1. Community Driven Development Key Design Issues & Considerations
Sean Bradley
Lead Social Development Specialist
March 2018

2. Overview Institutional Issues Basic Implementation Models Targeting
CDD Core Design Principles
Institutional Issues
Basic Implementation Models
Targeting
Funding
Public vs. Private investments
Other Considerations
Community/ Group Focus
Participatory Planning
Community Control of Resources
Community involvement in implementation
Participatory Monitoring

3. Institutional Issues 3 broad responsibilities: 3 levels:
Oversight/general mgmt, facilitation & tech support, sub-project implementation
3 levels:
national, local, community
3 basic models:
Gov/NGO partnership, sector-led approach, LGU- led approach
National
Oversight
Overall management
Local
Facilitation
Technical/fiduciary support
Community
Sub-project implementation

4. 3 Basic Implementation Models
Government/NGO Partnership
Sector-led Approach
LGU-led Approach
Communities/
CBOs
Communities/
CBOs
Communities/
CBOs
LGU& Line Dpts.
LGU
Line Dpts. or NGOs
NGO or Pvt Firm
Decentralized Line Department
Local Government Unit
Central Agency (Line or Staff)
Central Line Agency (Ag., RD, etc.)
Central Staff Agency (LG, Pres. Off., etc.)
Financing Source
Financing Source
Financing Source

5. Comparing Basic Models
Pros
Cons
1. Gov/NGO Partnership
Fast-- contracting in capacity
Useful in FCS/low capacity context
Participatory orientation
Streamlined fiduciary procedures
Unsustainable long-term
Can be more costly
Undermines efforts to build Gov. capacity
Sub-project bias
O&M
2. Sector-led Approach
Stronger field presence
Technical support generally available
Can also be fast
Co-financing possibilities
Single-sector bias
Supply driven
Competition/jealousies with other sectors
3. LGU-led Approach
Supports decentralization
More sustainable and scalable
Sector-neutral
Potential co-financing
Weaker institutional and technical capacity
Slower start-up
Crowding out sector $
Gvnt fiduciary arrangements

6. Targeting National and local Poverty focused
Proxy measures in the absence of poverty data
Ear-marking (to cover marginalized groups)
Political considerations

7. Targeting– 3 cases
CDD Ops.
Myanmar
Philippines
Vietnam

8. Funding Width vs. breadth (coverage vs. cycles)
Per capita and poverty adjusted
Average size of grant and relation to basic needs/investments
Competition or entitlement
Community counterpart
Government rules/regs on transferring $ to non-state groups

9. Delivering agency/LGU
Basic Fund Flows
National level
Local level
Com. level
Executing agency
Financing Agency/MOF
Delivering agency/LGU
Community
$ Flow Options

10. Public vs. Private Investments
Perspective
Basic needs vs. market opportunities
Communities vs. producer groups/individuals
Marginalized vs. productive poor
Cost effectiveness vs. rates of return
Unit costs much higher (per hh)
Subproject cycle
Bottom-up planning vs. market oriented analysis
Community implementation vs. individual business planning
Approval per sector policy vs. competitive window
Counterpart in kind vs. counterpart in cash
Institutional capacities
Focus on needs vs. focus on opportunities
Social mobilization vs. market linkages and business brokering
Cost-effectiveness or reasonable cost vs. financial viability
Health, education and social protection specialists vs. business administration, ag economists, marketing

11. Other Considerations Institutional: Implementation:
Decentralization context: laws, capacities, devolved services, sub-national transfers, links to LDP process
Implementation:
Menu: open or restricted?
Technical and implementation support: who and how?
Fund flows and control: Community or lowest gov. unit?
Fiduciary regulations and implications on fund transfers and use: National systems or PIM?
Sub-projects: force account or contracted out?

12. Thank you!