In Uganda, Óbumu is a concept that fosters unity in a community over shared goals. Rooted in African philosophy, it reflects the traditional African worldview in which community forms the cornerstone of social life and identity. Similarly, in Kenya, the principle of Harambee, which translates to “let’s pull together,” serves as a powerful symbol of collective effort (Musau, 2020), particularly in mobilizing communities for development initiatives. South Africa’s Ubuntu and Tanzania’s Ujamaa echo these values, emphasizing interconnectedness, mutual support, and communal responsibility.
Over the years, diverse forms of collective action have taken root in African communities, sometimes involving diverse actors, including governments and development institutions. It is common to find community members coming together for a shared goal to implement development projects to achieve public goods. These efforts may include setting up infrastructure such as bridges, roads, or wells; raising school fees for disadvantaged families; fundraising to build places of worship; or covering medical expenses for community members. The intention is to enhance the socio-economic well-being of the community through a shared support system by pooling resources, skills, and time. In this article, we explore the nuances of community-driven development (CDD) through the lens of one of our recent collaborations with Spark Microgrants. Using a behavioral science approach, we examine the motivations behind collective action and investigate some factors that might limit or enhance participation, particularly when individuals are aware of potential benefits.
Busara collaborated with Spark Microgrants in 2023 to study community participation in Spark’s Facilitated Collective Action Process (FCAP) in Uganda and Rwanda. We took a co-creative approach to design and to understand the process with the aim of increasing further community participation. Creating meaningful participation in a community to unlock impact takes time, patience, and deliberate effort. To undertake this assignment, we drew inspiration from Spark’s strong community engagement, with over 70% household attendance at FCAP meetings and 90% overall participation, as reported in Spark’s 2024 impact evaluation (Spark Microgrants, 2024). Women’s participation rose significantly, from 49% at baseline to 75% at endline, reflecting strong progress in gender inclusion throughout the project (ibid). With a high baseline, further engagement was a unique opportunity to explore. Our approach was to apply behavioral science to uncover deeper drivers of participation. These insights would help Spark and other development partners in replicating the success of the Rwanda and Uganda projects.
Reimagining behavioral systems
To add value, we had to reimagine how behavioral systems that have taken time to build can be rebuilt and replicated in different contexts in a cost-effective way that unlocks impact. Our research shows that emphasizing context and cognition can reshape how we understand impact. However, this approach remains limited to small-scale interventions, yet we need to understand broader structural challenges (Díaz Del Valle, Jang, & Wendel, 2024). Spark’s cross-country projects were certainly an exception due to the multi-country approach, with a focus on a localized approach. This approach undoubtedly unlocks some lessons that can be replicated in other settings.
Our primary assignment was to gain a clear understanding of community engagement. We discovered that engaging communities effectively required grounding our approach in a clear understanding of their needs, priorities, and cultural dynamics. Going deeper meant that we had to develop a framework to understand what drives meaningful participation in community-driven development projects. This was where we integrated Busara’s expertise in behavioural science to understand any barriers that might exist, unlocking new levers of participation for community members. But first, let’s unpack some concepts.
Community-driven development, as defined by the World Bank, is a form of development assistance that seeks to give communities control over key decisions during the implementation of a community project. CDD gained prominence as a framework for development practitioners to empower local communities with tools to end poverty (Barron et al., 2024). These programs help local communities to identify, implement, and sustain initiatives tailored to their development needs.
Our research collaboration with Spark Microgrants sought to understand the subtle interplay of social norms, cognitive biases, and structural constraints that shape how individuals participate in facilitated collective action. This process builds durable livelihoods while strengthening social cohesion, civic engagement, and women’s representation in leadership through regular, facilitated town-hall style meetings.
What was unique about the FCAP?
The FCAP sought to empower people to take charge of their development. But what would happen if participation were limited? This is what we sought to understand. Participation among community members was certainly widespread; we had to apply other measures of participation, such as retention and completion. In other words, were community members fully participating from the initial meetings to the last phase? We also sought to answer why some community members were eager to join CDD programs while others hesitated or opted out entirely. To answer these, we had to understand the behavioral patterns that can shape individual and collective agency, and the willingness to participate in collective decision-making. Our research in both Uganda and Rwanda was aimed at utilizing existing social and behavioral change strategies to design interventions that were tailored to increase further participation. We employed a three-phased approach to identify behavioral barriers and levers influencing collective participation. These were: understanding the context, co-designing interventions with stakeholders, and rapid testing of the interventions.
In the first phase, we conducted in-depth interviews with 100 participants in Uganda and 60 in Rwanda, providing a comprehensive understanding of participation trends and behavioral influences. This approach follows Busara’s Align, Understand, Design, Assess, and Share or the ‘AUDAS’ model (Jang et al, 2024). The results from the qualitative interviews showed that some people joined the FCAP program right away, drawn by the promise of financial security, improved livelihoods, and stronger community networks. Meanwhile, a few were skeptical, influenced by misconceptions and doubts about funding sources, foreign influence, and religious concerns about specific types of projects their neighbors may have wanted to implement, such as pig rearing, which goes against the Islamic faith in some communities. Cognitive effort also played a role; unclear information about the program or complex registration could sometimes discourage participation, although this was very minimal.
Self-efficacy was another factor. Highly confident people were more likely to engage, while those who doubted their skills hesitated or remained disengaged. Social norms played a significant role in shaping participation, with individuals’ decisions strongly influenced by family members, community leaders, and their peers. The results showed that if a trusted person within an individual’s network endorsed the FCAP, that individual was more likely to join. However, active and meaningful engagement could sometimes be deterred by past negative experiences of unmet promises spread by word of mouth in the community. Loss aversion, which is a tendency for people to feel the pain of a loss more strongly than the pleasure of a gain, complicated engagement in project activities. We saw that individuals feared losing their financial contributions to the community savings groups more than they hoped for potential project gains. This is despite concepts such as Village Saving & Loan Associations being ingrained in the community psyche for long periods. The lesson gained here is that assumed self-benefits trump perceived communal gains.
In some cases, we found that lower participation in CDD programs was due to hesitation. The effort required to commit to regular meetings, and distance to meeting venues, financial commitments, and long-term group activities, would sometimes compete with the pressing realities of daily survival, such as going to the market to sell wares or looking for jobs. In these cases, community members would do simple mental calculations and prioritize activities that would bring them immediate financial returns to cover their daily expenses over longer-term investments that would potentially bring even better returns in the future. This is present bias, where most people seem to favour immediate rewards over long-term behavior change strategies that might yield returns in an uncertain future. Time is a scarce resource, and women, who are often the backbone of community groups, find their participation constrained by household responsibilities. For farmers, prioritizing their work in the fields over community meetings is unavoidable, particularly during peak planting and harvesting seasons. Meanwhile, younger community members struggled to see long-term value in participation, opting instead for quick and immediate financial gains elsewhere. Some elder community members with deep roots in their communities felt too physically or financially constrained to take part in community projects.
In the second phase of our study, we sought to tackle these challenges through co-design workshops guided by human-centered design (HCD) principles. These included remote sessions with Spark colleagues and in-person engagements with community members, Community Development Officers (CDOs), and Parish Chiefs in Uganda. This collaboration helped in developing and refining interventions that were grounded in local realities. During the workshops, participants emphasized the need for strong leadership to ensure accountability, fairness, and continued mobilization efforts. Choosing the right leaders, particularly those who are transparent and engaged, was seen as essential to maintaining trust and meaningful participation. This finding is particularly important when one considers that in most African societies, collective decision-making invokes self and collective agency. Harambee and other community-based approaches rely on collective decisions that were made informally and involved all members (Ngau, 1987).
To boost participation, community members in the FCAP project recommended flexible meeting schedules that would accommodate farming seasons and household responsibilities, making it easier for more people to engage consistently. They also stressed the need for flexibility in group savings and loan repayments, suggesting staggered payment plans or alternative contribution models to ease economic burdens on members. These findings indicate that, when well-implemented, group savings models can enhance members’ economic well-being, echoing findings by Casey (2018) and Barron et al. (2024), who observed that CDD programs can boost both economic outcomes and participant engagement.
Continuous education, awareness, and sustainability planning emerged as key priorities among participants. They emphasized ongoing training in financial management, project sustainability, and the long-term benefits of the FCAP model. Regular communication and sensitization were seen as key to dispel misconceptions and maintain motivation. Participants also recommended social reinforcement, using community influencers, testimonials, and successful project alumni to encourage broader and sustained engagement. They further stressed adhering to community rules and regulations, ensuring projects continue to benefit members beyond Spark’s direct involvement. Encouragingly, Spark has reported strong sustainability indicators: FCAP projects initiated through microgrants are often matched by independently launched initiatives funded through community savings and resources. Moreover, more than four years after the FCAP’s introduction in a community, 89% of the communities that have participated continue to meet regularly (Spark Microgrants, 2024).
Continuous education and awareness were highlighted as crucial. Participants suggested ongoing training on financial management, project sustainability, and the long-term benefits of FCAP. Regular communication and sensitization would help to dispel misconceptions and keep members motivated. They also stressed the need for social reinforcement, suggesting the use of community influencers, testimonials, and successful project alumni to encourage hesitant individuals to join and stay engaged. Sustainability planning was another priority, with members advocating for strict adherence to community rules and regulations to ensure projects remained beneficial even after Spark exited the community. They proposed mechanisms for monitoring assets, such as livestock, and suggested that local government officials can play a role in overseeing community-driven initiatives in the long term. Their suggestions validate Barron et al. (2024), who observed that governments are increasingly partnering with communities to deliver basic services using community-driven programs.
In the last phase of the project, we developed prototypes of prioritized interventions and used rapid testing to validate them, gathering feedback from community members and local leaders to assess desirability and refine solutions. Through focus group discussions with participants in Uganda and Rwanda, we explored whether these prototypes addressed barriers to participation. Participants were given prototype images and asked to share their thoughts, preferences, anticipated challenges, and suggestions for improvement, helping us refine the solutions to better align with community needs and perceptions.
Progressive project benefits were a priority in Rwanda, where short-term incentives would be introduced alongside long-term gains to keep members engaged. By providing early, tangible benefits, participants believed more people would remain committed to the program. Meanwhile, flexible payment plans were a priority in Uganda, where staggered payment schedules would allow members to contribute flexibly to community savings and loans. This would enhance financial participation and commitment to the program. Storytelling and success narratives were emphasized as a powerful tool in both countries. Sharing testimonials from successful FCAP members and leveraging community influencers to share positive experiences can help counter misconceptions and build trust. Participants suggested organizing regular storytelling sessions where members could share their journeys, challenges, and achievements.
Capacity-building workshops were another tested intervention, focusing on leadership skills, financial literacy, and project management to empower communities to sustain their initiatives beyond Spark’s involvement. Community engagement was prioritized, with ideas such as interactive community meetings, a buddy system pairing new members with experienced participants, recognition events to reward commitment and milestones, and a community challenge campaign to foster friendly competition, further driving motivation and accountability.
Two interventions were prioritized for testing in Bulambuli District, Uganda: a flexible repayment system and capacity building workshops incorporating storytelling. These were rolled out in selected communities, with periodic data collection used to assess their effects on predefined outcomes: meeting attendance, financial attitudes, satisfaction with FCAP, trust, savings behavior, loan uptake and repayment, and confidence in leadership, business, teamwork, and resource management skills.
Overall, both interventions yielded positive and unique results. Capacity-building workshops appeared to generate stronger early engagement, but sustained participation in meetings was limited. Flexible repayment intervention led to the strongest gains in financial attitudes. Communities that received capacity-building workshops showed the most substantial improvements in loan repayment discipline, trust, and satisfaction, underscoring the value of reinforcing soft skills and community cohesion. Our findings show that encouraging participation requires more than just funding projects or mobilizing people; it demands a deep understanding of human behavior, trust-building, and sustained engagement. For practitioners and policymakers, the challenge is not just in designing programs but in ensuring that communities see value in projects and remain committed over time.
A good place to start is to understand that, already, different forms of community action exist within African philosophy. The application of behavioral mechanisms can unlock meaningful participation. Beyond individual incentives, social norms can play a crucial role in participation. People are more likely to engage when they see others benefiting, making storytelling and testimonials powerful tools for persuasion. Policymakers can support CDD programs by strengthening local leadership, promoting participatory decision-making, and ensuring long-term sustainability through training and accountability measures. Community members are also more likely to participate when they believe in the legitimacy of a program and the integrity of its leaders. Stakeholders must work closely with respected local figures who can serve as advocates, addressing misconceptions and reinforcing program benefits. Flexibility is also key; CDD initiatives should accommodate diverse schedules and responsibilities, making participation accessible to different groups such as women, farmers, and young people. Finally, immediate, tangible benefits, such as milestone-based rewards and small incentives, can keep members engaged while reinforcing long-term impact.
When communities see themselves as co-creators rather than passive beneficiaries, development programs have the potential to grow into powerful movements that drive meaningful and sustainable change.

This article was updated to include additional information on FCAP engagement. Figures on community participation, previously missing, were added for accuracy and completeness. Updated data show that over 70% of households attend meetings, and 90% overall participation.
References
- Barron, P., Fernandes, P., Winkler, S., & Woolcock, M. (2024). A Learning Agenda for Community-Driven Development. World Bank.
- Casey, K. (2018). Radical decentralization: does community-driven development work?. Annual Review of Economics, 10(1), 139-163.
- Díaz Del Valle, E., Jang, C., & Wendel, S. (2024). Behavioral systems: Combining behavioral science and systems analysis (Busara Groundwork No. 8, Research Agenda). Busara. https://doi.org/10.62372/FMJL3064
- Jang, C., Koki, E., Nyaga, R., Okafor, A., Singh, J., Vang, A., & Wendel, S. (2024). The Busara toolkit: leveraging behavioral science for development. Busara Groundwork No. 10 (Research Agenda). Nairobi: Busara, 2024. DOI: doi.org/10.62372/WQSB6195
- Mansuri, G., & Rao, V. (2003). Evaluating community-based and community-driven development: A critical review of the evidence. Policy Research Working Paper, 3209.
- Musau, M. M. (2020, October 6). Harambee: The law of generosity that rules Kenya. BBC. https://www.bbc.com/travel/article/20201004-harambee-the-kenyan-word-that-birthed-a-nation
- Ngau, P. M. (1987). Tensions in Empowerment: The Experience of the “Harambee” (Self-Help) Movement in Kenya. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 35(3), 523–538. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1153928
- Spark Microgrants. (2024). 2024 Annual Impact Report. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5d02f0b093a355000120c407/t/681bcfc40997fb6a12197125/1746653153594/Spark+Microgrants+2024+Annual+Impact+Report.pdf