A Comparative Review Of Practical Experience In Two Dfid-supported Projects assesses the impact of funding and partnerships on civil society organizations. COMPARE.EDU.VN helps in understanding how effective various development initiatives are in achieving their goals, offering key insights into optimizing future projects, focusing on effectiveness and long-term sustainability. This analysis aids in identifying successful strategies and areas needing improvement for development results, organizational adaptability, and strategic planning in DFID projects, including civil society partnerships and government initiatives.
1. Understanding DFID’s Approach to Civil Society Organizations
What role do Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) play in DFID’s (Department for International Development) objectives and commitments?
DFID views CSOs as vital for delivering humanitarian and development results, essential for a healthy civil society, holding governments accountable, and including marginalized groups. DFID values CSOs for service delivery in fragile contexts, reaching marginalized communities, and strengthening civil society. However, new central funding approaches aren’t well-suited for furthering these views. DFID provides financial support and influences policies to enhance transparency, accountability, and effectiveness of CSOs. They see British CSOs as “crucial partners and allies” in modernizing the global development system.
1.1. How DFID’s Central Funding Impacts CSOs
DFID has consolidated funding for CSOs into a few large instruments with stringent conditions that pose challenges for CSOs due to high investment costs and low grant success rates. DFID ended almost all ‘unrestricted’ funding in 2016, with central funding project-based and tightly conditioned by results frameworks, aiming to increase competition, transparency, and accountability. DFID’s capacity-building elements were often focused on DFID requirements rather than CSOs’ own needs, how to strengthen their organization, fulfil their mandate, and achieve their objectives.
1.2. Safeguarding Measures Post-Scandals
Following Oxfam’s sexual abuse scandal and Save the Children’s sexual harassment scandal in early 2018, DFID introduced compliance requirements to safeguard against abuse. The initial reaction led to delays in other work, but the approach evolved to include CSO capacity development support and a pre-grant due diligence process.
1.3. UK Government’s Role in Civic Space
DFID and the wider UK government are committed to tackling the global decline of civic space through international influencing activities. Currently, there is no clear approach to achieve this. While DFID has identified the need to provide a guiding framework on how to respond to closing civic space, it has not yet begun to develop this.
2. Effectiveness of DFID Funding on Development Results
How effective is DFID’s funding and influencing work in contributing to better development results and a more effective civil society sector?
DFID funding to support CSOs’ delivery of development and humanitarian interventions generally had positive results with direct life-changing impacts for beneficiaries. DFID-funded CSO projects have had direct life-changing or even life-saving impacts for beneficiaries, but projects did not deliver the anticipated results. Across DFID’s CSO portfolio, results were often affected by delayed funding awards and short project cycles. CSOs secured project funding, finding DFID supportive, but the stages before project implementation experienced process management weaknesses. Timelines and delays were often poorly communicated to CSOs, leading to disillusionment about the nature of their partnerships with DFID.
2.1. Country Office Support
DFID country offices have provided useful support to CSOs on civic space. DFID’s influencing and programming work in this area has been limited and unguided by a clear DFID-wide approach. De-risking (banks withdrawing services from fragile areas) was a “critical financial development and humanitarian issue” in October 2018, and the UK was well placed to influence international practice in this area.
2.2. Impact of Process Management on Project Results
Weak process management has caused frequent and lengthy delays, which have impacted the effective delivery of DFID-funded CSO projects. This approach does not empower CSOs to achieve the best possible project results.
3. Promoting Learning and Innovation in DFID Partnerships
How well does DFID promote learning and innovation in its partnerships with CSOs?
DFID planned to commission research and evaluations aimed at filling knowledge gaps on optimizing its new CSO funding mechanisms. Delays meant no research was conducted during the review period (May 2015 until December 2018). DFID-commissioned research was seen in other fields related to its CSO work. DFID facilitated systems, processes, and events designed to facilitate learning across CSOs. We did not find much evidence of the results of this learning being directly applied to programming. However, we saw signs that they may have contributed to gradual shifts in programming practice in new areas such as disability inclusion and accountability of development and humanitarian CSOs towards people affected by crisis and poverty.
3.1. Innovative Funding Mechanisms
DFID and its funding intermediaries are not well set up to identify innovation successes. The newly launched UK Aid Connect aims to develop innovative solutions to complex development problems and has been designed to invest heavily in real-time learning.
3.2. Knowledge Gaps and Innovation
The lack of efforts to fill knowledge gaps on the impact of different funding types before setting up new central funding instruments, combined with insufficient sharing and uptake of learning and innovations, has led to an amber-red score for DFID’s activities in this area.
4. Recommendations for Strengthening DFID’s CSO Partnerships
What steps should DFID take to improve the long-term effectiveness of its partnerships with Civil Society Organizations?
DFID should fill gaps in the knowledge needed to optimize the design of its central funding instruments, making the funding agreement process more efficient and transparent. The central and in-country portfolios should focus on the long-term results of CSO programs and the CSO partners’ long-term capacity to deliver relevant results in evolving contexts. There needs to be more encouragement for CSO-led innovation, along with recognition and promotion of successful innovation. Country offices should have a guiding framework for analyzing and responding to closing civic space within a national context. A joint approach should be established with other UK government departments to address the decline of civic space at the international level.
5. Civil Society Organizations: Definition and Importance
What exactly are Civil Society Organizations, and why are they so essential in international development?
CSOs are non-profit entities, separate from states and the private sector, that operate in the public domain, often focusing on improving conditions for the poorest and most vulnerable in society. CSOs pursue development and humanitarian objectives at multiple levels, from small village-based organizations to international non-governmental organizations with the capacity to deliver humanitarian and development aid across multiple countries. The OECD concluded that CSOs are “particularly effective at reaching the poor and socially excluded, mobilizing community efforts, speaking up for human rights and gender equality, and helping to empower particular constituencies.” Their strength lies in their diversity, capacity for innovation, and different perspectives when engaging in policy dialogue.
6. DFID’s Funding and Objectives for CSOs
How has DFID’s funding for Civil Society Organizations evolved, and what are its key objectives?
Over the past decade, between 15% and 25% of DFID’s bilateral spending has been used to fund the work of CSOs. DFID spending on CSOs peaked in 2014-15, reaching nearly £1.4 billion (25% of bilateral spending). It declined to nearly £1.3 billion (20%) in 2016-17, largely due to the termination of one of DFID’s centrally managed funding instruments. A significant but unreported share of DFID funding to multilateral agencies is sub-contracted to CSOs.
6.1. DFID’s Current Objectives
DFID’s current objectives for working with civil society are set out in its Civil Society Partnership Review (CSPR). The CSPR underlines the important role CSOs play in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals by delivering services to the poorest and most vulnerable, and by empowering people and holding decision-makers to account. Other commitments include addressing the problem of declining civic space and the growing threat to the freedom of CSOs to organize, participate, communicate, and influence political and social structures. The CSPR introduced significant changes to how DFID funds and partners with CSOs, with fewer central funding streams, stronger transparency and accountability requirements, and a more competitive, outcome-focused funding model.
7. Relevance of DFID’s Partnership Approach to CSOs
To what extent does DFID’s approach to partnering with Civil Society Organizations align with its objectives and commitments?
DFID’s views and commitments regarding the role and importance of CSOs are coherent, consistent, persuasive, and broadly shared among donors and practitioners in the development and humanitarian assistance community. DFID considers CSOs to have the potential to deliver good value for money through service delivery, particularly in fragile contexts and humanitarian emergencies. It views CSOs as uniquely well placed, through their grassroots networks, local knowledge, and legitimacy, to reach marginalized communities, and therefore as central partners in furthering the UK aid commitment to ‘leave no one behind’. DFID’s support to CSOs is also a goal in itself, underpinned by the conviction that a strong civil society fosters diverse, open societies, reduces corruption, and holds decision-makers to account. British CSOs in particular are “crucial partners and allies” in its “efforts to modernize, update, and improve the effectiveness of the global development system”. DFID’s new approach to central funding for CSOs is not well suited to furthering these views and commitments.
7.1. Challenges in DFID’s Funding Approach
DFID has consolidated its centrally disbursed funding for CSOs into a few large, competitive funding instruments with stringent conditions and requirements on CSO grantees that are individually sensible but collectively onerous. The high investment cost required to develop proposals for them, combined with a low success rate for winning grants, pose challenges for CSOs. DFID ended almost all its ‘unrestricted’ or ‘core’ funding that CSOs could use at their discretion to pursue DFID-agreed priorities. Central and in-country funding was almost exclusively project-based, and CSOs were often treated as implementers of mostly shorter-term projects, with funding tightly conditioned by results frameworks. DFID’s practice during the review period was not fully aligned with the department’s commitments to foster a healthy, vibrant civil society as a goal in itself.
7.2. Response to Abuse Scandals
DFID introduced a range of compliance requirements to safeguard against the abuse, exploitation, and victimisation of vulnerable people by aid workers, and of aid workers themselves, in response to the scandals at Oxfam and Save the Children. DFID’s initial reaction was appropriately urgent but also led to delays in other important work. DFID’s compliance-based safeguarding approach evolved during our review period. It included some CSO capacity development support, a pre-grant ‘enhanced due diligence’ process which included safeguarding issues, and a requirement for CSOs to verifiably adhere to standards that ensure protection of vulnerable people, and to minimise the risk of exploitation and abuse.
8. Effectiveness of DFID Funding on Development Results
How well does DFID’s funding contribute to better development results and a more effective civil society sector?
In our sample of projects, DFID funding to support CSOs’ delivery of development and humanitarian interventions generally had positive results. DFID-funded CSO projects have had direct life-changing or even life-saving impacts for beneficiaries. Results were often affected by delayed funding awards and short project cycles. CSOs reported that they found DFID and most of its funding intermediaries to be a supportive donor, if somewhat inflexible. Delays – often long ones – between funding calls, funding decisions, and funding disbursement were the norm rather than the exception.
8.1. Civic Space Support
DFID country offices have provided useful practical support to CSOs on civic space in specific situations and settings. DFID’s influencing and programming work in this area has been limited and unguided by a clear DFID-wide approach. DFID announced that de-risking was a “critical financial development and humanitarian issue” globally in October 2018 and noted that the UK was well placed to influence international practice in this area.
8.2. Empowerment and Project Results
DFID’s current approach to funding does not empower CSOs to achieve the best possible project results. Weak process management has caused frequent and lengthy delays and disruptions to plans, impacting the effective delivery of DFID-funded CSO projects.
9. Learning and Innovation in DFID’s Partnerships
How effectively does DFID promote learning and innovation in its partnerships with Civil Society Organizations?
At the start of our review period, DFID was planning to commission research and evaluations aimed at filling some of the knowledge gaps on optimising its new CSO funding mechanisms. Delays meant that no research or evaluations on these issues were conducted during the period covered by this review (May 2015 until December 2018). DFID-commissioned research was seen in a range of other fields related to its CSO work, and examples of DFID incorporating lessons from its previous experience and from its engagement with specialist CSOs and other stakeholders on issues such as disability inclusion in aid delivery.
9.1. Facilitating Learning and Transformative Impact
DFID facilitated systems, processes, and events that were appropriately designed to facilitate learning across CSOs. We did not find much evidence of the results of this learning being directly applied to programming but saw signs that they may have contributed to gradual shifts in programming practice. DFID and its funding intermediaries are not well set up to identify such successful innovations or to maximise their visibility and buy-in. The newly launched UK Aid Connect, aims to develop innovative solutions to complex development problems and has been designed to invest heavily in real-time learning.
10. Recommendations to Strengthen DFID’s CSO Partnerships
What specific steps can DFID take to enhance the effectiveness and sustainability of its partnerships with CSOs?
10.1. Knowledge Optimization
DFID should fill gaps in the knowledge needed to optimise the design of its central funding instruments. DFID should also make the process towards funding agreements more efficient, predictable, reliable, and transparent.
10.2. Enhanced Focus
DFID should focus on the long-term results of its CSO-implemented programmes, the localisation of development and humanitarian efforts, and its CSO partners’ long-term capacity to deliver relevant results in evolving contexts.
10.3. Encouraging Innovation
DFID should do more to encourage CSO-led innovation and to recognise and promote the uptake of innovation successes.
10.4. Guiding Framework
DFID should provide a guiding framework for country offices on how to analyze and respond to closing civic space within a national context, and work with other UK government departments to agree a joint approach to addressing the decline of civic space at the international level.
11. Introduction to Civil Society Organizations
What are the defining characteristics and objectives of Civil Society Organizations (CSOs)?
Civil society organisations (CSOs) “include all non-market and non-state organizations in which people organize themselves to pursue shared interests in the public domain”. CSOs pursue development and humanitarian objectives at multiple levels, from small village-based organisations to international non-governmental organisations with the capacity to deliver humanitarian and development aid across multiple countries.
12. DFID’s Funding to and Through CSOs
How does DFID channel funding to Civil Society Organizations, and what types of instruments are used?
In 2016-17, DFID channelled 20% of its bilateral spend, or £1,268 million, to or through CSOs. Of DFID’s bilateral CSO spend, 62%, or £783 million, was managed by DFID’s country offices. The remaining 38% of DFID’s bilateral CSO spend in 2016-17 was managed centrally – down from almost 50% in the preceding years. The reduction was caused by the termination of the centrally managed Programme Partnership Arrangements (PPAs) that had provided £669 million to 41 organisations in the period from 2011 until 2016. This marked an important shift in DFID’s CSO funding model, from the provision of unrestricted funding to a limited number of trusted CSO partners, towards a more open, competitive, and outcome-focused approach.
13. DFID’s Objectives in Funding CSOs
What specific goals does DFID aim to achieve through its funding of Civil Society Organizations?
At the start of our review period (May 2015), five objectives underpinned DFID’s work with civil society:
13.1. Providing Goods and Services
Provide goods and services to the poor, particularly the hard to reach.
13.2. Promoting Accountability
Help people in developing countries to hold governments and others to account and influence decisions that affect poor people’s lives.
13.3. Supporting Self-Reliance
Support poor people to do things for themselves.
13.4. Building Support
Build support for development by encouraging UK citizens to engage.
13.5. Capacity and Space
Build and maintain the capacity and space for an active civil society.
14. UK Aid Match: Public Engagement
How does the UK Aid Match program engage the public and influence attitudes towards aid?
The UK Aid Match program engages the public by matching donations made by members of the public to appeals issued by UK CSOs. Matched funding incentivizes giving and keeps the UK public engaged for longer. However, DFID has not yet systematically assessed the wider effects of matched funding.
15. Encouraging “Leave No One Behind” Commitment
How does DFID encourage Civil Society Organizations to prioritize the “leave no one behind” commitment in their projects?
DFID and the fund manager for UK Aid Direct and UK Aid Match have been clearer about their expectation that CSO partners contribute to the ‘leave no one behind’ commitment, and have used a range of communication channels to convey this message. Both instruments have also actively promoted the new ‘equity’ part of its value for money guidance.
16. Diversifying Partnerships with UK CSOs
How does DFID work to diversify its partnerships with UK-based Civil Society Organizations?
DFID’s efforts to do so are most obvious in the centrally managed instruments, which have worked to include a larger number of smaller UK CSOs from more locations across the UK. To achieve this, DFID has conducted roadshows across the UK to attract new applicants.
17. Localisation of Development and Humanitarian Efforts
How does DFID balance support for UK-based Civil Society Organizations with the goal of localizing development and humanitarian efforts?
The CSPR’s emphasis on the role of UK CSOs does not align well with the localisation agenda. It is also at odds with the CSPR’s observation that “CSOs emphasized the need for organisations based in developing countries to have a more prominent leadership role”.
18. Maximizing Value for Money
How does DFID’s approach to value for money influence the types of programs supported by Civil Society Organizations?
Through all the central funding instruments in our sample, DFID’s focus on value for money led to the expectation that its partners would use evidence-based approaches, provide upfront assurances about the effectiveness of their proposed programmes, and work within predefined result frameworks.
19. Promoting Transparency and Accountability
What measures has DFID taken to promote transparency and accountability in Civil Society Organizations receiving funding?
The CSPR brought in three changes in DFID’s funding architecture:
19.1. Project-Based Funding
DFID terminated its centrally managed unrestricted funding instrument. All centrally managed funding is now project-based.
19.2. Consolidation of Funding Streams
DFID consolidated its “many separate funding streams for CSOs” that had “sometimes led to confusion and duplication.”
19.3. Cost Transparency
DFID will revise its approach to reimbursing overhead costs allowing CSOs to include an organization-specific percentage in project budgets that accurately covers the indirect costs of project delivery.
20. Urgent Response to Safeguarding Scandals
How did DFID respond to the safeguarding scandals involving Civil Society Organizations, and what measures were implemented?
The issues of sexual exploitation, abuse, and harassment did not feature prominently in DFID guidance until the 2018 scandals at Oxfam and Save the Children prompted the department to take on a leadership role on the issue. The urgent nature of DFID’s initial action was appropriate but came at the cost of delaying other DFID work.
21. Project-Based Funding and Adaptability
How does DFID’s project-based funding model affect the adaptability and strategic thinking of Civil Society Organizations?
With the termination of DFID’s central unrestricted funding instrument, almost all funding received by DFID’s CSO partners is for the implementation of projects, with funding tightly conditioned by results frameworks. This potentially improves the transparency of DFID-funded spending.
22. Conclusions on Relevance
Based on the analysis, what is the overall assessment of the relevance of DFID’s approach to partnerships with Civil Society Organizations?
DFID has a clear and consistent view on the role and potential value of CSOs in the humanitarian and development sectors. Project-based funding combined with the stringent new requirements of DFID’s funding mechanisms have had positive effects on the accountability and transparency of its CSO partners.
23. Delivering Positive Results
To what extent are DFID-funded Civil Society Organizations delivering positive results?
We assessed the results of 28 DFID-funded grants and contracts, and took brief looks at many others, and found that almost all projects are delivering positive results. The largest grant of £223 million over five years to BRAC, a very large CSO headquartered in Bangladesh, also had some of the best results.
24. Commitment to Long-Term Engagement
How do Civil Society Organizations sustain their impact despite the limitations of short project cycles?
In isolation, most projects in our sample are unlikely to achieve durable change, as the project duration is generally too short to truly change systems and behavior. CSOs are implementing their DFID-funded development projects as part of wider efforts that collectively do seem capable of contributing to durable change.
25. Grant Making and Contract Award Processes
How efficient and timely are DFID’s grant-making and contract award processes?
Whether arranged directly or via funding intermediaries, nearly all grants and contracts that were concluded in our review period were delayed compared to the original timelines. This was the case for centrally managed funding agreements as well as funding agreements managed by country offices.
26. Weak Management of Discontinuity
How has DFID’s weak management of discontinuity and poor process management affected its partnerships with Civil Society Organizations?
There has been a lot of discontinuity in our review period, DFID has had three secretaries of state since May 2015. Delays were not limited to funding decisions. Evaluation contracts were generally delayed, as was the transfer of UK Aid Match to a fund manager. There appear to be two main reasons for these persistent delays: DFID’s weak management of discontinuity and change, and poor process design and management within DFID and most of its intermediaries.
27. Communication and Time Pressure
How do communication practices and time pressure affect Civil Society Organizations applying for DFID funding?
DFID’s weak process management was often exacerbated by poor communications with CSOs around its funding processes. Timelines for funding rounds were not always communicated, and when they were they often turned out to be incorrect.
28. Overall Effectiveness
Based on the findings, what is the overall assessment of the effectiveness of DFID’s partnerships with Civil Society Organizations?
DFID and most of its funding intermediaries have been supportive during the implementation phase of CSO projects, and almost all CSO projects in our sample have been delivering results that improved and sometimes saved lives. DFID’s weak management of discontinuity and the poor process management of both DFID and most of its funding intermediaries have hampered the delivery of results.
29. Gaps in Knowledge and Design
How effectively has DFID addressed gaps in knowledge needed to design its funding instruments?
DFID has not been proactively filling the knowledge gaps in the design of its CSO partnerships and funding instruments, even though these gaps were acknowledged before the beginning of our review period.
30. Support for Learning Events
How does DFID support quality learning events and processes within its Civil Society Organization partnerships?
DFID supports quality learning events and processes, but practical impact on the quality of programming is difficult to find. The CSOs we interviewed generally valued the learning efforts of DFID and its intermediaries.
31. Promoting Innovation
What innovative funding mechanisms does DFID employ, and how successful are they?
Most DFID funding in the review period used established project-based funding modalities, but DFID also used a few innovative funding mechanisms. For example in Bangladesh, Start Bangladesh and the BRAC-DFID-DFAT ‘Knowledge Partnership’ are new mechanisms that are potentially transformational.
32. Recognize and Promote Successes
How effectively does DFID recognize and promote the successes of its partnerships with Civil Society Organizations?
DFID funds innovation but during the review period it did not have processes in place for recognizing and promoting successes.
33. Main Conclusions on Learning and Innovation
What are the main conclusions regarding DFID’s approach to learning and innovation in its partnerships with Civil Society Organizations?
We find that DFID has not been proactively filling the knowledge gaps in the design of its CSO partnerships and funding instruments, even though these gaps were acknowledged before the beginning of our review period.
34. Overall Conclusions
What are the main conclusions and recommendations arising from the review of DFID’s partnerships with Civil Society Organizations?
We have awarded DFID an amber-red score for its partnerships with civil society organisations (CSOs).
DFID has a clear and consistent view on the role and potential value of CSOs in the humanitarian and development sectors.
DFID should fill gaps in the knowledge needed to optimize the design of its central funding instruments.
35. What Are DFID’s Key Metrics for CSO Success?
How can DFID and CSOs quantify their impact through Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)?
Here is a table that showcases potential metrics for DFID and CSOs to assess success in collaborative projects, these metrics can be integrated into project designs and reports to ensure accountability and effectiveness:
| KPI Category | Specific KPI | Target/Benchmark | Data Collection Method |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reach & Inclusion | Number of beneficiaries reached directly by programs | Increase reach by X% per year, with Y% from marginalized groups | Program records, beneficiary surveys |
| Percentage of beneficiaries from marginalized communities | Achieve Z% representation from target marginalized groups | Demographic data collection, community assessments | |
| Capacity Building | Number of CSO staff trained in specific skills | Train X number of staff annually, achieving Y hours each | Training attendance records, pre- and post-training tests |
| Improvement in CSO organizational capacity index | Increase average capacity score by Z points annually | Organizational self-assessments, external evaluations | |
| Service Delivery | Quality score of services provided (e.g., education, health) | Maintain average service quality score of X or higher | Beneficiary feedback surveys, expert reviews |
| Percentage of service delivery targets achieved | Achieve at least Y% of planned service delivery outputs | Program activity logs, output verification | |
| Policy Influence | Number of policy changes influenced by CSO advocacy | Influence or contribute to X policy changes per year | Policy document analysis, stakeholder interviews |
| Level of government responsiveness to CSO recommendations | Increase government adoption of CSO recommendations by Y% | Government reports, CSO advocacy records | |
| Innovation Uptake | Number of innovative solutions tested and scaled | Scale up at least X innovative solutions per project cycle | Pilot study results, replication records |
| Reduction in traditional problem metrics through innovation | Achieve Y% reduction in target issue (e.g., poverty, disease) | Comparative pre- and post-implementation data | |
| Financial Health | Percentage of project funds used effectively and efficiently | Utilize at least X% of funds for direct program costs | Financial audits, expenditure reports |
| Diversification of CSO funding sources | Increase funding from non-DFID sources by Y% | Financial records, funding source analysis | |
| Sustainability | Percentage of programs sustained post-DFID funding | Sustain X% of programs for at least Y years post-funding | Follow-up surveys, program continuity reports |
| Local community or government ownership of programs | Achieve Z% local ownership through involvement and funding | Stakeholder interviews, ownership agreements |
These KPIs provide a comprehensive view of project effectiveness, helping DFID and its CSO partners to measure, manage, and improve their collaborative outcomes.
Need help comparing different aid project approaches? Visit COMPARE.EDU.VN for detailed reviews and comparisons to help guide your decisions.
Address: 333 Comparison Plaza, Choice City, CA 90210, United States
Whatsapp: +1 (626) 555-9090
Website: compare.edu.vn
