Article
Getting funding right in East Africa
Top ten priorities for maximum impact
This is the first in a series of reflective thought pieces on our work in East Africa, especially as it relates to programming, partnerships and funding in the governance and civil society space.
Funding is a complex and delicate process that unearths various challenges, paradoxes and tensions. Over the last five years, we have worked on over 500 projects with a variety of partners in the sub Saharan region with particular respect to East Africa. Our experience in executing strategy, research and evaluation cuts across different sectors such as civil society, governmental, health, agricultural and more.
By reflecting upon our experience, we can begin to identify trends and best practices to create an environment that promotes robust research, evaluation and capacity building.
By reflecting upon our experience, we can begin to identify trends and best practices to create an environment that promotes robust research, evaluation and capacity building. Below is a summary of the 10 priorities for funders to keep in mind when seeking to support effective research and program delivery in the region. The full document can be found here.
- Negotiate the tension between capacity building and project delivery.
The two concepts of capacity building and project delivery are often conflated in funding, despite them not being the same thing. Capacity building is an iterative and joint process that opens itself up to failing together many times in order to encourage a shift in mindset and technical skills. On the other hand, project delivery is often about presenting conclusive deliverables that address solutions to internal or external challenges.
Capacity building can generally be quite tricky to measure in an engagement model, and this becomes doubly so when project delivery is tied to it, given that a different (and often irrelevant) set of metrics are now identified as the primary indicators of capacity building success. The two concepts are structurally different in terms of project activity streams, processes, and metrics of success.
2. Embed top members of organizational hierarchy at strategic stages.
There is a difference between individual capacity building and organizational capacity building. Change often occurs through actors who hold the resources. One of the biggest limitations of effective partnerships, especially in capacity building, is over-targeting knowledge, training and interactions to only the most appropriate members in the organization (i.e. M&E program officers).
Strategically embed top members from the very beginning of multi-year projects to:
a) Better sell the need for evidence-based research, allowing for institutional change that will start at the top; and
b) Ensure there are more effective strategies in place for high turnovers.
3. Prioritize technically eager partners now to build strong case studies later.
This advice presents one of the larger paradoxes in this set. The organizations most in need of assistance in behavioral science, introductions to rigorous methodology and overall capacity building are often the ones that least recognize the need for them. However, it is unclear whether Busara’s capacity building programs with unwilling partners have garnered success in building the skills and mindsets of those clients, or even piquing independent interest in its potential.
To best engage those who are uninterested in engaging, create case studies and evidence where the work speaks for itself. Such initial works are usually with those who are excited about behavioral science and see the potential it can bring to their systems and processes.
4. Incorporate physical representatives and advocates in remote engagements.
The more remote the programming, the more the need for physical representatives and advocates. In engagements spread across multiple countries, the need for physical interactions or at least an advocate for the technical advisor’s capacities is vital to relationship building and creating trust between partners. Overall, embedding personnel to form a more established remote partnership works well to ensure objectives are achieved.
5. Lengthen unrealistic time frames for more quality programming.
Short timelines can naturally create more stress and friction within new partnerships. They also often mean cutting corners. Compromises will happen with the design, the creativity, and the ultimate insights of evaluation or research approaches, even with generous funding. Tight timelines lead to insights that skim across the surface of larger depths and trends, impacting genuine attempts to address complex challenges. Together, these components have a direct implication for funders’ value for money propositions.
6. Pilot diversified funding structures dependent on the engagement model.
Funding structures have implications for the shape, adaptability and even outcomes of a project. An inflexible or inadequate funding regime can prevent a more vibrant and dynamic research engagement from being pursued by partners. Dependent on key elements of the program, funders should consider funding structures that account for engagement length, the need for sub-awardees versus entirely direct funding, and support for a period of project formulation. Additionally, the goals/outcomes of the grant for each partner should be as explicit as possible, but the path to realizing this can be kept a bit flexible.
7. Avoid mischaracterizing behavioral science or technical inputs in bids.
Expectation setting and project delivery can both be affected by how technical advisors are presented. Avoid viewing technical partners such as Busara as simply a data firm or an implementation support partner. Not only do simplifications or mischaracterizations create tensions in working relationships with partners, but these project scopes become limited from the beginning by not taking full advantage of collaboration possibilities. If possible, craft spaces where basic introductions to technical inputs can be introduced before planning for programming, budgeting and timelines.
8. Engage fewer partners for more successful consortiums.
Limit the actors involved in a consortium to achieve more meaningful engagement with evidence, capacity and better programmatic outputs. Crowded consortium configurations may signal better ability to achieve a wider net of goals on paper, but leads to too many cooks in the kitchen in practice, with your results being the spoiled broth.
9. Craft centralized – decentralized feedback documentation when funding concludes.
A core part of your strategy needs to be active learning and adaptation. More space needs to be created to reflect on what has worked with certain funding structures or engagement models versus what has not, particularly around partner characteristics, funding, and timelines. This feedback needs to be encouraged through a top-down, centralized structure combined with decentralized observations to be useful. Funders should decide the larger themes of what needs to be evaluated and measured. However, partners and technical advisors should be provided a degree of freedom in detailing what trends and nuances emerge from their unique collaborations.
10. Plan with the end of the funding cycle in mind.
When designing project activities, think carefully about your partners and what their activities will look like after technical leads are gone. The sustainability of the capacity and the gains in the partnership can take a significant time to build. Keep a slow, iterative process in mind to help forge more realistic timeline and funding structures, and consequently magnify the end results.
Funding and managing subsequent relationships can lead to fulfilling partnerships that achieve their goals. It can also be frustrating if you rush in, failing to take careful consideration of how to get where you want to go. These practices can help you develop strategies that take several perspectives into account, allowing for more fruitful collaborations.
