Community-driven development (CDD) aims to improve the well-being and empowerment of poor communities by providing direct grants and facilitation for community decision making, implementation, and review of projects. CDD is one response to the problem of how to effectively reach large numbers of poor people where state institutions are weak. The document outlines Australia's support for CDD and presents a change model showing the inputs, intermediate results, and longer term outcomes expected from CDD programs. It also acknowledges risks and assumptions that influence whether CDD achieves its goals of poverty reduction, inclusion, and accountability.

1. Community Driven Development:
does it deliver on poverty,
inclusion, accountability ?
Arthi Patel
Social Development Specialist, DFAT

2. The problem
How to reach large numbers of poor
to improve their material wellbeing
and political power
……Where state institutions are
weak, incapable and/or unwilling

3. CDD – one response
Direct block grants
Facilitation
community decision making,
implementation and review

4. Australian Aid and CDD

5. Change model
OUTPUTS
- Technical
assistance (design,
program rules)
Building Social Capital
(trust, association,
community activities)
 Small-scale Infra:
e.g. roads, irrigation,
health centers,
schools built, of high
quality & tailored
towards community
needs
 Improved Access and
Use of services – e.g.
access to roads and
markets, school
enrollment, attendance,
professional deliveries,
access to healthcare
Improved local governance
 Community skills
improvements
 Improved educational and
health outcomes
 Training provided
to communities
 Funds (Loan, govt
& community
contributions)
 Community
participation in
activities
 Income-generating
activities supported
INPUTS
INTERMEDIATE
RESULTS
 Jobs created
LONGER TERM
OUTCOMES
Community empowerment
 Household welfare
increases (consumption,
income, assets)
Sustainable job creation
RISKS/ASSUMPTIONS
 Funds are available and disbursed
in a timely manner
 Design promotes real participation
rather than patronage
 Qualified project staff are in place
Communities are given genuine
opportunities to receive info &
participate
TA & capacity building provided is
sufficient and of high quality
 Quality of supply-side interventions
 Economic growth
 Enabling environment for social, political reforms
 External shocks are minimized
(economic, financial, crises, natural disasters)
Thanks to Susan Wong, CDD Impact Evaluation

6. State of the evidence
RCTs
Meta
Evals
Future?