This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognizing you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Critical Shifts: Plan for, Design, and Implement Programs
Shifting how we plan for, design, and implement programs
4
Driving fragmented short-term efforts & resource allocation
Driving strategic & coordinated investments across the system for long term change
Shift from funding siloed, fragmented, and piecemeal efforts, to investing in long term gains and system-based approaches that align with country priorities. Allocate or mobilize the resources necessary to meet the true cost of the health challenge.
- Collaborate with key country experts and stakeholders to develop a holistic view of existing and proposed programs and the true cost needs for the relevant health challenges and desired results to inform allocation of resources.
- Health system strengthening efforts are prioritized, alongside programmatic activities.
- Existing coordination mechanisms are leveraged or strengthened to facilitate alignment amongst donors and country partners, avoid duplication, share learnings and knowledge, and coordinate implementation priorities and funding gaps.
- Transition between funding cycles is well planned and coordination is in place between donors, partners, and government to ensure continuity of programs and services where applicable.
- Multi-sectoral engagement and coordination mechanisms are in place to ensure appropriate prioritization and program delivery.
5
Using generalized & solution-centric approaches
Using approaches that contextualize & respond to the needs of the problem
Shift from predefined and uprooted solution-driven approaches (e.g. ‘one-size-fits-all’, ‘best-practice-led’, ‘cookie-cutter-solutions’), to approaches that seek to understand the local context and adjust to suit local needs. Understand why past projects succeed or fail before scaling or discontinuing them and to inform new program design.
- Intervention design is driven by and co-created with country stakeholders at all levels and informed by local evidence to ensure problem is fully understood and TA is rooted in the needs of the community.
- Root causes of problems and real needs of the community are identified through engagement with country stakeholders, with genuine consideration to power and gender dynamics, at the start of the program.
- Project design, approach, costs and tools are contextualized and adapted to sub-national variations and disparities.
- Existing and past government and donor projects/initiatives are thoroughly reviewed during design to adopt learnings and avoid duplication; Mechanisms and protocols are in place to support continued learning and sharing.
6
Designing programs that are static, rigid & compliance-driven
Designing programs that are adaptive, iterative & foster innovation
Shift from a system driven by static, inflexible, and standardized program design (i.e. timelines, activities, metrics, etc.), to one that emphasizes monitoring, evaluation, research, and learning, and supports programs designed for flexibility and agility to navigate unprecedented challenges and innovate solutions focused on making sustainable impact.
- Flexible funding and re-allocation are permitted to support changing priorities or emerging needs.
- Mechanisms and protocols are in place for regular feedback, review, and adaption to facilitate responsiveness to the changing situation and stakeholder feedback.
- Responsiveness to changing needs, priorities, and feedback is monitored as a key measure of success and used to periodically adjust project milestones and outcomes.
- Challenges and ‘failures’ are documented and shared broadly, in addition to successes and positive practices.
- Program has embedded systematic monitoring, evaluation, learning and adaptation, including the necessary time and funds.
7
Focusing on increasing capacity in TA recipients
Strengthening capacity of individuals, institutions &the entire system
Shift from a system that presumes capacity gaps in TA/CS recipients to one that recognizes the need for institutions, structures, and all stakeholders involved in TA/CS to synergistically improve their capacity to enhance impact efficacy.
- Existing local capacities, structures, and systems are explored, prioritized and leveraged in the design and implementation.
- Funding prioritizes building on existing resources and infrastructure and investing in institutional capacity strengthening.
- Key roles are identified for country partners and they are engaged on an ongoing basis for bi-directional transfer of knowledge and capacity and to support continuity beyond project funding.
- Project design includes exploring and addressing factors beyond capacity that affect underperformance.
- Needs and approaches to support capacity strengthening are co-defined with country stakeholders, and adapted periodically based on changing needs and learnings.