cross
Cultural
X
Solutions
41
Participatory
Monitoring
–
The
community
itself
is
directly
involved
with
monitoring
the
progress
of
implementation,
including
the
quality
and
cost
of
inputs
and
outputs,
with
recourse
to
complaints
handling
mechanisms
as
part
of
the
larger
CDD
project
design.
VIllage
Volunteers
–
5
Global
Ade
–
5
Cross
Cultural
Solutions
–
5
All
three
organizations
do
utilize
some
kind
of
participatory
feedback
mechanisms
in
their
model
quite
extensively.
Village
Volunteers’s
partnerships
are
ones
in
which
the
NGOs,
GROs,
and/or
communities
they
work
with
truly
are
the
decision-‐makers
of
the
process.
They
approach
Village
Volunteers
with
the
projects
they
would
like
to
work
on,
and
they
have
control
(for
the
most
part)
of
what
happens
to
funds
received
as
long
as
they
go
toward
completing
the
project
they
were
slated
for.
Not
only
are
they
in
control
during
project
implementation,
but,
as
mentioned
previously,
Village
Volunteers
also
always
makes
sure
to
provide
training
and
education
to
community
members
that
gives
them
the
skills
necessary
to
both
continue
a
project
as
well
as
critically
analyze
and
evolve
it.
Despite
the
fact
that
Village
Volunteers
cultivates
long-‐lasting
relationships
with
their
partners,
they
do
not
do
so
in
a
single
capacity.
The
relationship
lasts
not
because
Village
Volunteers
is
continuously
providing
a
single
service,
but
rather
because
the
communities
continue
to
develop
and
grow,
using
Village
Volunteers
as
a
fiscal
agent
to
aid
in
gaining
funds
for
new
projects:
“The
idea
of
sustainable
development
is
more
or
less
that
ever
changing
and
growing,
and
once
you
solve
one
problem,
you
can
move
into
another…[Village
Volunteers]
stays
with
[its]
communities.
[It’s]
not
a
non-‐
profit
that
just
does
water
and
goes
from
community
to
community.
These
are
out
partners,
and
so
there’s
always
a
tremendous
amount
of
need,
and
sometimes
that
need
changes.
Problems
are
solved;
schools
are
built
or
business
are
built,
and
then
we
go
on
to
something
else
that’s
needed”
(Village
Volunteers
Interview).
42
Village
Volunteers
is
very
project
specific.
If
an
organization
approaches
them
with
a
proactive
solution
for
a
problem,
they
will
be
supported.
This
keeps
the
community
in
control
of
their
own
development.
One
potential
area
for
discord
(shared
by
Cross
Cultural
Solutions)
is
if
volunteers
are
saying
one
thing
about
the
health
of
a
project
when
the
partner
organization/community
is
saying
another.
Though
neither
organization
said
this
had
been
an
issue
to
date,
it
does
present
potential
loyalty
issues.
Conversely,
it
gives
these
two
organizations
more
diversified
views
about
what
is
going
on
in
country.
This
is
especially
helpful
for
Village
Volunteers
as
they
do
not
have
any
Village
Volunteers
employees
on
the
ground
at
their
partner
locations.
Thus,
the
only
feedback
they
receive
on
projects
is
from
the
partner
organizations
and
the
volunteers.
Global
Ade,
likewise,
has
a
similar
model.
However,
they
do
not
have
the
added
benefit/complication
of
volunteers.
One
of
the
founders
visits
the
project
sites
once
or
twice
a
year
(Global
Ade
Interview),
but
aside
from
that,
all
reporting
is
done
by
their
partner
organizations.
Once
they
partner
with
someone,
it
is
that
NGO/GRO
that
is
in
control
of
which
projects
are
taken
on
and
how
they
are
managed
–
“They
know,
do
they
need
a
new
library,
is
that
something
that’s
really
important,
or
do
they
need
more
money
for
different
scholarship
programs,
or
teacher’s
salaries…That’s
kind
of
the
context
of
our
conversations
with
people
on
the
ground
to
figure
out
what
is
really
needed”
(Global
Ade
Interview).
A
difference
between
Village
Volunteers
and
Global
Ade
is
that,
though
Village
Volunteers
maintains
long-‐
term
relationships
with
their
partners,
as
mentioned
above,
they
do
not
generally
continue
working
on
a
single
project.
Village
Volunteers’s
work
is
sustained,
but
occurs
on
multiple
different
development
projects,
whereas
Global
Ade
is
sustained
and
fulfills
ongoing
needs
for
funds
on
single
projects
(such
as
scholarship
funds
or
teacher’s
salaries).
Regardless,
through
extensive
communication
and
feedback
from
their
partner
organizations,
Village
Volunteers
and
Global
Ade
are
both
quite
aware
of
how
their
projects
are
being
received
by
their
partner
organizations
(and
hopefully,
by
extension,
the
community).
43
Cross
Cultural
Solutions
also
places
participatory
monitoring
as
one
of
their
priorities
in
their
relationships
with
partners
on
the
ground.
However,
because
Cross
Cultural
Solutions
is
a
significantly
larger
organizations
than
either
Village
Volunteers
or
Global
Ade,
they
are
able
to
have
a
much
more
comprehensive
M&E
process.
This
is
potentially
both
a
good
and
bad
thing.
As
mentioned
before,
all
interaction
between
Cross
Cultural
Solutions
HQ
and
their
partner
organizations
goes
through
Cross
Cultural
Solutions-‐hired
in
country
directors
–
“[Local
hires]
are
very
involved.
Especially
in
terms
of
what’s
going
on
in
their
community…Basically
everything
that
goes
on
in-‐country
is
done
by
a
host-‐country
national.
So
it
starts
with
the
country
director,
who
is
responsible
for
everything
that
runs
on
the
ground
in
country.
They
will
then
employ
office
staff,
so
there’s
a
program
manager
who
will
work
with
the
different
partner
organizations,
has
that
main
relationship
in
terms
of
that
weekly
connection
with
people,
dropping
off
volunteers,
making
sure
everything’s
going
okay”
(Cross
Cultural
Solutions
Interview).
While
this
gives
the
benefit
of
having
a
community
member
who
understands
the
society
and
culture,
it
also
presents
a
potential
barrier
between
Cross
Cultural
Solutions
and
the
partner
organization
–
“Our
progam
team
here
will
provide
support
with
whatever
they
need,
but
if
a
director
says
‘Yeah,
this
isn’t
going
to
work
out,’
that’s
what
get’s
done”
(Cross
Cultural
Solutions
Interview).
One
way
Cross
Cultural
Solutions
avoids
a
potential
bias
is
by
conducting
annual
quantitative
and
qualitative
surveys
of
their
partner
organizations
(CrossCulturalSolutions.org).
This
is
where
the
size
of
Cross
Cultural
Solutions
is
of
benefit.
They
have
the
funds
and
manpower
to
be
able
to
carry
out
significantly
more
in-‐depth
M&E
than
Village
Volunteers
or
Global
Ade.
However,
that
being
said,
as
both
Global
Ade
and
Village
Volunteers
work
on
a
much
smaller
scale,
they
are
able
to
be
in
constant
contact
with
their
partner
organizations,
and
so
are
aware
in
real
time
of
what
is
occurring.
Again,
similar
to
Village
Volunteers,
Cross
Cultural
Solutions
also
takes
into
account
the
reports
of
volunteers.
Both
utilize
their
volunteers
extensively
in
determining
what
is
actually
occurring
on
the
ground
–
“[Cross
Cultural
Solutions]
has
them
fill
out
different
forms
and
sheets
and
kind
of
interview[s]
them…that
gives
out
staff
the
44
ability
to
really
know
what’s
been
going
on,
what’s
expected,
all
those
sorts
of
things”
(Cross
Cultural
Solutions
Interview).
As
mentioned
before,
while
this
helps
give
a
comprehensive
view
of
what
is
going
on,
there
is
also
the
potential
for
confused
loyalties.
However,
that
being
said,
having
volunteers
on
the
ground,
reporting
on
their
activities
and
the
activities
of
the
NGO/GRO
gives
both
Village
Volunteers
and
Cross
Cultural
Solutions
a
good
idea
of
whether
any
dependencies
are
being
created
–
“It’s
a
big
red
flag
when
[Cross
Cultural
Solutions]
read[s]
things
like,
‘We
need
volunteers
to
do
x,
y,
and
z,’
or,
‘We’d
be
in
so
much
trouble
if
you
start
not
sending
volunteers’”
(Cross
Cultural
Solutions
Interview).
Table
6:
Participatory
Monitoring
–
Organization
Performance
1
2
3
4
5
Village
Volunteers
X
Global
Ade
X
Cross
Cultural
Solutions
X
45
Community
Focus
5
3
4
Participatory
Planning
5
5
4
Community
Control
of
Resources
4
3
3
Community
Involvement
in
Implementation
and
4
4
3
O&M
Participatory
Monitoring
5
5
5
Total
23
20
19
Overall,
Village
Volunteers
was
found
to
have
a
participatory
approach,
rating,
in
most
elements
of
CDD,
between
a
4
and
5,
and
getting
a
final
score
of
23.
However,
such
a
heavy
focus
on
CDD
elements
often
cause
issues
with
the
growth
and
development
of
Village
Volunteers
itself,
as
funds
are
generally
restricted
quite
stringently
to
projects
rather
than
being
able
to
go
into
the
growth
and
development
of
the
organization,
thus,
ultimately
limiting
the
number
(and
scope)
of
projects
and
partnerships
it
can
take
on.
Instituting
a
participatory
approach
does
not
guarantee
sustainability.
Global
ADE
rated
between
a
3-‐4
for
most
elements
of
CDD,
with
a
final
score
of
20.
While
their
scope
is
limited
to
education,
and
they
don’t
have
an
incredible
amount
of
reach
to
date,
their
initiatives
are
focused,
goal
oriented,
and
sustainable.
They
rate
especially
high
in
terms
of
project
longevity,
with
quite
a
few
safeguards
in
place
to
ensure
project
security.
This
aspect
is
especially
important
in
relation
to
Global
ADE,
as
much
of
their
support
comes
in
the
form
of
monetary
aid
to
teachers
and/or
students.
Thus,
the
discontinuation
of
any
of
their
initiatives
could
cause
46
great
damage
to
the
communities
they
serve.
Ideally,
a
funding
structure
should
be
developed
in
which
the
local
education
NGOs
they
partner
with
could
create
a
means
for
producing
funds
independent
of
Global
Ade,
but
there
doesn’t
appear
to
be
plans
for
those
kind
of
development
initiatives
as
of
yet.
Cross
Cultural
Solutions
scored
between
a
3-‐4,
and
a
final
score
of
19.
As
they
don’t
rely
on
donations
for
funds
(but
rather
volunteer
fees),
they
have
much
more
unrestricted
funds
than
the
other
two
organizations.
However,
in
order
to
avoid
issues
of
dependency
in
relation
to
partner’s
reliance
on
the
presence
of
volunteers,
most
of
their
initiatives
are
limited
to
activities
that
are
rather
simplistic
and
not
potentially
as
productive
for
the
communities
as
the
other
two
organizations.
Aside
from
identifying
the
presence
of
each
element
of
CDD
within
the
organizations
studied,
this
paper
also
highlights
the
quality
of
the
CDD
being
provided.
Certain
patterns
arose
between
organizations
in
terms
of
strength
and
weakness
of
CDD.
The
Participatory
Planning
and
Participatory
Monitoring
aspects
of
CDD
were
the
strongest
across
all
organizations,
while
the
other
three
elements
had
varying
results
suggesting
that
these
two
elements
were
collectively
deemed
either
the
most
doable
and/or
the
most
important
in
relation
to
CDD
implementation.
47
48
elements
were
the
ones
that
focused
on
enlarging
the
decision-‐making
roles
and
processes,
resource
mobilization
capacities,
and
communication
and
coordination
roles
of
the
community
(Datta,
2005).
It
is
not
clear,
however,
if
these
two
elements
were
so
strong
because
they
were
the
easiest
to
implement
or
because
the
organizations
independently
determined
they
were
the
most
essential
elements
to
maintaining
a
successful
CDD
program.
Regardless,
it
is
important
to
note
how
strongly
each
was
represented
as
opposed
to
the
other
three
elements,
which
differed
quite
significantly
across
all
three
organizations.
To
that
end,
as
reflected
by
the
literature
and
the
World
Bank,
monitoring
and
evaluation
of
participatory
development
projects
are
necessary
not
only
to
ensure
the
efficacy
of
the
project,
but
also
as
a
way
to
view
patterns
and
discover
which
elements
of
CDD
are
necessary
across
all
projects
and
what
can
be
changed
across
different
models
while
still
maintaining
the
principles
of
CDD.
As
the
World
Bank
asserts,
“despite
the
inherent
challenges
of
conducting
impact
assessment
of
CDD
programs,
there
is
a
growing
recognition
that
there
is
a
need
for
evidence
on
the
actual
impact
of
such
programs
and
a
need
for
insights
on
how
to
improve
project
performance”
(WorldBank.org).
Both
the
literature
and
the
development
industry
appear
to
agree
on
the
move
toward
more
community-‐focused
approaches,
and
as
a
result,
it
is
time
for
“community
involvement”
to
be
operationalized
in
order
to
really
be
able
to
gauge
the
efficacy
of
it
as
an
approach
and
replicate
reliably
across
different
communities
and
INGOs.
The
fourth
theme
was
reflected
in
the
case
studies
as
well
as
the
literature,
and
this
was
the
lack
of
attention
given
by
the
elements
of
CDD
to
endogenous
conflict
within
a
community.
Critiques
of
CDD
for
having
a
naïve
application
of
complex
contextual
concepts
(Mansuri
and
Rao,
2004)
became
evident
in
examining
the
practices
of
Village
Volunteers,
Cross
Cultural
Solutions,
and
Global
Ade.
While
the
rubric
was
quite
focused
on
the
positive
outcome
of
including
the
community
in
development
projects,
there
were
not
protections
and/or
recourse
for
potentially
negative
situations
that
may
arise
when
a
community
is
involved,
such
as
elite
capture,
49
irresponsible
use
of
funds,
and
objective
project
evaluation
methods.
As
a
result,
each
organization
had
to
create
their
own
safeguards
to
protect
themselves
from
this
eventuality,
thus,
in
some
cases,
potentially
threatening
the
very
principles
of
CDD
they
were
espousing.
This
became
particularly
evident
in
relation
to
the
CDD
element,
Community
Control
of
Resources.
In
theory,
it
is
expected
that
when
the
community
is
involved,
it
will
result
in
an
allocation
of
funds
that
is
more
responsive,
better
targeted,
and
better
maintained.
However,
this
assumption
is
quite
significant
in
that
it
supposes
a
large
amount
of
knowledge
on
the
community’s
part
as
well
as
egalitarian
sensibilities
(Mansuri
and
Rao,
2004).
One
of
the
reasons
INGOs
have
become
so
popular
is
because
of
their
ability
to
mitigate
conflict
within
a
community,
pinpoint
need,
and
having
access
to
the
necessary
knowledge
and
tools
to
fill
that
need.
It
is
important
that,
in
guaranteeing
the
rights
of
the
community,
the
partner
INGO
does
not
become
powerless
and
alienated.
These
themes
are
very
important
for
future
policy
implications
in
relation
to
CDD
and
the
development
industry.
Future
research
including,
conducting
significantly
more
case
studies,
are
necessary
to
learn
how
individual
organizations
are
modifying
and
utilizing
participatory-‐based
approaches.
Identifying
these
patterns
are
important
for
pinpointing
key
common
elements
and
patterns
in
experience
on
the
ground,
as
they
indicate
something
important
may
be
happening
(Datta,
2005).
In
accordance
with
the
development
industry
and
CDD
literature,
the
three
organizations
examined
support
through
their
actions
the
currently
held
belief
that
development
driven
by
the
beneficiaries
is
the
best
in
terms
of
creating
long-‐lasting,
effective
change.
However,
because
of
their
different
models,
each
has
a
unique
interpretation
of
what,
exactly,
is
the
best
way
to
go
about
fostering
productive,
healthy,
independent
relationships
between
INGOs
and
their
local
counterparts.
Regardless,
in
all
cases,
there
was
a
clear
ideology
based
on
independence
by
the
community
from
external
agents
in
formulating
its
agenda
and
managing
its
affairs
(Lyons,
et
al.,
2001).
What
was
not
always
agreed
upon
were
the
ways
to
do
that.
This
indicates
that
we
have
not
yet
pinpointed
which
aspects
of
CDD,
and
doing
so
is
what
must
happen
in
future
research
to
truly
begin
to
understand
which
aspects
of
50
CDD
are
necessary
and
which
can
be
modified
and
changed
while
still
maintaining
a
community-‐focused
mission
and
principles.
Conclusion
The
literature
agrees
that
communities
can
be
effective
channels
of
development
if
they
receive
a
genuine
delegation
of
powers
and
responsibilities
(Platteau
&
Abraham,
2002),
falling
in
line
directly
with
the
aims
of
the
World
Bank’s
CDD
rubric.
However,
there
are
still
several
concepts
within
the
ideology
of
CDD
that
must
be
addressed
such
as
the
issues
that
may
arise
when
complex
and
highly
contextual
concepts
such
as
“community”
and
“sustainability”
remain
largely
undefined
(Mansuri
&
Rao,
2004).
The
rubric
for
CDD
analysis
has
some
weaknesses
in
that
it
only
ensures
best
practices
on
the
side
of
the
INGO
and
leaves
very
little
recourse
for
ensuring
equally
good
behavior
on
the
side
of
the
beneficiary.
An
INGO
may
receive
a
good
CDD
score,
but
still
have
significant
weaknesses
in
the
model
(a
large
amount
of
community
focus
can
allow
for
easy
elite
capture
of
a
project,
for
example).
The
smaller
organizations
are
providing
their
own
safeguards,
but
the
weakness
in
the
smaller
programs
is
M&E.
They
don’t
have
the
funds,
personnel,
or
training
to
produce
viable
data.
As
a
result,
they
have
instituted
strategies
in
the
project
planning
and
implementation
phases
to
mitigate
the
lack
of
resources
for
M&E.
However,
the
question
remains:
If
organizations
are
only
taking
elements
of
CDD
that
apply
to
them
and
interpreting
it
to
fit
their
model,
are
the
principles
of
CDD
still
viable?
The
fact
that
organizations
are
able
to
customize
the
CDD
approach
is
a
necessary
boon,
but
it
also
presents
challenges
in
that
there
is
no
way
to
maintain
and
ensure
the
validity
of
approaches
individual
organizations
choose
to
take.
Thus,
as
shown
by
this
paper,
when
looking
at
organization
performance
in
relation
to
CDD,
it
is
essential
to
gauge
not
only
the
presence
of
CDD,
but
also
its
quality.
By
doing
this
across
multiple
organizations
and
projects,
we
will
begin
to
identify
patterns
and
common
elements
that
will
aid
in
operationalizing
and
replicating
productive
CDD
practices.
51
Bibliography
52
53
54
Appendix
Interview
Questions
1. What
is
the
official
name
of
your
organization?
2. What
was
the
month
and
year
it
was
founded?
3. What
are
your
organization’s
mission
statement
and
goals?
4. What
were
the
motivations
behind
your
organization’s
founding?
5. How
long
have
you
been
involved
with
the
organization?
6. What
is
your
role
in
the
organization?
7. Which
geographic
areas
does
your
organization
reach?
8. How
many
communities
is
your
organization
currently
partnered
with?
a. How
long
has
your
organization
been
partnered
with
them?
b. How
does
your
organization
choose
partners
and
with
which
projects
to
be
involved?
9. How
many
people
does
your
organization
employ?
a. Of
those,
how
many
are
in-‐country
hires?
i. What
positions
do
they
hold?
b. How
involved
are
local
hires
with
goal/agenda
setting
and
strategizing?
10. How
much
involvement
do
donors
have
in
decision-‐making
and
goal/agenda
setting?
11. How
much
involvement/influence
does
local
government
have
in
the
planning
process?
12. How
does
your
organization
decide
long-‐term
goals
in
relation
to
your
projects?
a. How
do
they
differ
depending
upon
the
project
and
the
partner
community?
13. Does
the
level
of
community
involvement
depend
upon
the
project?
a. If
so,
what
determines
the
level
and
type
of
involvement
(i.e.:
training/education
programs)?
b. What
successes
has
the
organization
experienced
in
regards
to
community
involvement?
c. What
challenges?
i. What
strategies
has
the
organization
used
when
approaching
these
challenges?
14. Is
there
an
intended
length/end
date
for
your
organization’s
relationship(s)
with
partner
community(s)?
a. How
does
it
differ
depending
upon
the
project
and
the
partner
community?
15. What
is
your
organization’s
definition
of
“sustainable”?
16. Are
your
organization’s
projects
intended
to
eventually
be
independently
sustainable
(in
some
capacity)
by
the
partner
community?
55
56