Most commentary on that awkward reality has come, perhaps inevitably, from the generators and purveyors of evidence. More attention needs to be given now to what others say about this conundrum, especially the intended main recipients of the evidence—the decision-makers and managers in the world of action, including government officials and managers.  What is their take on the problem of weak policy uptake of evidence? If both sides of the market for evidence—the suppliers and the users—understood each other’s perspectives better, both could benefit, getting more of what they want with less waste of effort.

Getting that to happen will not be easy. The suppliers are mostly researchers. They have views on what users think and want but rarely know firsthand what it is really like to be in the hotseat of policymaking and program delivery day after day. The users, similarly, often have only hazy notions of the finer points of the evidence available—how it was derived, how reliable it is, and what its limitations are. The two camps speak different languages, reside in different universes.

One impediment to bridging that gap is that there is no simple way to pin down users’ perspectives.  Doing surveys or using other scientific tools to try to lock down a precise parsing of what policymakers and program implementers think about evidence and why, when, and how they use it or not will never be sufficient. The only dependable way to assess evidence users’ thinking and behavior in relation to evidence uptake is to spend considerable time being a policymaker or program implementer or working closely with them, experiencing the rough and tumble of advising, or supporting or negotiating with them. Not everyone has the time, opportunity, or inclination to do that. But a lot can be learned from talking with—and listening carefully to—people who have.

As someone who has worked as a policymaker and worked at 3ie—a supplier of evidence and an advocate for its use in decision-making—I care deeply about and understand all the complex aspects of these challenges. In my current role, as a 3ie senior fellow, I am focusing on how to improve the evidence-supplier to evidence-user interface at all levels, and working closely with the organization’s Evidence for Policy and Learning Team.

Presuming that practical policymaking and implementational realities are “someone else’s business” that evidence producers can stay apart from is a sure ticket to irrelevance.

Drawing from my own experience and networks, I had the privilege to complete an in-depth examination of five examples of particularly interesting policymakers (see Reformers in International Development:  Five Remarkable Lives, published by Routledge).

Conversations with these individuals have helped highlight some fundamental principles important for facilitating and enhancing evidence uptake in policymaking.  Seemingly obvious at first look, these principles reveal, on closer inspection, challenging complexities, along with practical steps that can help.

First, if the creators, providers, and advocates of evidence truly want to promote more and better uptake of it that results in improved policy and programs, they need to approach that task by putting themselves more in the shoes of the people who decide policy and oversee programs. Data people need to learn to think the way doer people do. This means learning their language and meeting them on their turf—not just figuratively but also literally—by spending time with doer people whenever, and as much as, possible. Evidence producers need to own the fact that the constraints that policymakers face, the barriers they must overcome, and the gauntlet they have to traverse in order to get anything adopted are fully a part of what a good researcher must take into account. Presuming that those practical policymaking and implementational realities are ‘someone else’s business’ that evidence producers can stay apart from is a sure ticket to irrelevance. As examples of doers, the five decisionmakers in my Reformers book were hungry for evidence that settled key pragmatic questions, not distant general propositions. Ela Bhatt, when helping millions of impoverished working women in India to build better lives for themselves, needed to know what would work for them and what not. When the women needed to create their own bank, she needed to know how it should be designed to be sustainably viable. When another of the five— Dzingai Mutumbuka (now a 3ie Board Member)—was a cabinet minister charged with creating a new education system in a newly independent African country where 97 percent of its population had never had the chance to go to school before, he needed to know what his initial top priority should be. When donors pursued him with what they thought he should do—but failed to provide convincing evidentiary support for them—he had to work hard to find better answers on his own, tailored better to the context he had to deal with.

Second, researchers need to recognize that an essential aspect of putting oneself in the shoes of policymakers is helping them explain evidence compellingly to their many and diverse stakeholders. If decisionmakers are going to stick their neck out to act upon some crucial piece of evidence, they will need to present and defend it well—across the whole trajectory of the decisionmaking journey, from floating a new policy initially among close colleagues, to sharing it widely with parliamentarians and voters, to coping with attacks from critics, to commenting on how it has turned out when implemented.  To be good at all that, decisionmakers need to understand the evidence thoroughly themselves and be comfortable walking others through it. Researchers need to help with that.

If politics is the art of compromise, policymaking is the science of choosing better when best is out of reach.

Everything about a piece of evidence—where it came from, how it was developed, what it means, and how reliable it is—must be totally transparent in the sense of being understandable by those who might want to know. When Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala—another of the five main characters in Reformers—was the Nigerian cabinet minister responsible for bringing government spending back from the chaos left by the military regime that preceded the democratically elected government she came in with, she needed evidence that was incontrovertible. Shrewdly disarming critics, she had all the details of her proposed new budget published publicly—in a book that immediately became a bestseller across the country. When Adolfo Figueroa, still another of the five, was working out his proposals for tackling the extreme poverty among the large indigenous populations in the Andean high areas of his native Peru, he insisted on finding arguments that could be understood even by any ordinary “shoeshine boy.”

Third, putting oneself in the shoes of policymakers may require researchers to add tasks in their research that go beyond what would be necessary from a research perspective alone. For example, in the real world, first-best solutions are often not feasible, whether because of political impasses, administrative limitations, or other reasons. So, policymakers need evidence showing not only the best course of action but also second- and third-best alternatives that may be more attainable in their specific context. If politics is the art of compromise, policymaking is the science of choosing better when best is out of reach. Evidence generators and disseminators can do themselves—and policymakers—a favor by providing guidance on what to do, in various circumstances, when optimal solutions cannot be achieved.  In addition, evidence producers should have a sensitive ear for the exact nature—including degree of precision—of the information that decision-makers require. Sometimes policymakers need most to know if a certain value is at least above a certain threshold—for instance, that the rate of return for some program will be at least greater than, say, 10 percent. In that case, trying to determine a good point estimate—say that the rate of return is 16 percent with a confidence interval of +/- 4 percentage points is of secondary interest for the policymaker. Simply knowing that the answer is almost assuredly more than a critical threshold (10% in this example) is enough. When Domingo Cavallo, the fifth of the five in Reformers, was deciding how best to ratchet down the hyperinflation that was ravaging his country, Argentina, in the early 1990s, he could not wait for finely calibrated point estimates of the reforms he was considering; he just needed to know whether their impact would, grosso modo (roughly speaking), be large or small.

Drawing lessons from the evidence on how to make evidence most useful will continue to be a key factor in driving the change.

This article was originally published on 3ie.

Kranti was set up in 2010 by Sunita Bhosale to work on various issues related to violence, land rights, education, health, and skill development faced by the Pardhi tribe, an Adivasi community that is discriminated against on grounds of social identity and cultural practices. Initially, Kranti only worked with the Pardhi community, to which Sunita belongs as well. Over time, they also started working with other groups living in remote areas, including Adivasi and DNT/NT communities. The core areas of focus for the organisation include education, gender and caste-based discrimination and violence, health, police brutality, women’s empowerment, atrocities, entitlements, social welfare schemes, and citizenship.

As an organisation led by a woman belonging to a De-notified tribe, Kranti had limited access to resources. As a result, Kranti was able to do very little in the way of organisational development in its first decade. Sunita had registered it as a nonprofit but did not know much about accounting, budgeting, programming, and other governance-related work. During this time, they had an organisational strength of four—of which two people were working in the field—and they faced great difficulty in raising funds. “We had no sustained sources of funding,” says Sunita, “so we had to rely on individual donations of up to INR 5,000 to cover costs.” Later on, Sunita also learned about fellowships provided by Dalit Foundation, CORO, ECONET, ActionAid, and SWISSAID and began to use this fellowship money to pay the staff.

This state of affairs continued until 2019. By this time, they were working in 10 villages in two blocks of Pune and had realised that to scale their work, they needed more staff, including accountants and documentation and fundraising officers. Then, a person who was familiar with Kranti’s work put them in touch with the nonprofit Jan Sahas. This led to Kranti receiving organisational development support through Jan Sahas’ Grassroots Resilience Institute (GRI), which has had a significant impact on Kranti’s fundraising abilities, operations, and reach.

The organisation’s annual budget during its first decade was INR 1–1.5 lakh. This has increased by almost 9x—their budget for the current 1.5-year period is INR 13 lakh. In addition, its organisational strength has grown approximately 8x, from four to 31. All these changes have also broadened their impact, which has more than doubled. Up until 2019, Kranti worked with approximately 1,200 families, but as of 2024, its work covers 3,000 households across 15 villages in Pune district and five villages in Ahmednagar district.

Behind these quantifiable changes are a host of transformations resulting from extensive organisational development efforts.

What changed?

1. Capacity building and connecting with other nonprofits

Kranti had several needs that required attention, but one of their most critical requirements was staff capacity development. The organisation operates in remote areas where skilled professionals are scarce, but with the opportunity for organisational development, Kranti was able to enhance its staff’s work efficiency, skills, knowledge, and leadership qualities.

Priyanka Jadhav, who handles documentation and fundraising at Kranti, says, “GRI’s intervention also involved monitoring and evaluation (M&E) exercises, fostering connections between Kranti and other organisations for funds, mentorship, and Kranti’s capacity development. For example, they put us in touch with other organisations such as Bridgespan that could help us make a 10–15-year plan. They also introduced us to SEWA, where we were assigned a mentor who works with us on skill development and identifying challenges.”

Kranti was thus able to tap into a network of nonprofits where they can start a dialogue on how to approach social issues, as well as certain aspects related to capacity building such as writing proposals and maintaining financial records.

2. Hiring more people

Funding also helped them hire more people. One of the first people Kranti hired was Priyanka. Sunita says, “Priyanka and I have known each other for a long time, almost 15 years. When she was getting her PhD, she expressed interest in serving the community rather than in getting a regular job.” After receiving the grant money, Kranti was able to hire Priyanka as well as an accountant.

Sunita says that having people who were university-educated and could communicate in English helped broaden Kranti’s donor outreach.  “Through Priyanka, we got the kind of know-how we needed for proposals or English translation.” Having all these new skill sets on board has helped them reach a level where they are able to fundraise effectively with other organisations, such as Forbes Foundation and Azim Premji Foundation.

Their work is also happening in a more streamlined manner now. “At first, a lot of our programming was haphazard. In addition, while equal opportunity and non-discrimination are organisational values at Kranti, we only instituted policies for them after receiving support for organisational development.” Kranti has formulated 12 policies, including POSH, finance, equal opportunity, and code of conduct. Although the policies are still being iterated on, the institution of a basic framework has helped bring transparency and a clearer sense of the organisation’s stance on certain issues.

3. Enhanced financial control

With improved financial management and the utilisation of accounting software, Kranti now has better control and visibility over their finances. Sunita reflects on the previous state of financing, “We didn’t know about the rules and regulations around how much money we could keep with us as cash or in cheques.” There were also no established procedures or due processes in place concerning the purchase of items by staff.

Hiring an accountant and instituting a finance policy has paid off and helped in improving resource allocation. Priyanka says, “Earlier, everyone would just go out in the field and buy whatever they thought was needed without obtaining quotations first or doing price comparisons. Now that the finance policy has been implemented, there is greater thought put into how and where money is spent.”  

4. Improved programme planning

The financial stability and enhanced record-keeping have enabled Kranti to engage in more thorough programme planning. Sunita says, “Now, we are able to allocate resources strategically, set clear objectives, and measure impact more effectively.” In addition, there is a structured plan for which programmes are to be conducted when, ensuring the intended outcome of the organisation’s work is measurable. Last year, for instance, Kranti succeeded in registering 1,000 DNT/NT and Adivasi people to the voter list and enabled more than 500 people to acquire caste certificates.

Having an office has also been useful for planning, holding meetings, and inculcating the atmosphere of an institution. For many years, before they had an office, Kranti operated out of Sunita’s home, and so this has been one of the most positive changes for her. “Besides being a place where we can all gather to discuss programme implementation, the office is where we do our monthly meeting in which we discuss what’s going on currently and our plans for the future.” Since the office space is where the entire team—including volunteers, ground teams, and management—meets, it lends to the feeling of being part of an institution. Kranti also has a website and a logo now, which have contributed to instilling a sense of organisational identity.

Challenges along the way

“Breaking old habits and forming new ones is always hard,” says Priyanka. This holds true for both the permanent staff as well as the resource persons that Kranti is associated with. For instance, although the new finance policy has helped account for any money being spent, Priyanka acknowledges that the processes have been an additional burden on the staff.  

Since there are hiring policies in place, the resource persons being engaged for a specific training programme are being asked for a CV. In addition, they are required to produce a plan for the activities they wish to undertake, as well as a report once the activities are completed. “This is jarring for the people we have engaged before, as they don’t understand why we are suddenly asking them for all this extra documentation,” Priyanka adds.  Since resource persons are hired based on educational experience and qualifications, it means more vetting work for the staff. 

To mitigate these challenges, Kranti conducted training sessions with the staff, explaining the importance of these policies and how they contribute to the overall efficiency and effectiveness of organisational programmes. Alongside clear communication and training, which helped them understand the rationale behind the policies, regular monitoring and feedback mechanisms were put in place to ensure that the staff were adhering to the policies and to help address any challenges that arose during implementation.

Advice to grassroots nonprofits

1. Understand the importance of formal processes

Organisations can often fall into the trap of believing that only the work being carried out on the ground is important, thus glossing over the importance of organisational structures, policies, and documentation. Sunita says, “We know 10–15 nonprofits in Maharashtra that do great work on the ground with Dalit, Bahujan, and Adivasi (DBA) or DNT/NT communities but do not know the first thing about the importance of filing taxes, having your 80(G) certificate, and audit reports.” This hinders their ability to tap into funding since some degree of documentation is a prerequisite to applying for and receiving grants.

On the flip side, however, such information is hard to come by for grassroots organisations, especially those that are operating in remote areas. “No one told us either about certifications, legal compliances, plans and reports, and having a vision/mission,” remarks Sunita. This is why developing as an organisation was so fundamental to Kranti’s work progressing to the next stage.

2. Learn how to separate and take due credit for your organisation’s work

Sunita and Priyanka relate something that happened with Kranti a few times in their initial years. Sunita says, “We were partnering with organisations that would award us fellowships of INR 5,000, INR 8,000, and so on. Over time, however, I realised that some of these nonprofits were passing off our work as theirs and making us out to be an implementing organisation. So, they were being awarded grants in crores of rupees while only a fraction of that amount made it to us.”

Thus, Priyanka and Sunita believe that grassroots nonprofits should be mindful of how their work is being represented, especially since representation impacts the perception of the organisation among stakeholders, including potential donors and partners as well as the community. Ensuring the organisation’s work is well represented can also aid in recruiting volunteers and staff members.  

Advice to funders

1. Fund grassroots organisations directly

Sunita says that in their first 12 years, even direct appeals to support channels bore little fruit. In part, this is because of well-established funding patterns followed by other players in the ecosystem, such as funders and grantmaking organisations. Big funders usually give money to grantmaking organisations that distribute funds to grassroots and implementing organisations. Since fundraising requires skill, resources, and networking—all of which grassroots organisations cannot always tap into—it is challenging for most organisations working on the ground to connect with funders.

Since funders have resources at their disposal, they may be better positioned to seek information on grassroots nonprofits working in the thematic areas they are interested in supporting. This is a complex exercise, but one that can potentially add value to existing funding models.

2. Focus on commitment and potential

According to Priyanka, many funders have mandates that prevent them from funding smaller organisations—for example, funding only those organisations that have a turnover of INR 50 lakh to INR 1 crore. “However, grassroots organisations sometimes do very impactful work even within budgets as low as INR 2 lakh. So, instead of assessing parameters such as annual budgets, a fairer method would be to look at how invested an organisation is in the work they do and how much better they could get once organisational structures are in place.” Funding developing organisations is always crucial, she adds. “Bigger nonprofits can survive because they already have resources at their disposal, but that is not the case for grassroots nonprofits.”

Grassroots organisations work directly with communities and the outcomes of this work are often clear. However, there are several barriers between nonprofits and funders, not least of which is a lack of exchange of information.  

What’s next for Kranti?

Kranti’s efforts towards developing as an organisation—by hiring personnel who could fundraise, building team members’ capabilities, and improving on reporting practices—had a ripple on their visibility to funders, as evidenced by the 9x increase in their budget. The organisation’s future plans, which involves extending their work to the entirety of Pune and Ahmednagar districts, would require them to continue on this path. “Right now, we work in 20 villages and cover 3,000 households. To expand the same work that we’re doing to 100–150 villages, we will need to secure five to six grants over the next two years,” says Sunita.

Ultimately, Kranti’s vision is also to make the villages that they work in independent. Sunita elaborates, “We want the situation to be such that when we’ve worked in a village for five years, we never have to work in it again and the communities themselves are capable of identifying and resolving any challenges that come up in the future.” This would help serve Kranti’s mission of ending the historical exclusion and stigmatisation of de-notified tribes, preventing violence against women, and ensuring the upliftment of marginalised groups.

—

About Priyanka and Sunita

Priyanka Jadhav is a social activist and scholar currently working with Kranti as a documentation and fundraising officer. Priyanka has a PhD from Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai, and is the first woman from the Kaikadi tribe (a de-notified tribe) to have completed a PhD in Maharashtra. Priyanka’s MPhil and PhD research projects looked into the changing livelihood practices of the Masanjogi community and the lives of Pardhi women respectively. Through her research, she gained insights into the complexities of marginalised communities’ lives and the urgent need for their inclusion in policy frameworks.

Sunita Bhosale is an activist and a social worker who belongs to the Pardhi tribe of Maharashtra. After working with various organisations at the grassroots level, she realised the need to establish an organisation that would serve marginalised communities in her area. In 2010, she founded Kranti to work on issues related to education, violence, entitlement, and social welfare schemes. Sunita recently returned to and successfully graduated from college, fulfilling a goal she was unable to earlier due to various challenges.

—

An earlier version of this article stated that grassroots organisations are started to fill a perceived gap or in response to social issues. This was updated on March 22, 2024, to reflect that all organisations in the development sector are started with this aim and face similar challenges in the absence of organisational development.

This article was updated on April 5, 2024, to reflect that as an organisation led by a woman belonging to a De-notified tribe, Kranti had limited access to resources.

—

Know more

• Read this case study to learn how a grassroots nonprofit can approach scale.
• Read this report to learn how a shift in funding practices could contribute to resilient nonprofits.

Codification is not new. If we look at social sector organisations that have done this successfully in India, we can find great examples in the education and health sectors. For instance, Pratham Education Foundation codified the teaching module used to bridge learning gaps in students. It can be accessed by full-time, part-time, or remedial teachers to help students who are lagging behind. This method is now being used in other countries as well.

In the case of childbirth and prenatal and postnatal care, the health sector now has checklists and protocols that have led to drastic improvements in infant and maternal mortality rates. What these sectors have done is to codify the requirements for delivering results.

Codification can result in much-needed advantages for water conservation as well. For instance, frontline cadres are critical in driving behaviour change when it comes to better water use and agricultural practices. These cadres need not just technical know-how but also soft skills in leading by example. Similarly, when working with flagship government programmes to enhance water supply, nonprofits need to understand the state’s system, with its cycle of planning, approval, and budget allocation, as well as whom to engage with and when.

Typically, each new partner develops this knowledge for themselves. However, if they could refer to a ‘playbook’ based on the experiences and learnings of another organisation, the time for trial and error is reduced and they can become effective faster.

Funders should make the first move

As it turns out, nonprofits are busy doing what they need to do—executing programmes on the ground, working with communities, and driving social change. Their plates are full, and they often have limited resources to share their learnings with stakeholders beyond the programme.

As donors, we collaborate with diverse organisations implementing various programmes and can identify commonalities across them. We may be better positioned to see the ‘principles’ driving success and the challenges programmes and partners face. Over time, we amass substantial learnings on what works and what doesn’t in different contexts. For instance, at HUF, approximately 1,200 frontline workers drive behaviour change on water use across programmes. Thus, for us, codifying the most effective principles and orchestrating cross-learning between partners makes limited resources go a long way.

Communication design is crucial

It is not that the sector lacks knowledge or best practices. Almost all organisations we work with profile learnings in manuals, guidebooks, and programme documentation. However, accessing and using this wealth of information can be daunting. The material lacks navigability and often sits in documents or simply in the minds of people across the organisation.

Nonprofits do not always have the time, resources, or specialised communications expertise to compile and disseminate this knowledge effectively. This is why the development sector needs codification, led by expert communications partners who can design guides and do-it-yourself playbooks with specific building blocks in mind:

1. Multimedia and modular

For a codification playbook to be of real utility, it must be easy for end users to access, navigate, and understand. The format should be succinct, engaging, and user-friendly. A playbook can be made available online and can use a combination of multimedia tools—video, audio, text, and printable copies where required. Users should also be able to choose whether they want the entire module or just some parts. It should be possible for them to skip steps and dive into more material when needed. The material should be available as snippets as well as in detail. Similarly, these guides should be modular and offer opportunistic learning. People at different learning stages can use them to get updated on a specific theme or skill they need to know more about.

2. A strategic how-to guide

An impactful programme would typically have many moving parts. To ensure the replication of success, these parts would have to be unbundled so the core or essential component that accounts for most of the impact can be isolated. It could be a process, a routine, a principle, or a cultural mindset. Breaking it down into bite-sized sections or steps others can learn from becomes critical.

3. Descriptive, not prescriptive

A prototype being scaled to different contexts cannot resort to standardisation. Codification is not meant to tell our partners that there is only one way to achieve an objective. Instead, it is intended to be a directional guide. The idea is to take the learnings of an organisation that has done something well and share it with others who may need this learning. While the playbook acts as a guide, each person or team using it should also be able to customise and localise it after taking their cultural and regional nuances into account. It should allow different organisations to tweak it to serve their needs.

4. Iterative

All processes, toolkits, and playbooks risk becoming static and losing relevance over time. A good playbook should allow for the incorporation of new learnings from organisations or funders who test and use it. If something doesn’t work for them or if they’ve tried a different approach that does work, they should be able to add that learning into the playbook. The idea that there can be different ways of achieving similar impact is fundamental to scalability. A willingness to learn from success and failure is also vital for effective scaling.

We work in a dynamic ecosystem, and what works today may not work tomorrow. Therefore, codification cannot be a one-time effort and should keep getting updated collaboratively.

HUF’s vision is to use these codified playbooks as a platform where more and more partners add their own experiences or resources. The playbook should encourage transparency and openness and act as a document for the public good, ensuring funders and civil society organisations aggregate resources and combine capabilities while keeping solutions relevant to local contexts. These diverse layers, levels, and perspectives can help the development sector scale impact successfully.

Know more

• Dip into this playbook to learn how to build an effective frontline cadre.
• Read about what the social sector needs to do to scale scaling up.
• Read about whether an organisation’s size is the right metric to measure impact

Service design—the process of optimizing both a service provider and user’s experience—has a particularly important role to play in solving complex social challenges, given its co-creative and human-centered approach. 

At Noora Health, we continuously use service design to revamp, redesign, or create entirely new services in order to deepen our impact and engagement with the caregivers, patients, and healthcare providers we collaborate with. Often, the different touchpoints between a service provider and user are designed by separate teams or verticals. Think of an app designed by a software engineer and a takeaway pamphlet conceptualized by a communications designer. Both are part of the same health education service for new mothers and their families, but developed deliberately in silos, which can ultimately lead to less intuitive offerings or support for the end user.

As service designers, we cut through the silos and glue the pieces together. Once the end-to-end service is in place, it’s important to communicate it to the relevant stakeholders, especially those implementing and delivering the work in practice. This helps build a shared understanding and collect feedback.

A service prototype is a great way of achieving these objectives. Typically done in the early stages of design, one can do this by creating a quick video, roleplaying or enacting the service from beginning to end, or even using Lego sets to create a model of the service that people can ‘walk through’ with their hands. This helps the end-users understand or experience the service as a whole, while also gathering their feedback.

Walkthroughs: Simulating a service experience

Although service prototypes are the best way of testing the strengths and weaknesses of a service, they can often be time and resource intensive. Much of our work at Noora Health is in collaboration with partners across the public health system who have their own (often constrained) timelines. This often leaves us with limited time to prototype and test the end-to-end service in sequence with health staff and end-users.

However, to ensure the quality of our service and its uptake across healthcare facilities, we still need to gather feedback and explain it to teams implementing it in hospitals on a day-to-day basis. 

Back in November 2022, this need led to the creation of our first ever ‘service walkthrough’—an interactive, live service that allowed internal stakeholders to experience the key, near-final tools and components in the same sequence as the intended experience of the end-user, whilst being guided by a facilitator. While this may sound similar to a service prototype in many ways, the walkthrough has three core elements that set it apart: the intended audiences (internal stakeholders), stage of completion of tools (final), and the use of a facilitator (who helps the audience understand the nuances and details of each touchpoint and tool, as well as content and communication strategies).

How did we make it happen? 

First, we set out to recreate the hospital environment within the four walls of our office. To do this we allocated spaces and rooms to mirror the touchpoints in the hospital, such as the pharmacy or the inpatient ward. To make it feel more realistic, we took pictures of the facilities, printed and stuck them up in each location. Additionally, we played four short videos on loop on a projector to give people the experience of being in a noisy and crowded hospital. We also placed all of the tools and components designed by the program design and development team, such as danglers and flipcharts, in their intended locations. 

Next, we printed signs explaining the different hospital staff who would be present in each room, the various interactions between staff and patients that would take place, and the amount of time the staff, patients, and caregivers are expected to spend at each touchpoint.  

Finally, we sequentially took various team members through the service explaining each point of contact in detail from start to finish. We explained what the patients and families already experience at the hospitals, and what additional artifacts and interactions we are placing in front of them, and how that would impact their experience.

What were some of the key outcomes of the walkthrough?

Teams across the organization found value in the walkthrough. For instance, the implementation teams responsible for setting the program up in public health facilities understood it well, asked pointed questions, and provided valuable feedback that helped us either iterate quickly or plan for feedback and validation post-launch. The research team—who were planning to test some of our artifacts in hospitals—were able to better understand the artifacts, as well as the context of the service they sit in. While observing the walkthrough unfold, the team that designed the program tools and flow were able to spot gaps and plan for quick iteration. 

In an unexpected win, the training team was also inspired to set up the space for their sessions in a similar manner, so that participating nurses could experience firsthand what the program will look and feel like.

What did we learn?

Like any well-designed prototyping exercise, the walkthrough showed us both what we were doing well, and what we could do better. A few of our takeaways were:

1. Conduct a version of the walkthrough sooner: While it is extremely important for teams to go through the final version of the experience, we found that it didn’t give us enough leeway to incorporate and iterate on their feedback. Having a walkthrough of the semi-complete service and tools would allow us to do so.
2. Get feedback on the walkthrough from health staff, patients, and caregivers: While we conduct intensive needs assessments to understand what patients, their caregivers, and health staff really need, test individual touchpoints and tools with them, and co-create as much as possible—we don’t always have time to test our entire service with them sequentially. Feedback on the end-to-end service walkthrough from people with lived experiences of working in and navigating healthcare settings would help us catch any gaps and make our service more comprehensive—aspects that would otherwise ideally get covered in the prototyping stage. 
3. Make it self-explanatory: Rather than depending on facilitators, we realized that allowing people to walk through it at their own pace would help them focus on the parts they care more about. For example, the training team would need to understand the session in the wards over any other part of the service. Doing it at their own pace could have helped them dive deeper into that section, and provide more nuanced feedback.
4. Document, document, document: Though we created a video recording of the walkthrough, it was too long and too focused on the facilitation rather than the tools and signage. To make sure that people can refer back to service at any point in the future, we understood that it needed to be documented in multiple formats that would make it easier to access.
5. Create a virtual version: Our original walkthrough had the option to be hybrid, but we observed that the experience was notably better for people who experienced it in person.

Taking these insights onboard, nearly a year later, we experimented with a completely virtual walkthrough when testing out a new service.

Bringing the virtual walkthrough to life

Similar to the in-person experience, our starting point for the virtual walkthrough was creating a three dimensional model that represented the various points of engagement. This was then uploaded into a virtual world on spatial.io.

By creating avatars in the virtual world, anyone could join the experience and interact with the service touchpoints and tools.

We conducted the walkthrough by roleplaying healthcare workers, patients, and caregivers and acted out real-life scenarios that we imagined would exist within our intervention.

The pros and cons of going virtual

Like its physical counterpart, the virtual walkthrough was also successful in explaining the service and generating actionable feedback for us. It was also extremely useful to bridge the disconnect with team members working remotely across geographies.

We also found a few areas for improvement. First, due to the limitations of the virtual platform used, actual interaction with the touchpoints was more restricted than we had predicted. For instance, many key stakeholders were unable to hold, touch, and feel the artifacts and tools that they would eventually implement and deliver, limiting their engagement and leading to some confusion around the actual size of the tools and how they were to be placed in the facilities.

Both the in-person walkthrough and the 3D, virtual walkthrough proved invaluable in enhancing communication and understanding for our internal stakeholders, as well as getting feedback from them.

Refining, adapting, growing

Recently, we have designed yet another version of the service walkthrough for our newly-launched program in Indonesia. Here, we used storyboards on a Miro to try out another way of communicating services virtually. Similarly, the team in Bangladesh is gearing up to do both early-stage, low fidelity service prototyping and a high fidelity, more final service walkthrough soon after. As we continue scaling and expanding across countries, internal walkthroughs have become the norm, and rightly so. They help get people on the same page, get feedback, and test more, in order to ensure high quality service delivery. What’s more, now that internal stakeholders are used to walkthroughs and are seeing more value in them, we have been able to advocate for longer duration, low fidelity service prototyping more easily.

From each iteration, we are consistently learning and generating ideas to make the service more user-friendly and holistic. Social change is complex, but service walkthroughs (or any other form of service prototyping) can help keep people at the heart of it. We hope that sharing our insights and observations will help build more thoughtful and intuitive public healthcare services, allowing us to learn from each other’s experiences and strengthen the system as a whole. 

This article was originally published on Noora Health.

The members of the Constituent Assembly considered these values as central to addressing entrenched issues of poverty, illiteracy, and systemic social discrimination along caste, class, gender, and religious lines. When put into practice by people and institutions, these values, rights, principles, and duties sustain our secular, democratic republic. Therefore, it is important for all citizens and organisations—but especially those working against rights violations and discrimination—to closely understand the Constitution.

Despite being progressive and forward-thinking, how much of the Constitution have we internalised and put into action? Two nonprofit organisations and a government institution explain how they use the Constitution in their work with people and communities. They speak of the various ways in which they instil constitutional values into the collective consciousness to bring about an ideological shift, and how they connect rights and laws to realities on the ground so that all sections of society are able to access legal tools.

Understanding the Constitution is a journey, not an event

CIVICACT Foundation, an organisation that works at the grassroots in Madhya Pradesh, highlights how understanding and applying these values and principles is a continuous journey, not a one-time event. Developing a lens informed by constitutional values is a gradual process that unfolds over months or even years. Consistently creating a space to experience fraternity, equality, and freedom as well as to reflect and discuss deep-set ideologies and beliefs is crucial to fostering change. CIVICACT achieves this through workshops that extend over several months, facilitating discussions among people from diverse caste, gender, and class backgrounds. These workshops also promote holistic thinking and empathy. For example, in one of the first workshops, participants are given a question to debate, such as “Is violence justifiable in some cases?”. The nuances raised in these workshops are connected to the values of equality, justice, fraternity, liberty, and rights while bringing in the participants’ contexts and ground realities.

Samvada, a Karnataka-based organisation dedicated to youth rights and empowerment, forms ongoing relationships with the young people it works with. Many of the youth it trains continue to actively work for change in their colleges by conducting fact-finding exercises on issues faced by their community. For example, they recently demanded the creation of internal complaints committees (under the Prevention of Sexual Harassment Act, 2013) in their colleges. However, this point is reached after a two-year training programme divided into three phases. During the first phase of their engagement with youth, Samvada concentrates on sensitising participants to themes such as caste, gender, class, religion, and the intersectionality of these structures of inequality. This approach allows them to lay a foundation for unpacking and understanding structural discrimination before connecting it to constitutional principles. In the second phase, they conduct workshops to build leadership skills as well as cover topics such as the Preamble and Fundamental Rights and Duties—these are taught by referencing real-life experiences. In the third phase, they connect the learnings of the first two years and act on issues faced by their communities.

Balancing tradition with the Constitution

In India, various traditions and beliefs often run counter to the principles and rights enshrined in our Constitution. These contradictions can be seen in practices such as Karva Chauth, where only women observe fasts for the longevity of their husbands, or in instances where women are barred from entering certain mosques. Recognising the deeply ingrained nature of these societal norms and people’s strong attachments to their beliefs is crucial to navigating the balance between upholding constitutional values and respecting traditions that may be at odds with constitutional principles.

Ram Narayan Syag from CIVICACT emphasises how the transformative power of change can start within one’s own family. He recounts the journey of Rekha*, a woman from a scheduled caste background, who challenged age-old casteist practices in her village in Jaipur district. Previously in this village, following local tradition, if a person considered ‘upper-caste’ visited the home of a Dalit, the latter would ceremoniously vacate their chair and offer it to the visitor, choosing to sit on the floor even if other chairs were available. Because of various constitutional literacy workshops, Rekha recognised the discriminatory nature of this custom and began speaking about it within her family. After members of her family started unfollowing this tradition, many other households in the village followed suit.

Connecting one’s local cultural heritage to the values in the Preamble is another way of nurturing acceptance of the Constitution.

Initiating this change, however, was not without challenges. The family, initially resistant, required many months of open discussions before they could be persuaded. She actively listened to the concerns of her grandfather and father, seeking to understand their perspectives and feelings of fear and ostracisation, before managing to convince them of the need to abandon this discriminatory tradition.

Connecting one’s local cultural heritage to the values in the Preamble is another way of trying to spread awareness and nurture acceptance of the Constitution. When facilitators at Samvada have to contend with the assertion that B R Ambedkar and others copied the Indian Constitution from the West, they find a way to connect the teachings of local social reformers to the ideals in the document. For example, they bring in the teachings of Basava and Kabir, poets and social reformers from the Bhakti movement period who rejected gender and social discrimination, or Jyotiba and Savitribai Phule, who fought against societal evils to provide girls and Dalit castes access to education in the 1800s.

In order to make the Constitution accessible to all, the Kerala Institute of Local Administration (KILA) started a programme called The Citizen in February 2022, employing volunteers known as ‘senators’. Several volunteers who had previously believed in inherently unequal local superstitions such as women should not be allowed in the Sabarimala temple changed their minds after engaging in trainings related to constitutional literacy. They told KILA that they just weren’t aware of the rights and principles in the Constitution and how these provisions applied to them.

Creating systems to mobilise people

Even though India’s Constitution is considered one of the most liberal and progressive globally, many people in the country aren’t familiar with its contents. Since gaining independence, successive governments have failed to prioritise widespread awareness. As a result, civil society organisations (CSOs) working on this have had to come up with new and creative ways to impart constitutional principles and rights.

Before starting The Citizen programme in Kollam district, KILA created an environment conducive to learning across the state. They did so by mobilising gram panchayats, bureaucrats, and political parties to learn about constitutional rights and responsibilities and educate communities they had influence in. According to V Sudesan, senior faculty at KILA, because of Kerala’s historical precursors—high literacy and a history of people’s participation in governance—there was no opposition to educating citizens on the Constitution. The plan was discussed with the many stakeholders—college students, teachers, youth organisations, and even religious organisations—who played a pivotal role in rallying people to attend constitutional literacy classes and workshops.

Additionally, the gram panchayats selected approximately 4000 ‘senators’ or volunteers, who were paid an honorarium of INR 1000 per month and trained by KILA about the Constitution and its relevance in day-to-day life. These volunteers in turn engaged with their families and the schools, local public offices, and religious institutions in their neighbourhood. KILA intentionally trained youngsters from the community—more than 80 percent of whom were women—instead of government teachers to prevent the facilitators from falling back to conventional teaching methods. Kollam is the first district in India that is 100 percent constitutionally literate. One of the challenges that the Kerala state machinery faced was that though ‘ordinary’ people—MGNREGA workers, women, students from rural and marginalised backgrounds, and even some heads of religious institutions—were open to the process, those with formal education and from an upper-class background tended to be resistant. This is because they felt like they already knew about the Constitution, and that the programme would be a waste of their time.

What will it take to instil constitutional values on ground?

Over the course of their work, here’s what KILA, Samvada, and CIVICACT Foundation have learned about instilling constitutional values on ground:

1. Fostering a sense of ownership can help connect people with the Constitution

All three organisations demonstrate that empowering the youth, disadvantaged sections, and women, along with encouraging leadership roles, plays a pivotal role in spreading awareness about and enabling action on constitutional values, rights, and duties. This approach creates a sense of ownership among people. Also, establishing a connection between injustices or rights violations and the corresponding constitutional remedies makes the Constitution more tangible.

2. Various tools can be employed to create dialogues about constitutional values 

KILA spreads constitutional literacy through YouTube and social media platforms. Displaying the Preamble in schools, colleges, and public spaces is another effective and simple tool to disseminate information about the Constitution. The Karnataka government has established libraries with youth clubs for regular discussions on community issues and values. Holding such discussions in open spaces, where there are individuals from diverse backgrounds, encourages people to learn from one another’s lived experiences, sensitising them to rights violations that may be happening with someone else. Incorporating positive aspects of local cultures and traditions—often through theatre, music, and games—is also important.

3. Connecting the Constitution to other programmes can help highlight its relevance in addressing social challenges

Samvada integrates the Constitution into every programme it runs, ensuring a connection between core themes such as gender and caste with constitutional principles. In this way, CSOs can apply the lens of the Constitution on issues they work on. By bridging the gap between societal issues, lived experiences, and constitutional principles, organisations can contribute to an understanding and appreciation of the Constitution’s relevance in addressing social challenges.

In addition to these, citizen’s movements, CSOs, and nonprofits that are working to promote values of equality, liberty, justice, and fraternity, and/or work on rights, should come together and share ideas and methods to create a more constitutionally literate India. 

*Name changed to maintain confidentiality.

Bipin Kumar, Ram Narayan Syag, V Sudesan, Poornima Kumar, and Ramakka R contributed their valuable insights to the article.

CIVICACT Foundation and KILA are part of Har Dil Mein Samvidhan, a campaign to create awareness about Constitutional values.

—

Know more

• Watch this explainer on the Constitution of India.
• Read this to learn more about preserving constitutional values.
• Read this article to learn how the Constitution can be used in classrooms.

As the GA has been utilised and adapted by multiple organisations over time, in recent years a less prescriptive focus has evolved, with a broader goal of economic inclusion. In particular there have been successful efforts to leverage existing government services and market opportunities in GA programmes, build on what is already in place, and use the GA to connect, strengthen and supplement other poverty alleviation efforts.

As these adaptations have developed, one area that has received little attention is whether the “lens” of the GA can be applied to contexts beyond extreme poverty, addressing other situations where a complex set of factors lead to unsustainable and vulnerable livelihoods. Once such context is forced relocation, where livelihoods are severely impacted by climate change, infrastructure projects such as mining, or other disruptions that force people to permanently leave their homes. Whereas most livelihood projects that aren’t focused on extreme poverty would not require the intensity of the GA, relocation creates a similarly multi-dimensional and complex challenge.

In this article, I’ll share lessons from a two-year pilot in Guinea that tested the applicability of the Graduation Approach in rebuilding the livelihoods of a community that was relocated due to mining activities. The project was implemented by a local non-governmental organisation on behalf of the mining company, and I supported it as a consultant. I’ve left key names and references out of this article to protect the anonymity of the community and organisations involved.

Adapting the Graduation Approach to a relocation context

The community consisted of around 1,000 people living in a thriving regional town that has rapidly developed due to the presence of mining and related commercial activity. The community was relocated from a downtown market area to an area five kilometres from the town centre. As a result, most of the families who had been running informal enterprises around the market found that they could no longer do business downtown due to the cost of transport. There was another marketplace near their new area, but it was small with few opportunities for new traders, so most of these entrepreneurs had no choice but to trade mainly within their own community.

The pilot project aimed to help this community rebuild and expand their livelihood activities and establish a sustainable economic base in their new location. These community members may not have been living in extreme poverty, but many were struggling to create new livelihoods in a context where they were unfamiliar with market conditions, lacked the skills or social networks to engage effectively in self-employment or take up employment opportunities, and suffered from social and economic exclusion.

To respond to these challenges, the project incorporated the main elements of the Graduation Approach, but adapted it in three ways:

1. Targeting the whole community: Rather than targeting the “extreme poor,” the project included all relocated households.
2. Adapting activities: The broadening of the target group led to a focus on addressing the needs of people with a wider range of economic and social profiles, and to the identification of a small group of people with larger businesses who required a less holistic approach—something the project termed the “business support component.”
3. Market strengthening and community integration: The project included elements designed to enhance local markets and integrate the relocated community with other surrounding communities. For example, a marketplace was constructed by the mining company that would attract outsiders to come into the community, increasing the level of economic activity.

Leveraging the Graduation Approach to rebuild after relocation

The Graduation Approach typically aims to address the multi-dimensional nature of poverty. Rather than tackling a single element—such as enabling people to invest in an income-generating activity through microcredit—the approach identifies the constraints that face targeted populations and the opportunities available to them. The aim is to build households’ capacity to better manage their livelihoods, so they can break out of “poverty traps” and sustainably integrate into the mainstream economy.

The GA does not prescribe a set of interventions: Rather, it builds on people’s capabilities and links to existing civil society and services to develop a programme that addresses the multiple vulnerabilities and needs of different participant groups. As classically implemented, this process involves targeting those segments of the community that are economically (and often socially) the most marginalised. But in the context of a relocated community, the aim is to enable the whole community to rebuild their livelihoods—therefore the conventional GA focus on targeting the most vulnerable is not necessarily appropriate.

While the GA is commonly used in a refugee/displaced persons context, forced relocation of a community is a new setting for this approach. The project generated a number of lessons that highlight how the GA can be leveraged to address the complex challenges created by relocation. At the heart of these challenges are the issues created by being in a new location. For instance, while relocated people may have existing levels of experience, skills and capital, they may lack the ability to apply these in a new context. Their previous livelihood activities may no longer be relevant, their knowledge about local market conditions or opportunities may be lacking, and they may not have the social capital needed to build and engage with a customer base in their new environment.

In addressing those challenges, the project highlighted the following lessons:

Tailoring support to different needs

The GA is typically implemented with a fairly homogenous group composed of the most vulnerable members of a community, so a standard set of interventions can be designed that are used with all participants. But when the approach is focused on a whole community, there is much greater divergence of experience, needs and capacity. It is therefore important to segment the target community, and to design a project that adjusts the level of intensity of support needed. In this context, the project included a “Graduation” component focused on the more vulnerable community members, who received a typical range of support including participation in savings and credit groups, a cash stipend to help stabilise their situation and enable them to save, an asset transfer to start or build a business, training in financial capability and business skills, and regular support and monitoring by a mentor. A “business support” component included those with stronger businesses less affected by relocation, who received a cash investment, tailored business support and linkages to credit.

But while these different groups were easy enough to segment when the project was designed, in practice this distinction was less clear. We soon realised that the challenges of integrating into a new environment created by relocation were not adequately reflected in the project design, and even those community members who appeared to have stronger livelihoods in our initial assessment actually required key elements of the Graduation component to support their integration into a new economic and social environment. For example, most members of the business support component joined a community savings group—an intervention initially targeted to the Graduation component. The mistrust created by the relocation process also meant that data collected during our assessment was often incomplete or misleading—something that further complicated our efforts to accurately segment the community into different groups. This experience highlights the importance of good communication to build trust and understanding in what is often a difficult and confrontational relationship between a community and the company that’s forcing the relocation. For instance, in the context of this project, the traditional approach of the company paying compensation to relocated households had led to a lot of dissatisfaction and tension. But through close engagement with the community over the two-year pilot, the project helped thaw these relations and build a new level of communication.

Addressing the psychosocial impacts of relocation

In the context of GA programmes focused on community relocation, relationships with project staff (and the company forcing the relocation) are perhaps more critical and potentially challenging than in a typical Graduation programme. In our experience, the negative impacts of relocation created a sense of “entitlement,” in which community members expected compensation from the project, as it was associated with the mining company. This expectation undermined the project’s intended focus on self-reliance and sustained benefits, and made this a difficult message to communicate.

This challenge highlights the need for strong lines of communication and an ongoing process of building community understanding and trust. Through deep engagement and regular contact with community members via mentors—who lived in the community and visited households regularly—the project built this understanding and trust over time. This spilled over into increased dialogue between the community and the mining company more generally, leading to a recognition within the company of the value of the Graduation Approach. The company is now using the GA as part of its work to support other communities impacted by its mining activities.

In conclusion, the experience of implementing the Graduation Approach with an entire relocated community in Guinea demonstrates the value that a “Graduation lens” can bring to efforts to tackle complex livelihood challenges that go beyond extreme poverty. The project illustrates the huge potential of using the approach in a range of contexts where communities are forced to relocate, whether that’s due to infrastructure projects or the impacts of climate change.

This article was originally published on NextBillion.

Today, two-thirds of the households in Adarsh Nagar have a water connection and for the remaining—many of whom are recent migrants—the cost of buying water has gone down significantly from INR 1,000 to INR 300 a month. After two years of concerted efforts to acquire the required identity documents and applying for an authorised electricity connection, now more than 350 households have metered electricity connections. Much of this has been achieved in the last three to four years due to the efforts of grassroots leaders like Munaisa Bi who are members of a citizen action group (CAG).

This story is one of many in the M-East ward of Mumbai where a citizenship approach has been adopted to create sustainable communities. These are communities that are in charge of their own development; that speak up about their needs and concerns; that develop the agency to ask for their basic rights without the support of any external stakeholder, such as a nonprofit; and that participate in decision-making on issues that impact them. The process involves identifying grassroots leaders; educating them about citizens’ rights, entitlements, and duties; and collectivising them into CAGs. The collectives meet regularly, map their community, identify issues that need addressing, prioritise concerns for advocacy and action, and assign roles and responsibilities within the group to work towards the common good. Apnalaya, a nonprofit that works with the urban poor, plays a supportive role by providing knowledge, assistance, and mentorship. The critical task of identifying issues and advocating for them rests with members of the community.

What is the citizenship approach?

Adarsh Nagar is an example of the several urban poor settlements that highlight the stark inequalities that persist in urban India. As per the 2011 census, 41.84 percent of Mumbai’s population lives in slums; works in unorganised sectors; lacks adequate housing, quality education, and healthcare; and has no access to social safety nets. This perpetuates a cycle of poverty, limited opportunities, and marginalisation.

The constantly increasing pressure on the city’s infrastructure further de-prioritises the needs of people living in informal settlements. Welfare policies and programmes of the government often fail to reach those who need them the most due to various logistical and administrative challenges.

Evidence indicates that effective citizen engagement models lead to better governance.

A citizenship approach aims at building active citizens in communities by supporting them to develop their skills and knowledge so that fairer and more resilient societies can be fostered. This approach is based on the belief that citizens themselves are the best assessors of their rights, duties, and entitlements. It plays a critical role in advocating and helping make public institutions more transparent and accountable, and in contributing innovative solutions to complex development challenges. Evidence indicates that effective citizen engagement models lead to better governance and improve the citizen–state relationship. This in turn facilitates the co-creation of inventive and impactful solutions that result in better public service delivery.

Here’s an example of active citizenship at work. A citizen collective in M-East ward’s Shivaji Nagar had applied for an escalator at a railway station, to help the elderly and persons with disability, and to reduce the incidence of railway track-related deaths. When the members discovered that plans for the escalator and lift were already on the cards but had been stalled, they identified the bottleneck and rallied for a work order. They then found that the planned location of these utilities was inconvenient for commuters, and requested a change in location. Their suggestion was accepted by the authorities, and construction work is currently underway.

Making the model work

Over the years, we have learned what it takes to sustainably adopt this approach.

1. Planning an incubation period

Organisations working to develop this model in the community need at least two years to build CAGs and help them prepare so that they can take on community-level initiatives. For citizen-led initiatives to succeed, it is imperative to build trust, cultivate ownership, promote inclusive decision-making, and foster collaboration and cooperation in the community, and all these require an investment of time.

2. Motivating grassroots leaders

Keeping CAG members motivated was challenging, especially in the initial stages, because many of them didn’t believe that they could be catalysts for change. Most are migrants who lack identity documents that connect them with Mumbai. This makes them feel that they do not have the right to ask for services or facilities. Moreover, because they are not treated equally, they also lack a sense of belonging to the city. By showing consistent support and belief in their potential, we gradually witnessed a shift in their mindset.

3. Mentoring higher-order skills

Mentoring collectives on higher-order skills such as assertiveness and negotiation, especially in the context of accessing basic civic amenities, proved to be difficult and resource-intensive.

When the municipality, claiming illegal occupation, doesn’t provide basic services to people living in informal settlements, they need to assert their rights and negotiate with city authorities. All Indian citizens have the right to live and work anywhere in the country, and it is the duty of the welfare state to ensure basic amenities for all its citizens.

But assertiveness and negotiation are behavioural skills that take time to develop. When a community believes it doesn’t have a voice, it becomes even more difficult to help them talk about their side of the story. When they learn to negotiate, they understand how to share their problems, use statistics or data to support their point, refer to the rights guaranteed by the Constitution, and also express an interest in being part of the solution. A single negative interaction with duty bearers is enough to bring down their confidence and stop them from taking further action. Therefore, consistent mentoring on being persistent and persuasive is essential to ensure that they don’t give up even when the response is not encouraging.

Teaching these skills requires creating tailored training programmes, real-life scenario simulations, and continuous reinforcement.

4. Ensuring representation

To truly represent the community, CAGs need to have members from all sections of the community— including persons with disability, LGBTQIA members, women, children, the elderly, and individuals from other minorities. This ensures that a diverse perspective is available, which helps in identifying unique issues and prevents individuals with louder voices to control the collective. Women form 80 percent of our CAGs.

5. Moving from simple to complex civic issues

Taking up simpler issues in the initial days helps the CAGs to build confidence, skills, and motivation. As simple civic issues get resolved sooner, the experience of a successful advocacy action with local governance agencies fosters self-assurance and resilience in the community and gives them a tangible sense of agency. For instance, advocating for lane cleaning, street light installation/repair, or pest control tends to have a quicker positive result. Having experienced this, CAGs can address more complex issues—such as advocating for the establishment of a government secondary school or installing lifts and escalators at the railway station for increased accessibility for persons with disabilities and the elderly—with more conviction.

6. Ensuring the community is the decision-maker

The community should play a central role in decision-making processes. Identifying key issues within the community, prioritising them for advocacy, and determining the advocacy agenda and strategies are all decisions made by the collective. CAG members map out their issues and address them based on the severity of the issue, or the number of people affected, or whether it’s simply easier to solve first. Responsibilities are divided based on availability of time, knowledge of the issue, skills required, and interest/need of volunteers (for example, writing letters or filing online complaints). Civil society organisations serve as guides, aiding these collectives in making well-informed decisions. This collaborative approach fosters a sense of ownership and ensures sustainability.

7. Continuously engaging with the collectives

Maintaining continuous engagement with collectives through monthly mentoring meetings is crucial for building their leadership skills as well as providing opportunities to practice and apply advocacy skills in real-life scenarios. These regular sessions serve as a platform for knowledge exchange, skill enhancement, and mutual learning. By discussing challenges, sharing successes, and offering guidance, the collectives gain valuable insights. Moreover, the practical application of advocacy skills in addressing real community issues during these meetings allow members to refine their techniques and develop effective strategies.

Lessons learned

The journey towards community empowerment, though rewarding, is not without its obstacles. The communities and grassroots leaders we support have encountered numerous challenges, but they soldier on. Their journeys reflect an unwavering commitment to improving their living conditions and securing a better future for themselves and others.

*Name changed to maintain confidentiality.

—

Know more

• Listen to this podcast on what makes a city liveable.
• Watch Talk in the Town, a series on urban changemakers who are bridging the gap between citizens and governments.

Do more

• Take this crash course on the fundamental rights and duties of an Indian citizen.

But can a system that has primarily relied on monitoring, corporal punishment, and rote learning deliver the goals of the NEP? What will it take for education officials at the state, district, and block levels, and for school leaders and teachers to adapt to the radical changes the NEP proposes?

Behavioural change in education

The success of educational initiatives—whether in foundational literacy and numeracy or teacher professional development—depends on the mindset of key stakeholders and how they perceive their own and others’ roles. This often necessitates a change in behaviour.

Behavioural change in school education is a relatively young field. It involves changing the behaviour of teachers and school administrators through a series of small but sustained techniques, or behavioural nudges, anchored in feedback, reflection, and action planning—the key design elements of behavioural change. The long-term objective of this approach is to radically improve education through systemic change.

At Centre for Intrinsic Motivation (CIM), we work with the education system and have used behavioural nudges and techniques to change teacher and administrator behaviours.

We work closely with the State Council of Educational Research and Training (SCERT), the body in charge of teacher development and training in every state, to enable implementation at scale. CIM sets up a core design and implementation team at the SCERT, co-creates content for the programme with them, and trains them to run it in that state.

One of the first things we do is elect a district champion, who could either be a District Institute of Education and Training (DIET) principal or a DIET facilitator. We conduct a full learning cycle for them and mentor them throughout the journey. District officials work closely with block and cluster officers, and the latter work with schoolteachers, conducting monthly teacher network meetings, classroom observations, and skill development workshops using the content that we develop.

Our interventions in Delhi, Karnataka, and Tamil Nadu offer valuable insights into how these techniques can positively impact the attitudes of district officials, teachers, and students, leading to better classroom environments and sustainable change within the education system.

1. Facilitate self-assessment for teachers

Research has established that teacher beliefs determine teaching behaviour. If teachers believe that students can learn irrespective of their social and economic backgrounds, they bring that belief to their classroom practice. But how can teachers’ beliefs be assessed?

We begin with a module on self-reflection, which involves several open-ended discussions that attempt to understand what teachers think. We ask them a series of questions and present them with a range of situations, and the teachers’ responses to these prompts tell us about their mindset—whether they feel students are capable of learning something new, whether teachers themselves can learn or admit to their shortcomings, and more. We often encounter perceptions such as: “this student cannot learn because they come from a poor economic background”, or “there’s no point in wasting time on ‘dull’ students”.  

Once we identify the connection between teachers’ attitude and what they practice, and spot the gap between practice and desired outcome, we develop further modules. The insights from these sessions are funnelled into action plans that teachers take to the classroom to test. Students’ responses to these fresh approaches—which include a change in the way teachers address them and new activities designed for them—support or help disprove the methods tested. This evidence from the classroom aids the creation of follow-up sessions on cultivating a growth mindset among teachers. 

Mentoring teachers, supporting them to engage in deep conversations, and nudging them to reflect on their biases and their approach to teaching have contributed to a shift in attitudes. This attitudinal shift is key to teachers imbibing new pedagogies and technologies in their classroom practices.

2. Build self-esteem

One of the main impediments to exemplary teacher performance is low self-esteem. Often, officials and teachers are jaded about their roles. Their low motivation is driven by the poor quality of teacher education, inferior service conditions, lack of teacher autonomy, and few avenues for continuous professional development and support. Teachers lack the confidence to share, question, and think out of the box. We have found that providing them close mentoring and support has encouraged teachers to reconnect with the larger purpose of education and become proud of their role.

One of the ways we boost their confidence is through a module called ‘Building Connect’ that fosters a culture of trust and positive communication between teachers and their mentors. These mentors are fellow teachers selected from the more proficient among them. Those selected often had no prior idea of what mentoring entailed. When we explained it to them, they demurred, saying they lacked the confidence to mentor others. But we worked on developing their leadership skills through a series of small nudges.

In Delhi, we saw an increase of 19 percent in the self-esteem of teaching staff over four years.

We made the mentors aware, first and foremost, that their teaching methods were good and there was merit in sharing them with others. Realising that they were adding value not just to their own professional development, but also to that of their colleagues, boosted mentors’ self-esteem and confidence. We used the same method to identify teacher coordinators at the school level.

The next step was to improve collaboration and engagement between mentor teachers, teacher coordinators, and district officials to create a sense of ease around asking questions, making mistakes, and appreciating effort.

In Delhi, we saw an increase of 19 percent in the self-esteem of teaching staff over four years. A study done by the Dilshad Garden DIET in Delhi found that the majority of teachers showed increased confidence and motivation owing to the sharing of strategies, peer observation, and lesson planning during teacher network meetings.

3. Recognise and celebrate

Teachers crave platforms that recognise the difficult work they are doing. Creating communities of practitioners at the cluster and district levels has created avenues for them to be celebrated by both peers and government officials. Such appreciation has driven teachers in Tamil Nadu to share videos of their best practices with other teachers in the state, on WhatsApp and Padlet.

In Delhi, teachers who become part of the teacher network meetings are motivated to apply for the role of teacher coordinators and mentor teachers. The recognition they receive motivates them to continue conducting network meetings and supporting their peers, irrespective of the state mandate.

In Karnataka, recognition through cluster-level meetings has increased teacher self-esteem and confidence, furthering engagement with peers and officials. This evidences the genuine need for teachers to learn from one another. State governments can focus on identifying best practices and develop and diffuse these innovations within the system.

4. Encourage critical thinking

A central component of driving behavioural change is asking ‘why’. Nudging education officers to think about the ‘why’ of their policies and actions has sparked critical thinking. District review meetings have become more structured, and officials have started using data to reflect on the quality of their interventions. For example, in Karnataka’s Chitradurga district, the DIET principal wanted to understand how the post-COVID learning recovery programme was being implemented. Rather than ask for a status report, he encouraged block officials to discuss the teachers’ challenges and offer them support.

The CIM programme manager worked with his team to create Google forms to gather teacher feedback. CIM helped the DIET analyse this data, which revealed that many teachers faced two challenges: maintaining student portfolios for assessment and practising the suggested learning recovery activities. Based on this data, the district prepared a support plan for the teachers. Instead of reprimanding them for their lack of performance, block and cluster officials sought to understand the underlying problems and organised capacity-building workshops for them. They encouraged teachers to discuss their challenges related to student portfolios, clarified their doubts, and assisted them in contextualising action plans based on the individual needs of their students.  

“In most classrooms, only the children who know the right answers raise their hands, but I aim to create a classroom where every child participates,” shared a teacher from Panchayat Union Primary School, Kannigapuram, a two-teacher school in the Marakkanam block of Tamil Nadu’s Viluppuram district. 

CIM closely supports district officials through regular coaching calls and in-person meetings. We accompany them on teacher feedback sessions and classroom observations and offer feedback on the kind of questions they ask and the support they provide the teacher. 

In Karnataka, coaching calls confirm that officials are better able to connect to the overall purpose of their work. The calls have also evolved greatly. From conversations that required a lot of probing and effort on our side, most of them are now led by the officials themselves and focus on teacher development and problem-solving. 

The focus of officials during school visits and classroom observations has also changed. Earlier, they largely sought feedback on the administrative aspects of education delivery—such as attendance, infrastructure, and availability of books—and whether data was updated on the state’s management information system.

After several cycles of behavioural nudges, district officials now provide teachers with feedback on their lesson plans. They ask more open-ended questions, focusing on the quality of the teaching–learning process, challenges the teacher might face, how much of the lesson planning and execution the teacher was able to do on their own, and how often they collaborated with other teachers.

When a district coordinator changes their approach to teacher support and feedback, a ripple effect is seen in the quality of support received by teachers across the district. And teachers, in turn, rearrange their priorities in the classroom.

Behavioural bottlenecks

Behaviour change interventions are slow to execute because they necessitate attitudinal shifts. Facilitating such shifts in the education system isn’t easy. In the beginning, we faced resistance from both state officials and teachers. Education officers are tasked with multiple monitoring duties. Providing developmental feedback to teachers is time-consuming and requires the officers’ presence in the classroom. Many officials felt it was not part of their role to mentor teachers or observe classroom teaching processes, which also entails asking teachers about their lesson plans and preparations before coming to class and about their observation of student engagement. Officials would have to engage more deeply with teachers to obtain this information; this would take them and the teachers into deep and uncomfortable territory.

One of the teachers we worked with told us that he believed he was never wrong.

School principals also believed they only had to manage teachers and not support their professional development. They were also uncomfortable about assigning leadership roles to teachers. Coaching plays an important role in changing these perceptions.

Teachers, on the other hand, were defensive and resistant to feedback on their classroom practices. For example, all teachers undergo a prescribed number of hours of teacher training, but the implementation of that training in the classroom is unaccounted for. Now, to be questioned on student engagement and be told that students are losing interest wouldn’t go down well with them.

One of the teachers we worked with told us that he believed he was never wrong. After all, teachers are expected to know everything! After a series of behavioural change sessions, he says he now feels comfortable about acknowledging his mistakes and is open to feedback from not only his peers, but also from his students. 

Teachers also disclosed their initial reluctance to being observed by peers while taking classes and about discussing their challenges with officials—these activities led to them feeling threatened and judged. We had to help them realise that the officials were not there to test and grade them, but to support them to become better at what they do. The onus is on the official to display behaviour that reassures teachers of the former’s concern for them.

Work in progress

Building trust is a major step in overcoming these challenges and takes several years. But it can be achieved. Strong political and administrative will, along with educational leadership at both state and central levels, can galvanise long-term systemic change. It can do this by embedding key elements of behaviour change within district empowerment initiatives, policies, and professional development programmes.

—

Know more

• Read this article to learn how behavioural insights can be used to increase parent engagement in their children’s learning.
• Read this article to learn how a school in Delhi is changing teacher behaviours through role modelling.
• Read this article to learn how a livelihoods programme used a behavioural nudge to help low-income households create new assets.

The tools, while powerful, often produce intricate and elusive results, pushing the limits of traditional empirical analysis. Their strength lies in being able to bridge the gap between abstract ideas and tangible metrics, appealing to data-driven individuals as well as those who value qualitative insights. Nonprofits commonly use these tools to measure programme impact in various sectors such as education, life skills, livelihood, and health, as well as in areas such as identifying needs, planning curriculum activities, monitoring client progress, and evaluating organisational culture.

Our organisation, Udhyam Learning Foundation, has leveraged these psychometric tests to detect shifts in learners’ mindsets and attitudes. However, a critical question looms: Are the results consistently trustworthy and precise?

To deepen our understanding, we initiated an in-depth study, partnering with seasoned experts to fine-tune our approach and improve testing accuracy. We’ve pinpointed common hurdles that come with the application of these tests, which, if overlooked, can skew results and lead to misjudgements.

Using tests that are not reliable or valid

Reliability is crucial because it ensures consistent and dependable scores. Without it, a test will yield erratic results, which will render it difficult to draw any meaningful conclusions from it. The lack of reliability in psychometric tests is a pertinent concern. A 2010 study found that the validity of the 16PF (personality factor), a very commonly used personality psychometric test, varied across different cultures. Although the test had good validity in Western cultures, it was less valid in non-Western cultures.

Validity is equally important as it ensures that the test measures what it intends to measure. When we create our own tools without a solid empirical foundation, we cannot guarantee the accurate assessment of the skills, traits, or knowledge we aim to evaluate. This undermines the credibility and usefulness of the results.

At Udhyam, we recently tested the validity of the standardised grit scale we’ve previously used in our work. The scale measures a person’s passion and perseverance for long-term goals. Through this examination, we discovered that the scale’s reliability and convergent validity were poor. Furthermore, it did not exhibit adequate psychometric properties for the sample we used it on. We were thus prompted to conduct further analysis, exploring whether certain items or questions required adjustments to better align with our data set.

This reinforced the importance of testing the reliability and validity of the instruments beforehand. The tests should produce similar scores when administered to the same person on different occasions, and also produce scores that are related to the target skills or knowledge.

Developing in-house psychometric-like tools

Organisations may attempt to create their own psychometric-like tools to address challenges such as the assessment form being too lengthy or parts of it being irrelevant to the programme it is being deployed for. For instance, many times organisations choose to combine multiple psychometric scales and their respective questions to make one scale that they believe will address key aspects of their programme or interventions, while simultaneously ensuring that the questionnaire is short enough to be completed quickly. However, developing such tools without adhering to rigorous processes can result in issues related to reliability and validity.

Furthermore, creating psychometric-like tools without expertise in test construction can introduce unintended biases or skewed measurements. Professionals in psychometrics have the necessary knowledge and skills to ensure fair, impartial, and accurate assessments. Developing tools without this expertise may lead to biased evaluations or discriminatory practices. For instance, there is evidence of tools exhibiting bias against women or specific racial groups, primarily due to the absence of these demographics in the initial samples.

Developing and validating psychometric tests require a substantial amount of time, effort, and resources.

However, developing and validating psychometric tests require a substantial amount of time, effort, and resources. The assessment must undergo multiple stages, including item development, pilot testing, data collection, analysis, and refinement. Organisations may not always have the expertise or resources to undertake this comprehensive process. In such cases, relying on established and validated tests developed by experts can save time and ensure quality assessment. If organisations choose to build their own tools, it is highly recommended to conduct reliability and validity testing and follow best practices for tool development. Alternatively, organisations can seek assistance from the original creators or authors of such tools to ensure effective implementation. Collaborating with experts and reaching out to the broader community is encouraged during tool problem-solving sprints.

Using tests that are not culturally appropriate

Many psychometric tests are developed in Western countries and may not be culturally appropriate for use in other parts of the world. This is because the tests might be based on values and norms that are not shared by that particular culture; this applies to India as well.

Education and literacy also significantly impact scores on various types of tests, such as those assessing working memory and visual processing of certain indigenous populations.

Therefore, when selecting psychometric tests for India, it is important to choose only those that have been validated for use keeping the cultural context in mind. There are a number of tests that have been specifically developed for use in India. For example, NIMHANS Neuropsychological Battery, Indian Adaptation of Wechsler Adult Performance Intelligence Scale (WAPIS – PR) by P Ramalingaswamy, and more.

Using tests that are not aligned with programme goals

It is important that the psychometric tests used by the organisation are aligned with the goals of their programme. If the tests do not measure the specific traits, skills, or knowledge that the programme is designed to develop, then the results of the tests will not be meaningful. Using the wrong tests can lead to incorrect diagnoses, which bears serious consequences such as stigma or missed opportunities for support.

It is imperative to use tools that match the cognitive development of individuals, ensuring that data collected is both accurate and fair.

For example, we have adopted psychometric tools to evaluate mindsets, including self-awareness, grit, and self-efficacy. If our entrepreneurship curriculum delivered to learners aged 14–18 doesn’t directly address the enhancement of these specific traits, this gap would make it challenging to align the outcomes from the psychometric evaluations with our curriculum’s content. As a result, establishing a feedback mechanism to refine and improve our curriculum interventions would become a hurdle. In order to obtain accurate data from psychometric tests, it is essential that the curriculum of the programme is appropriately tailored to meet the intended programme and learning objectives.

Administering psychometric assessments to a population requires a careful evaluation of age appropriateness and literacy levels. It is imperative to use tools that match the cognitive development of individuals, ensuring that data collected is both accurate and fair. Moreover, taking into account diverse literacy levels is vital for fostering clear communication and preventing potential bias or frustration in the assessment process. These considerations uphold the ethical standards in the assessment of individuals’ abilities and attributes.

Translating psychometric tools from English to Indian languages

Language and cultural nuances play a significant role in psychometric assessments. The meaning of certain words or concepts may vary across languages and cultures. Direct translations of items or instructions from English to Indian languages without considering these nuances can lead to misunderstandings or misinterpretations, affecting the accuracy and validity of the assessment results.

For instance, if a question in English asks about ‘self-esteem’, a literal translation might use a Hindi term that refers to ‘self-worth’ or ‘self-respect’. While these may be related concepts, they don’t have the exact same meaning as ‘self-esteem’, leading to a loss of the original nuance and potentially impacting the validity of the tool in the new cultural context.

The translation process for a psychometric tool should be rigorous and systematic to ensure the validity and reliability of the translated version of the tool. It involves guaranteeing conceptual equivalence, linguistic validation, cultural adaptation, back translation, and validation studies to create dependable assessments in the target language.

—

Know more

• Learn more about how to conduct psychological assessment and evaluation.
• Read this article on how nonprofits can optimise their monitoring and evaluation efforts.
• Learn more about best practices for developing and validating scales.

More than 1 billion people in the world live in informal settlements, with 80 percent of them residing in the Global South. Sakina bibi’s lament is thus part of a growing chorus of voices. As the world urbanises, cities in the Global South remain structurally unequal. On the one hand, these cities are sites of resource consumption and growth, but on the other, millions still struggle to access basic resources such as water, sanitation, and housing. People residing in informal settlements around the world are disproportionately impacted by climate change and resultant phenomena such as overheating and waterlogging.

Human-induced emissions, natural resource exploitation, and the inequitable distribution of resources across regions, countries, classes, and castes manifest as nested, complex challenges for humanity. To enable Sakina and her neighbours to adapt to these wicked problems, the development sector needs longer, sustained partnerships between civil society, donor agencies, private players, and governments; long-term funding cycles; and flexible, innovative approaches towards technology, economics, and governance that allow us to reimagine our collective futures.

Climate resilience programmes have structural inequalities

While we strive for climate-resilient futures, the flows of finance, technology, and decision-making power for resilience and adaptation programmes are still unidirectional and have a top-down approach. The poor continue to be considered ‘beneficiaries’ and the ‘transfer’ of knowledge and technology continues to be a norm in resilience and adaptation programme design. In order to arrive at a more holistic climate justice lens, it is important to include the marginalised in decision-making at various stages. This includes keeping their experiences and knowledge in mind while planning, designing, and implementing proposed resilience and adaptation interventions.

Funding that does reach local communities stays tied to narrow metrics and a constant need to report ‘success’ and partner with ‘successful organisations’.

The late Jockin Arputham, founding president of Slum Dwellers International (SDI), said, “The poor are never allowed to fail, and when they do they have to hide it because they can’t get another chance.” This is evident in how climate funding works. Climate adaptation and resilience funding aims to support the communities that face disproportionate impacts of climate change due to structural inequities in access to land, basic services, or housing rights. However, less than 10 percent of climate finance is dedicated to local action, less than 2 percent of humanitarian aid goes to local partners, and less than 5 percent of funds for environment protection go to indigenous peoples and local community representatives.

Moreover, the funding that does reach local communities stays tied to narrow metrics and a constant need to report ‘success’ and partner with ‘successful organisations’, without taking the time to reflect on lessons learned or on wider drivers causing projects or organisations to fail. Add to this the limited ability to attribute or predict climate impacts with reasonable accuracy in many parts of the Global South due to inadequate data availability, and we have projects that are not able to achieve their goals of climate resilience and adaptation for the most at-risk communities.

Locally led adaptation recognises the need for a shift in agency

It was in the spirit of addressing these issues that the principles for locally led adaptation (LLA) were drafted by founding signatories such as the International Institute of Environment and Development (IIED), the World Resources Institute (WRI), and the Global Resilience Partnership (GRP). Since their launch, the principles have been endorsed by government and non-governmental agencies from various parts of the world. These principles include building capacities of marginalised communities, providing patient funding, and investing in science while keeping the needs of the communities at the forefront.

While the strength of the words in these principles have attracted more than 100 organisations to endorse them, we have a long journey before we can realise their spirit. Questions of how to measure success and learn from failure to implement these principles still need to be answered. If the LLA principles are cornerstones for climate resilience, can the lack of transparent decision-making, access to patient funding mechanisms, and strengthening of capacities to address the evidence needs of marginalised communities be considered our failure in implementing them?

How to work towards LLA principles

The broader community of adaptation practitioners and researchers has been trying to create pathways to operationalise these locally led adaptation principles. A few points have emerged, and these have the potential to become inflection points for changing the status quo and operationalising the LLA principles.

1. Putting the needs of communities at the centre

By defining the role of communities as ‘beneficiaries’ of technology, money, and capacities, development programmes have traditionally left out an important point—people are already adapting and are resilient, not just to climate change but to all kinds of change, be it wars, pandemics, or chronic issues that affect health, education, economic, and political systems of countries across the world.

But this resilience without systemic support comes at a cost. For instance, urban communities defied India’s lockdown to migrate back to their villages en masse but suffered enormous shocks on their way home, and if they were fortunate to survive accidents, illnesses, or economic losses and get home, they stared at uncertain futures without jobs or basic incomes.

However, while communities require support, there is still a need to change the current model. According to Emilie Beauchamp and others, the effectiveness of climate adaptation interventions is diminished when accountability structures aren’t examined. Donors and international organisations often emphasise aggregating and ranking interventions around the world to assess their effectiveness. This initiates a cycle of underinvestment in the ‘underperforming’ regions. ‘Underperformance’ or failure in the development and climate adaptation sector might, unfortunately, impact the people living in these regions who stand to lose the most.

There is, accordingly, an emergence of calls from within the adaptation and resilience measurement communities to change this model. Increasingly, local priorities are at the centre of decision-making, and programmes are designed based on principles of downward accountability. The call for ‘downward accountability’—or the accountability of interventions towards the beneficiary communities—rings loud to address this failure in deciding what counts as effective evidence, and for whom. This failure weighs heavy on how implementers therefore design and implement interventions on the ground.

Thus, donors and policymakers, as users of evidence, should start putting communities’ needs first in planning, designing, and implementing initiatives by aligning their priorities with the priorities of people and nature in specific contexts.

2. Shifting the role of experts and implementers from ‘knowers’ to ‘listeners and facilitators’

In the current scenario, there is a clear hierarchy in funding, knowledge, and technology flows. And experts—researchers, practitioners, all the way up to extension workers—are used to a prevailing status quo with regard to how power and knowledge flow when projects are implemented. This holds true for both urban and rural contexts.

The ‘expert’ has to become a facilitator or a listener in the face of uncertain and complex change.

As a result of this power relationship where the expert is widely regarded as the ‘knower’, adaptation projects are often designed using reductionist technical templates without the recognition or acknowledgement of community context, values, existing norms, or the complexity and uncertainty of the environment. Unless these prevailing patterns are disrupted, marginalised communities will continue to be primed for failure.

The LLA principles call for a shift in funding, governance, and knowledge transfer formats. This cannot be operationalised by simply placing community representatives in steering committees, through proposal writing, or, worse still, by carrying out ‘consultations’. In such a scenario, community members who lack the capacities to manage funds, write proposals or project reports, and carry out projects are further set up for failure—the burden of adapting is placed on them without the provision of capacities, knowledge, or evidence to act in the face of climate change.

The Resilience Evidence Forum held in June 2023 in Cape Town recognised this problem in the implementation of climate adaptation and resilience based on the LLA principles. The recently released Resilience Evidence Forum Synthesis Report highlights that this problem of operationalising the LLA principles can only be solved by shifting the role of the expert. From being a ‘knower’ who strives to reduce uncertainty by templatising climate adaptation projects, the ‘expert’ has to become a facilitator or a listener in the face of uncertain and complex change.

What role must practitioners play?

To operationalise LLA better, we as practitioners need to listen to communities and facilitate the process of reconciling their needs and desires with their power to negotiate their rights. By taking on the role of listeners and facilitators, we as experts should be able to adopt facilitative and adaptive learning approaches with communities in adaptation and resilience projects. To be able to do this, it is important to build functions and incentives for transparent, effective programming. Doing so will also encourage important qualities such as problem solving and innovation at the local community level. Thus, the solutions aren’t preconceived and template approaches to adaptation and resilience building give way to equity-driven and consensus-forming processes that create agency within communities. For instance, in India, participatory groundwater management approaches have sought to empower communities as barefoot hydrogeologists. Equipping them with applied groundwater science enables them to make decisions on crop-water budgeting, watershed development, and water allocations. 

Innovative approaches for capturing and disseminating communities’ lived experiences have emerged as tools for experts to facilitate adaptive learning in the climate and development space. For instance, Ruth Meinzen-Dick and colleagues found that behavioural games and community debriefing helped shift people’s mindset on groundwater governance and collectively empowered them to act on governing their groundwater sustainably and equitably. Public art also has a place in this. Murals and comics have been used by artists and researchers led by Gina Ziervogel to capture and share evidence—collected from people’s stories on drought resilience—that was intended to help the city of Cape Town address emergency as well as systemic measures.

Sakina bibi and her neighbours from the Baiganwadi slum of M-East Ward imagine a very different life for their future generations. “We want respect and trust and don’t want our children to keep fighting for the right to survive in this city.” Their voices are strong and clear in their need for justice, and as practitioners, we need to reflect and introspect on whether we are designing programmes that chart the ways to enable the futures that the most marginalised communities in the world desire and deserve.

—

Know more

• Read this article to learn why India’s climate discourse needs to be shaped by local forms of expression.
• Read these FAQs on locally led adaptation principles.
• Read this article to learn why solving complex social issues requires a blend of top-down and bottom-up leadership.