This study finds that the record of Community-Driven Development / Reconstruction (CDD/R) in conflict-affected contexts is mixed and, overall, disappointing in terms of reaching the ambitious goals set out. The study draws on: a review of five rigorous evaluations of CDD/R programmes in Afghanistan, DRC, Indonesia (Aceh), Liberia, and Sierra Leone; a broader literature review; and fifteen interviews with individuals with expertise on CDD/R in conflict-affected states.
CDD/R programmes – that empower local communities to directly participate in development activities and to control resources to do so – aim to improve socio-economic wellbeing, governance, and social cohesion at a local level. While CDD/R is context-driven, it is generally implemented as a standard model.
As currently designed, implemented, and evaluated, CDD/R is better at generating the more tangible economic outcomes than it is at generating social changes related to governance and social cohesion, although even the economic effects are found in just a few studies. Moreover, CDD/R programming is better at producing outcomes directly associated with the project rather than broader changes in routine life.
CDD/R has been plagued by a panacea-type approach to goals and a generalised theory of change that is, as interviewees characterised it, “lofty”, “unrealistic”, “inherently flawed” and even “ridiculous”.
Issues related to programme design merit rethinking. These include:
- the relatively short timeline of CDD/R projects
- the small size of block grants
- the limited reach of the projects
- the menu restrictions on CDD/R programming
- the limitations of social infrastructure
- the quality and intensity of social facilitation
- how communities are conceptualised and thus often not meaningful to participants
- how community institutions build on existing institutions and relate to the state.
The review also highlights methodological questions about evaluating CDD/R: the best measures and instruments to use, timing, and levels of analysis. It also raises the question of if and how evaluations impact projects and outcomes.
Open and honest conversation about CDD/R, and more realistic goals, must guide the way forward. Stronger monitoring is essential, and in evaluations more questions can and should be asked. Areas for future research on CDD/R consist of:
- comparing CDD/R to other programming rather than a counterfactual of no programme
- parsing the social and economic aspects of programme inputs and consequent outcomes
- introducing variation within treatment communities to learn more about programme design and contextual features
- asking how and why questions about the CDD/R process, and the outcomes it generates.
