Community-Driven Development Methods for South Sudanand sustainability of their program, regardless of whether they are using a CDD approach. PROPEL’s CDD Approach: PACE PROPEL adapted

Community-Driven

Development Methods

for South Sudan:

Key Findings and Recommendations

January 31, 2018

Community meeting convened by CETs members

in Kalthok - Awerial.

Community-driven Development Methods for South Sudan: Key Findings and Recommendations 2

Acronyms

CET Community Engagement Team

CDD Community Driven Development

CLA Collaborating, Learning and Adapting

CSO Civil Society Organization (local)

FGD Focus Group Discussion

IDP Internally Displaced Person

IP Implementing Partner

KII Key Informant Interview

NGO Non-Governmental Organization (international)

PACE Participatory Action for Community Enhancement

PROPEL Promoting Resilience through Ongoing Participatory Engagement & Learning

SPLA Sudan People’s Liberation Army

SPLA-IO Sudan People’s Liberation Army in Opposition

WUC Water User Committee

This document was produced by PROPEL-South Sudan, funded by the United States Agency for International

Development (USAID). The document was authored by Joanna Springer and Patrick O’Mahony, with substantial input

from Emmanuel Gumbiri. Findings were informed by evidence collected by the PROPEL Monitoring Evaluation

Research and Learning (MERL) team and discussions with PROPEL field team and technical leads, and civil society

partners: Community Needs Initiative (CNI), Foundation for Youth Initiative (FYI), Humanitarian Development

Consortium (HDC) and Nurture South Sudan.

Disclaimer: The contents of this report are the responsibility of Global Communities and do not necessarily reflect the

views of USAID or the United States Government.

Group discussions during joint CET training in Juba


Contents

Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................................5

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 10

Production of this Document ..................................................................................................................... 12

Challenges to CDD in the South Sudan context ........................................................................................ 12

PROPEL’s CDD approach: PACE............................................................................................................. 15

Phases and steps of PACE implementation .............................................................................................. 18

PROPEL’s CDD Methods and Techniques ................................................................................................ 20

1. Engaging in a fragile context – Fostering trust for inclusive mobilization ........................................... 20

a. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 20

b. Key challenges to inclusive community mobilization and participation .......................................... 21

c. PACE CDD Methods .................................................................................................................... 22

d. Case story: How PACE techniques worked in practice through adaptive learning......................... 23

e. Recommended CDD methods and techniques ............................................................................. 24

2. Mitigating community-based conflict – Fostering shared interests across divides to preclude potential

spoilers ..................................................................................................................................................... 25

a. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 25

b. Key challenges for “do no harm” due to on-going conflict ............................................................. 27


d. Case stories: How PACE techniques worked in practice through adaptive learning ...................... 28


3. Incentives to invest – Trading off between process and projects for tangible gains ........................... 32

a. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 32

b. Key challenges to balancing process and product ........................................................................ 33




4. Downward accountability – Fostering incentives for local leaders based on community feedback .... 37

a. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 37

b. Key challenges to fostering responsive leadership structures ....................................................... 38




5. Wrestling for peace – Transforming traditional activities into peace-building through grassroots

leadership ................................................................................................................................................. 42

a. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 42

b. Key challenges to transforming conflict triggers to opportunities for peace-building ...................... 43


d. Case story: A peace-building activity in application ....................................................................... 44



6. Overcoming barriers to women’s active participation prevents attrition ............................................. 45

a. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 45

b. Key challenges to ensure women’s participation influences decision-making ............................... 45




Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................. 49

Works Cited .................................................................................................................................................. 50

CET update meeting in Jebel


Executive Summary

The USAID Promoting Resilience through Ongoing Participatory Engagement and Learning (PROPEL) program was

designed to foster social cohesion and resilience in targeted communities in Jonglei, Lakes, and Eastern and Central

Equatoria states in South Sudan. PROPEL provided material improvements in the lives of community members and at

the same time strengthened the communities’ capacity to drive their own development by harnessing their own

resources, leveraging other donor-funded programs, and advocating for additional support to implement projects that

addressed priority needs. These complementary results were achieved through a Community-Driven Development

(CDD) approach.

The purpose of this document is to share PROPEL’s findings that inform a unified CDD methodology for USAID

implementing partners in South Sudan (see PROPEL’s CDD Methodology for South Sudan1). This document is

intended to equip humanitarian and development practitioners with relevant techniques to achieve a do-no-harm

approach to implementation in South Sudan, one which varies according to the specific activities and contextual

dynamics. The CDD approach is inclusive, ensuring representation of all community segments; transparent

coordination with local leaders; targeted outreach to women; gender sensitization across the community to promote

women’s voices in decision-making; strategic communication and grievance redress mechanisms throughout project

implementation; and conflict-mitigation structures and capacity-building incorporated into project sustainability. What

sets a CDD program apart from other kinds of infrastructure improvement interventions or democracy-building efforts

is the range of identifiable impacts it has at the individual community level as well as at the regional or country levels.

The methods and techniques presented in this document have been tested in various contexts in South Sudan, and

have proven effective despite localized conflicts, as evidenced by the results of a 1,600-household survey across eight

of PROPEL’s original target communities at the end of the project (see PROPEL’s end-line report2). Findings are drawn

from lessons learned through PROPEL’s Collaborating, Learning and Adapting (CLA) approach, its quantitative

household survey samples at baseline (February-April 2016) and end-line (April-August 2017), and qualitative insight

into communities’ resilience capacities, prevailing social capital and conflict-mitigation strategies. Quantitative findings

revealed statistically significant improvements on indicators of community resilience capacity across rural communities

and IDP settlements, while challenges to CDD fueled by the escalating political tensions in Juba prevented positive

change in urban communities.

The CLA approach is critical to the goal of reducing costs and improving outcomes of interventions in South Sudan

because it results in the documentation of evidence-based methods. The integration of that learning into the design of

future projects, and the ongoing commitment of USAID-South Sudan to collecting, documenting and sharing lessons

learned will prevent costly mistakes in future. This document is organized by issue so that content can be readily

accessed, absorbed and applied by implementing partners who wish to improve the conflict-sensitivity, inclusiveness

and sustainability of their program, regardless of whether they are using a CDD approach.

PROPEL’s CDD Approach: PACE

PROPEL adapted Global Communities’ CDD Participatory Action for Community Enhancement (PACE) methodology

to the South Sudan context. CDD PACE is a dynamic process of building the capacity of local communities to mobilize

resources and address self-determined priority needs through participatory democratic practices. Given the conflict

context in which PACE was originally developed, its participatory approach explicitly promotes dialogue and

strengthens relations among community segments as they work together through Community Enhancement Teams

(CETs) to identify and prioritize development needs. CDD is important in a conflict-affected context because it builds

on existing forms of social capital to address challenges and strengthen leadership to effectively resolve localized

conflict.

1 The CDD Methodology for South Sudan is a PACE manual adapted for South Sudan based on PROPEL’s two years’ of piloting and ref ining the methodology

for the local context.

2 PROPEL’s end-line report discusses findings of a mixed-methods approach to indicators of community resilience and social capital outcomes of CDD in South

Sudan. It addresses a learning agenda designed to guide USAID in the design of future CDD projects in South Sudan. A report brief can be accessed on Global Communities’ website, pending review by the donor.


The phases of PACE implementation are as follows:

1. Recruitment and CDD PACE Training of Community Mobilizers

Recruitment of Community Mobilizers

Community Mobilizer Training of Trainers in the CDD PACE Methodology

2. Community Engagement

Engage community and local government leaders to introduce the program

Community-wide meetings to introduce the program

3. CDD PACE Community Mapping

Household survey, focus group discussions and key informant interviews

Stakeholder and Conflict Analysis

Community Dashboard for sharing assessment data with target communities

4. Formation of PACE Community Enhancement Team (CET – the community decision-making body)

Form inclusive 11-15 member CET

CET signs MOU with program

Community Mobilizers train CET on its overall responsibilities and CDD PACE methodology modules

(training repeated during phase 5)

5. CET CDD planning and Project Cycle Management

CET, with community consensus, identifies and prioritizes CDD projects

CET, with community consensus, selects CDD projects and sustainability mechanisms

CDD project proposal development / approval / implementation launched

CDD Long-term Community Development Planning

Key findings

This document sheds light on techniques for programmatic success:

Effectively including marginalized groups in CDD programming is an effort—beyond merely ticking the

attendance box—towards establishing meaningful input and civic engagement;

The value of pacing project activities to ensure full community inclusion—while balancing community

expectations and donor requirements; and

Prioritizing community engagement strategies that strengthen cohesion and conflict-resolution.

1. Engaging in a fragile context

Research on effective engagement in fragile contexts shows the notion of justice or fairness to be the key factor to be

managed during development interventions. The realities of migration, so prevalent in Juba, force individuals who have

little exposure to other ethnic groups to interact although they may not share common goals or see a shared future 3.

The process of reaching out to marginalized groups and then convening public meetings to address all view points and

the range of expectations can be used to begin building social cohesion in diverse communities.

a. Key challenges

Cultural barriers to women and youth participation in community decision-making processes;

3 Marc, Alexandre et al, Social Dynamics and Fragility, 16.


Hardship, sickness and insecurity present obstacles to mobilization;

Negative experiences with NGOs in the past; and

Risk of elite capture when local interlocutors divert benefits.

b. Recommended methods and techniques

Conduct a strategic review of the CDD project design at start-up. Fragile and conflict-affected contexts

are complex and volatile, with many changes bound to occur between project design and start-up. It is

therefore essential for the Implementing Partner (IP) and donor to thoroughly re-evaluate the CDD project

design, scope, target areas and goals prior to launch.

Establish early situational awareness through community mapping. Develop basic, user-friendly tools

to capture the most important data on targeted communities to equip program leadership with situational

awareness for informed programming (see PROPEL Community Profiles and Baseline Assessment Report).

Use CDD PACE methods to build trust & social capital during community engagement. The IP should

focus from the outset on building intra-community cohesion by providing targeted mentoring to traditionally

marginalized groups (e.g. women, youth, IDPs, ethnic minorities, disabled, etc.) to ensure their

representation and active participation in community-wide gatherings and decision-making.

2. Mitigating community-based conflict

In many conflict affected contexts in South Sudan, societal norms are challenged by a chaotic and changing

environment, and the government is unable or unwilling to provide a regulatory framework to facilitate the productive

exchange of resources. The types of semi-formal, community-based institutions that can be established or

strengthened through CDD PACE can strengthen the opportunities for reaching consensus to avoid and disputes.

a. Key challenges

Conflict at the national level interferes with CDD activities

Conflict at the local level complicates CDD programming


Conduct a Participatory Stakeholder and Conflict Analysis. Conflict-sensitive CDD programming is

grounded in a clear understanding of the root causes and triggers of community conflict and how

interventions can either mitigate or exacerbate tensions. The CDD PACE stakeholder analysis tools should

be employed by trained personnel during the initial community engagement, and regularly updated to inform

subsequent programming. Conducting a participatory conflict risk analysis is also required.

Invest in the selection of trusted community leadership. Start by sharing and soliciting feedback from

key stakeholders and the community on the selection criteria for CET members, before disseminating the

finalized criteria across the community. CET members are then nominated, and an agreed-upon number

elected during a community-wide meeting.

CDD project sustainability mechanisms serve in dispute resolution. CDD projects may give rise to

community tensions both during and post-implementation, despite inclusive processes for selection and

implementation. Sustainability mechanisms such as Water User Committees (in the case of WASH

programming) and Parent-Teacher Associations (in the case of schools) serve an ongoing role in addressing

grievances and resolving disputes.

3. Incentives to invest

There is an inherent tension in CDD work between the urgency of real community needs and allowing the time for

community members to gather and cooperate in new and sometimes challenging ways. This tension is more

pronounced in a conflict-affected context. While the urgency of providing a peace dividend to support a peace

agreement is pressing, the work of bringing groups together can be even more fraught with potential conflict. One

strategy for dealing with this challenge is to select a relatively quick-implementation project that yields immediate and

tangible benefits to a wide swath of the local population.


a. Key challenges

Urgent needs due to shocks and stressors demand immediate attention.

Conflict risks compete with livelihood needs in prioritization.


Plan for and adapt to the tension between CDD process and tangible product. Implement a small-

scale Quick Impact Project (QIP) that sets a good example of the value of collective action. We recommend

building in a fast-track approval mechanism for QIPs (assuming certain basic criteria are met).

The types of Quick Impact Projects matter. PROPEL’s experience shows that small-scale infrastructure

projects (e.g. road rehabilitation, school or health clinic rehabilitation) implemented through cash-for-work

mechanisms are always in very high demand. Visible infrastructure that is seen to benefit large segments

of the community serves to motivate the community and serve as training grounds for potentially more

complex follow-on programming.

4. Downward accountability

Community mapping revealed that in multiple communities, some leaders had frequently monopolized or diverted

resources from NGO activities to benefit themselves or their close network. While preventing elite capture is important

to fostering community participation in CDD activities, fostering ownership and accountability among CET members is

crucial to the sustainability of the CET. The goal is for the community to trust the CET to advocate for them and oversee

the transparent and equitable distribution of resources by other NGOs or government initiatives in future.

a. Key challenges

Coordination with leaders is necessary, yet can tarnish an IP’s reputation for neutrality.


Support maximum transparency in CDD information flow. IPs must provide maximum support to ensure

that CDD-related deliberations and decisions are conducted in transparent, open community forums, and

reach the widest possible audience through ongoing community-wide messaging.

Promote Community-based Monitoring. While the IP will conduct its own project monitoring and due

diligence, the community should be empowered to monitor their CDD programming. Community-based

monitoring also serves to hold community leaders accountable during CDD project implementation.

5. Wrestling for peace

Wrestling is a popular traditional activity that can serve as a vehicle for peaceful gatherings that also poses the risk of

a fresh outbreak of fighting. During community mapping in Awerial and Bor, wrestling was often mentioned as an

important occasion for fostering good relations between communities. However, wrestling is also a common trigger of

conflict where latent tensions exist across intra- or inter-community divides. Utilizing a bottom-up approach to organize

wrestling for peace activities leverages the popularity of wrestling for peace-building. The IP should set aside peace-

building funds within the program budget to quickly fund such opportunities.

a. Key challenges

Traditional wrestling aggravates conflicts and internal divides.

Wrestling is a traditional practice that forms part of communities’ heritage and is also popular.


Establish a peace-building fund mechanism. This fund enables project managers to fast-track small and

timely peace-building grants. Peace-building fund sub-grantees should design interventions with multiple

components—both timely interventions and longer-term awareness raising and capacity building

elements—based on the input received through participatory conflict analysis.

Organize wrestling for peace events. PROPEL’s peace-building fund grantee, Nurture South Sudan,

brought a CDD approach to the activity by using a bottom-up approach. Nurture brought volunteer

“community interlocutors” and an inclusive set of local leaders (official, traditional, and church leaders)


together in order to lay the groundwork for the community to carry on the activity after the completion of the

grant.

6. Overcoming barriers to women’s active participation

At each stage of CDD PACE implementation in South Sudan, women face obstacles to full and active participation in

the CDD process. These obstacles are cultural and social, within households and at the community level.

a. Key challenges

Some ethnic groups regard women speaking in front of men as disrespectful.

Gender-based violence may create risks for women challenging norms.

Women may be excluded from information, education and skills training they need to participate.


Mainstream gender consideration across all aspects of CDD programming. Put women’s inclusion,

participation and voice at the forefront of CDD programming in order to ensure CDD programming is

appropriate and sustainable; every aspect of CDD programming impacts, or is impacted by women in their

communities.

Women’s active participation begins with program recruitment and staffing. Program recruitment and

staffing must reflect the importance of women’s inclusion and participation in all aspects of CDD

programming. Recruit a senior gender manager and ensure women representation on field teams.

Use the following PACE techniques for boosting women participation: Set quotas for women’s

inclusion in community engagement and their representation on CDD decision-making bodies, as well as

attendance at community events. Enable and empower women to attend community events by providing

child care options, convening separate all-female gatherings, and preparing women to nudge traditional

customs and norms. Carry out gender sensitization workshops with both men and women to allow women

the space to challenge traditional norms and customs without fear of backlash.

Design and employ gender-specific M&E and Learning criteria. Specific gender-related M&E and

learning criteria will enable adaptive management that can continue to challenge assumptions and related

approaches concerning women’s inclusion and participation.


Introduction

The USAID Promoting Resilience

through Ongoing Participatory

Engagement and Learning

(PROPEL) program was designed

to foster social cohesion and

resilience in targeted communities

in Jonglei, Lakes, and Eastern and

Central Equatoria states in South

Sudan. PROPEL provided material

improvements in the lives of

community members and at the

same time strengthened the

community’s capacity to drive their

own development by harnessing

their own resources, leveraging

other donor-funded programs, and advocating for additional support to implement projects addressing priority needs.

These complementary results were achieved through a Community-Driven Development (CDD) approach. The

purpose of this document is to share PROPEL’s findings that inform a unified CDD methodology for USAID

implementing partners in South Sudan (see PROPEL’s CDD Methodology for South Sudan).

PROPEL began in September 2015 and ended in January 2018. Implemented by Global Communities and Catholic

Relief Services (CRS), the program’s primary objective was to foster social cohesion and capacity for collective action

across internal community divides. PROPEL assisted selected communities in achieving these results, and generally

worked to improve their capability to address their own development and conflict-related challenges.

From February to April 2016, PROPEL gathered baseline data on existing levels of social cohesion and capacity for

collective action, and carried out community mapping, including an assessment of risks and community assets.

PROPEL prepared community profiles for 16 communities across the former counties of Magwi, Duk, Bor, Awerial and

Juba4. These activities brought to light key features and threats to community resilience, following the nuances of a

situation fraught with local-level grievance and a collective sense of injustice around the management and allocation

of foreign assistance. This exercise further revealed a sense of disillusionment with NGOs’ frequent failure to follow

through on promises.

The resulting community profiles documented anticipated local challenges to effective programming:

Diverse yet densely populated communities demonstrating multilayered, interlocking development needs;

Low levels of community organization;

A military presence; and

Pastoral regions inhabited by conflicting, non-sedentary populations, and general difficulty accessing

remote and insecure locations.

At the same time, the baseline report and community profiles noted sources of resilience, including norms of mutual

support and cooperation within ethnic groups, as well as norms and values supportive of transparent and inclusive

decision-making.

Due to insecurity and changes in the national situation over the life of the project, PROPEL’s overall implementation

was predominantly informed by findings in eight of the original 16 target communities—and only in Awerial, Bor and

Juba counties (see map below of target community locations).

4 County lines were redrawn following the creation of 28 states in November 2015, but boundaries and names were contested during the period of community mapping, leading PROPEL to keep the county names and borders from October 2015 for research and documentation.

Juba End-line

enumerator training

PROPEL’s implementation strategy took these findings into account. The program’s CDD approach empowered

communities to identify and prioritize their own development projects through a transparent and inclusive decision-

making process emphasizing local ownership: Participatory Action for Community Enhancement (PACE). By

helping communities improve their capacity to work together to overcome challenges, PROPEL sought to lessen the

likelihood of new conflicts emerging following environmental, political or economic shocks. Led by representative,

community-selected committees called Community Enhancement Teams (CETs) following intensive community-wide

deliberations to determine and prioritize needs (notably access to basic services such as clean water, functioning

primary schools and roads), each PROPEL community selected projects for implementation5. The PACE process is

explained in full further below in this section.

End-line findings6 from a 1,600-household survey in eight of the original target communities supplemented by baseline-

to-end-line and inter-group comparative qualitative analysis, provided supporting evidence for the importance of

PROPEL’s CDD approach. Findings showed strong demand for a community-led approach, awareness of the

community’s role in driving sustainability, and supporting evidence that CDD is suitable for conflict-sensitive

engagement. Quantitative findings revealed statistically significant improvements on indicators of community resilience

capacity in rural and peri-urban communities and IDP settlements, although PROPEL did not achieve quantifiable

positive change in Juba’s urban communities. Community feedback provided valuable insights on what could be

adapted and improved for future CDD programming in South Sudan. Based on these findings, PROPEL’s PACE

methodology as adapted in-country demonstrates a tested CDD approach for strengthening community resilience.

PROPEL Counties and Clusters (end-line analysis)

County Cluster Agro-

pastoralist Urban

Peri-

urban

IDP-

settlements

Low

level of

services

Strong

NGO

presence

Ethnic

diversity

High

crime

rates

Inter-

ethnic

conflict

Juba Lologo &

Jebel

Awerial Mingkaman

& Kalthok

Awerial Hor &

Aguarkuoth

Bor Kolnyang &

Pariak

5 Implementing agencies have a role to play in educating their donor(s) on the importance of consultation and inclusion at all stages of programming in the

South Sudanese context. Project design can and should be tailored to build in opportunities for ground-truthing and adaptation against shifting conflict dynamics and emerging livelihood risks and opportunities—both post-award and at key stages of implementation.

6 These findings are detailed in the PROPEL end-line report, with key findings shared in this document as they relate to findings from PROPEL’s lessons

learned tracking methodology.

PROPEL communities formed four clusters, reflecting some key features of South Sudan

Agro-pastoralist communities (youth live in cattle camps, making service delivery challenging; conflict between

sub-clans and neighboring tribes is common);

Communities with IDP settlements (tensions between hosts and IDPs pose an obstacle to effective aid

implementation, especially as hosts and IDPs belong to different sub-tribes);

Communities with greater and lesser levels of government- and NGO-provided services such as police protection

and food security programs;

Urban communities with dense, ethnically diverse and frequently changing demographics; a public space

dominated by military presence and government institutions, yet plagued by high rates of crime and corruption.


Challenges to CDD in the South Sudan Context

In 2017, South Sudan was listed as number one on the

Fragile States Index. The ongoing and worsening

humanitarian crisis strained the delivery of basic foods,

medical services, and protection to South Sudanese

civilians. The government lacked the capacity to deliver

basic services, including security. The country was

suffering from economic collapse and disruption of

trade, markets and cultivation activities due to violent

conflict. Plagued by a man-made famine during 2017,

over a third of the population had been displaced, while

in many areas humanitarian access remained restricted

due to insecurity. During the period of PROPEL

programming, political and conflict-related shocks

affected target communities. A timeline is provided

below, starting with the signing of the Agreement on the

Resolution of Conflict in the Republic of South Sudan

(ARCISS) prior to PROPEL startup in September 2015.

In addition to these events, programmatic adjustments

throughout PROPEL’s implementation period reduced

its overall scope. PROPEL launched with the goal of

reaching 54 communities—three cohorts of 18

communities each—over three years. In November

2015, one year into implementation, USAID approved

a target reduction to 36 communities across two

cohorts (thereby extending the intervention period and

increasing the amount of CDD funding available to

each community).

In February 2016, USAID approved PROPEL’s

withdrawal from four communities in Pibor County due

to insecurity. Instead, PROPEL targeted two

communities in Bor. In June 2016, USAID informed

PROPEL of a 50% reduction in project funding, with the

effect of limiting activities to the 16 communities where

implementation was already underway. In October

2016, PROPEL was forced to withdraw from three

communities in Magwi County due to insecurity,

thereby reducing the number of program communities

to 13.

In January 2017, at USAID’s request, PROPEL

completed all remaining CDD programming and

withdrew shortly thereafter from communities in Magwi,

Duk and Awerial. Effective in May 2017, PROPEL

operated in four communities—two each in Juba and

Bor—for the remainder of the project.

Key challenges to a CDD approach in South Sudan

Ongoing and emerging conflict dynamics driven by

1) local struggles over access to resources, and 2)

national political maneuvering;

Tensions and fractures along tribe and sub-clan

lines threaten to stymie collaborative endeavors,

and restrict access to humanitarian services and

new resources;

Marginalization of women and youth manifests in

long-standing allocation of roles and

responsibilities among men and women, male and

female youth;

Trauma and ongoing threats to life and limb

hamper some citizens’ ability to engage in

community activities;

Challenges to mobilization and access to target

locations due to lack of roads and communication

infrastructure, as well as insecurity;

Skyrocketing inflation drives up food and fuel

prices, leading to severe shortages;

South Sudanese look to NGOs to provide reliable

services at the scale they need rather than placing

direct pressure on national or local leaders;

At the same time, there is a general mistrust of

NGOs alongside discontent with the type and

manner of projects provided (compounded by

survey fatigue and failed expectations); and

Corruption among local government, traditional

and military figures is rampant, leading local

leaders to attempt to divert or control new

resources and activities provided by NGOs.

http://fundforpeace.org/fsi/

PROPEL’s CDD approach: PACE

PROPEL adapted Global Communities’ Participatory Action for Community Enhancement (PACE) methodology to the South Sudan context.7 PACE is a dynamic process of building the capacity of local communities to mobilize resources and address self-determined priority needs through participatory democratic practices. In response to the conflict context in which the PACE methodology was originally developed, PACE’s participatory approach explicitly promoted dialogue and strengthened relations within communities as they worked together with Community Enhancement Teams (CETs) to identify and prioritize development needs.

What sets a CDD PACE-type program apart from other kinds of infrastructure improvement interventions or democracy-building efforts is the range of identifiable impacts it has at the individual community level as well as at the region or country levels. The primary impacts of a CDD PACE program include:

• Tangible improvements of local infrastructure and services;

• Strengthening local democracy and leadership;

• Establishment of transparent decision-making processes;

• Creation of a sense of community ownership;

• Increase in self-reliance;

• Broadening local economic opportunity; and

• Introduction of practical mechanisms for cooperation.

7 Please see PROPEL’s adapted PACE manual including four Training of Trainers workshop modules: CDD Methodology for South Sudan; Community

Engagement and Facilitation; Community stakeholder analysis; Community Project Cycle Management; and Community-Driven Development Planning.


The five principles of PACE are as follows:

1. Inclusive participation to ensure women, youth, and other marginalized populations take part in and benefit

from CDD processes and outcomes;

2. Transparency in mitigating conflict, by ensuring community members understand how and why decisions were

reached;

3. Accountability to ensure stakeholders—contactors, sub-grantees, and local authorities—implement project

activities on behalf of, and are answerable to the community that selects them;

4. Ownership that promotes sustainability by ensuring community members take responsibility for the CDD

process and their projects; and

5. Empowerment to ensure community members have the confidence to actively participate in the CDD process

and believe their voices will be heard.

PROPEL’s CDD approach (PACE) combined four modalities: 1) an inclusive mobilization and engagement process that integrated participation from community members and the private sector, traditional leaders, and local government officials (as the political situation allowed); 2) grants that served as incentive and opportunities for engagement—including engagement of women, youth, IDPs, returnees, minorities and other marginalized populations as identified and defined through community engagement, stakeholder analysis and community mapping; 3) capacity-building of community leaders and local NGOs and CSOs to strengthen the knowledge and skills necessary for sustainable CDD; and 4) a Learning Network to share community profiles, case studies and programmatic findings pertaining to CDD in South Sudan and beyond. Taken in full, this approach integrated discussion and analysis, including of conflict dynamics and issues affecting men, women, youth, pastoralists and IDPs into the design, implementation and monitoring of CDD projects.

While PROPEL formed a separate CET rather than working within existing civil society groups, CETs drew from the latter groups, and balanced representation of marginalized groups where necessary. To set an inclusive development agenda and administer new resources accountably, CETs needed to include representatives of all segments of society including various constituencies and existing leadership structures—such as traditional leadership. The process of forming the CET was important for transparency and accountability, as community members provided input in the selection of CET members, and approved their candidacy. The process provided an opportunity for PROPEL to vet the level of trust and transparency of each potential CET member and pro-actively offset risks of corruption that have been known to stymie mobilization and community-wide engagement.

PACE represents a sustainable approach to CDD: consultation around project prioritization and selection is critical to sustainability, especially in a conflict environment. Communities participated in project design by completing a proposal that involved a 10% community voluntary contribution, an environmental assessment, and sustainability planning and training. PROPEL’s CDD approach also involved multiple techniques for risk mitigation. During community entry, community mapping techniques identified strengths, weaknesses, conflict triggers, resources, services and priority needs. Following community entry, PROPEL carried out participatory conflict analysis and internal stakeholder analysis to generate action plans to mitigate conflict-related risks, and worked with different interest groups to prevent spoilers.

CDD is important in a conflict-affected context because it builds on existing forms of social capital to address challenges

and strengthen leadership to effectively resolve localized conflict. CDD enhances a community’s capacity to mitigate

and resolve conflict, primarily through the following processes:

Community-led prioritization of conflict-triggers in project selection (i.e. access to water);

Conflict-sensitive project implementation (i.e. transparent selection of cash-for-work beneficiaries, including

members of different sub-clans in the same cash-for-work projects); and

Conflict-mitigation through sustainability mechanisms (i.e. Water User Committees trained and empowered

on convening meetings and adapting bylaws based on influxes of IDPs that may strain boreholes).


Key takeaways for implementing CDD in conflict settings (see PROPEL’s end-line report)

The primary impacts on CDD programming described by focus group participants are activity

interruptions due to insecurity at or traveling to the location, or out-migration. Conflict impacts

are in direct opposition to the goals of resilience-strengthening, primarily by interrupting

livelihood activities or displacing families from their sources of livelihood.

An implementing agency can attempt to mitigate these effects by supporting local leadership

and CSOs in leading peace-building initiatives, especially through the administration of a parallel

peace-building fund (as PROPEL did successfully in Mingkaman, Awerial). The peace-building

fund can be a responsive mechanism to mitigate and resolve conflicts.

For CDD implementers, the role of women and youth in security and conflict-resolution is also

an important consideration: to the extent youth are implicated in conflict through their dual role

providing security and instigating violence, CDD implementers need to enhance opportunities

for youth to interface productively with their leaders. They also need to ensure youth have a

sustained engagement in community decision-making to address their livelihood aspirations.

For women, the extent to which they have leadership roles in peacemaking (as in Bor, for

instance) is an indication of a community strength that will facilitate CDD. To the extent that

women are involved in conflict (through dowry-related disputes, for instance) yet not given a

voice in settling cases or establishing bylaws, CDD implementers must first consider how this

dynamic can be changed.

Mechanisms to mitigate local-level conflicts must be integrated into design and sustainability

measures for new development resources.

Leadership is critical to both conflict-resolution and community resilience; CDD makes an

important contribution through the function of the CET to strengthen and improve leaders’

capacity and accountability, in part by improving information flow to leaders and addressing

coordination problems between leaders.

When operating in a conflict-prone environment, implementers must consult regularly with field

staff to assess whether and how the CET is either involved in conflict-resolution, or can better

support local leaders to resolve conflict effectively.

Youth confidence in their representatives and direct engagement at each stage of community

decision-making is critical to improving internal conflict dynamics and mitigating new causes of

conflict.

Transparent project selection and design processes as well as inclusive processes for selecting

target beneficiaries are important for mitigating conflict once projects have been implemented

(or benefits provided to targeted individuals).


Phases and steps of PACE implementation

1. Recruitment and PACE Training of Community Mobilizers

Recruitment of community mobilizers

Community mobilizer Training-of-Trainers in PACE methodology

2. Community Engagement

Engage community and local government leaders to introduce the program

Community-wide meetings to introduce the program

3. PACE Community Mapping

Household survey, focus group discussions and key informant interviews

Stakeholder and Conflict Analysis

Community Dashboard for sharing assessment data with target communities

4. Formation of PACE Community Enhancement Team

Open, community selection of inclusive 11-15 member CETs

CET signs MOU with program

Community mobilizers train CET on responsibilities and PACE methodology modules (training

repeated during phase 5)

5. CET Planning and PACE Project Cycle Management

CET, with community consensus, identifies and prioritizes CDD projects

CET, with community consensus, selects CDD projects and sustainability mechanisms

CDD project proposal development / approval / implementation launched

CDD Long-term Community Development Planning

Community Accountability Training in Juba


PROPEL CDD projects

Production of this Document

This CDD methodology document reflects context-rich research findings structured around learning questions aligned

with USAID-South Sudan’s programmatic objectives. Findings are drawn from lessons learned through PROPEL’s

Collaborating, Learning and Adapting (CLA) approach, its quantitative household survey samples at baseline

(February-April 2016) and end-line (April-August 2017), and qualitative insight into communities’ resilience capacities,

existing forms of social capital and conflict-mitigation strategies. It is organized by issue so that content can be readily

accessed, absorbed and applied by implementing partners who do not intend to take a CDD approach, but nevertheless

wish to improve the conflict-sensitivity and inclusiveness of their approach with the goal of sustainability.

This document further sheds light on PROPEL’s techniques for the effective inclusion of marginalized groups (beyond

ticking the attendance box) to provide meaningful input and foster civic engagement; pacing project activities to ensure

inclusion while balancing community expectations and donor requirements; and, beyond the sustainability of

programming itself, the overall benefit of community engagement for strengthened cohesion and conflict resolution.

Preparation for this document began in Year 1 of the program with the design of research tools, as well as processes

for staff reflection and documenting programmatic learning. Some key stages of this preparation are mentioned below,

and can be further explored in more detail (link to brief). The South Sudan CDD Learning Network of USAID

Implementing Partners and CSO partners has been instrumental in preparing this document—notably through network

consultations and a final workshop in August 30, 2017 to discuss and gather input on PROPEL’s methods.

PROPEL’s community mapping informed adaptation of the PACE methodology, after triangulating quantitative and

qualitative baseline data with observational data, and a comprehensive review of secondary data. PROPEL’s 16

community dashboards across five counties—and five cluster community profiles—provided detailed

information on local levels of social cohesion, capacity for collective action, gender and youth dynamics, and any

8 A boma is the smallest administrative district in South Sudan, administered by traditional leaders (executive chiefs and sub -chiefs) who coordinate with

government administrators at the payam level. The payam falls under the county. In Juba, a boma is administered by a Quarter Council.

County Boma8 Project Implementation Period Borehole School

Rehab

Road

Rehab

Community

Center

Rehab

WASH

Awerial

Aguarkuoth Nov 2016 – March 2017 1 1

Hor March 2017 – April 2017 2

Mingkaman November 2016 – April 2017 1 1

Kalthok November 2016 – May 2017 2

Magwi Abara July 2016 – October 2016 2

Juba Jebel June 2016 – November 2017 6 1

Lologo October 2016 – November 2017 2 3 1

Duk

Patuenoi December 2016 – March 2017 1

Poktap November 2016 – February 2017 1

Dorok January 2016 – April 2017 1

Ayueldit January 2016 – April 2017 1

Bor Kolnyang December 2016 – September 2017 2 2

Pariak December 2016 – August 2017 1 1 1

https://www.globalcommunities.org/node/38269


conflict situations. Profiles foreground input and recommendations provided by community members during focus

groups and interviews.

PROPEL prepared a detailed baseline report on challenges and opportunities for building recovery with resilience

in South Sudanese communities.

PROPEL’s research arm included an end-line report on community resilience and social capital outcomes.

This started with a literature review of CDD outcomes, risks and opportunities in conflict settings. PROPEL’s

household survey across eight communities—using a stratified random sample of 1,644 households, as well as 37

focus group discussions and 40 key informant interviews—analyzed effects of its own CDD application on program

implementation in urban (Juba), settled (Bor), and agro-pastoralist and IDP (Awerial) contexts.

Results showed significant improvement in the settled, agro-pastoralist and IDP communities, i.e. statistically

significant increases on five indicators of resilience capacity. However, PROPEL did not achieve statistically

significant results in Juba due to multiple factors specific to the urban context (i.e. dense population, ethnic

diversity, multi-layered and interlocking service delivery needs), including an uptick in violent crime as well as land

confiscation.

PROPEL developed a lessons learned tracker to guide data collection regarding challenges, adaptive

programming decisions, and results of adaptive management. The tracker was structured following PROPEL’s six

learning questions and additionally its stages of PACE implementation. PROPEL’s Monitoring, Evaluation,

Research and Learning (MERL) team drew lessons learned from each field team on an ongoing basis (as access

would permit, given security and infrastructure-related challenges) to build an evidence base for this document.

PROPEL held a CDD workshop to review and discuss techniques and strategies learned for conflict-sensitive,

locally-driven community engagement programming in South Sudan. The workshop was attended by 12

participants, including members of HDC, USAID VISTAS, CRS, Nurture South Sudan (NSS), and FYI. Separate

meetings were carried out with World Bank Logoseed to compare approaches and lessons learned.

PROPEL’s CDD Methods and Techniques

1. Engaging in a Fragile Context – Fostering Trust for Inclusive Mobilization

a. Introduction

This section focuses on the importance of mobilization strategies targeted to vulnerable groups, and the importance of

putting in place mechanisms to prevent elite capture early during community engagement. The challenges of

mobilization in South Sudan should not be underestimated, due to the multiple shocks and stressors households cope

with daily, as well as decades of receiving humanitarian assistance with very little opportunity for consultation or

feedback. This section discusses PROPEL’s approach to mobilizing different demographics and facilitating community

meetings for maximum attendance and active participation.

Literature

Research on effective engagement in fragile contexts shows that the notion of justice or fairness is the key factor to be

managed during development interventions. Regardless of how well a project is designed, “groups differ in their

conceptions of fairness,” making the management of perceptions and expectations tantamount to a do no harm

approach9. In fact, a CDD approach is urgently needed due to challenges aid workers face in South Sudan related to

community dis-engagement, and perceptions of aid as biased toward different sides in localized conflicts. Challenges

related to access and the pervasive and complex nature of competing needs and identities make it difficult for aid

workers to prevent aid flows from fueling localized conflict. However, there are significant ramifications for a do no

harm approach of leaving these issues unmitigated. One solution to this problem is to empower a more representative

9 Marc, Alexandre et al, Societal Dynamics and Fragility: Engaging Societies in Responding to Fragile Situations (World Bank, 20 12), 9.


and diverse set of local leaders to administer targeting and distribution, and to create channels and forums for

accountability to both address community perceptions and prevent opportunities for corruption.

The realities of migration, so prevalent in Juba, force individuals who have little exposure to other ethnic groups to

interact although they may not share common goals or see a shared future10. The process of reaching out to

marginalized groups and convening public meetings addressing a range of viewpoints and expectations can begin to

build social cohesion in diverse communities. Although time-consuming in the face of pressing needs, PROPEL data

shows that communities respect NGOs who take this approach. The broader research indicates the consequences of

failing to take this approach may exacerbate rather than mitigate these urgent needs if aid fuels conflict by aggravating

perceptions of bias, or targeting the most vulnerable fails due to capture by powerful groups.

Addressing these challenges head-on in an attempt to build social capital and trust to strengthen social cohesion is

key to program success and must begin with a clear understanding of the community dynamics through

community mapping (stakeholder/conflict) analysis in preparation for engagement and mobilization. Based on

this understanding, implementers must develop action plans and follow through on strategies to avoid

perceptions of bias, and elite capture of decision-making authority or project benefits. Failure to put these plans in

place may result at best in sparse and lack luster

community involvement (perpetuating a culture of

aid dependency), and in the worst case, may reignite

or spark new conflicts because targeting becomes a

matter of contention among community members.

PROPEL’s PACE methodology provided detailed

steps and tools to inculcate CDD principles of

empowering communities to lead inclusive and

participatory development programming in a

transparent and accountable way. The PACE

methodology emphasizes specific activities and

guidelines for ensuring inclusion, transparency and

accountability are embedded throughout

implementation. The methodology incorporates a

representative CET and open forums for community

consultation, ensuring that all groups’ views are

heard and respected through reached consensus, as

well as sharing project details with the entire

community. (Methods for preventing elite capture are

discussed in section 4 below.)

b. Key challenges to inclusive community mobilization and participation

i. Increasing participation of marginalized groups:

At the time of project start-up, women and female youth in some rural communities were expected to cook

and fetch water for community meetings, and not to speak in front of men. In most communities, female

youth did not have an opportunity to provide input on community decisions; however, women were

represented at meetings by a woman leader.

Male youth in some rural communities were not included in decisions, except when needed to provide

defense to the community; however, their demands and needs were looked after in part because of their

vital role to community security.

10 Marc, Alexandre et al, Social Dynamics and Fragility, 16.

Evidence from end-line findings

Key informants across communities, with few exceptions,

urged NGOs to follow a community-led process. A few

examples are as follows:

Female thought leader in Awerial: “We need NGOs to ask

our needs instead of NGOs suggesting for us what they think

will benefit our community.”

Female thought leader in Bor: An “NGO approach where

community needs are identified through community

members will be the most beneficial to my community…”

Female IDP in Juba: NGOs should involve “the community

in needs assessment and in the implementation as PROPEL

did because this encourages the community to participate

actively since it's their choice, voice and service and hence

sustainability of the project.”


Women and female youth had an important role to play in conflict/community defense, as they fetched water

and cooked for the male youth while they were fighting. Further, women and female youth composed songs

that might have triggered or fueled conflict.

Community members had to be assured of some return on their time and effort, should they attend meetings:

insecurity, risk of leaving their children and cattle unattended, sickness, hunger (that makes them weak),

and trying to find food for their families all made it difficult for them to attend meetings without receiving per

diem.

Particularly in Juba, where people were engaged in day-labor, competition with wage-earning activities may

have presented an obstacle, whereas in rural areas people faced logistical constraints such as insecurity

and long distances. Competing agricultural activities were another reason people may not have turned up.

Given these challenges, involving stakeholders in setting the time and agenda for meetings is crucial for

turnout.

Youth who were in cattle camps may not have had the opportunity to provide input on decisions, in contrast

to youth who lived in town centers in Mingkaman and Bor Town.

IDPs were easier to mobilize partly because they did not tend to have alternative livelihood activities, and

were centrally located in settlements. Further, they tended to have a more positive experience with NGOs

delivering on promises.

However, communities also had resilience capacities to build on:

Female youth in Lologo were active in community initiatives alongside male youth. Further, in some rural

communities female youth considered they had a pivotal role in community conflicts because they were

parties to or victims of elopement and early marriage (which can lead to adultery). In Awerial, female youth

demanded a more active role in decision-making since they were the primary victims and pawns in many

conflicts.

In Bor, women were representatives in peacemaking initiatives, and active with the church (in both Awerial

and Bor).

In Juba, Lologo women had been empowered to take matters to the local government regarding

displacement for a military fence—still, women’s groups were weakened and/or disbanded following the

July 2013 outbreak of violence.

ii. Overcoming initial distrust of NGOs and obstacles to participation: Negative experiences with NGOs

collecting data and failing to return with projects, or sharing the results of surveys that could be used with other

NGOs, or starting projects without completing them, make it challenging overall for new NGOs to mobilize people

for community meetings.

iii. Avoiding elite capture and perceptions of bias: NGOs selecting local interlocutors who divert benefits to

extended family networks, or dominate meetings and decision-making

c. PACE CDD Methods

i. Recruitment: Begins with the recruitment of qualified community mobilizers. Followed by a secondary recruitment

from within the community, ensuring the required ethnic and gender balance depending on community make-up.

Consultation with key local stakeholders during the recruitment process such as the RRC, County Commissioners,

etc., in managing expectations and preventing future obstructions during implementation.

ii. Training: Prepare to invest heavily in upfront training and preparation for engagement (see CDD Workshop 1:

CDD Facilitation Skills; CDD Workshop 2: Stakeholder Analysis). Intensive training of community mobilizers in

PACE methodology and modules, and conflict analysis—followed by repeated training.

iii. Community Entry and Mapping: This stage involves a baseline household survey, needs assessment, interviews

and focus groups with representatives of different community segments, as well as a participatory stakeholder

analysis / power analysis / conflict analysis. In the process, CDD implementers approach existing community-


based groups and leaders with experience in their communities to identify existing strengths and learn from these

individuals about lessons learned in the past, in tailoring a communication and outreach strategy.

iv. Community Mobilization: Reaching out to marginalized groups and then convening public meetings for

addressing all viewpoints and range of expectations existing helps build social cohesion in diverse communities.

In PROPEL, prior to mobilization all ethnicities and community-based groups existing in the community were

identified and reached with messaging about upcoming activities and information on meeting times, places and

agendas (and their respective feedback on the meeting times, venues and agendas). Targeted outreach included

invitations, in-person meetings and follow-up communication for all community segments. Open meetings

explaining the selection, roles and responsibilities of CET members built trust and addressed concerns or

perceived injustice or favoritism that could have led to tension and attrition.

v. CET Selection: Careful selection of community members to serve on the CET (particularly those representing

marginalized groups) and lead public consultations based on the analysis of community mapping data built

community trust in the CET and NGO. Empower local leaders (CET members) administered the process, and

created channels and forums for accountability so a wider set of community members could ensure their local

leaders followed through on their mandate (rather than succumbing to pressures from their network or seizing easy

opportunities for corruption). This ensured the CET structure did not disrupt or clash with existing community

structures, and incorporated existing structures into the CET so long as they met the selection criteria. The purpose

of putting in place an additional group when there may have be existing community structures was to form a group

focused on development priorities representing all segments of society, including CSOs and traditional leadership.

CET selection therefore built on and incorporated existing groups in order to generate linkages between leaders

and the community, creating forums and mechanisms for communication and accountability specifically related to

development.

d. Case story in Juba: How PACE techniques worked in practice through adaptive learning

Jebel and Lologo are among PROPEL’s target bomas where

communities are ethnically diverse, with newcomers from

other parts of the country entering nearby neighborhoods and

affecting the local dynamic during PROPEL’s period of

engagement. Partly resulting from the impacts of the 2013

and 2016 conflicts in Juba, and partly due to the ethnic

diversity of the communities, there are fewer community

groups active in these areas than in more rural communities

where PROPEL works. As a result, PROPEL faced

challenges in mobilizing the community due to mistrust of

local leaders, related to a lack of systems for accountability

and transparency. Trust within Juba communities has been

severely damaged through years of conflict, deprivation,

displacement, disease and economic collapse. The absence

of local government services exacerbates the competition

within communities over scarce resources, leading to social

fracturing and mistrust within and between communities and

local government.

During the stage of community mapping, the opportunity to

meet with individual representatives of marginalized groups

for stakeholder mapping, and discussions with focus groups

held with each interest group separately, yielded valuable

information about reasons behind poor turnout and lack of

trust. In response, before forming the CET, PROPEL held

meetings and forums to explain the CET member selection

criteria prior to selection, the roles and responsibilities of CET

members and clarify to everyone that their contributions were

Evidence from end-line findings - Juba

In Juba, representation was a crucial issue

emphasized by respondents when expressing their

thoughts on PROPEL’s approach. For instance,

women in Jebel noted: “The approach was very

good, first with the selection of CET group because

they were selected from all over the community.”

Female youth in Jebel stated, “We are so happy

about their approach because we were part of the

project and we wish that they could bring another

project which may involve us again.”

In contrast, male youth in Lologo complained that

the CET and beneficiaries were not selected “from

all the corners of Lologo.” This likely relates to the

approach PROPEL took of targeting only certain

neighborhoods in Lologo boma and highlights a

weakness in terms of the need for constant outreach

and communication and forums for heeding

community feedback. However, even male youth in

Lologo stated that PROPEL’s approach “is very

good,” and the other groups noted that it is good

because it involves the community, “especially

youth and women.”


voluntary. PROPEL also worked with CET members to ascertain past lessons learned during community mobilization,

and proactively address identified challenges. Further, all distributions and decision-making were done in the presence

of a quorum of community representatives, and information about all PROPEL resources was shared systematically

throughout the community.

The PACE approach brought about a sense of relief and reassurance because the community saw that very practical

measures were being taken to safeguard common interests. As a result, community members’ attendance at meetings

and cooperation with the PROPEL program increased. Marginalized groups expressed that they felt empowered to

participate actively in decision-making and benefits of the project. Increased participation following PROPEL’s

implementation of the guidelines and activities set in the PACE methodology indicates the process of ensuring

inclusion, transparency and accountability helped foster trust between community members. Their willingness to

participate increased, indicating their expectation that their time and opinion would be respected and help to ensure

that all community segments benefited from the project. It is important to note that mechanisms for ensuring community-

wide mobilization must be reinforced over the life of the project, and that CET membership must be reviewed

periodically.

e. Recommended CDD methods and techniques: Fostering trust for inclusive CDD mobilization

in a fragile, conflict-affected context

Recommendation #1: Conduct a strategic review of the CDD project design at start-up

Fragile and conflict-affected contexts are complex and volatile, with many changes bound to occur between project

design and start-up. It is therefore essential for the Implementing Partner (IP) and donor to thoroughly re-evaluate the

CDD project design, scope, target areas and goals prior to launch, through a series of workshops involving key project

and mission and selected IP personnel. A thoughtful review of assumptions underlying project implementation will

enable informed, adaptive program management that is well worth the delay in launching activities.

Recommendation #2: Ensure key features of Collaborating, Learning and Adapting agenda are activated

In tandem with the strategic review, the IP should begin to integrate the CLA approach during start-up. The IP will need

to recruit key personnel with the requisite skills and orientation towards program learning and adaptive management,

and deliver training in CLA. Similarly, project management systems should be designed around the CLA agenda,

including tools and processes to support learning behaviors. The upfront investment in time and resources builds the

needed foundation for effective program learning and adaptive management. Close collaboration, openness and

flexibility among IP, donor and stakeholders, are also necessary to set expectations that allow for ongoing changes to

project work plans and budgets.

Recommendation #3: Establish early situational awareness through community mapping

PROPEL developed basic, user-friendly tools to capture the most important data on targeted communities to equip

program leadership with situational awareness for informed programming. For instance, the Community Dashboard

allowed IPs to capture and share community data with stakeholders. A participatory stakeholder analysis and, if

necessary, conflict analysis also yielded critical input for action planning. Community Mobilizers should be involved in

data collection, community mapping and analysis, and periodic updates to datasets. In the process of training and

execution in these tasks, field teams expand their knowledge and gain a more nuanced understanding of target

communities, equipping them to engage in evidence-based decision-making.

Recommendation #4: Use PACE steps to build trust and social capital during community engagement

The PACE interventions listed above provide the steps required for effective and inclusive community mobilization and

engagement. The result is greater trust between the IP and community, and strengthened social capital essential to

effective CDD programming. The IP should focus from the outset on building intra-community cohesion by providing

targeted mentoring to traditionally marginalized groups (e.g. women, youth, IDPs, ethnic minorities, disabled, etc.) to

ensure their representation and active participation in community-wide gatherings and decision-making.


2. Mitigating community-based conflict – Fostering shared interests across

divides to preclude potential spoilers

a. Introduction

This section focuses on mitigating conflict that may arise due to competition over new resources created through CDD,

particularly in densely populated environments. At three stages of CDD—project selection, establishing sustainability

mechanisms, and local management of projects—conflict awareness needs to be catalyzed by an empowered CET.

The CET has an important role to play in creating space for discussion, fostering consensus and empowering parties

to the conflict to proactively address triggers. The techniques discussed below provide some guidance on taking a do-

no-harm approach in a context where the transfer of resources from humanitarian and development activities risk being

perceived to flow along ethnic lines11. The techniques presented here are geared for any type of international

assistance-related activity, even those unequipped to directly address causes of conflict.

Literature

The importance of putting in place dispute resolution mechanisms features prominently in CDD research, due to the

inherent tensions of collective activities (even beyond conflict-affected contexts). A World Bank survey study of CDD

interventions draws attention to the risk that CDD will attract conflict as individuals compete over opportunities; social

divides can also deepen, as new opportunities emerge for favoritism and nepotism to further entrench mistrust and

resentment12. Conversely, the same research indicates CDD has the potential to help address many of the grievances

11 A deeper analysis of localized conflict dynamics and potential for conflict-resolution is discussed in the PROPEL end-line report. Further, the adapted PACE

Manual provides guidance and activities geared towards intervening in a conflict -prone environment.

12 Wong, Susan, What have been the impacts of World Bank CDD programs? (World Bank 2012), 27.

Juba LCDP Validation & Feedback Meeting


that may exist due to imbalances in the local political economy13. In a conflict-affected context, a CDD approach is

crucial for mitigating perceptions of injustice and biased allocation of resources.

PACE emphasizes the value of transparency and

accountability precisely to provide informal structures

and regulatory mechanisms that are often lacking in a

fragile context. In many conflict affected contexts,

societal norms are challenged by a chaotic and changing

environment, and the government is unable or unwilling

to provide a regulatory framework to facilitate the

productive exchange of resources. The types of semi-

formal, community-based institutions that can be

established or strengthened through CDD, even in the

absence of functional formal institutions for regulating

access to resources, can strengthen opportunities for

reaching consensus to not only avoid but also solve

disputes14. Further, mechanisms like Water User

Committees play a crucial role in achieving consensus

around a set of rules—and additionally communicating

and clarifying those rules15. As a result, we can expect a

shift in societal norms as different groups respond to new

incentives for cooperative participation.

However, the initial stages of community mobilization lay

important groundwork for community capacity and, even

willingness to address disputes that may arise later. In

some cases, communities may not even be aware of

shared interests with other groups, as was the case with

IDPs and the host community in Awerial16. This is

particularly salient in situations of migration, where

groups of individuals are interacting for the first time and

may not share views about "where their community

should be headed17.”

The opportunity to engage in a facilitated negotiation process allows communities to recognize their own capacity to

cooperate for mutual benefit despite unresolved tensions. An important first step is to work with interest groups

separately before bringing them together to avoid spoilers or escalating a delicate situation.18 As individuals begin to

achieve results from collaboration, they are likely to be more willing to tackle complex or embedded issues19. Thus,

engagement over project selection and design can build the basis for more sustained peace-building engagement—

although this most often takes place over a longer duration than a typical development project would last20.

13 Wong, Impacts CDD, 27.

14 Kuehnast, Kathleen, Community-Driven Development in the Context of Conflict-Affected Countries: Challenges and Opportunities (World Bank, 2006), 26.

15 Kuehnast, Community-Driven Development, 25.

16 Marc, Alexandre et al, Societal Dynamics and Fragility: Engaging Societies in Responding to Fragile Situations (World Bank, 20 12), 15-16.

17 Marc, Alexandre et al, Societal Dynamics and Fragility, 16.

18 The PACE Toolkit: Volume 3: Managing PACE (Global Communities, 2016), 30.

19 The PACE Toolkit: Volume 3, 31.


Evidence from end-line findings - Awerial

Awerial improved significantly on perceptions of internal

and external conflict-resolution (8% increase and 15%

increase respectively as a percentage of baseline), as

opposed to Bor (no significant change or small negative

change), and Juba (significantly negative change for

internal conflict-resolution). These changes correspond

to results for each county on the three core resilience

indicators, highlighting the importance of conflict-

resolution for resilience.

Across bomas in Awerial, CETs served to instruct the

community on how to address problems and when to

take them to local authorities. When cases were brought

forward, local leaders improved coordination across

status (between junior and senior leaders) and

community boundaries (between IDP and host leaders).

A traditional leader in Mingkaman stated, “host

community paramount chiefs and IDPs’ chief share

responsibility when there is a verdict to be passed in the

community,” contributing to more peaceful outcomes.

Working with local leaders, CETs were described (in

Mingkaman) as ‘active leaders’ promoting fairness in

decision-making and ensuring the participation of all

community groups including women and IDPs. In Hor, a

traditional leader attributed positive change to the

“collective working relation among community leaders.”


b. Key challenges for “do no harm” due to on-going conflict

i. Conflict at the national level interfering with CDD activities

Mechanisms for internal and external conflict resolution are overburdened due to the extreme levels

of hardship amid a conflict-based economy and history of conflict that undergirds daily reality for South

Sudanese communities.

Conflict at a national level between the SPLA and the SPLA-IO, and various other allied factions,

directly affected Juba communities during the July 2016 conflict, as well as communities in Magwi. In

Magwi, the situation was so bad that PROPEL closed altogether as the majority of the population fled

from the fighting.

In Jebel, a vulnerable informal community was badly hit during the fighting in Juba, but most residents

remained. However, they witnessed an influx of IDP residents who began to access new boreholes

PROPEL had built.

Lologo community was affected by the building of a military fence that enclosed 2,000 households,

400 of them from Lologo 1 (a PROPEL neighborhood) alone. These households are now surrounded

by a wall and must pass out through a guarded gate to access food, drinking water, school or medical

care, and sources of livelihood.

ii. Conflict at the local level complicates PROPEL programming

Meanwhile, localized conflict ignited by the creation of 28 states and redrawing boundaries deeply

disrupted one of PROPEL’s communities in Bor, Kolnyang. Dispute over naming the new boma led to a

dispute between two ethnic clans who previously lived together in one location, leading to an out-migration

of well over 4,000 individuals to nearby bomas.

Further conflicts, frequently with a national dimension due to arms flowing to one side or another from

politicians based in Juba, afflicted several other bomas where PROPEL worked. Aliap communities in

Awerial were particularly frequently embroiled in cattle raids with neighboring Atuot communities, while in

Bor communities reported routinely facing cattle raids as well as child abduction.

Additional conflict dynamics are detailed in the end-line report. The main contours of conflict include cattle

raiding, elopement and other dowry-related disputes, as well as disputes related to murders or revenge

killing. Another common cause of conflict is fighting between cattle camp youth over grazing land or water

points, which breaks out following wrestling matches when one side does not want to concede losses, and

fighting among women and girls at water points where they wait in long queues.

Across PROPEL’s Juba neighborhoods, crime and sexual violence were serious problems.

Finally, in Mingkaman and Kalthok competition over NGO resources and jobs was a source of contention

between host and IDP communities.

c. PACE CDD Methods

“Do no harm” interventions and techniques used prior to programming:

i. Participatory Conflict Analysis: In conflict-prone and affected communities, building on information gleaned

from community mapping and other preparatory activities conducted prior to any CDD programming and

discussed under Issue #1 (esp. the PACE stakeholder analysis), it is essential to conduct a participatory

conflict analysis. Involve local leaders, including local government, traditional and other community leaders in

analyzing root causes and triggers of conflict, and the means of mitigating and managing conflict through jointly

defined strategies. Depending on the situation, this analysis can be carried out with interest groups separately

before bringing them together to discuss particular interventions in order to diffuse tensions and set the stage

for community consensus.

ii. Informed Selection of Decision-Makers: The results of the stakeholder and conflict analyses provide the

information needed for the community to identify whom to empower to represent their collective interests on


the CET, and whom to grant decision-making authority to address conflicts. These were individuals recognized

by the community as trustworthy leaders and decision-makers.

“Do no harm” interventions and techniques used during and post-programming:

iii. Training in Project Cycle Management: Even with careful preparation and planning of CDD programming,

tensions and conflicts arise during CDD program implementation which can negatively impact CDD project

sustainability. In mitigating potential conflict, PROPEL delivered intensive training in project cycle management

to CET members. This training empowered CETs to achieve consensus during project prioritization, selection

and implementation, and to communicate related decisions to the community (and receive community

feedback) in a transparent and accountable way. (See PROPEL CDD Workshop 3, “CDD Participatory

Project Cycle Management”.)

iv. Project Sustainability Planning: CDD is a sustainability-oriented approach: the consultation around project

prioritization and selection is critical to sustainability. Following community entry, the consultation process is

where PACE values and principles are engrained and lay a strong foundation for sustainability; consultations

are therefore equally important to the mechanisms put in place to sustain projects. Communities participate in

project design by completing a proposal with PROPEL guidance that involves 10% community voluntary

contribution, an environmental assessment, and sustainability planning and training.

v. Project Sustainability Management (Formation of Water User Committees): Prior to project

implementation, CETs design the mechanisms required to sustain any given CDD project. Having these

mechanisms in place that manage access to project resources during project implementation serve to mitigate

potential conflict. For example, as the community installs a water borehole, PROPEL works with the CET to

establish a representative and capable Water User Committee that puts in place rules and regulations

regarding borehole access, compiles a list of households that will access the borehole, negotiates and sets a

monthly water user fee to be paid by households, and selects community volunteers to be trained to serve as

hand-pump mechanics. The WUC, borehole custodians and volunteers conduct an awareness program to

ensure all community segments are informed about the by-laws. Having these mechanisms negotiated, widely

disseminated and in place prior to project completion ensures beneficiaries are informed of their roles and

responsibilities, and reduces the risk of disputes over access. Finally, it is important that the WUC be equipped

to identify and address small conflicts before they escalate. Among the tools at their disposal are meetings to

revisit and revise the by-laws to address new population-related pressures and challenges, proactively

informing new arrivals about the rules, and follow-up on collection of water user fees.

d. Case stories: How PACE techniques worked in practice through adaptive learning

Case story 1: Mingkaman

Mingkaman is the location of a well-established IDP settlement where NGOs provide food rations, medical services

and other vitally needed services accessed by both IDPs and members of the host community. PROPEL’s CDD

activities in Mingkaman engaged members of both the host community as well as IDPs generally hailing from the

greater Bor area in Jonglei. PROPEL saw a lot of diverging views during mobilization where IDPs tend to prioritize

income generating CDD projects, while the hosts preferred infrastructure development such as roads and school

rehabilitation projects. Baseline data revealed low levels of social cohesion and frequent conflicts between hosts and

IDPs, as well as suspicion of NGOs’ fairness vis-à-vis the two interest groups.


In response, the PROPEL team carried out the initial

stages of project prioritization separately with hosts

and IDPs before bringing them together. They

directed community members toward CDD solutions

that would be acceptable to hosts and IDPs alike, so

that tension was defused rather than intensified.

Eventually, PROPEL formed a CET with membership

from both host and IDP communities.

Since its formation, the CET worked as a cohesive

unit in championing the development agenda of

Mingkaman boma. This is an indication that conflict-

sensitive community mobilization paved the way for

IDPs and hosts to reach consensus on priorities and

avert conflict triggers. For example, during the CDD

project identification process, and following self-

initiated deliberation, the Mingkaman CET returned to

PROPEL and requested a change to the project

selected due to conflict considerations: if the borehole

was drilled in the school yard, it could cause tensions

with neighboring villages over questions of access. The CET unanimously agreed a second borehole would be drilled

outside the school during the second round of CDD projects. Their decision indicates increased social cohesion and

capacity for collective action.

Case story 2: Jebel

Jebel is a largely informal settlement in dire lack of basic services. Lack of drinking water and household use

contributed to numerous problems, including the spread of infectious diseases and a rise in gender based violence.

PROPEL drilled one borehole and rehabilitated a second during the first-round of CDD projects. Due to the fact that

women are the primary users of boreholes, as well as the main parties to water-related conflicts, PROPEL ensured

that women were well-represented in the WUC. In Jebel, the positions of secretary, treasurer and deputy chairperson

were females, and women held seven out of 14 membership positions.

Late in 2016, new groups of IDPs

settled in the neighboring

communities of Mijiki and Wolyang

(areas outside PROPEL target

locations) and began accessing

water from the two boreholes in

Jebel, leading to a further strain on

resources and raising tensions

among women waiting in queues.

Early in 2017, PROPEL facilitated

local stakeholders to deliberate on

addressing tensions between the

communities. Stakeholders

identified the following challenges:

a) congestion, crowds and long

queues at the boreholes, mostly

women and girls; b) IDP women

visiting the boreholes frequently

because they had fewer containers

for water than the residents; c)

resistance to the payment of


PROPEL found statistically significant increases in two IDP-

settled bomas in Awerial, Mingkaman (11% of the baseline)

and Kalthok (16% of the baseline). The key driver of these

improvements that emerged from the qualitative data—was

improved relations between IDPs and host communities

(noted at baseline as a key challenge for CDD). This

improvement was driven by effective dispute resolution

through meetings and dialogue, improved coordination

between leaders and better attitudes between hosts and

IDPs more broadly. PROPEL activities such as wrestling for

peace were popular and reportedly helpful in reducing

tensions between host and IDP youth. The qualitative data

further indicates that although there were multiple disputes

over the previous year (2016-2017) between hosts and

IDPs, most of them had been dealt with effectively (although

not without some lingering grievances on the part of IDPs).

Jebel Water User Committee Meeting


subscription fees when original users saw that outsiders (from IDP settlements) were accessing the boreholes without

paying fees themselves. These challenges became dangerous due to the political overtones of the ethnic configuration

of the different communities.

A larger meeting was held with representatives from various interests in the three communities accessing the borehole.

Women represented more than 50% of the participants in the meeting and freely expressed their views on methods for

managing access to the boreholes to avoid conflict. Following the joint meeting, the community led by the CET took

multiple actions to adapt bylaws for access, and raise awareness of rules and regulations. The CET successfully

advocated for two additional boreholes as part of PROPEL’s second round CDD programming. These actions led to

an immediate reduction in conflict.

e. Recommended CDD methods and techniques: Mitigating community-based conflict and

advancing a do-no-harm-approach

Recommendation #1: Conduct a Participatory Stakeholder and Conflict Analysis

Effective CDD programming is grounded in an awareness of the socio-political and economic power dynamics within

a community and an understanding of how outside interventions, such as CDD projects, will impact these dynamics.

Conflict-sensitive CDD programming in turn is based on a clear understanding of root causes and triggers of community

conflict, and how interventions can either mitigate or exacerbate tensions. The CDD PACE stakeholder analysis tools

should be employed by trained personnel during the initial community engagement, and regularly updated to inform

subsequent programming. Conducting a participatory conflict risk analysis is also required.

Recommendation #2: Invest in the selection of trusted community leadership

Start by sharing selection criteria for CET members with key stakeholders and the community for feedback, before

disseminating the finalized criteria across the community. CET members are then nominated and an agreed-upon

number elected during a community-wide meeting. The selection of community leaders who will serve as

representatives and intermediaries for CDD has a profound effect on conflict-sensitive programming. The membership

of the CDD decision-making body (the CET in the case of PROPEL) should be representative of various community

groups, including the marginalized and vulnerable. Criteria should include representatives’ ability to build trust across

community divides and promote intra-community cohesion. In addition, training members in conflict management and

mitigation will empower them to lead efforts at dispute-resolution and mitigate conflict or tensions.

Recommendation #3: CDD project sustainability mechanisms serve in dispute resolution

CDD projects may give rise to community tensions both during and post-implementation, despite inclusive processes

for selection and implementation. Sustainability mechanisms such as Water User Committees (in the case of WASH

programming) and Parent-Teacher Associations (in the case of schools) serve an ongoing role in addressing

grievances and resolving disputes. However, sustainability mechanisms alone are not adequate and may quickly

disband once the project ends due to recurrent shocks and stresses that weaken in social capital. Strengthening social

capital by linking informal networks with semi-formal community groups and traditional leadership structures from the

community-entry stage is critical to sustainability. Social networks are strengthened through the CET, community-wide

meetings, and the specific committees formed to maintain the projects resulting in enhanced participation and

accountability on behalf of the community at large.


Water borehole drilling in South Sudan – important lessons

Access to clean water remains a top priority for local communities all over South Sudan. PROPEL’s targeted

communities consistently listed access to water as among their top CDD priorities. As a result, most of

PROPEL’s CDD projects were WASH-related. With the continuing importance of water boreholes for

humanitarian and development programming in South Sudan, it is useful to capture the key components of

successful and sustainable water borehole installation.

While well-known to implementing partners, these are not always practiced. The following three components

of water borehole/hand-pump installation are crucial to ensuring sustainability:

1. Technical expertise: Organizations intending to implement borehole drilling projects, especially those

intending to contract work out to drilling companies, must ensure they have the engineering expertise on

staff to be able to manage and oversee implementation. There are several key stages to a borehole project

that cannot be left to a contractor to determine, but require a dedicated professional on staff to oversee. For

example, the most common cause of water borehole break down is neglecting to confirm and certify the

following key steps in the process of installing a water borehole: drilling to the maximum well-depth

recommended in the survey report; installing appropriate casings based on soil samples; and conducting

pump testing based on a community’s demand for water and aquifer capacity. Not hiring a qualified,

experienced WASH engineer to oversee implementation remains one of the main causes for borehole project

failure.

2. Community engagement and ownership: Decisions on whether to implement a borehole and where to

drill the borehole are also important, as they directly impact the project’s success and overall sustainability.

These decisions should be taken by the community based on an inclusive and participatory approach to

community consultation in order to achieve consensus. In addition, as part of the IP’s due diligence, there

should be joint consultations between the community, IP and the relevant local government offices

(especially in urban settings) to verify that the land on which the borehole will be installed is not subject to

claim or dispute. These steps help to ensure that decisions are not politicized and avoid unnecessary

disputes and delays during and post-project implementation. Moreover, communities should contribute at

least 10% of the project cost in the form of local labor and materials. For example, PROPEL targeted

communities' contributed by constructing a durable perimeter fence around water boreholes to protect these

installations and afford the community a greater sense of ownership.

3. Sustainability mechanisms and associated training: The discussion surrounding the importance of

water borehole project sustainability must be part of the consultation phase prior to the community deciding

on whether to implement a borehole project. There are two core sustainability mechanisms: The WUC

responsible for governing the use and maintenance of a borehole; and trained community hand-pump

mechanics responsible for borehole repairs and maintenance. WUC members must be carefully selected

from among local residents and include those with a strong incentive to maintain the borehole, and who

command the respect of the community at large, as they will be responsible for managing access to the

borehole. WUC members should receive training to ensure they gain the knowledge and skills required to

manage the borehole in a sustainable manner. WUC member training in borehole governance, management

and maintenance, including water user fee collection and conflict resolution, should be conducted by skilled

and experienced WASH trainers of which there are a number in South Sudan. Training must also include

imparting knowledge to WUC members related to water tables, soil samples and the results of surveys, so

members are aware of the limits and capacity of borehole usage (especially during dry season), in order to

manage borehole access effectively. Part of the WUC training involves preparing standard operating

procedures for borehole management that WUC members debate within the community, whereupon they

are agreed and codified. Finally, in addition to an intensive 2 week introductory WUC training course, the IP

should, if time and resources permit, provide quarterly refresher training to the WUC. The investment in

follow-on training and mentoring can prove very cost-effective and significantly increases prospects for

sustainability.

i.


3. Incentives to invest – Trading off between process and projects for tangible

gains

a. Introduction

The question of project ownership is a complex one with many aspects. Although monitoring and evaluation models

tend to assess ownership towards the end of the project, the issue must be addressed from the time of community

entry in order for CDD to succeed. There is inherent tension in CDD work between the urgency of real community

needs and allowing the time for community members to gather and cooperate in new and sometimes challenging ways.

This tension is more pronounced in a conflict-affected context. While the urgency of providing a peace dividend to

support a peace agreement is pressing, the work of bringing groups together can be even more fraught with potential

conflict. One strategy for dealing with this challenge is to select a relatively quick-implementation project that yields

immediate and tangible benefits to a wide swath of the local population. Although the consultation process may still

drag out, as soon as visible implementation begins community members are more likely to rally around the project, the

NGO and their local leaders. This approach is then to be followed up by another round of projects; as the community

gains more confidence and leaders grow in their skills, projects that yield visible benefits only in the longer term may

be selected.

There is an implicit competition between a strategy to select projects with the goal of incentivizing participation and

building trust, and an open-menu approach. However, immediate and short-term planning and decision-making may

be the best interim step to build up local leadership in preparation for preparing a long-term plan and putting in place

the social framework to sustain more complex projects with less visible rewards. PROPEL guided communities in a

selection process informed by household survey data and focus group activities on project prioritization carried out

separately with women and youth to encourage them to articulate their own priorities. The selection of short-term, quick

impact projects was also informed by conflict mapping data and discussion on the key drivers of conflict.

Literature

In a conflict-affected context, a longer time frame for CDD is necessary for the “participatory structures” that can help

rebuild social capital; the success of this aspect of CDD is crucial if the project is to help contribute to conflict recovery21.

In a situation such as the one faced by PROPEL, with limited time duration and frequent interruptions due to insecurity,

the best solution is to provide small scale, quick impact grants that “can offer CDD projects credibility”22. Fostering

trust in the NGO is vital in environments where trust is weak and the lack of social infrastructure discourages voluntary

activities.

Guiding the community to the selection of a highly visible, widely-benefiting project need not distort the community’s

deliberation and decision-making process. Research has shown that many projects end up with a similar list of

community priorities in highly vulnerable, conflict-affected contexts where basic needs have been neglected.23

Implementing a project that benefits the whole community avoids potential conflict factors involved in targeting, such

as would be required for providing tangible livelihood inputs, training, or expanded services24. In fact, social cohesion

or livelihoods projects are particularly vulnerable to elite capture because they are intangible and more difficult to

surveil. This suggests visible, infrastructure-type projects may also facilitate community oversight as well as motivate

participation25.

21 Kuehnast, Kathleen, Community-Driven Development in the Context of Conflict-Affected Countries: Challenges and Opportunities (World Bank, 2006), 17.


23 King, Elisabeth, A Critical Review of Community-Driven Development Programmes in Conflict-Affected Contexts (World Bank, 2013), 27-28.

24 King, A Critical Review, 26.

25 King, A Critical Review, 11.


As PROPEL discovered, messaging over the life of the project is highly important for mitigating perceptions of bias or

favoritism. In other words, “the advice is to pay much more attention to deliberately planning the communication, based

on stakeholder analysis at all levels"26. For PROPEL, the effort to sustain dialogue and demonstrate transparency in

communicating with the leaders and sending messages to the community through CET members was crucial to getting

through the waiting stage without losing community trust and participation.

b. Key challenges to balancing process and product

i. Urgent needs due to shocks and stressors

The challenge of implementing CDD in South Sudan is dual: first, the delay between community entry and the

start of visible project implementation raises suspicion in the community and decreases willingness to attend

meetings, and commit time and resources to the project.

Second, the urgent and pressing needs of the community, as well as seasonality (such as the need for farming

and fishing inputs), require a quick turnaround between project selection and implementation. In addition to

conflict factors and persistent hunger, insecurity, lack of medical care, education facilities or personnel, water

shortages, lack of livelihood inputs, etc., the communities where PROPEL worked had also been afflicted by

multiple shocks and stressors.

26 King, A Critical Review, 29-30.

Evidence from end-line findings – Awerial and Bor

Awerial bomas increased significantly on capacity to work together to address challenges (14% increase as a

percentage of baseline). Awerial community members attributed this change to improved trust in leaders resulting

from stronger communication during community meetings. They also cited improved delegation of responsibility,

speed of reaching decisions and settling cases, forwarding issues to the correct authorities, mobilizing the

community for community projects and transparency of decision-making. Men in Aguarkuoth boma urged NGOs

to follow PROPEL’s approach by engaging engage community leaders, consulting with them and providing

feedback.

In contrast, the challenges facing Bor where there was a small decline on this indicator were due to external attacks

from neighboring tribes with whom there is a long history of conflict. The inability of local leaders to address and

resolve such disputes (other than through armed fighting) likely led to the decline on this indicator. When asked

how NGOs could best help people constructively overcome shared challenges, communities emphasized the need

for peace trainings and workshops to address these external stressors.

Mingkaman and Kalthok, two IDP-settled bomas in Awerial, emphasized the importance of peace-building training

for improving communities’ ability to work together and respond effectively to challenges. Participatory conflict

analysis activities, including all Awerial bomas and peace-building fund sub-grant activities, likely contributed to

the impressive change on this indicator in Awerial.


Between baseline and end-line, there is a notable change in the rates of use of various mechanisms for participation

in decision-making in Awerial County. Community members reported higher rates of voicing one’s opinion in a

group, at an open meeting and during voting. Hor boma reported an increase from roughly 20% to 50% (30

percentage points) on voting rates. Triangulating these results with qualitative data demonstrates how PACE

processes opened new venues for participation in decision-making.


Most common shocks impacting normal living conditions (endline) by county

Awerial Juba Bor

Most common

shock

Crop failure due to drought

(74.1%)

Death or illness of household

member

(56.4)

Crop failure due to drought

(52.6%)

2nd most common

shock

Livestock died

(44.7%)

Theft of money

(44.8%)

Livestock died

(44.2%)

3rd most common

shock

Theft of livestock

(18.5%)

Victim of violent crime

(22.9%)

Crop failure due to disease or

pests

(32.9%)

ii. Mistrust of NGOs further impedes community engagement

In the face of numerous shocks and stressors, communities were reluctant to participate in PROPEL

consultations. In several communities, PROPEL faced relatively high levels of mistrust among community

members due to multiple experiences of NGOs collecting data but failing to return to implement a project, or

in some cases abandoning projects halfway finished.

Leaders and community members were anxious that working with PROPEL would be a repeat of that

experience and hesitated to attend meetings or contribute local resources. They clearly laid out the tangible

projects and products they expected to receive.

iii. Managing project prioritization based on conflict risks: Livelihood needs emerged clearly in both

quantitative and qualitative community mapping; however, PROPEL was not equipped to address this

priority with any tangible results given a short time frame and limited budget. The scale and engagement

period of PROPEL would have limited livelihood activities to skills building, or provision of inputs targeted

only to a sub-sector of the population. In addition, the risks in this type of targeting in a conflict-prone

environment were another reason PROPEL opted not to provide this type of assistance despite the high

priority placed by communities.

iv. In general, the trend in projects selected showed a

balance between conflict-related and development-

related needs and aspirations. On the one hand,

communities selected borehole drilling and

rehabilitation to address a shortage of water that was

fueling internal, localized conflict among community

members and immediate neighbors (since more violent

conflicts with neighboring communities, such as cattle

raiding and child abduction were beyond the scope of

PROPEL CDD projects). On the other hand,

communities selected projects that addressed their

development aspirations, long neglected, for health and

education, while also addressing urgent sanitation

needs through installed latrines. Projects also targeted

women and girls (i.e. girls’ schools and latrines that promoted women’s safety), while hygiene and

sanitation promotion was also targeted at women as the primary managers of household sanitation and

hygiene practices, as well as addressing the fact that women’s conflict over water points escalates quickly

to embroil families and neighbors in violent stand-offs.

Outstanding priority needs across all

urban and rural communities at the end

of project activities in 2017 remained

food rations (58%) and health services

(33%). Jebel and Lologo prioritized

schooling for children and water points.

Housing materials were important in Lologo

(near 30%), and farming tools for Kalthok

and Hor bomas (near 25%). Water points

were also important for Pariak and Kolnyang

(20-30%).


c. PACE CDD Methods

PACE interventions and techniques that help balance CDD process and product

Given that the consensus-building aspects of CDD require a significant time investment (see Issue #1), it can be a

challenge to sustain local residents’ interests in activities that are not producing immediate ‘tangible’ results that

improve the poor quality of their lives. The community participatory process is an end in itself in that it imparts

knowledge and builds capacities in leadership, inclusive development planning, conflict management and greater

gender equality. However, the community participation process is also a means to an end; it can facilitate the realization

of real, meaningful development and the provision of social services that help strengthen community resilience. Striking

a balance between delivering a process (and training) and assisting with tangible deliverables (e.g., projects, activities,

events) is an ongoing challenge for CDD, especially in fragile contexts like South Sudan. The following PACE

interventions employed before and during the CDD Project Cycle Management phase help address this challenge:

i. Participatory Project Cycle Management: Concrete, visible interventions that address real needs and make real

improvements in people’s lives lie at the core of the PACE methodology. PROPEL-funded projects served as both

a tangible outcome and as a catalyst, as well as an ongoing engagement platform for the participatory process,

and CETs and other community participants learned the processes by practicing them. The process of identifying

and prioritizing needs, designing interventions to address the highest priorities, and implementing projects is a

central component of PACE. The process is meant to be repeated multiple times to ensure its transfer to the CETs

and communities themselves. At any given time, different communities may be at various stages within this cycle

on their projects. It is essential that Community Mobilizers as well as communities understand the steps of this

process, and that each actor understands his/her role in the process. Over time, more and more of the project

cycle tasks devolve to the CET directly. This transfer of ownership will also take place at different speeds in

communities with diverse levels of capacity and resources.

ii. Ongoing PACE Training for Community Mobilizers: Well-trained, embedded Community Mobilizers are

essential to facilitate the process of inclusive, participatory CET deliberations on CDD project prioritization and

selection (see Issue #1 – investment in training). Skilled CMs ensure discussions are informed by data gleaned

from household surveys community mapping, stakeholder and conflict analyses. Moreover, they manage

community expectations by making CETs aware of the practical constraints associated with any project selection,

such as available funding, donor preferences, project complexity, and seasonal constraints, while still fostering

community ownership of the process.

iii. Prioritizing “Quick Wins”: The delay between community entry and the launch of CDD projects can run between

three to four months, depending on a variety of factors, not least the complexity of a target community’s social

dynamics. The type of project selected by communities therefore has important ramifications for the IP’s credibility

within the community. CMs assist CETs in understanding the importance of gaining traction by prioritizing and

selecting CDD projects that show quick and tangible impact by directly engaging and benefitting large numbers of

residents (e.g. a road rehabilitation project implemented using cash-for-work). By starting small, CETs and the

community can focus initially on achievable goals that provide immediate results and demonstrate the efficacy of

the PACE process. At the same time, simple, straightforward projects are less likely to be controversial, and are

less difficult to implement and oversee, allowing the CET to build their capacity gradually. After the first round of

projects, larger and/or more complex projects may be implemented. Newly formed CETs may tend to focus on the

most obvious and less controversial needs. With experience, however, CETs naturally begin to identify more

complex needs and seek means to address those needs. The progression from small, simple projects to larger,

more complex projects reflects a gradual increase in the capacity of communities to identify problems and

solutions, and implement projects accordingly.

d. Case story in Bor: How PACE techniques worked in practice through adaptive learning

In Bor, PROPEL realized the prioritization process and successive rounds of CDD projects needed to be carefully

managed due to mistrust and suspicion, aggravated by local conflict dynamics. The type of project selected by

communities had important ramifications for the perceptions of the community regarding the trustworthiness of an

NGO. These perceptions, in turn, affected the community’s willingness to contribute and participate in the project, and

eventually engender the community’s sense of project ownership and empowerment to maintain the project in future.


The risk of being perceived as fueling local conflict

through targeting was also present, due to disputes

between sub-clans over naming that affected

PROPEL’s target community in Kolnyang.

PROPEL found that visible projects involving

infrastructure that benefit large segments of the

population were successful for garnering wide

participation, contribution and commitment to

maintaining the project. Mistrust and suspicion were

allayed as soon as communities saw the projects

under implementation, and were made aware of

efforts to ensure members of all sub-clans were

benefiting. A female CET member in Kolnyang stated,

“There is great change compared to before: these

days the turnout for meetings is very good compared to the start because the community has seen the good work of

PROPEL.” She concluded by saying PROPEL had also motivated most of the community members to think positively

about community participation in CDD projects.

Community members put in place concrete plans for further contributions to sustain and fully capacitate projects,

including contributing incentives for volunteer teachers, raising money for supplies such as chalk, preventing armed

forces from using school grounds, and opening a bank account for water user fees directed towards borehole

maintenance. During workshops and discussion, PROPEL teams noted that the communities understand the value of

consultation and consensus prior to implementing projects, and respect the fact that it is a time-consuming process.

Preliminary analysis of end-line data shows that all community segments are asking NGOs in future to take the

PROPEL approach in soliciting community input and addressing priority needs, rather than implementing a pre-planned

activity.

e. Recommended CDD methods and techniques

Recommendation #1: Plan for and adapt to the tension between CDD process and tangible product

There is an inherent tension between the urgency to address community needs by delivering tangible projects and

engaging with the community in a deliberative, consultative process that builds reserves social capital by ensuring that

the CDD programming that is implemented meets the needs of the community and is sustainable. The initial community

mapping, mobilization, engagement and leadership training phase may take upwards of two to three months. These

activities lay a crucial foundation for successful CDD and should not be rushed. As a means of alleviating the tension

between CDD process and product, we recommend implementing a small-scale quick impact project (QIP) that sets a

good example of the value of collective action. We recommend building into the design with the donor a fast track

approval mechanism for QIPs assuming certain basic criteria are met.

Recommendation #2: Implement small-scale, quick impact projects (QIPs) as part of project launch

As a means of building trust and credibility between the IP and the community and advancing intra-community cohesion

during the initial community engagement phase, and providing incentives for communities to invest, we recommend

implementing QIPs that can be designed and approved quickly, and implemented in a short period of time. There is a

need to ensure these projects are conflict-sensitive and vetted based on preliminary community mapping data (or

stakeholder/conflict analysis), and selected based on a community-wide consensus.

Recommendation #3: The types of QIPs matter

PROPEL’s experience shows that small-scale infrastructure projects (e.g. road rehabilitation, school or health clinic

rehabilitation) implemented through cash-for-work mechanisms are always in very high demand in communities

throughout South Sudan; communities need basic access to services like water, roads, and schools or clinics. This

kind of visible infrastructure that is seen to benefit large segments of the community serves to motivate the community

and additionally as a useful training ground for more complex follow-on programming.

Evidence from end-line findings - Bor

In Pariak and Kolnyang, most groups urged an inclusive

approach to development. Male youth in Pariak stated:

“We would like PROPEL to continue with equal

representation of all segments of the community as this will

promote teamwork and unity to our community.” Men in

Pariak specified that PROPEL’s approach educates people

through inclusive meetings. In Kolnyang, men stated, “The

feedback we would like to give PROPEL is to appreciate

them because PROPEL provide unity and teamwork in

both men, women and youth; this is a great work, and it will

unite our community.”


4. Downwards Accountability – Fostering incentives for local leaders based on

community feedback

a. Introduction

The risk of what is known as “elite capture” by local leaders is pervasive in South Sudan. Community mapping revealed

that in multiple communities, some leaders had frequently monopolized or diverted resources from NGO activities to

benefit themselves or their close network. These experiences stood in contrast to leaders who worked with community

segment representatives to advocate for the needs of the community when facing a disaster, or to help NGOs or the

government target resources to the neediest households. PROPEL put in place a mechanism to discourage self -

interested stakeholders from joining the CET by not providing monetary or substantial in-kind incentives to CET

members, and even preventing family members of the CET from benefiting directly from cash-for-work activities.

Naturally, this approach is not comprehensive; however, PROPEL’s second method was to ensure open consultations

with quotas for representation of women, as well as youth representation. PROPEL refused to move forward on any

decision that was not reached through consensus except in the rare case where a decision must be taken through a

majority vote and marginalized groups are represented in that majority. More information on women’s particular role in

those decisions is discussed below; however, it is important to note that skillful facilitation was required to promote the

active participation and confidence of all sub-groups to voice concerns.

While preventing elite capture is important to fostering community participation in CDD activities, fostering ownership

and accountability among CET members is crucial to its sustainability. The goal is for the community to trust the CET

to advocate for them and oversee the transparent and equitable distribution of resources by other NGOs or government

initiatives in future. Learning by doing is key to fostering ownership and accountability among the CET members as

they interact directly with their community members and seek to gain approval and support. A productive feedback

cycle can begin when, through participating in meetings, consultations and forums with CET members, community

members come to expect transparency, openness and provided opportunities to address concerns. PROPEL found

CET members were motivated by gaining and keeping the approval, confidence and support of their fellow community

members.

Project visibility helps build the credibility of the CET and strengthen community investment and participation. PROPEL

found that highly visible projects also lead to support and recognition for the CET that can offset the lack of monetary

compensation. However, over time the community may need to exert pressure and make clear its expectations for

ongoing transparency to prevent CET members from also falling into the patterns of less effective leaders.

Literature

Information management is particularly important for preventing elite capture. A study across multiple fragile contexts

points out that "information can and should be plentiful, transparent, and widely shared"27. Similarly, PROPEL

strengthened the CET by making them the arbiters of information, and facilitating a stakeholder analysis to inform an

outreach plan to mitigate risks from powerful figures. The CET was further tasked with updating the community on all

decisions related to the management of the CDD project, while volunteer “community monitors” provide a productive

and structured opportunity to channel feedback and complaints to the CET.

PROPEL’s approach aimed to fill a shortcoming in CDD projects that focus on technical skills, but fail to put adequate

effort “toward strengthening soft skills such as relationship building, empowerment strategies, inclusion, and social

cohesion"28. In fact, in a chaotic situation of conflict and its aftermath, decision-making related to resource allocation

can become a virtual “black box”29. PROPEL’s monitoring and evaluation strategy focused on precisely this dynamic

by tracking and collecting lessons learned on the inclusive process used to reach decisions by consensus, and oversee

all aspects of project implementation. Effective mechanisms for addressing grievances and complaints are also

27 Kuehnast, Kathleen, Community-Driven Development in the Context of Conflict-Affected Countries: Challenges and Opportunities (World Bank, 2006), 25. 28 Kuehnast, Community-Driven Development, 18. 29 Wong, Susan, What have been the impacts of World Bank CDD programs? (World Bank 2012), viii.


important for building the community’s trust in the NGO and the CET, which can in turn result in higher levels of

community contribution30. The example discussed below shows how a positive feedback loop between the community

and the voluntary leadership can increase responsiveness, while at the same time building community ownership over

the new resource (i.e. borehole or school, etc.).

b. Key challenges to fostering responsive leadership structures

i. Political challenges for neutral engagement

A significant challenge faced by CDD implementers in a fragile context is to determine the most effective way

to engage with existing leadership structures. In South Sudan, communities expect NGOs to coordinate with

their traditional leaders. Further, coordination with government officials is not only necessary but practical,

even in the current context where the expectation for future public support for CDD projects is nil.

However, there are also risks inherent in coordinating with both official and traditional leaders. Leadership may

be weak, ineffective, or worse yet, mistrusted or actively party to local conflict dynamics. PROPEL started

operations prior to the creation of 28 (later 32) states, and the ensuing claims and counter-claims by

neighboring payams and bomas regarding border lines.

Naming was an important feature of this administrative rejiggering, as well as the appointment of officials to

govern each district. In some communities where PROPEL originally planned to engage, the resistance to the

newly appointed official was so strong that the region has since descended into conflict.

Therefore, NGOs were between a rock and a hard place, required to get permission from newly appointed

officials, but at the same time not risk the appearance of taking one side in a highly polarized environment.

c. PACE CDD Methods

i. PACE Interventions / Techniques that identify and incentivize local leaders for CDD: Identification Of

Local Leaders: In preparation for CDD programming care must be taken to identify and select leaders who

are willing and able to serve on a representative decision-making body to further community driven

development (CET); who command the trust and respect of their communities (including traditional leaders,

government and church officials, women and youth leaders); are willing to serve their communities in a

voluntary and long-term capacity; embrace the participatory and inclusive nature of the process; and are willing

to dedicate time and energy to intensive knowledge and skills acquisition in CDD processes. Identifying these

individuals begins at the PACE community engagement and mapping stage, as CMs begin to interact and

learn about a target community. In addition, PACE household survey questionnaires are used to identify and

recommend potential leaders within the community.

30 Salomonsen, Andreas Tore Holst and Diachok, Myrtle Laura, Operations and Maintenance of Rural Infrastructure in Community -Driven Development and

Community-Based Projects (World Bank, 2015), 42.

Evidence from end-line findings – Awerial

Two communities in Awerial (Kalthok and Hor) achieved significant increases over baseline on an indicator of

participation in community decision-making. For instance, Hor’s baseline value was 10-15% below the project

average, yet made remarkable progress over the life of the project (an increase of 49% of the baseline value). Hor

respondents cited the most compelling improvements in community leadership including delegation of responsibility,

speed of reaching decisions and settling cases, forwarding issues to the correct authorities, mobilizing the

community for community projects, and decision-making transparency. A government official in Hor stated: “The

CET strengthened leadership through meetings which help the community to advise themselves on different issues.

Frequent community engagement activities made [the community] realize that meetings are important because they

share ideas and benefit from each other.” PROPEL’s strategy of putting in place a committee to connect community

members to existing leadership structures, while providing new means for passing feedback and information, helped

remedy some of the key obstacles to community resilience.


ii. Formation Of CETs: CET members are selected by the community in open community forums facilitated by

CMs. Prior to their selection, CMs explain to the community the roles, responsibilities and expectations of the

CET and its members; that members serve in a voluntary capacity that the CET be representative of the whole

community, especially under-represented and marginalized groups such as women and youth; and that there

are mechanisms to hold CET members accountable. The community finally reaches consensus on the

appointment of 9-15 CET members (the odd number is to ensure a tie-breaking vote in rare case when

consensus is not attainable). All CET members sign an MOU with the project that codifies the duties of the

CET, as well as what the community can expect of the PROPEL project. The initial screening and transparent

selection of CET members serves to minimize the risk of elite capture and spoilers of the CDD process.

Although beyond the scope of PROPEL’s timeline with the communities, systems must be put in place for the

regular review of CET membership and nomination of new members to the CET.

iii. Incentivizing CET Members: CET members benefit from ongoing and extensive training in the core PACE

curriculum, delivered by CMs: Facilitation Skills, Project Cycle Management and Long-Term Community

Development Planning. CMs also empower and motivate CET members by providing coaching on PACE

processes and ongoing transfer of knowledge and skills in leadership and management to CET members. CET

members assume increasing ownership of the CDD decision-making process by leading the CDD project

prioritization, selection and implementation process and overseeing implementation of project sustainability

plans; CET members also benefit from being equipped with the basic tools required to continue to serve and

lead as CDD representatives for their communities post-PROPEL. These tools include Community

Dashboards and Long-term Community Development Plans that CET members can use to advocate on behalf

of their community with donors and NGOs and their local government. In South Sudan, some form of tangible

incentive is routinely expected. It is important to address these expectations head on for two reasons: first,

providing monetary incentives to the CET members may result in them being seen primarily as PROPEL

employees or representatives rather than as representatives of their own communities; second, that monetary

incentives will not continue past the end of PROPEL, leaving little in the way of sustainable leadership.

However, some tangible incentives are important to facilitate work, especially early on: these can include

airtime for mobilizing the community for meetings, and gum boots or bicycles for easy movement.

iv. Long-Term Community Development Planning: Long-term Community Development Plans (LCDP) are

designed to allow communities to identify their long-term needs, consider possible solutions and identify

realistic goals. These plans encourage CETs to conceptualize the long-term development of their communities

and to identify the steps that need to be taken to realize those goals. PROPEL-supported CETs began to

design their LCDP after initial "confidence building" projects were implemented. This was designed to balance

the projects needed for credibility and trust between the community and the PROPEL, with the participatory

process of PACE that we wanted communities to take ownership of over time. The creation of the LCDP is

part of a process that requires CET outreach with their community and with other stakeholders. The process

begins with a training workshop on preparing a long-term action plan (see CDD Workshop 4: CDD Long-term

Community Development Planning). Once residents began to realize the real outcomes and effects of

collaborative action-planning, communities become further invested in the process as a means of fostering

development and managing increasingly more difficult, long-standing problems.

PACE Interventions / Techniques that engage the wider community to interface with the CET:

v. Communication & Messaging: CDD project ownership and sustainability begins with ensuring that the CDD

project prioritization and selection process is open and transparent. All CET decisions must be taken by

consensus to avoid more powerful members of the CET from dominating decisions, and potentially

concentrating resources and opportunities in ways favorable to their own position or networks. When a

consensus is mandatory, all concerns are voiced and addressed, and decisions reflect the interests of

marginalized groups represented in the CET (e.g. women and youth). In situations where the possibility of one

powerful figure or group unduly influencing CET decisions, PROPEL organized separate meetings for

marginalized groups prior to community wide meetings especially because such groups (women) may not

readily voice their concerns in wide-community meetings. Another technique is to provide turns for each

section of the community to speak instead of relying on individuals requesting the opportunity to speak. CMs

assist CETs in communicating the outcomes of their deliberations to the wider community in open community


meetings. Regularly scheduled and open community-wide meetings that inform residents of the rationale for

CDD project prioritization and selection, and that solicit input and feedback, are an effective means of

sustaining community engagement.

vi. Community Resource Mobilization: The PACE methodology requires a direct community contribution to

community-prioritized activities and projects. PROPEL required a community contribution valued at 10% of the

overall project budget to reflect a concrete commitment to the project on the part of the community, and give

communities a real stake in the success and sustainability of projects. For example, on PROPEL-funded

projects communities contributed their voluntary labor and materials to construct the protective fencing around

water boreholes. As communities contributed their own resources, they demonstrated a greater sense of

ownership of activities and projects (and the decision-making process) and were more likely to participate in

implementation and ongoing maintenance. The CET is responsible for mobilizing community contributions and

in the process they establish links of accountability through interaction with community members, resulting in

incentives related to community approval and support rather than personal gain.

vii. Sustainability Planning: Long-lasting positive change is the overall goal of the PACE approach, and the

CET’s capacity to lead that change past the end of the project is critical to achieving target outcomes . PACE

processes are designed to incorporate sustainability into both tangible and intangible outcomes. Sustainability

planning is an important opportunity for the CETs to gain experience working together to put in place concrete

project management strategies, as well as engage with the broader community and stakeholder groups and

establish future channels for accountability. Sustainability plans were developed for individual community

projects so that communities could identify means for maintaining projects once they were completed (see

WUC, PTA, etc.) From the start of project planning, activities were conducted with the “exit strategy” in mind.

Many decisions throughout the life of a program can affect the potential for processes and structures to

continue after the donor-funding ends. These include: the manner and extent to which CETs are formalized;

the link between CETs and local government institutions at the boma, payam and county level; residents’

perception of the effectiveness of the CET and the projects implemented; the linking of CETs to other donor

IPs; and the level of independence and responsibility handed to the CETs over the course of the program. For

example, PROPEL CM’s assisted CETs with their sustainability planning by facilitating partnerships with other

IPs, e.g. WFP for food deliveries to rehabilitated schools in Bor; OXFAM and EUAID to provide stipends to

teachers at PROPEL-rehabilitated schools in Bor and Juba; access to the WASH cluster in Bor to request

spare parts for water boreholes; and linking the Lologo CET with VISTAS to plan a new WASH intervention as

well as broader strategic conversations between the PROPEL Juba team and VISTAS Juba program staff.

viii. Community Monitoring And Community Forums: Another important PACE intervention involves engaging

community volunteers (not CET members) to serve as community project monitors. These volunteers received

training and, equipped with a simple monitoring tool that measures the timely achievement of project

milestones and quality of the work performed, reported back to residents during community-wide gatherings,

called community forums. Community monitoring forums provide important opportunities for the CET to

perceive the community’s level of support and approbation, and for communities to gain experience providing

feedback to CETs; if they continue to convene regularly, the skills and social norms they strengthen will help

prevent some of the pitfalls of inattentive or self-interested leadership. Practice and coaching is needed to

both impart an understanding of downward accountability to CET members who may tend to think only in terms

of upward accountability to the PROPEL project in particular. Further, to ensure that feedback is dealt with

effectively, CETs need guidance on addressing and resolving issues and concerns, and mechanisms to follow

up on issues raised during community forums.

d. Case story in Bor: How PACE techniques worked in practice through adaptive learning

In Bor, PROPEL engaged with community members who have experience holding leadership proles with other NGOs

in the past. PROPEL’s approach is to foster a sense of downward accountability whereby CET members represent

their community segments in decisions related to PROPEL activities. However, CET members expected incentives for

their voluntary work and saw themselves as extended PROPEL staff rather than community representatives. To

strengthen and reinforce accountability and ownership of the CET to the community, PROPEL field teams trained CETs


in the principles and mechanisms of accountability and transparency. Further, PROPEL linked community monitoring

of CDD project implementation to CET accountability through community forums where CETs gained experience in

directly addressing complaints and concerns in a public setting.

Based on interviews with CET members and stakeholders in Kolnyang and Pariak, PROPEL noted a shift in the

attitudes and perceptions of CETs. In particular, they mentioned the expectations, support and recognition of

community members as key motivations for their voluntary work. Another motivation stemmed from seeing visible

results of their efforts once CDD projects were implemented; this further developed the community’s confidence and

trust in the leadership of CET members. CET members in both communities saw themselves as advocates and

representatives on behalf of the development needs and aspirations of their community.

CET members indicated that they worked functionally with other community organizing structures, specifically PTAs,

WUCs, School Management Committees (SMCs), and hygiene promoters (also mobilized and trained by PROPEL).

CET members also mentioned acquiring new skills in teamwork and no longer working in isolation; they also learned

to mobilize both women and men to work side-by-side to discuss and address development issues. The skills they

most valued included leadership skills, the ability to mobilize both men and women, working on gender-integrated

teams, teamwork abilities, advocating for rights and successfully lobbying NGOs for resources, and cooperating with

CETs from other villages.


Recommendation #1: Support maximum transparency in CDD information flow

IPs must provide maximum support to ensure that all CDD-related deliberations and decisions be conducted in

transparent, open community forums and reach the widest possible audience through ongoing community-wide

messaging. Transparency and information flow serves to hold community leaders accountable and continuously

replenishes social capital through greater inclusion and empowerment (particularly of marginalized groups).

Recommendation #2: Promote Community-based Monitoring

While the IP will conduct its own project monitoring and due diligence, the community should be empowered to monitor

their CDD programming. PROPEL developed a simple, user-friendly community-based monitoring tool that serves as

a check list for project milestones reached. Community-based monitoring also serves to hold community leaders

accountable for CDD program implementation.

Evidence from end-line findings - Bor

Bor respondents spoke favorably about specific improvements in the involvement of youth and women in decision-

making. Key informants noted community attitudes had changed to the extent of there being a general

understanding that women should contribute to decisions and that their input was valuable, and that eventual

decisions should consider their rights and needs.

Leaders also noted youth had become more cooperative and productive at meetings, and more responsive and

trusting towards leadership; whereas youth used to be represented by elders, they were now allowed to attend

meetings and speak for themselves. For the first time, youth had a say in community decisions unrelated to security

(at baseline, security decisions were their only opportunity to provide input). Key informants attributed the change

to PROPEL’s trainings, inclusion of youth during decision-making meetings, and having a youth representative on

the CET.


5. Wrestling for peace – transforming traditional activities into peace-building

through grassroots leadership

a. Introduction

This section focuses on wrestling, a popular traditional activity that can serve as a vehicle for peaceful gatherings of

different communities—yet also posing the risk of a fresh outbreak of fighting. During community mapping in Dinka-

majority areas (specifically, in Awerial, Duk and Bor), people were asked about activities in the community that bring

people together, and wrestling was often mentioned along with dancing, marriages, naming ceremonies and funerals

as important traditional occasions (this was in addition to communal farming, church based activities, and other

community organizing). At the same time, wrestling was frequently mentioned in Awerial and Bor as a common trigger

of conflict.

The issue of wrestling emerged prominently in Mingkaman, both during community mapping and community

consultation and participatory conflict analysis activities led by PROPEL sub-grantee, Nurture South Sudan in late fall

of 2016. Nurture South Sudan and community stakeholders selected “wrestling for peace” as one of the project

activities for a PROPEL peace-building fund award. Wrestling can be a trigger for latent tensions as well as holding

potential for bringing youth together and was therefore selected as a quick win and one prioritized by the communities

themselves. The purpose of holding this event was to demonstrate that wrestling events (a treasured community

pastime and cultural mainstay) do not need to descend into violence and conflict. The potential of the event as a

platform for peace messaging was leveraged by Nurture’s inclusive approach of training community interlocutors. The

positive impacts of the activity beyond the event itself were reported in the qualitative end-line data because the activity

had improved relations between IDP and host youth. Wrestling for peace was part of a larger suite of peace-building

activities, aimed at changing the culture around youth interaction and raising awareness of the benefits of peace (see

PROPEL’s peace-building fund grant activity report).

PROPEL brought a CDD approach to the activity by using a bottom-up approach; Nurture brought volunteer

“community interlocutors” and an inclusive set of local leaders (official, traditional, and church leaders) together in order

to lay the groundwork for the community to carry on the activity after the completion of the grant. In addition to providing

non-violent conflict resolution training to both male and female youth and local leaders, PROPEL’s sub-grantee adapted

methods for the designation of teams, mixing oppositional identity groups (in this case, members of the local host and

IDP communities), and providing non-monetary incentives to reward both sides. These strategies mitigated the triggers

for fighting based on the outcome of the wrestling match.

Nurture South Sudan found that the active involvement of local leaders was important to the remarkable success of

the initiative. PROPEL needed to change local perceptions of wrestling, normally a popular sport, but lately a venue

where violence and revenge killing were to be feared. The involvement of prominent leaders, deployment of security

forces, and radio announcements for the event helped to achieve a high turnout, and participants and audience

expressed satisfaction with the event. The positive feedback and community desire to continue this type of activity

supports the view that wrestling is popular enough to provide an excellent platform for peace messaging. The favorable

results from PROPEL’s wrestling activities highlight the value of taking a locally-led approach to peace-building that

works within the social infrastructure already present in communities.

Literature

In a conflict setting, distinct grant pools are important for pushing forward conflict-resolution and development-related

priorities simultaneously31. In particular, it is difficult to achieve peace-building and social cohesion goals within the

first couple rounds of CDD project programming, partly because of the risk of elite capture and urgency of basic

infrastructure needs post conflict.

31 King, Elisabeth, A Critical Review of Community-Driven Development Programmes in Conflict-Affected Contexts (World Bank, 2013), 27-28.


The issue of targeting CDD resources is even more important in a context where households are competing over

opportunities to meet day-to-day needs. A distinct funding mechanism that can be designed and targeted separately

can be a useful approach. Improvements in community resilience depend on the capacity of the NGO to address

emerging conflicts in a timely and locally-led manner; without this ability, gains made through CDD may be quickly lost

due to a flare-up or new external threat.

b. Key challenges to transforming conflict triggers to opportunities for peace-building

i. Traditional wrestling aggravates conflict and divides

During community mapping, members of both the host and IDP communities in Mingkaman identified wrestling

as one of their traditional values with potential to contribute to social cohesion and peace-building. However,

currently wrestling poses a risk to CDD by sparking latent tensions between members of the IDP and host

communities, resulting in violence.

Wrestling frequently takes place between youth from IDP settlements and the host community in Mingkaman.

The main reason for the conflict risks associated with wrestling is a cultural tradition of not accepting defeat.

Young women also have a role to play as they cheer on the fighters, particularly when they sing songs to

provoke or insult the losing side. The losing team may contest the loss and start a physical fight that can

quickly spread through a group of youth and affect entire communities.

The underlying reason for violence relates to tensions between youth from IDP settlements and the host

community over matters such as access to NGO resources and host community resources, and may also

reflect long-standing inter-clan grievances. In fact, it is the youth who challenge each other to wrestling

matches in teams along clan lines, so the fallout from the fighting can easily reignite old grudges.

On the other hand, youth and their communities treasure their traditional wrestling and it can be a venue for

socializing across traditional divides, an occasion when people come together who do not usually interact in a

positive way. In fact, research by Mercy Corps found that sharing in joint recreational activities can put in place

a foundation “for increased empathy and understanding,” which has the potential to foster bridging social

capital across groups32.

c. PACE CDD Methods

PACE interventions and techniques that help identify and build on traditional values with potential to strengthen CDD:

i. Community Mapping to Understand the Context: The PACE mapping activities conducted during the

community entry phase, including the household survey and stakeholder and conflict analyses serve to provide

needed information on prevailing customary cultural, social and governance norms, practices and sensitivities.

These norms and practices vary significantly among settled, urban, agro-pastoralist communities. Similarly,

communities will have been affected by diverse shocks and stressors (e.g. conflict, drought, food insecurity,

displacement) resulting in communities developing their own coping mechanisms. Understanding this context

assists in being able to adapt PACE interventions to build upon existing practices, norms and social capital for

effective CDD programming.

ii. Peace-Building Funds: In conflict-prone and affected communities (e.g. Mingkaman, Awerial County), in

order to encourage proactive peace-building PROPEL earmarked peace-building funds within the program

budget to support CETs in monitoring community tensions and implementing activities designed to quickly

defuse conflict before it turns violent. Activities supported by these funds included peace-building methods

such as dialogue, drama, and informal dispute resolution mechanisms to foster person-to-person connections

and build on existing traditions of cooperation, bringing together community members from groups that have

experienced tensions to work toward a shared development priority and increase mutual understanding.

Working with a local CSO to implement the grant, the CSO drove the project and engaged local leaders

strategically for security purposes to attract large turn-out to wrestling events. The CSO also complemented

32 Pathways from Peace to Resilience: Evidence from the Greater Horn of Africa on the Links between Conflict Management and Resi lience to Food Security Shocks (Mercy Corps, 2015), 16.


this approach with a bottom-up strategy of identifying and training community interlocutors alongside the

community leaders, who then engaged in community mobilization together. Dedicated peace-building funds

provide flexibility to engage strategically with different stakeholders to transform large-scale events and

activities with potential for bringing groups together peacefully.

d. Case story in Mingkaman: A peace-building activity in application

In PROPEL’s wrestling for peace activity in Mingkaman, the challenge was twofold: first, reverse a pattern whereby

youth followed wrestling with inter-clan fighting; and second, ensure a good turnout despite security concerns. PROPEL

therefore needed to change youth attitudes regarding defeat and dignity, as well as rally the support of a range of local

leaders and community members to ensure a safe and successful event.

Nurture South Sudan and PROPEL met with local leaders, church leaders and the commissioner’s office. Local

authorities and chiefs, as well as youth and women interlocutors were trained on non-violent conflict resolution

methods. After gathering leaders and stakeholder in dialogues to discuss the purpose and design of the event, some

of the training participants (including leaders) were then asked to spread the word and encourage community members

(both host and IDP) to attend. Local authorities and traditional leaders were able to provide protection at the event by

deploying security forces to ensure it was not used as a venue for revenge killing. PROPEL’s outreach also used the

media, especially radio advertisements, and banners and flyers to dissipate negative perceptions around the idea of

wrestling. Teams were then intermixed so that hosts and IDPs were each represented on each team to prevent a

situation where only one group is the winner over the other. Male and female youth were recruited together and

provided training prior to the event to understand the purpose of wrestling for peace, and to prepare them to avoid and

dissipate violent tensions. At the close of the event, non-cash awards were given to the winners from both groups so

that IDP and host youth received medals and scarves.

The inclusive approach that engaged chiefs, local

authorities, and built up youth and women

interlocutors as leaders put in place the

mechanisms for sustainability and community

ownership of this activity. End-line data from

Awerial showed that wrestling for peace was a

reportedly successful undertaking with a high level

of local ownership. Further, PROPEL staff

observed that this approach to wrestling has been

adopted by the community who plan to use the

same model for wrestling events moving forward.

A community interlocutor also noted that IDP and

host youth were socializing more often and sharing

public resources such as community centers,

schools and water points, which was not the case

previously. These observed results point to the potential of this method to have a substantial impact in communities

with a history of tension between neighboring youth.


Recommendation #1: Gather data on traditional customs and norms

As part of the community mapping and survey exercises, gather information on local traditional customs and norms.

PROPEL found that in communities which had suffered conflict and displacement, traditional mechanisms for peace-

building had been strained and some cultural practices were potentially contributing to conflict due to the highly

polarized environment. However, there was demand to resuscitate and strengthen traditional peace-building

mechanisms and other means of social capital formation and these can serve as an important means for local

empowerment (e.g. peace dialogues, and promoting peace through customs such as wrestling and dancing).


The key driver of statistically significant increases in an

indicator of capacity for internal conflict-resolution in

Mingkaman and Kalthok was improved relations between IDPs

and host communities (noted at baseline as a key challenge

for CDD). This improvement was driven by effective resolution

of disputes between the two groups through meetings and

dialogue, improved coordination between leaders and better

attitudes between hosts and IDPs more broadly. PROPEL

activities such as wrestling for peace were popular and

reportedly very helpful in reducing tensions between host and

IDP youth.


Recommendation #2: Establish a peace-building fund mechanism

We recommend establishing a peace-building fund mechanism within the project budget that enables project managers

to fast-track small and timely peace-building grants. Peace-building fund sub-grantees should design interventions with

multiple components—both timely interventions and longer-term awareness raising and capacity building elements—

based on the input received through participatory conflict analysis.

6. Overcoming barriers to women’s active participation prevents attrition

a. Introduction

At each stage of PACE implementation in South Sudan, women faced obstacles to full and active participation in the

CDD process. In particular, there are cultural norms and security concerns preventing women from leaving household

and child care responsibilities to attend meetings (usually they are represented by a women’s leader instead). Further,

even if they attend meetings women are expected to remain quiet or to cook and fetch water for guests rather than

participate. Finally, women and especially female youth sometimes felt they lacked timely and appropriate information

to contribute. Due to these factors, community mapping showed that in some communities women were resistant to

attend meetings. PROPEL field teams used a combined approach of gender sensitization, female-targeted community

mobilizing, and skilled facilitation to ensure women participate in meaningful ways.

New challenges occur when it comes to women’s participation in implementing CDD projects due to work-related

gender norms and pressure points between men and women (both in the household and in work situations). As a

result, PROPEL encountered challenges in allocating skilled labor opportunities among women due to their lack of

construction-related vocational training. Women themselves pushed the envelope once they observed their male

counterparts receiving higher pay for skilled work they could be trained on relatively quickly. The CET played an

important role in such a situation by nominating women for new training opportunities and ensuring women and men

participate in all kinds of Cash for Work, providing on-the-job training where needed. The CET additionally needed to

ensure conditions for women’s success by selecting group leaders and supervisors (including women) who would

promote team work and equal participation between men and women, even when that challenged traditional gender

roles.

Literature

PROPEL’s findings on effective techniques for women’s mobilization align with those shared in the World Bank’s 2006

study of CDD in conflict-affected contexts. The report clarifies that, "There is no single prototype for achieving

representation and inclusion in a community forum; instead the procedures for representation are best devised as

appropriate to their context."33 In Afghanistan, for instance, women’s representation did not mean equal voice; some

women felt under-equipped to lead due to their relatively inferior education vis-à-vis men, and "women reported a

general lack of legitimacy and meaningful participation, as well as insufficient access to relevant information..."34 This

relates to what PROPEL found during community mapping where some women doubted whether it was worth their

time to attend meetings, or worth the risk to speak out in them. In spite of these obstacles, community mapping brought

to light that most women in PROPEL’s target communities demanded a voice at the table.

b. Key challenges to ensure women’s participation influences decision-making

The obstacles women face to participation in CDD vary depending on the cultural norms of the community in question,

the level of education of men and women, and their previous exposure to NGO activities. In some communities, CDD

implementers must overcome established cultural norms when seeking to include women’s voices in the consultation

process, as some ethnic groups do not consider it respectful for women to speak in front of men. Further, women are

33 Kuehnast, Kathleen, Community-Driven Development in the Context of Conflict-Affected Countries: Challenges and Opportunities (World Bank, 2006), 26. 34 Kuehnast, Community-Driven Development, 26.


often recruited to fetch water and cook for the guests, while female youth may be called on to set up chairs and clean

and arrange the meeting place. These responsibilities preclude participation, which is not expected anyway.

Challenges begin at the moment of mobilization, when women must be freed up from household responsibilities and

obtain permission from their husbands to attend meetings. In fact, during community mapping, PROPEL was advised

by some communities that their staff should seek the permission of each woman’s husband before speaking to her.

Gender norms also affect women in relation to the type of work they are allowed to do. For instance, Cash for Work

opportunities for one project in Juba were assigned through community decision-making that adhered to traditional

gender roles: whereas men held the technical certification for skilled labor, women lacked that certification and were

given unskilled labor roles. Women requested the opportunity for on-the-job training. In response to women’s requests

in this case, CET members ensured that women had the opportunity to work as painters side-by-side with male Cash

for Work beneficiaries, and later they participated equally (albeit in a trainee role) on a road rehabilitation. The PROPEL

field team’s role was to sensitize the CET to bias implicit in the allocation of work and pay, and to help them reach a

creative solution to the women’s lack of vocational training. This approach broke with traditional gender norms for

women’s vocational training: throughout the community mapping in all target communities, people requested training

for women in tailoring and opportunities for them in terms of starting small businesses, such as baking. In other words,

work in construction was not part of their perspective prior to PROPEL.

c. PACE CDD Methods

PACE Interventions / Techniques that promote women’s active participation in CDD

i. Gender Manager: Hiring a field-based technical specialist with localized experience in gender programming

is necessary to ensure PACE interventions incorporate gender considerations at each stage. The gender

manager has a cross-programmatic role, advising on community mapping to incorporate gender issues and

successfully targeting women, as well as M&E systems for gender sensitive reporting, and most importantly

at the level of field implementation for community mobilization, project selection, women’s role in project

implementation and sustainability mechanisms, as well as gender-inclusive peace-building activities from the

Peace-building Fund. The gender manager’s role is to ensure staff capacity and put in place systems that

empower women, address constraints to equal participation and ensure they benefit equally from all CDD

activities.

ii. Gender-Aware Community Mapping: Community mapping was designed to ensure 50% representation of

women respondents in the household survey, focus group discussions with women and female youth

separately in each boma, and key informant interviews with one female community leader in each boma, as

well as one female IDP leader wherever there was an IDP settlement. During the focus groups and interviews,

PROPEL teams began to identify female leaders and role models for subsequent CDD programming. Finally,

gender dynamic mapping was conducted by the Gender Manager in each community and discussed with field

teams to reach an action plan for effective targeting and inclusion of women at each stage of CDD

programming.

iii. Standards And Leadership to Ensure Women’s Active Participation: Simply opening the door to women

to step out of traditional gender roles in terms of attending meetings and learning new job skills is not adequate

for inclusion. Instead, local women must lead mobilization efforts, and address women’s concerns proactively.

PROPEL ensured women were given the opportunity to meet together prior to attending open meetings, and

prepare the viewpoints they wanted to share with the community. To complement these efforts, PROPEL

carried out gender sensitization activities with both men and women to prepare a receptive environment in

meetings and prevent back-lash at home to prevent fall-off in attendance. Mandatory benchmarks are also

helpful to incentivize change in established norms; for instance, before proceeding with a meeting to discuss

a project, at least 50% of the participants must be women; and in order to implement a project, the CET must

ensure that women benefit equally to men. Finally, skilled facilitation during community meetings by someone

experienced in local gender dynamics is necessary to carry through on the principles of gender mainstreaming.

Through CDD projects, male and female CET members engaged women in their communities in identifying


specific development priorities and designing and implementing activities that addressed women priorities,

with numerous activities driven by female CET members.

iv. Gender-Sensitive M&E: PROPEL disaggregated all data by gender to identify and address discrepancies in

program impact on men and women, while also including specific gender-related indicators. This enabled

ongoing tracking of women’s attendance and participation in all CDD related events, their membership and

participation on CETs and WUCs, and as direct beneficiaries of cash-for-work projects. Frequent site visits

and weekly reporting by the gender manager were also important for achieving tangible results. For instance,

where equal numbers of women were represented among Cash-for-Work beneficiaries, the pay and

opportunity for skilled work experience was inequitably distributed due to entrenched gender norms. This

finding spurred more active involvement of the CET in providing new solutions for women’s empowerment,

and presence on work sites to ensure collaboration and sharing of opportunities among men and women.

Women filling team leader and supervisor roles also are important for ensuring a gender-friendly work

environment.

d. Case story in Juba: How PACE techniques worked in practice through adaptive learning

In Juba, PROPEL followed a community-led process whereby vulnerable households in the neighborhood of the CDD

project are selected by the CET for Cash-for-Work. PROPEL requires that women from vulnerable households are

included in equivalent numbers to men. During a validation meeting, community stakeholders approved whether or not

the targeting was impartially done and benefits were distributed across needy households. However, the gender

implications of the allocation of skilled and unskilled positions were not ordinarily monitored by the PROPEL team since

the positions were assigned based on technical qualifications under the oversight of the engineer. It should be noted,

however, that women were given the position of team leaders so that there were always female supervisors on site.

Representation of women among CFW beneficiaries was inadequate to ensure that financial and professional benefits

flowed equitably. In the case of the Juba rehabilitation projects, women lacked the technical qualifications for the skilled

jobs, and as a result they took on heavier and lower paid work while men were given skilled positions. Women CFW

beneficiaries for the Lologo Community Center requested the opportunity to learn skilled work, and approved by the

team leadership and the project engineer.

The PROPEL engineer selected women CFW

beneficiaries to be given on-the-job training in

painting the community center. When the PROPEL

engineer started the Lologo culvert rehabilitation,

women unskilled workers were given opportunities

to be trained and work alongside the skilled

workers. The women learned road alignments and

ramping, mixing the concrete, opening the drainage

system and building the retaining wall. The team

supervisors, including a female member of the CET

who provided voluntary oversight, were active in

ensuring women were given equal opportunities

and providing a collaborative working environment.

The training opportunity offered by the PROPEL

engineer and project supervisors to the CFW

women beneficiaries allowed them to realize their

full potential in terms of the work opportunities at

hand. Women acquired the skills and experience

needed to obtain higher paid, skilled work in the

future and overcame the segregation of skilled and

unskilled workers that results from traditional

gender roles. Further, male workers came to

Evidence from end-line findings - Juba

While there is no statistically significant change from

baseline to end-line in Juba in terms of the representation of

women’s interests in community decisions, there was a clear

indication of an increase in divergence of opinions.

Qualitative findings indicated that exposure to women’s voice

and involvement in decision-making through PROPEL

activities and trainings led to a more accurate assessment of

leadership’s failure to address women’s interests. The fact

the decline was concentrated among women and youth

suggests PROPEL’s gender and youth training drove greater

awareness on this issue, resulting in more negative

perceptions among this subgroup.

Interestingly, in Juba there was a weak statistically significant

and positive difference between respondents who benefited

from cash-for-work or other PROPEL projects (55%)

compared to respondents who did not (47%), suggesting that

PROPEL activities met women’s needs and demonstrated

the impact of their voice on decision-making.


appreciate the women’s commitment to developing their community and readily provided the required training under

the oversight of the engineer and project supervisors. The strong leadership and management ski lls demonstrated by

the female team leader and supervisor encouraged the women to build good relationships among themselves and

remain focused on their activities until the completion of the CDD projects. As a result, the women had a strong shared

understanding of the value of their participation in CDD projects.


Recommendation #1: Mainstream gender consideration across all aspects of CDD programming Put women’s inclusion, participation and voice at the forefront of CDD programming given its outsized impact on project outcomes and sustainability. PROPEL was deliberately inclusive of women and their voice and participation to ensure CDD programming was appropriate or sustainable as every aspect of CDD programming impacts, or is impacted by women in their communities. Our experience tells us that the more women are informed of CDD programming the more they will participate. Recommendation #2: Women’s active participation begins with program recruitment and staffing Program recruitment and staffing must reflect the importance of women’s inclusion and participation in all aspects of CDD programming. Recruit a senior gender manager and ensure field women representation on field teams. Recommendation #3: Use the following PACE techniques for boosting women participation While methods for including women in CDD programming are largely context-specific, there are techniques that apply most anywhere: set quotas for women inclusion in community engagement and their representation on CDD decision making bodies; as well as attendance at community events. Enable and empower women to attend community events by providing child care options; convening separate all-female gatherings; and empowering women to nudge traditional customs and norms. Carry out gender sensitization workshops with men and women to shift mindsets to allow women space to challenge traditional norms and customs without backlash. Traditionally, it is men who fulfill the role of custodians of gender norms and who are therefore gatekeepers of change. Recommendation #4: Design and employ gender-specific M&E and Learning criteria Specific gender-related M&E and learning criteria will enable adaptive management that can continue to challenge

assumptions and related approaches concerning women’s inclusion and participation.


Conclusion

The methods and techniques presented in this document have been tested in South Sudan in varied contexts, and

found effective despite localized conflicts. PROPEL’s PACE methodology tailored to South Sudan is applicable for

humanitarian assistance as well as development assistance and peace-building interventions in-country, and is

supplemented by a set of training modules and project management guidance tailored for South Sudan. Following the

issue-based structure of the report, humanitarian and development practitioners can apply relevant techniques to the

specific challenges and contextual dynamics of their activities and regions of operation.

This document provides guidance for applying key CDD principles in order to achieve a do-no-harm approach in

regards to South Sudan’s political economy through the following methods:

An inclusive approach that ensures representation of all community segments;

Coordination with local leaders using methods to ensure transparency;

Targeted outreach to women and gender sensitization to promote women’s voice in decision-making;

Strategic communications and grievance redress mechanisms throughout implementation; and

Conflict-mitigation structures and capacity building incorporated into sustainability.

Security is a primary need in South Sudan; while security-related dynamics and capacities are often outside the scope

of a given program, CDD is supported by complementary peace-building activities of USAID and local CSO partners.

The PROPEL experience demonstrates that coordinating and complementing livelihood and resource-related activities

with peace-building initiatives can help settle and prevent localized disputes.

The CLA approach is critical to the goal of reducing costs and improving outcomes of interventions in South Sudan

because it results in the documentation of evidence-based methods. The integration of that learning into the design of

future projects, and the ongoing commitment of USAID-South Sudan to collecting, documenting and sharing lessons

learned will prevent costly mistakes in future. Further, CLA allows for continuity and growth from one project to the next

because new implementing partners do not need to repeat the learning process of their predecessors, but can build

on that work and leverage it to better effect. Through CLA, CDD will contribute to improved sustainability while also

enabling aid practitioners to implement a do no harm approach in South Sudan’s conflict setting.

The PROPEL experience sheds light on key challenges to CDD that vary across contexts in South Sudan, as well as

the unique demands placed on communities and local leaders that a CDD approach is designed to address.

Implemented over an 11-20 month timeframe, PROPEL’s methods will require further adaptive learning in future

implementation over longer programming cycles. PROPEL was able to achieve statistically significant results in terms

of improved social capital and conflict-resolution resilience indicators in some but not all contexts. More work is needed

to test methods of CDD and conditions for success in urban areas in particular, where targeting is particularly

problematic due to population density and multi-layered needs for services, infrastructure and security.

Successive rounds of CDD projects over a longer time period will allow for greater elaboration of methods for

community oversight of project implementation and management of resources. PROPEL recommends CDD

implementation across clusters of communities in order to leverage peace-building opportunities to mitigate inter-

community conflict and achieve well-being targets that require greater scale. The methods tested and presented here

provide the basis for implementing CDD at a larger scale, and demonstrate that this approach is feasible and essential

for strengthening resilience in South Sudan.


Works Cited

Béné, C., Frankenberger, T., and Nelson, S., Design, Monitoring and Evaluation of Resilience Interventions: Conceptual

and Empirical Considerations (Institute of Development Studies, 2015): https://www.ids.ac.uk/publication/design -

monitoring-and-evaluation-of-resilience-interventions-conceptual-and-empirical-considerations.

Kuehnast, Kathleen, Community-Driven Development in the Context of Conflict-Affected Countries: Challenges and

Opportunities (World Bank, 2006): http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/497351468137707391/CDD-in-the-

context-of-conflict-affected-countries-challenges-and-opportunities.

King, Elisabeth, A Critical Review of Community-Driven Development Programmes in Conflict-Affected Contexts (World

Bank, 2013): http://www.gsdrc.org/document-library/a-critical-review-of-community-driven-development-

programmes-in-conflict-affected-contexts/.

Marc, Alexandre et al, Societal Dynamics and Fragility: Engaging Societies in Responding to Fragile Situations (World

Bank, 2012): http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTCPR/Resources/407739-1313432470798/Fragility-Summary-

WEB.pdf.

The PACE Toolkit: Volume 3: Managing PACE (Global Communities, 2016):

https://www.globalcommunities.org/node/37934.

Pathways from Peace to Resilience: Evidence from the Greater Horn of Africa on the Links between Conflict Management

and Resilience to Food Security Shocks (Mercy Corps, 2015):

https://www.mercycorps.org/sites/default/files/pathways_evaluation_summary-brief.pdf.

Salomonsen, Andreas Tore Holst and Diachok, Myrtle Laura, Operations and Maintenance of Rural Infrastructure in

Community-Driven Development and Community-Based Projects (World Bank, 2015):

http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/632671468180228943/Operations-and-maintenance-of-rural-

infrastructure-in-community-driven-development-and-community-based-projects-lessons-learned-and-case-

studies-of-good-practice.

Wong, Susan, What Have Been the Impacts of World Bank CDD Programs (World Bank, 2012):

http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/967431468161087566/What-have-been-the-impacts-of-World-Bank-

Community-Driven-Development-Programs-CDD-impact-evaluation-review-and-operational-and-research-

implications.

Community-Driven Development Methods for South Sudanand sustainability of their program, regardless of whether they are using a CDD approach. PROPEL’s CDD Approach: PACE PROPEL adapted

Documents