Oct 19, 2022, USAID’s Deputy Administrator, Paloma Adams-Allen, launched USAID’s first-ever Local Capacity Strengthening (LCS) Policy. In her address, Amb. Adams-Allen referred to the policy as ‘forcing a mind-shift within the agency.’ The push for locally driven development has long dominated international development conversations and research. The interrogation on sustained development has evolved, leading to debates, recommendations, and policy stances by different donors, implementing agencies, and communities. Local capacity has always been a critical factor in sustainable development impact.
If you are bored with the development speak about locally-led development, you-are-not-alone. This time, with USAID’s new LCS policy, the resonating question is, ‘what is different? ‘Is this another verbiage recycling and effort to push the needle forward on a ‘good intention,’ and doing development ‘the right way?”
What’s different this time?
It certainly feels different this time with USAID’s current leadership and funding behind this localization strategy wave. Hence, there is optimism, and the current generative discourse now centers on ‘the proof of the pudding is in the eating.”
Past USAID administrators, at varying levels, pushed for the adoption of policies that prioritized local participation and capacity building in global development efforts. Under Amb. Powers leadership, the difference, for the first time, is that USAID has articulated and developed guiding principles for its localization approach.
Timing is the second significant difference. There are windows for introducing policies that ordinarily may face some resistance in public policy. This is referred to as a ‘policy window.’ For example, COVID-19 led to an abrupt halt to the implementation of development projects worldwide. And ‘foreign consultants’ had to leave project locations to return and be isolated in their home countries. When in-country restrictions loosened but travel restrictions remained, we witnessed a shift in work culture across sectors. In the development sector, local partners took charge of implementation, and implementing partners and donors relied on local leadership for project delivery. This opened a policy change window and fast-tracked the idea uptake.
Shortly before the Covid-19 pandemic, I proposed ‘testing’ the use of virtual platforms for private-public dialogue to UKAid through the ENABLE II, Nigeria project. There was some skepticism, as expected, but I received support for a pilot. The virtual dialogue platform on Facebook called Enabling Reforms Online – a Facebook group, was created. And the forum demonstrated that stakeholders would leverage ease and access, of social media, to dialogue. Unfortunately, funding ceased, and the implementation of this idea was discontinued. Less than two years later, the pandemic hit. And we all know how it changed forms of policy dialogues using technology. The crisis caused by the pandemic is the policy window for LCS and its implementation. Kingdon (1984) suggests that ‘policy change comes about when three streams—problems, politics, and policies—connect,’ emphasizing the significance of the timing of policy actions.
The pandemic created space and opportunity for local actors to drive projects. This opportunity, by allowing entrepreneurial flexibility to iterate tactics, and relax the rigidity of project documents, local actor confidence increased.
The LCS offering
The LCS puts local actors at the front of USAID’s development strategy. With local actors as the critical stakeholder, USAID, acknowledges the importance of effectiveness and equity in collaboratively working with local stakeholders.
To strengthen local communities, the LCS policy hinges on the entrepreneurial flexibilities of Agency staff; and this policy encourages adaptability. There are seven mutually reinforcing principles, and the policy outlines structural plans and internal agency policy changes made to institutionalize the strategy. Among these are calls for more flexible funding, accountability mechanisms for local actors, and changes to USAID’s Program Cycle.
| LCS principles | Keywords | |
| Principles For Effective Programming of Local Capacity Strengthening | Principle 1: Start with the local system. | Understanding local political economy and system – the interplay of roles, relationships, rules, and resources on results |
| Principle 2: Strengthen diverse capacities through diverse approaches. | Adaptive capacity strengthening method – fit for purpose and ‘co-created’ with local actors. Direct and indirect awards to local partners. | |
| Principle 3: Plan for and measure performance improvement in collaboration with local partners. | Responsive performance management, capacity planning, and risk mitigation tools. | |
| Principles For Equitable Partnerships in Local Capacity Strengthening
|
Principle 4: Align capacity strengthening with local priorities. | A shift from ‘partnering for’ to ‘partnering with. Aligning local capacity strengthening activities to local priorities. |
| Principle 5: Appreciate and build on existing capacities. | Promoting a strengths-based approach, conscious of power dynamics to ‘appreciate the existing capacities of local actors and the strengths of local systems, including Indigenous and local knowledge, practices, and beliefs.’ | |
| Principle 6: Be mindful of and mitigate the unintended consequences of our support for local capacity strengthening. | USAID must assess the potential for harm by applying conflict-sensitive, political economy, and “do no harm” approaches. These approaches can help identify underlying dynamics. | |
| Principle 7: Practice mutuality with local partners. | Mutual accountability fosters trust, and balances power. Thereby, enhanced project monitoring, learning, and adaptation. | |
Adapted from USAID’s LCS policy document.
What next?
The policy concludes by acknowledging that without strict adherence to these principles, LCS efforts may be unsustainable. Internally, the Agency still has to undertake significant policy and procedure alignment work. In translating this policy into actual reforms as intended, the administration needs to push through to ensure that processes are streamlined systematically within the Agency.
For local actors, this is the time to get organized and involved. Despite cautious views on the policy and its practicality, the fact is, the future of development work will evolve differently. The dialogue within organizations and among actors should be, ‘how is it changing, and how will it affect us?’ My recommendation is for local development organizations to carry out an internal audit and implement the audit recommendations. Despite the LCS policy acknowledging flexibility, the opportunity to work with USAID directly as a grantee or indirectly as a partner or subgrantee of an IP will only happen when specific accountability and capacity metrics are met,