Annex: Good Practices—Select Comments and Examples3

1. Listening Tour

We have found that careful selection of “community-level local actors” is critical to avoid bias and to access diverse perspectives. Finding/constructing a safe, effective, and locally credible opportunity for the most vulnerable of these actors to raise their perspectives, concerns, and priorities is particularly challenging.

Our team in Kenya was able to conduct a well-focused listening tour aimed at key target groups. This was possible because the program focused on a single county with a target of Masai people typically under-served by the health system. Insights gained from talking to Masai community members were then reflected in the design of activities as well as the requirements that the project included in an RFA. In Mali, there was no opportunity for a true listening tour as part of our co-design activities. When we subsequently conducted KIIs and small group discussions, what emerged was largely a list of things local stakeholders wanted from the project that were outside of the scope of what the project was contractually able to provide. Contrasting these two experiences, our lessons learned are: conduct listening tours as early as possible and with a clear target group; if engaging later in the process, pose focused questions relevant for the established scope of the project; and be mindful of raising expectations to avoid creating frustration.

3. Co-design with Local Communities

We have seen significant confusion in cases where clear guidance was not provided regarding the implications of co-design for eligibility to compete for and receive resulting awards. Used properly, however, we have found that co-design is an opportunity to “de-center” USAID/donor/IP perspectives, especially when those codesign efforts are designed, led, and implemented by local stakeholders and FSNs.

The most meaningful consultations we have been involved in begin with co-defining the problem to be solved, not just stating the problem and co-designing solutions. In those cases, USAID needed to be prepared to cede the prioritization of problems to local decision makers.

Our experience is that co-design sometimes gives the false impression to communities that they have more power than they actually have over how programs are designed. Where co-design is used, relevant earmarks and other parameters should be carefully explained, any needed USAID approvals should be made explicit, and relevant restrictions (regarding construction and procuring certain commodities, for example) should be explained.

We have found that projects that allow for more local input, voice, and ownership don’t always align to USAID’s standard indicators. For example, on a health program we helped implement, the Mission disagreed with the local definition of the problem and some of the proposed solutions and suggested that the project encourage co-creation of solutions more closely aligned to standard indicators. With encouragement from USAID/Washington, the decision was ultimately made to proceed with the locally led solutions and those solutions remained in use after the project ended.

3 These comments are drawn from contributions submitted by CIDC member companies in response to a three-day-turnaround data call by CIDC. The authors have anonymized the submissions (“we”) and edited for length and consistency. Comments address some, but not all, of the “good practices” noted in USAID’s draft list.

4. Consultation and Joint Finalization with Government Partners of Activity Results Through the Design Phase

As implementing partners, we often begin a new project only to find that key government counterparts have never heard of or have misunderstood the nature of the project. To establish a common understanding, it helps enormously when USAID organizes an effective launch process with government officials. As a minimum, USAID should provide information to IPs about who in government was engaged in the project design and facilitate contact between IPs and those individuals as soon as possible after implementation begins.

We know of several cases in which USAID prioritized local measurement and ownership of results by using and reinforcing national information systems to measure change rather than project-based information systems that end with the end of a project. This approach provided less control to USAID but contributed to greater local ownership and sustainability.

We have found that incorporating qualitative, in addition to quantitative, results measures helps to incorporate more local voice and nuance.

5. Local Leadership Councils/Advisory Boards

We have found the Tips document on political economy analysis (PEA) and the concepts of thinking and working politically (TWP) to be very useful in guiding our identification of, and engagement with, local leaders and leadership structures.

CIDC members cited various cases where advisory boards provided a strong local voice and valuable input. They noted several instances in which such boards aided communications, facilitated approvals, and bolstered relationships with the government and other stakeholders critical for implementing and sustaining project activities. They observed, however, that these mechanisms sometimes introduce confusion about accountability, and that these boards are often most effective when USAID cedes some control regarding the identification of board members and participants.

Members also reported working successfully with a variety of other local consultative structures such as local clinic management councils and private sector advisory boards to improve program targeting , governance, quality control, and social accountability.

6. Requests for Information (RFIs) Targeted to Local Entities

Several CIDC members noted cases where it was cost-prohibitive for many local partners to participate in RFIs or consultation processes without the assurance of funding.

CIDC members cited and praised cases where local actors had numerous opportunities to hear about an RFI through multi-message, multi-channel delivery mechanisms and sessions hosted by USAID or IPs for local organizations on how to respond to RFIs.

Expressions of Interest were mentioned by several CIDC members as a relatively simple way for local organizations to share their perspectives and signal their potential interest in engaging in specific activities.

7. Unsolicited Proposals or Applications from Local Entities

We have seen numerous cases in which unsolicited proposals generated by local organizations and presented directly to USAID resulted in little return for USAID or the organizations submitting. If this mechanism is promoted, our experience suggests that it will be important to provide clear guidance to those interested in submitting, a transparent account of how unsolicited proposals are handled, and statistics related to awards.

8. Co-creation of an Award with Local Entities

Co-creation is often more time consuming than anticipated. It is also difficult to execute in a competitive environment where competing local actors may be reluctant to share detailed information.

We frequently use APS mechanisms within active projects to solicit ideas and establish a co-creation/design exercise for local subcontracts/subgrants. This is often an iterative process to help local organizations think through their business/development strategies and position themselves to receive funding.

9. Limiting Competition or Eligibility to Local Entities

We have found that many local partners who understand the requirements associated with being USAID prime recipients prefer to engage as a sub so they can focus on technical work. CIDC members cite several examples where major local organizations initially wished to move from subgrantee or subcontractor to become prime recipients but had difficulty with the additional requirements and ultimately decided not to do so.

Our experience suggests that USAID needs to be very explicit about how it is defines “local” in any given solicitation. Even using its ADS definition of “local entity” leaves room for interpretation on issues such as whether an organization is truly independent from a parent or confederation. USAID may wish to consider creating a mechanism whereby prospective bidders can confirm prior to preparing a proposal whether or not they will be considered “local” for purposes of that specific solicitation.

We have been involved in several situations where IPs were effectively engaged to provide technical assistance to local awardees that faced initial implementation challenges on issues related to compliance and MEL.

10. Solicitations in Local Language(s)

We have seen significant benefits in those few cases where applicants were able to submit their applications in local languages. This implies, however, that the merit review committee needs to be fluent in the local language(s) and that the resulting award needs to be translated into local language

11. Industry Days Targeted to Local Entities

Several CIDC members reported positive experience with targeted events for potential partners as well as with “mixed” industry day events that provide opportunities for learning and networking.

14. Transition Award

We have witnessed several situations where, in hindsight, there was inadequate discussion with potential transition award recipients regarding the requirements for being a prime awardee and the support available.

One contractor cited a case where, over a four-year period, it provided direct support to a local organization to strengthen its capacity for direct award and enrich the overall program. In Year 1, a GUC helped to launch a key activity, with 5 percent cost-share; in Year 2, a GUC supported follow-on activity with 15 percent costshare; in Year 3, a GUC included 55 percent cost-share by the local partner. The project also helped the partner to develop an activity concept for which the local organization secured non-USAID funding, which it administered directly.

Another contractor cited two projects that included contract-mandated requirements to prepare local partners for direct USAID transition awards. Despite that preparation, in both cases funding was not ultimately available, and the partners did not receive a direct award.

A third contractor referenced a project that included a requirement for local partners to graduate and become USAID primes. Many key actors in the local market system did not want to become USAID primes and some of those that could potentially become primes were not the well suited for that role.

17. Government-to-Government (G2G) Agreement

CIDC members noted challenges faced in G2G agreements but also cited cases they had been involved in where G2G arrangements had been used effectively and where they had provided technical assistance in assessing government systems for readiness to receive funding, co-creating milestones and monitoring plans, and helping to implement a G2G agreement alongside government counterparts.

19. Award to Local Organization with Overhead Costs

Several CIDC members voiced their support for factoring in realistic overhead costs for local organizations, without which these organizations are unable to grow and to put in place the systems needed to comply with USAID regulations. The 10 percent de minimis allowance is often insufficient, they noted, and they cited cases of support provided to ensure that reasonable allowances for the indirect costs of local partners were included in USAID and non-USAID projects. This support sometimes includes help to local organizations in calculating indirect costs rates and establishing systems to budget and account for the use of these funds.

20. Mid-implementation Co-Design with Local Partners/Sub Awardees

We have observed that global/regional buy-in platforms are much more likely to incorporate co-design/cocreation processes than are conventional bilateral projects.

We have not generally used co-design with local partners due to the relatively short period of performance for most of our activities.

21. Use of Locally Led Monitoring Indicators

We use the CBLD-9 indicator internally to track our performance in augmenting local partner capacity, but we have found that CBLD-10 is sometimes hard to use because commercial entities do not wish to share proprietary financial information. We recommend that USAID be more explicit in its request for CBLD-9 and CBLD-10 indicators in its solicitations and work closely with local partners to encourage more complete and consistent collection and reporting of this data.

24. Pause and Reflect with Local Stakeholders Using the Locally Led Development Spectrum

When we employed a community-led, CLA approach with periodic pause and reflect sessions, community members reported a heightened sense of agency, and project staff appeared to be more committed to generating and sharing evidence on what they had learned.