Development Success Stories: What Works and Why?

As part of Oxfam America’s Smart Development Briefing Series, the second lecture was held today at the Cannon House Office Building to discuss Development Success Stories: What Works and Why? The three panelists brought different perspectives to the lecture; however, there were several striking themes which penetrated the discussion. These broader ideals are lessons we can all learn and take with us when operating in the development sphere.  Each panelist presented a case study that they believed represented developmental success. That term, “development success”, was later defined by panelist member Carlisle Levine as sustainable poverty reduction. Dr. Michael Carter of the University of Wisconsin chose to speak about developmental success in north Kenya. He focused on the creation of Productive Safety Nets, which he explained were mechanisms put in place to help keep individuals above the “critical threshold.” A critical threshold represents the number of livestock a family must own in order to support itself. Carter explained that current aid programs provide these families with $15 a month, but that it may actually do more harm than good. The families that receive this money often gain no ability to earn it themselves and have no incentives to change their behavior. They become dependent on these funds. The problem is when the funds stop coming, who is supposed to support these families then? This is where his Productive Safety Nets come into play. He explained that through satellite imagery you can predict, up to 80%, of expected livestock casualties that will occur in a given region. This is important because aid agencies working with the Kenyan insurance companies were able use this satellite evidence for an insurance payout. This is an example of pre-emptive food aid which will help to keep these families above the poverty line at a much lower cost ($7-$8 per year, instead of $15 per month) and provides families with the ability to provide their own income. The one caveat to his example is that it must include long-term commitments by the aid agencies. Long-term funding is not something often seen in the aid world, and he believes that this is a key element to ensuring the success of aid programs. The second panelist, Jeremy Konyndyk of Mercy Corps, gave a presentation about the MISI project in Kosovo. The important lesson from his example is that you must work with the community and incorporate them into the projects. The ultimate goal is to produce a self-sufficient community that has the capacity to organize change themselves. He insisted that you need to focus on outcomes, not outputs. It is not important how many wells you can drill, or how many schools you can build, but ultimately, it is about ensuring the people takes ownership and pride in these projects and feels connected as a community. Aid agencies must engage in community-led strategies and support community-government linkages with accountability across ethnic lines. Three policy implications which he believes will lead to smart development are (1) incentivized change, (2) developing community-led systems, and (3) focusing on outcomes, not outputs. The last panelist, Carlisle Levine of CARE, discussed Savings and Internal Lending Communities (SILC) as her example of smart development. She echoed the other two panelists and agreed with their policy recommendations as well. SILC programs empower local individuals to make changes to their own lives and give them the tools to succeed.  Levine stressed the need for adequate staffing, the need to listen to the people on the ground and create an integrated community based approach to aid. After the three were done talking it was clear what they felt needed to be part of any successful aid program: (1) needs to have a long-term scale, programs cannot last 12 months, must encourage programs that are at minimum 3-5 years if you expect to see actual change in people’s lives; (2) aid needs to be predictable with well established patterns; (3) agencies must focus on outcomes, not outputs; (4) integrated community based programs are more beneficial because it allows you to identify the right problems and gives the community ownership is overcoming those challenges; (5) and lastly, agencies supply sufficient human resources to a program. These are all things, which may seem rather apparent, that are currently missing within the field of development aid. If we hope to make a difference with the aid we are supplying, these simple lessons seem like a good place to start.