BY: DIANA HARPER, DR. WALES SINGINI, 
MACDONALD CHIMLAZA, CHIMANGO MATUNDU
BY: DIANA HARPER, WALES SINGINI
MACDONALD CHIMLAZA, CHIMANGO MATUNDU
MAY 2020
MID-TERM EVALUATION: 
WORLD CONNECT PROJECT
“INVESTING IN LOCALLY-LED 
DEVELOPMENT IN MALAWI”
MID-TERM EVALUATION: WORLD CONNECT 
PROJECT “INVESTING IN LOCALLY-LED 
DEVELOPMENT IN MALAWI”
Submission Date: 31 May 2020 
This publication was prepared by LINC as an independent contractor to World Connect. For 
any inquiries related to this publication, please contact Diana Harper at dharper@linclocal.org. 
DISCLAIMER
The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of World Connect, 
the United States Agency for International Development, or the United States Government.
Table of Contents 
Acknowledgments ....................................................................................................... i
About the Evaluation Team ..................................................................................... ii
Executive Summary................................................................................................... iii
I. Introduction......................................................................................................... 1
II. Methodology......................................................................................................... 2
III. Findings .............................................................................................................. 9
Evaluation Question 1: To what extent has the current portfolio of grants progressed against the overall 
program objectives?..................................................................................................................................................... 9
Evaluation Question 1.1: How responsive are World Connect projects to local priorities?............................... 10
Evaluation Question 1.2: How do local partners and communities perceive and value WC support such as 
trainings, feedback, and site visits?........................................................................................................................................ 11
Evaluation Question 1.3: How do local partners and communities see the program as similar or different from 
other development efforts?.................................................................................................................................................... 15
Evaluation Question 2: What evidence exists that individuals and organizations involved in the program 
have increased local leadership, as defined by improvements in confidence, credibility, and mutual trust?
........................................................................................................................................................................................17
Evaluation Question 3: What evidence exists that the communities in which the program operates have 
increased agency, as defined by improvements in collective action, social capital, and inclusiveness?..22
Evaluation Question 4: What strategies have been used to mobilize community contributions (financial 
and in-kind)?.................................................................................................................................................................30
Evaluation Question 5: How do leadership and agency (Q2 and Q3) relate to development outcomes 
such as those in health, education, and economic growth? What additional evidence is needed to 
understand this relationship?...................................................................................................................................32
IV. Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................................... 35
Annex A: Evaluation SOW...................................................................................... 38
Annex B: Survey Tool .............................................................................................. 39
Annex C: Key Informant Interview Guide ........................................................... 42
Annex D: Social Network Analysis Interview Guide.......................................... 44
Annex E: Community Workshop Outline ............................................................ 45
i
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Frank Kasonga, Ruth Chamangwana, and Bernadette Mweso 
from World Connect in Malawi for their programmatic insights as well as extensive support to 
the logistics and coordination of the evaluation. We would also like to thank Patrick Higdon and 
Pamela Nathenson from World Connect headquarters for their leadership to the evaluation 
process and insights on the global World Connect approach and operations. LINC team members 
Rich Fromer and Kati Chilikova provided valuable technical and programmatic support to the 
evaluation. We would like to acknowledge USAID Local Works and USAID/Malawi, in particular 
Patrick Phoso, for the technical leadership and funding of the World Connect project and for 
their encouragement and orientation toward learning through this evaluation. This effort was also 
successful as a result of the support of local project partners including CorpsAfrica, Flame Tree 
Initiative, Peace Corps and Returned Peace Corps Volunteers, Segal Family Foundation, and the 
Young African Leaders Initiative (YALI) in connection with the U.S. Embassy in Malawi Office of 
Public Affairs. Finally, we are extremely grateful to the research participants for their time and 
openness to share their views and perspectives.
ii
About the Evaluation Team
Diana Harper, International Team Lead: Ms. Harper is a senior MEL expert who 
specializes in systems change, participatory research, and coalition building. Across the past 15 
years, she has advanced data-driven decision making in the democracy, youth, and health sectors. 
She holds a Masters of Public Health from Johns Hopkins University and a Bachelors of Arts in 
Political Economy from Georgetown University. 
Wales Singini, PhD, Local 
Research Director: Dr. Singini is an 
Environmental and Natural Resource 
Scientist with over 15 years of 
experience in Malawi and is currently the 
Director of Research at Mzuzu
University. He has conducted 
progressive research and evaluations in 
Malawi focusing on livelihoods, 
education, natural resource and 
environmental management, climate 
change, agriculture and food security, 
water, sanitation and hygiene. He holds 
a PhD and MSc in Natural Resources and 
Environmental Management and a BSc in 
Agriculture. 
Macdonald Chimlaza, Local 
Researcher: Mr. Chimlaza is a 
researcher and project management specialist with 13 years of experience in the fields of 
education, gender and early childhood development. He has worked with the Ministry of 
Education and various local and international organizations such as Foundation for Children’s 
Rights and Plan International Malawi in facilitating rural development in Malawi. He holds a 
Masters of Science in Transformative Community Development focused in Development from 
Mzuzu University and a Bachelor of Arts in Social Sciences offered by Uganda Martyrs University.
Chimango Matundu, Local Researcher: Ms. Matundu is a food security, human nutrition 
and animal science expert with more than 3 years of experience in fields including livelihood 
assessment, agriculture, value chain analysis, monitoring and evaluation and project management. 
She has worked as a facilitator and researcher for various organizations, spearheading different 
development programs such as the Business Innovation Facility (BIF), a DFID funded market 
systems program; Impact Evaluation with Center for Agriculture Research Development in 
collaboration with the World Bank; and a feasibility study of Msika Project with Land O Lakes 
and Agro Dealer Assessments with the Association of Women in Agribusiness Project. She holds 
a Bachelor of Science in Food Security and Nutrition from University of Livingstonia and Diploma 
in Animal Health and Production from The Lilongwe University of Agriculture, Natural Resources 
College.
iii
Executive Summary
Introduction
Local community engagement has long been championed as a central factor for sustainable 
international development. Similarly, most donor and national development programs emphasize 
the need to empower local leaders as well as strengthen local institutions. However, the extent 
to which development programs successfully put these principles into action is frequently 
questioned, particularly in low-resource and donor-dependent countries such as Malawi. A closer 
examination of efforts to strengthen locally-led development can offer insights for the 
development community in Malawi and more broadly. 
Our team conducted an independent mid-term evaluation of the World Connect Project 
“Investing in Locally-Led Development in Malawi.” This three-year, approximately $1.5 million 
activity is funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Local 
Works office and has a life-of-activity target to conduct 100 community-led projects through 
small grants. The evaluation was intended to assess progress of the program in Malawi to date, 
validate the theory of change in the local context, and generate recommendations for program 
implementation and monitoring and evaluation. Desk research and field work was conducted by 
LINC and researchers affiliated with the Mzuzu University from January to April 2020.
The program has conducted several rounds of grant-making to project teams throughout the 
country, with 139 projects approved to date. Each project is sourced through a network of 
Established Field Partners (EFPs), who submit proposals in cooperation with local leaders and 
community-based organizations (CBOs). Proposals are not limited to specific technical areas nor 
tied to a pre-defined set of outcomes. Rather, projects are intended to reflect community-defined 
needs. Projects are implemented across a period of six to nine months on average. During the 
design and implementation stages, World Connect provides grantees and communities with 
support through trainings, site visits, and virtual assistance. The program’s theory of change posits 
that this process of generating and implementing community grants results in short-term benefits 
in terms of achieving the direct objectives of the grant, as well as longer-term benefits, including 
increased community capacity and local leadership. 
Methodology
The evaluation used a mixed-methods evaluation design that included secondary document 
review, key informant interviews (KIIs), social network analysis (SNA), community workshops, 
and a survey of project participants. Field work collected and analyzed data to examine outcomes 
at both the project level (to extent to which project objectives were achieved and sustained) as 
well as at the community level (the extent to which community capacity had been strengthened). 
A total of 12 project sites were selected for field work, 4 of which were fully conducted in person 
and 8 of which were conducted virtually due to the emergence of COVID-19 during the 
evaluation period. 
Conclusions
The World Connect program is strongly valued by grantees and local partners, and is providing 
high-quality support to local project teams. Data collected and analyzed during this evaluation 
lead the evaluation team to conclude that the World Connect program in Malawi has progressed 
very well according to its objectives. Through surveys, field work, and program reporting, 
grantees demonstrated extensive approval and support for the World Connect program. 
iv
Grantees and partners assigned a high and positive value for the support provided by World 
Connect, including trainings, site visits, and virtual support. Project teams benefited from 
operational support as well as technical support in their interventions. Moreover, grantees 
particularly valued the mentoring and encouragement they gained through engagement with the 
World Connect team.
Activities funded by World Connect grants are responsive to the needs of local communities.
The lack of restrictions on World Connect grants has resulted in projects that reflect local needs, 
which are often multisectoral. In addition, this structure has allowed many communities to fulfill 
a need that has long existed and remained overlooked or unaddressed by other development 
efforts. The responsiveness of World Connect grants has been supported by an efficient strategy 
of working through an EFP network, as well as providing training in the project design and 
community engagement process. 
Project teams demonstrated improvements in their leadership skills and momentum for 
development activities. Many local project teams reported that their leadership skills and capacity 
had been improved through the direct support and training of the program, as well as the practical 
experience of implementing activities in their communities. Follow-up with project teams after 
the implementation period of their grants showed that most projects were sustained. 
Additionally, project teams had used the skills and momentum generated through the World 
Connect grant activities to tackle other problems in their communities. 
Beyond individual grant results, it was plausible that World Connect contributed to 
improvements in overall community capacity. Workshops were conducted with community 
members who were not directly involved in the World Connect projects. In an open-ended 
exercise, participants identified what internal capacities are needed within the community to drive 
long-term development. Participants identified the same types of community capacities that are 
targeted in World Connect’s theory of change, including local leadership, collective action, and 
mutual trust. Additionally, the majority of participants indicated that that internal community 
capacity for development had increased in the last year. Because there was a logical pathway 
between the World Connect interventions and the underlying drivers of community capacity (as 
identified by the community members themselves), it was plausible that World Connect 
contributed to these changes. However, additional research is needed to fully understand this 
relationship, as a wide variety of contextual and other factors influence this outcome. 
Community cost-sharing requirements have been met through a variety of strategies, and are 
more successful when approached slowly and collaboratively. Grants include a requirement of a 
25% contribution from the community, 10% of which must be cash. Project teams and 
communities predominantly demonstrated support for the idea of a community contribution and 
reflected that it was important to the ownership and sustainability of local initiatives, though many
participants found the process challenging. Local project teams most frequently met the 
requirements for in-kind contributions through donations of local materials, unskilled labor, and 
land, and financial contributions through fundraising from the community, existing village and 
school development funds, and interest from village savings and loan funds. Projects that engaged 
community members collaboratively to define the method, amount, and distribution of the 
financial contribution were more likely to gain traction. 
1
I. Introduction
World Connect is a U.S.-based 501(c) (3) non-profit organization with a registered subsidiary 
office in Malawi that invests in and builds relationships and partnerships at the grassroots level. 
Through a small grants program, World Connect seeks to catalyze local knowledge and initiative, 
as well as support women and communities to prioritize and tackle their own development 
challenges in their own unique ways. 
World Connect projects are implemented 
with small amounts of funding (the average 
grant size is $3,000) and in periods of six to 
nine months on average. In all projects, 
World Connect carefully sources proposals 
through a network of Established Field 
Partners (EFPs), who submit proposals in 
cooperation with local leaders and 
community-based organizations (CBOs). 
World Connect reviews and provides 
feedback on project design, works with 
local partners to design monitoring and 
sustainability plans, and collects mid-project 
progress and final reports. World Connect 
also conducts site visits to provide in￾person support to project partners and to 
validate the results and sustainability of 
ongoing and completed projects.
In Malawi, World Connect is implementing 
the “Investing in Locally-Led Development 
in Malawi” Project funded by the United 
States Agency for International 
Development (USAID) Local Works office 
under Award Number: 7200AA18FA00004, a three-year project with a total budget of 
$1,433,576. Through this project, World Connect is advancing the mutually agreed objective, 
Citizen Rights and Responsibilities Exercised, documented in Development Objective Agreement 
(DOAG) Number 3 between the United States of America and the Government of the Republic 
of Malawi. The program in Malawi differs from World Connect’s program in other countries 
mainly due to the presence of a small, local implementation team who provides expanded 
oversight and support for grantees. 
In 2019, World Connect sought a partner to conduct an external mid-term evaluation of the 
program in Malawi. The evaluation was intended to assess progress to date, validate the theory 
of change in the local context, as well as provide input to improve future monitoring and 
evaluation approaches in Malawi and worldwide. This report provides findings, conclusions, and 
recommendations based on research and field work conducted by LINC and researchers affiliated 
with the Mzuzu University from January to April 2020.
Composition of Grant Project Teams
Established Field Partner (EFP): In Malawi EFPs are drawn 
from networks including CorpsAfrica, Flame Tree 
Initiative, Peace Corps and Returned Peace Corps 
volunteers, Segal Family Foundation, and Young African 
Leaders Initiative (YALI). EFPs facilitate grant applications, 
support local leaders, and serve as a bridge for 
communication and reporting between local leaders and 
World Connect.
Local Leader: The local leader is a Malawian national who 
was born in, is living in, or is otherwise deeply familiar with 
the project site. Local leaders commonly hold a formal 
leadership role in government or community 
organizations, or hold informal roles such as activists. 
Local leaders are responsible for leading the projects side￾by-side or in place of the EFP. 
Community-Based Organization (CBO): Community 
organizations are defined by World Connect broadly as a 
local committee, association, cooperative or group, 
formal or informal, based in or working deeply in the 
project site. In some cases, they are partnering with the 
local leader, and in other cases, the local leader is part of 
the CBO. 
2
II. Methodology
Program Theory of Change and Evaluation Design
In the development of the evaluation questions and planning process, a series of consultations 
with World Connect served to summarize the current theory of change and identify which 
linkages in the theory of change were lacking evidence. The result is pictured below. 
At a general level, World Connect hypothesizes that if local communities generate their own 
ideas for community-led projects, built on local knowledge, assets, skills and momentum, and if 
World Connect provides training, tools, direct investment, and trust, then these community-led 
projects will achieve direct project results as well as strengthen community capacity, as defined 
by local leadership and agency. As a 
result, then the direct activities of 
the projects as well as the increased 
community capacity will lead to 
long-term, sustainable development 
outcomes in areas including health, 
economic opportunity, and 
education. As development 
outcomes improve, a reinforcing 
feedback loop is generated to 
improve community capacity as 
well. 
As extensive information had 
already been collected in the 
program documentation related to 
the relationship between specific 
community-led projects and their 
direct project results, this 
evaluation was designed to focus on 
collecting new information to 
understand the relationship between projects and the development of community capacity (local 
leadership and agency), as well as understanding the role of World Connect’s design and support 
in advancing this process. The evaluation used a mixed-methods evaluation design that included 
secondary literature review, key informant interviews, community workshops, social network 
analysis, and a survey of project participants. Field work was planned to collect and analyze data 
at two levels: at the project level and at the community level, which is generally defined as village, 
group village, or township.
Evaluation Questions
The following evaluation questions were generated based on iterative feedback and discussion 
with World Connect. 
1. To what extent has the current portfolio of grants progressed against the overall program 
objectives?
1.1 How responsive are WC projects to local priorities?
Program Theory of Change (Adapted)
3
1.2 How do local partners and communities perceive and value WC support such as 
trainings, feedback, and site visits?
1.3 How do they see the program as similar or different from other development 
efforts?
2. What evidence exists that individuals and organizations involved in the program have 
increased local leadership, as defined by improvements in confidence, credibility, and 
mutual trust? 
a. Confidence: Local partners have the capacity and drive to catalyze development in 
their communities. 
b. Credibility: Local partners have respect and recognition to lead change in their 
communities.
c. Mutual trust: Local partners have bonds with each other that encourage future 
collaboration. 
3. What evidence exists that the communities in which the program operates have increased 
agency, as defined by improvements in collective action, social capital, and inclusiveness? 
a. Collective action: Communities have desire and momentum to work together on 
shared goals. 
b. Social capital: Relationships and social structures support action for community 
development. 
c. Inclusiveness: Community development is driven by a broad base of community 
members, including women and marginalized groups.
4. What strategies have been used to mobilize community contributions (financial and in￾kind)? 
5. How do leadership and agency (Q2 and Q3) relate to development outcomes such as 
those in health, education, and economic growth? What additional evidence is needed to 
understand this relationship? 
M&E Data Review and Thematic Analysis
We conducted a review of the data in the World Connect M&E system, project reports, and 
other relevant documentation. In addition, a thematic analysis of grantee final reports was 
conducted using thematic coding in WebQDA. All reports completed as of March 2020 were 
included in this thematic analysis. Of particular interest were grantee narratives related to 
description of World Connect support, additional actions that had been taken by the community, 
additional investment by the community, unexpected/emergent leadership during the project 
period, and recommendations for World Connect. 
Field Work
Community field work locations were selected in coordination with the World Connect team. 
An initial list of sites was generated randomly from the list of projects, and then sites were 
replaced in order to meet the selection criteria. As a result, the sample was a purposive sample, 
but it was not solely selected by the World Connect team, which may have led to a bias toward 
the projects considered to be the most successful. Selection criteria and justification for field 
work included:
• Communities that conducted projects earlier in the program period (funded 2018-early 
2019) in order to assess longer-term and community-level effects
4
• Inclusion of some communities that generated additional in-kind/cash contributions above 
the 25% match requirement 
• Diversity of geographic regions; rural and urban settings; diversity of project sector; 
projects with and without construction
• Acceptability, willingness, and availability of project teams and communities to participate 
in the research during the field work time period
• Logistical considerations and the total time allocated for field work
The final selected projects for field work are listed in the table below. 
Project Title Region Data Collection
Malizweni Nursery School Project North In person
Sanitary Pads for Kazomba North In person
S/he Innovates North In person
Secondary School Science Laboratory Project Central In person
Kapiri Sweet Foods Central Virtual
Tiwatukule Youth Health Information Center Central Virtual
Ndikudikilira (I Will Wait for You) Central Virtual
Menstrual Hygiene Management in Mpemba South Virtual
Tsogolo Langa Community Physiotherapy South Virtual
Computer Lessons for Youth Development and
Employment South Virtual
Water for Kalima South Virtual
SESA Youth South Virtual
Field work was planned for March – April 2020, spending 1.5 to 2 days in each community. This 
included engagement with the project team (EFP, local leader, and CBO) as well as other 
community members and local authorities. Field work was conducted in the local language, 
Chichewa. The components of the field work are listed below. 
1. Consultation with local authorities: Researchers met with relevant local authority(ies) to 
introduce themselves and the evaluation activities. 
2. Interviews with project team (EFP, local leader, and CBO): Researchers conducted
individual KIIs with the project team members. 
3. Project site visit (clinic, school, well, etc.), as appropriate: Researchers visited the project 
site. In cases where the project was not a physical site, researchers met with relevant 
organizations and individuals benefiting from the project. 
4. Community workshops: Researchers conducted two workshops in each community. The 
intent of the workshop is to gather perspectives from community members who were 
not directly involved in the project implementation. 
5
Prior to conducting field work, the international team member facilitated a 2-day training in Mzuzu 
for the full evaluation team (local research director, 2 local researchers) and the three local 
World Connect staff. This training included an orientation to systems thinking and systems 
evaluation, pre-testing and translation of data collection tools, a simulation of the community 
workshop, and detailed review of the implementation schedule. 
Changes to Field Data Collection
Researchers completed in-person data collection as planned for four sites (3 North and 1 
Central) in March. At this time, the COVID-19 pandemic emerged and it was no longer advisable 
to travel throughout the country nor to organize group meetings. For the safety of the 
researchers and local communities, for the remaining eight (3 Central and 5 Southern) sites, 
researchers conducted KIIs by phone with the EFPs and local leaders. This presented limitations 
to the completeness of the dataset, as researchers could not visit and observe the sites 
independently and did not complete community workshops in those sites. In addition, most KIIs 
were conducted in a shorter time period by phone (~60 minutes) than in person (~90 minutes) 
due to the air time expense that was incurred. 
However, the evaluation team in consultation with World Connect determined that there was 
sufficient data available to continue with the completion of the evaluation. Drawing from the 
existing secondary data, in-person data collection, virtual data collection, and survey data, the 
evaluation team conducted the analysis and developed conclusions and recommendations. Plans 
have been proposed to complete the community workshops at a later date when the COVID-19 
travel restrictions are lifted in order to better inform World Connect’s understanding of local 
progress, particularly the evaluation questions related to community agency. In addition, as noted 
above, the World Connect Malawi team was trained on using the evaluation’s data collection 
tools, which allows them to incorporate additional inquiry into their existing site visit and 
monitoring processes. 
Community Workshops
Two workshops were held in each community with in-person data collection, for a total of 8 
workshops. Each workshop lasted approximately 2.5 hours and included 6-12 participants. 
Participants were drawn from groups such as: village/town development committee, women’s 
committee, parent/teacher association, youth group, health action group, other formal and 
informal local authorities, and neighbors. The specific participants for each workshop were
determined according to the project type and local context. In general, participants within each 
session were selected so that they were known to each other and of similar status in order to 
encourage an open and honest discussion. As appropriate, workshops were separated by gender 
to allow for increased female participation. 
The workshops included a mix of individual, small group (<5 in each group), and large group 
activities, and emphasized participatory and open-ended exploration. Themes explored through 
the workshop included:
• How local communities define and perceive community capacity that is necessary for long￾term, sustainable development, 
• What are current community capacities related to agency (as defined by participants), and 
• Whether community capacity has changed recently, and if so, what has driven those 
changes. 
6
Social Network Analysis
As part of the key informant interviews, researchers
collected data for a basic social network analysis (SNA) 
to understand who the project team interacted with in 
the design and implementation of their projects. SNA is a 
way of thinking about social systems that focuses 
attention on relationships among actors in a system. (To 
learn more about SNA, click here.) SNA was selected as 
a research tool for this evaluation according to the 
interest in understanding the extent to which mutual 
trust and social capital was developed as a result of the 
grants program. Our simple analysis resulted in a set of 
ego networks: these graphs put the respondent in the 
center and show who they were involved with during the 
project design and implementation (see example, at 
right). An ego network only shows the relationship 
between the respondent and their connections; it does 
not show relationships among connections. 
Individual attributes Relationship attributes
Organizational affiliation (government, local government, local NGO, local 
structure, international NGO, academic, private sector, citizen, faith-based)
Typically involved in development discussions (yes/no)
Frequency of involvement (high/low)
New relationship (yes/no)
SNA was completed for all the in-person data collection sites (4) as well as almost all of the 
virtual data collection sites (7). One site was omitted from the SNA due to the respondents’ lack 
of time available for an extended interview. The original SNA tool included an active exercise 
that allowed the respondent to draw their connections, and the tool was slightly modified when 
the evaluation team switched to phone interviews. While the ego networks were not intended 
to be compared to each other, it is worth noting that it is likely that the SNA data collected in 
person was more robust than the data collected by phone, due to having less time available for 
the interviews. SNA data was analyzed in Kumu and summary statistics analyzed in Excel. 
Participant Survey
A survey was developed based on the evaluation questions and literature review, as well as 
consultations with World Connect. The survey had an estimated completion time of 20-30
minutes and was offered in English and Chichewa. 
Originally, the surveys were intended to be collected by two methods: electronically for EFPs 
who generally have access to the internet, and by paper for local leaders and community 
organizations, who have less connectivity. It was planned that the EFPs would distribute these 
paper surveys to their project team and return the completed forms to the evaluation team. 
However, due to movement restrictions put in place as a result of the COVID outbreak, the 
survey was only offered in the electronic format. All project teams were invited to participate in 
the survey online through SurveyMonkey, with up to three participants per project team. Survey 
data was collected over a 2-week period. 
Example of SNA map, drawn by participant. 
(Photo: MChimlaza)
7
A total of 66 responses were received, with more respondents who were male compared to 
female, rural compared to urban, and involved in projects that included construction compared 
to those without construction. 
Survey Respondent Profile
Gender Location Construction Respondent Total
Female Male Rural Urban With Without EFP LL/CBO
30 36 37 29 42 24 46 20 66
45% 55% 56% 44% 64% 36% 70% 30%
In order to preserve anonymity of responses and encourage honest responses, the survey did 
not ask which project the respondent was associated with. Accordingly, it is not possible to 
determine whether the EFP respondents were from the same projects as the LL and CBO 
respondents. As a result, we can assume the response rate relative to the total number of 
projects (116) ranges from 40% (46/116, assuming complete overlap of EFP and non-EFP 
respondents) to 57% (66/116, assuming no overlap). Survey data was collected by Survey Monkey 
and analyzed in Excel and Tableau. 
Limitations
Comparison groups: As this is a performance evaluation and not an impact evaluation, data 
collection was focused on sites that had received the intervention without any control 
communities. While it would have been interesting and useful to include additional sites that had 
not received grants, or sites that had received other types of grants, this was beyond the scope 
and resources of a performance evaluation. A wide range of contextual factors might affect the 
outcomes of interest including community agency and leadership. While changes observed cannot 
be fully attributed to the program, to the extent possible, data collection instruments included a 
comparison to the time period before the grant was provided, as well as to other current 
development programs. This served to identify the program’s contribution to the observed 
outcomes. 
Response rates: As noted previously, due to the emergence of COVID during the evaluation 
period, several data collection activities were conducted virtually rather than in-person. This 
negatively affected the survey response rate and the number of field work KIIs, as well as 
eliminated many of the community workshops. 
Biases: Understanding that much of the data was collected among grantees, we consider that 
there was a potential social desirability bias. This can lead participants to report more positive 
outcomes to demonstrate progress as a result of the grant. We attempted to reduce this bias 
through assuring confidentiality of participants, assuring that the evaluation results would not 
affect current or future benefits, data collection instruments that examined successes and 
challenges, the use of “devil’s advocate” questions, and an emphasis on using the evaluation as an
opportunity for learning and improvement. 
Analysis, Triangulation, and Validation
The evaluation team completed note-taking sheets for all key informant interviews, SNAs, and 
community workshops for team review. Across a series of extended meetings, the team reviewed 
each site’s data jointly. The team shared reflections related to the evaluation questions, identified 
8
common themes, and compared and contrasted site examples to one another. In the final joint 
analysis session, the team reviewed each evaluation question and generated overall conclusions 
based on supporting data from each site. During these sessions and afterwards, data from the 
secondary review, survey, and other sources was integrated into the analysis in order to 
triangulate findings and strengthen the conclusions and recommendations. Initial findings were 
presented to the World Connect team for validation, and the final report was updated as a result. 
Additional validation activities planned to occur among a wider group of stakeholders were not 
possible during the evaluation period due to travel restrictions as a result of COVID-19. 
However, the evaluation team encourages the World Connect team to continue engaging with 
stakeholders on topics raised in this evaluation as they apply the learning in their work. Evaluation 
findings were distributed to stakeholders, project partners, project teams, and participants in the 
research, including a summary in Chichewa.
9
III. Findings
In this section, we present a summary of findings according to the evaluation questions. 
Evaluation Question 1: To what extent has the current portfolio of grants progressed 
against the overall program objectives?
Much of World Connect’s progress against program objectives is captured in its M&E system and 
existing reports. World Connect has a strong and well-organized online M&E system for data 
management, analysis, and visualization. Each project’s files including the grant application, interim 
and final reports, site visit reports, and photos and other documentation are saved in a series of 
online folders. The local team conducts reviews of the quality and completeness of the data, as 
well as conducts summary analyses on key indicators of interest. Data from these back-end 
sources are linked to an online dashboard which allows users to search, filter, aggregate, and 
analyze data across the project portfolio in real-time. Data in the M&E system are updated 
regularly as new reports, site visits, and other activities are completed, as reflected by the 
completeness of the data in the M&E system at the time of the evaluation. 
At the onset of the evaluation, World Connect had launched 116 individual projects. During the 
evaluation period, World Connect completed an additional grant review cycle, bringing the total 
number of approved projects to 139. This exceeds the overall program goal of 100 projects. 
Among approved projects, 59 
have been completed and 57 
have submitted their final 
reports. According to data in 
the M&E system as of March 
2020, the total number of 
people directly reached and 
or/engaged in projects was 
19,554 (Female: 11,542, Male: 
8,012), and the total number 
indirect reached and/or 
actively engaged in projects 
was 72,196 (Female: 40,827, 
Male: 31,369).
Grants are offering 
opportunities to new and 
informal organizations, as 
demonstrated by program data that shows that 72% of project teams have not received 
international funding before, 38% of community organizations do not have legal registration, and 
33% of community organizations do not have a bank account. Community contributions are at 
or above the targeted amount, with $54,244 (10% of grant spending) contributed in cash and 
$136,837 (24% of grant spending) contributed in kind. 
In addition, World Connect’s M&E system captures a set of common indicators in Malawi as well 
as in other countries. Those figures indicate that most projects completed all or mostly all of 
their goals and nearly all project teams reported they had the necessary support from World 
Connect and would recommend working with World Connect. Beyond the grant requirements, 
Screenshot from World Connect M&E system 
detailing data and characteristics of Malawi projects.
10
the M&E system reflects that the majority of projects resulted in new actions and activities by the 
local community (77%), additional investment beyond the cost-share requirement (53%), and 
unexpected or emergent leadership in the community (64%). 
Project Status (World Connect M&E System)1 Yes No
Accomplished all or mostly all of goals 56 (79%) 15 (21%)
Had necessary support from World Connect 64 (94%) 4 (6%)
Recommend working with World Connect 68 (99%) 1 (1%)
Emergent leadership in local community 44 (64%) 25 (36%)
Additional investment in/by local community 35 (53%) 31 (47%)
Additional actions in/by local community 50 (77%) 15 (23%)
In the next sections, we will summarize findings for the evaluation subquestions related to the 
responsiveness of World Connect projects to local priorities, perceptions of the value of World 
Connect support, and how stakeholders view World Connect as similar or different from other 
development programs. 
Evaluation Question 1.1: How responsive are World Connect projects to local priorities?
World Connect grants are intended to fund ideas and priorities generated from local 
communities in a grassroots manner, rather than imposing ideas or executing an agenda in a top￾down manner. Interviews with partner organizations, field data collection, and review of project 
documentation overwhelmingly supported that the project ideas were generated from within 
local communities, without restrictions or redirection from World Connect. In interviews, the 
fact that project ideas are locally-generated was one of the first and most frequently mentioned 
characteristics of the program. Grantees reported that advice from World Connect during the 
project design and proposal stage served to refine their ideas and add considerations, rather than 
direct the activities toward specific goals or priorities. 
Grantees and community members 
demonstrated a high level of appreciation 
for the ability to define their own 
needs and obtain grant funding based on 
their priorities. For example, when asked 
what, if anything, sets World Connect 
apart from other development initiatives, 
59% of survey respondents selected 
“opportunity to define my own project 
goals” among a set of fixed choice 
responses.2 Many of the projects visited 
during the field work as well as those 
reviewed in the documentation offered 
solutions that were not solely focused on 
 
1 As of March 2020, data was available for 71 completed projects, with some data remaining to be analyzed by the project staff.
2 Almost all survey respondents (64/66, 97%) identified at least one way in which the World Connect program was 
different from other development efforts.
Illustrative Quotations from Grantees
“World Connect does not impose project ideas or thematic 
areas. however, it listens and follows up with keen interests on 
projects that would positively impact rural communities.”
“The World Connect model is so innovative and has proved 
to be the only way it can help to solve the challenges our 
communities are facing. With World Connect, projects and 
solutions are from the communities themselves which helps a 
lot towards sustainability of the project comparing to the 
imposed solutions.”
“For over 10 years the community tried to build the school 
but most of the time it failed, to have the school built now is 
one of the great achievements to [our] community.”
11
one sector or one outcome. These seemed to reflect the holistic needs of individuals and 
communities. For example, two separate projects that train girls to make menstrual pads using 
locally-sources materials also included an income generating component. In Sanitary Pads for 
Kazomba, they gave girls chicks to raise so they could generate income. In Menstrual Hygiene 
Management in Mpemba, the project team noted that menstruation was not the only reason for 
absenteeism, and that girls were needed at home for income generating activities and to take 
care of their siblings. As a result, this project also included the development of school gardens to 
help needy students pay their school fees and offset family incomes. 
On a related note, in many cases, World Connect grants were reported to address needs 
that had long existed in the community, but had not been met by other donor or 
development activities. Again from Menstrual Hygiene Management in Mpemba, the project team 
explained that an international donor project had operated in that community for some time to 
distribute pads to girls. However, the donor project had not engaged them to determine a 
sustainable way to source pads in the future. As a result, once the international activity left, the 
needs in the community remained. In the Kapiri Sweet Foods project, an agricultural cooperative 
that sought to expand its operations had been unable to receive assistance from other economic 
strengthening activities. They explained this was because they wanted to focus on sweet potatoes, 
which is not a priority value chain for international groups who tend to focus on maize, soya, and 
ground nuts. In Malizweni, the village had been running a nursery school for more than 15 years 
in temporary locations or under a tree, without the ability to obtain funding for a safe physical 
structure for learning and preparing nutritious food for young children. 
It was also noteworthy that funding from the USAID program could only be used for non￾construction activities, according to the type of funding. In light of the past experience that many 
communities were interested in construction, World Connect did not add any restrictions to 
their grant-making procedures. Instead, they used other sources of funds to complement USAID 
funding. This reflected a dedication to making the grant-making process open-ended and
responsive to community needs. 
These factors inform whether the grants were responsive to the priorities of grant applicants, 
but not necessarily whether the requests of grant applicants represent local priorities. 
Interviews with partners institutions and World Connect as well as field work highlighted a 
division between: a) ideas that come from an individual within a local community, and b) ideas 
that represent the collective will and priorities of a community. This theme will be discussed in 
further detail in the evaluation questions to follow. 
Evaluation Question 1.2: How do local partners and communities perceive and value WC support 
such as trainings, feedback, and site visits?
Malawi is the only country that World Connect currently supports with an in-country 
implementation team. At the onset of the activity, grants were disbursed with oversight and 
support from the international team while a local program manager was recruited to provide 
training, site visits, and grantee support. In the second year of the activity, two additional team 
members were added to provide greater support for these activities. In later iterations of the 
trainings, the sessions were conducted in the local language and included not only the EFPs, but 
also the local leaders. The main types of support that the field team provides are:
12
• Project proposal and design: An in-person training on writing proposals, engaging 
community members in project design, generating community cash contributions, and 
other topics. 
• Project management, monitoring and reporting: An in-person training for 
EFPs, local leaders, and community organizations on finance, operations, data collection, 
and reporting through the World Connect systems. 
• Site visits: In-person visits by the local and/or international staff to assess progress and 
provide support, conducted during and after the implementation period. 
• Virtual support: Communication and support through email, phone calls, and 
WhatsApp on grant procedures and project implementation. 
Survey respondents reported a high level of satisfaction with World Connect overall, with 100% 
(66/66) of respondents indicating that they are very satisfied or satisfied with their experience 
with the program, and 98% (65/66) of respondents indicating that World Connect’s support was 
very important or important to achieving their goals. Trends across different types of respondents 
(male/female, with/without construction, urban/rural) were generally similar.3 Grantees and local 
partners regularly praised World Connect for following through on its promises to provide 
grants, and for disbursing the promised amount in a timely manner. Stakeholders interviewed 
cited many examples of where other donors and projects had visited their communities and 
promised resources that arrived much later, or not at all. 
 
3 Considering the relatively small sample size used for this analysis, differences among the disaggregated groups are 
not statistically significant.
40
16
24
25
15
18
22
26
14
12
17
9
19
7
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
All
Female
Male
Construction
No construction
Rural
Urban
Overall, how do you rate your experience with the 
World Connect program?
Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied
13
Respondents indicated a high level of satisfaction with specific types of World Connect support, 
with 80% or more reporting that they had received support beyond grant funding and that it was 
very useful or useful. Support to project proposal, design, and management were viewed as the 
most useful types of support. 
54
20
34
36
18
32
22
11
9
2
6
5
5
6
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
All
Female
Male
Construction
No construction
Rural
Urban
Overall, how important was the World Connect 
support to achieving your project goals? 
Very important Important Somewhat important Not important
14
As noted in the limitations section of the methodology, there is likely a bias in survey responses, 
with those who have more extreme and more positive views being more likely to respond. In 
order to further understand the perceptions of World Connect support, these topics were 
explored more through field work and document review. In terms of the training provided, most 
project teams visited during the field work had 
participated in the World Connect training and 
appreciated its usefulness. Project teams 
commented on the fact that the trainings helped 
them to understand what World Connect was 
seeking in the proposal review and 
reporting process, as well as to successfully 
implement their interventions. Project teams 
particularly noted the usefulness of gaining 
project management skills for financial 
planning and management, resource mobilization for community contributions, and monitoring 
and evaluation. The extent to which World Connect support provided sufficient guidance to all 
grantees on community engagement was difficult to assess. For example, in project 
documentation some grantees cited training on community engagement as a highlight of World 
Connect’s support. World Connect staff note that during the project design training and proposal 
review process, they have helped to identify activities that were not fully embraced by local 
communities, and supported project teams to conduct amplified engagement activities. In some 
cases, this led to a different project design or implementation plan that was more representative 
of community priorities. In contrast, field work reflected that a few projects did not seem to have 
fully engaged their communities broadly in the design and implementation of their grant. This may 
be a factor to explore further in the grant-making and support process. 
42
40
33
29
31
21
22
25
26
25
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Project proposal and design
Project management
Project monitoring and reporting
Site visit
Virtual support
Beyond the grant funding, did you receive any support 
from World Connect? If so, please rate whether or 
not the support was useful.
Very Useful Useful Somewhat useful Not useful NA/Did not receive support
“We were adequately trained on how to engage 
the community members before even coming up 
with a project to ensure the project is indeed to 
the benefit of the community members. We were 
also trained in how to implement, monitor and 
evaluate our projects all the while, engaging the 
community members to ensure that they too gain 
a sense of ownership of the project.” – Grantee
15
Site visits were similarly well received by survey respondents, with more than 80% indicating 
that the visits were very useful or useful. Ten respondents indicated they had not yet received a 
site visit, though according to program records, all projects have been visited at least once by the 
local World Connect team. It was unclear whether the reason for this difference was due to 
turnover, failures in recall, or other factors related to the survey instrument. In field work and 
project documentation, project teams demonstrated a high level of value for the project site 
visits, citing several benefits. First, the site visits provided motivation and encouragement, and 
demonstrated that World Connect was a committed partner. Grantees noted that the site visits 
energized the project teams and the local communities. In one case, the data collection visit by 
this evaluation team also served to reinvigorate the project team’s energy, leading them to build 
more bricks for the construction. Second, the site visits provided the opportunity for the World 
Connect team to jointly problem solve and offer ideas for improving the operations and 
effectiveness of the interventions. For example, grantees cited examples of how World Connect 
had helped them to increase the reach of their programs without additional costs through 
suggestions such as moving their training site to a more trafficked location, or conducting shorter 
daily outreach sessions during the school day rather than on the weekend. 
In addition to the specific areas of support 
noted above, across the field work and 
project documentation, grantees often 
highlighted the value of the supportive and 
mentoring relationship with the in￾country team. Grantees commented on the 
high levels of responsiveness and availability of 
the implementation team, and were pleased 
with the high level of individual support they 
received. Grantees often said that World 
Connect is “constantly” in communication and “cares” about them and their success. 
Some grantees noted that they would like additional support in fulfilling the grant reporting
requirements and mobilizing community contributions. Because the grants are 
implemented on a rolling basis and new trainings and staff support were added over time, it was 
difficult to discern whether these needs were due to the lack of support provided by World 
Connect during the early implementation period, or a deficiency in the support currently 
provided, or other factors. These themes may warrant further exploration. In particular, 
community contribution is discussed further in evaluation question 4. 
Evaluation Question 1.3: How do local partners and communities see the program as similar or 
different from other development efforts?
Almost all survey respondents (64/66, 97%) identified at least one way in which the World 
Connect program was different from other development efforts. Respondents were given a set 
of fixed-choice responses based on program literature and the theory of change, and asked to 
select as many or as few options as they thought applicable.4 More than half of all respondents 
indicated that World Connect offered a different approach through 1) the opportunity to define 
their own project goals, 2) receiving and managing a grant directly, 3) support during project 
 
4 This question format helps to understand the factors that respondents prioritize or value the most.
“The one thing that truly stands out for us is how much 
the World Connect team cares about our project. Even 
though the World Connect team has a lot of projects 
under their supervision, the relationship we have with 
them makes us feel like we are the only project they 
have running. We knew from the very beginning that 
they truly wanted us and our community to succeed and 
they were there to help in any way possible.” – Grantee
16
design, 4) support during project implementation, and 5) community financial and in-kind 
contribution. This question also had an open-ended response option, which was selected by very 
few respondents.
What about working with World Connect 
was different from other development 
projects, if anything? (Multiple choice, check all that 
apply)
# of 
respondents
% of 
respondents
Opportunity to define my own project goals 39 59%
World Connect support during project design 37 56%
Receiving and managing a grant directly 37 56%
Community financial and in-kind contribution 36 55%
World Connect support during project implementation 36 55%
Community engagement process 33 50%
Partnerships in the community for implementation 29 44%
During the field work, project teams very frequently cited the fact that community financial 
contributions was different and new to their communities. In most communities, other projects 
and processes exist that require in-kind contributions, and some communities have proactively 
prepared for this by stockpiling bricks and building materials. Project teams also highlighted that 
the lack of remuneration for participation in project activities such as trainings and meetings was 
also different from other donor-funded activities. This did not necessarily mean that project 
teams recommend to change the World Connect approach of not paying for participation. 
Rather, some grantees reflected that, now that they have been through the process, they would 
have improved their communications and outreach approach with local participants and 
community members. 
Generally, grantees and community members contrasted the World Connect program to top￾down donor initiatives that they were familiar with in their local settings. However, it was noted 
in interviews with project partners and key informants that there are other programs in Malawi 
that offer small, community-led grants. Among these programs, World Connect was praised for 
the simplicity of its model and its accessibility to rural, low-resource, and first-time applicants. In 
addition, World Connect differs from other programs in its sourcing of applications through a 
network of EFPs, with the vast majority of applications moving forward to award. This is in 
contrast to other programs that cast a wide net and are open to any applicants, and then apply 
judgment of an external group to determine the small portion of applicants who will eventually 
receive awards. However, a full exploration of the differences among small grants programs in 
Malawi was beyond the scope of this evaluation, and may be of interest for future research. 
17
Evaluation Question 2: What evidence exists that individuals and organizations involved in 
the program have increased local leadership, as defined by improvements in confidence, 
credibility, and mutual trust? 
In the development of this evaluation, we developed with World Connect a more specific 
definition of what are the factors of leadership that the program is intended to affect. These 
aspects were: 
• Confidence: Local partners have the capacity and drive to catalyze development in their 
communities. 
• Credibility: Local partners have respect and recognition to lead change in their 
communities.
• Mutual trust: Local partners have bonds with each other that encourage future 
collaboration. 
To begin with findings from the survey, respondents indicated high levels of agreement that 
measures of their leadership have increased since implementing their projects. More than 60% 
strongly agreed and 35% agreed that 1) they have improved their leadership skills overall, 2) 
they are better able to identify needs in their community (related to confidence), and 3) 
improved their relationships with others in their community (related to credibility and 
mutual trust). 
These findings were similar to what was found in project reports. Many grantees reported that 
in the course of implementing their projects, they improved their confidence and leadership 
skills in planning and managing development activities. When grantees reflected on what they 
had learned and what they would do differently, common themes were:
• To better estimate the overall resources necessary for the interventions, as well as to 
include contingencies in the budget to allow for fluctuations in market and gas prices.
• To set less aggressive timeframes implementation, including to consider delays due to 
seasonality, weather, school schedules, etc. 
44
43
41
21
23
25
1
0
0
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100%
Since implementing the project, I have improved
my leadership skills.
Since implementing the project, I have improved
my relationships with others in the community.
Since implementing the project, I am better able
to identify needs in the community.
Please read the following statements and answer if you 
strongly disagree, disagree, agree, or strongly agree.
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
18
• To pilot interventions in a smaller setting before trying to scale it up to meet the overall 
goals of the project.
• To conduct more stakeholder/market research and establish more relevant contacts to 
improve the relevance and effectiveness of their interventions.
Most of these topics are covered to a certain extent in World Connect’s training and support 
provision. At the same time, it is well known that practical experience is necessary for leadership 
development, and as a result it is unclear if there was any deficiency in the support provided. In 
combination with the fact that many participants are receiving grants for the first time, these 
thoughtful reflections from grantees likely reflect their development as leaders of future activities. 
One theme from the field work was that those involved with the World Connect projects felt 
that the experience had improved their ability to be responsive to their communities. For 
community leaders, they are accustomed to hearing a lot of issues from people in the community. 
They felt that their ability to listen broadly, provide feedback, and accommodate different views 
improved as a result of the program. At the same time, in a few projects stakeholders reported 
that the activity was heavily dependent on the EFP who had since left, or was based in another 
location and not part of the local community. In these cases, there did not seem to be sufficient 
local leadership at the onset of the grant, and the challenges to progress and sustainability 
were apparent as the grant period ended. 
In terms of confidence, in project reports grantees demonstrated pride in their 
accomplishments to date. Many described that they had been transformed through the process 
of receiving and implementing the grant, and they felt more confident in their future leadership 
activities. Without a specific prompt in the final reporting template, they readily offerred future 
plans and next steps for their projects and for tackling other challenges in their communities. In 
some cases, grantees discussed how they have extended the reach of their intervention, for 
example, by forming additional women’s groups, or by asking those who received training to 
share the learning with others. In addition, nearly all the grantee reports reviewed included a 
specific plan for sustainability of their projects, identifying exactly who would be involved and 
what role they would play. 
During field work, this theme was also apparent in the way that grantees were able to generate 
many new project ideas, as well as identify and seek out resources in support of these ideas. 
Once the teams had successfully completed one project, they appeared to gain momentum to 
look for other opportunities and solve other challenges. In the Malizweni Nursery School project, 
following the grant support to construct the nursery school, the project team together with 
community members desired to better meet the nutritional needs of the children, and have 
started growing soya for the school’s feeding program independent of additional World Connect 
funding. In Mpalale, after receiving a World Connect grant to build a secondary school science 
lab, local leaders and community members have identified a need for a girls hostel and are planning 
to use a similar mix of in-kind contributions and external grant support to build it. 
In project documentation as well, many grantees noted that upon completion of their grant, they 
are planning future activities using the funds generated internally through community 
contributions, village development and school funds, and savings and loans funds, and/or seeking 
external sources of funding. The fact that grantees outlined plans for follow-on activities and that 
field work confirmed many of these plans had been put in motion demonstrated that the 
momentum was lasting beyond the end of the grant period.
19
Another example of generating new development ideas was found in the Ndikudikilira (I Will 
Wait for You) project. In this case, the World Connect grant supported several activities to 
return girls to their families and schools as well as prevent future early marriages. Activities were 
mainly focused on policy, advocacy and communication efforts. During the course of 
implementation, stakeholders reflected that the financial pressures of families were one of the 
main reasons why girls were being sent to early marriage, and education was not enough to 
remove this pressure. As a result, they have developed plans for a vocation center to benefit
these girls and families, and in this way they plan to address a systemic, root cause of the 
problem of early marriage. 
Related to credibility, grantees could readily discuss who were the planned and emerging 
leaders in their projects; more than 60% of project final reports listing examples of how 
unexpected leaders emerged during the course of implementation. However, there were fewer
examples of individuals gaining respect and recognition as a result of the project implementation 
(new leaders). Rather, the narratives reflected that the projects worked with individuals who 
already had respect and recognition in their communities (existing leaders). In this way, projects 
were more likely to build on the internal assets available in the local setting. Examples of 
narratives related to credibility from grantee reports are listed in the table below. 
Credibility: Existing Leaders Credibility: New Leaders
“One of the lead teachers has been an amazing resource 
during the training. She is very passionate about girls
empowerment.”
“There is one man who was a common group member but 
he was a leader in a savings and loan group that had existed 
in the community before there he had built up community 
entry and mobilization skills. During the implementation of 
the project, this man helped the project team in liaising with 
the group and coordinated the goal setting that took place 
jointly with the field partner, local leader and the community 
club members.”
“She showed extreme dedication to get the 
project going at the very start, her humbleness 
and willingness to sacrifice her time for the good 
of the project was noticed by her fellow project 
participants and she was made the chairperson of 
the group.”
“One of the sex workers living with HIV/AIDS is 
now coordinating the activities of all the support 
groups. She is the one who is facilitating 
motivation talks and meetings of members of the 
support groups.”
During field work, the evaluation team investigated and observed how community members 
perceived project leaders. This generated several examples to support that community members 
believed project leaders to be credible and trustworthy. For example, in the Tiwatukule 
Youth Health Information Center project, a team member from the local CBO discussed how 
the development of a library for the local community has helped them to develop and improve 
trust from the community. In contrast to other organizations who make promises to the 
community and do not deliver, this CBO followed through on its plans to bring an infrastructure 
investment to the community, as well as established methods of maintaining the library over time. 
The library has also offered other benefits to the community that have bolstered the CBO’s 
status, including the opportunity to generate income by selling food and other wares to library 
visitors. In different community workshops, participants cited that when they contributed funds
to the local projects, they had the confidence that it would be used for the given purpose and 
result in tangible improvements. In addition, community members felt comfortable sharing 
information with project teams. 
20
Grantee reports included many narratives of how different stakeholders collaboration in the 
implementation of the project. These groups appeared to establish or strengthen their 
relationships, contributing to mutual trust. At the same time, several grantees discussed the 
potentially disruptive role of the introduction of the grant in their communities. These included 
disagreements about who would control money and resources, as well as stated discomfort with 
the high level of power that an EFP held over the process. While further investigation would be 
needed to understand the causes and conditions of these tensions, it seemed to occur more 
frequently in projects where the EFP did not have a permanent or close connection to the 
community. This was also noteworthy in light of the survey results, which less support that 
progress has been made in “community members trust each other” compared to other aspects 
of leadership and agency (further detailed in the following section on agency). 
Related to this topic, examining the full project portfolio through the program documentation 
and field work, there were a few examples identified in which there was a misuse of funds or, in 
one case, coopting of the project by a political leader. It was outside of the scope of this evaluation 
to conduct a financial audit, but it should be noted that relative to the size of the grant portfolio, 
these cases were very few and appeared to be resolved in the end. What was relevant to the 
evaluation questions of trust and accountability was that when a breach occurred, the 
project team and community members came together to confront the offending party. Generally, 
they used the justification that the project was for broad community benefit as part of their 
request for resolution. In the case of diverted funding, the individual was requested to return the 
funds. In the case of political coopting, the politician was asked to change their campaign 
messaging. From the evaluation team’s perspective, it was less noteworthy that these incidents 
occurred in the first place given the size and diversity of the project portfolio. Instead, the 
evaluation team found it relevant that there was a joint community response to a potential threat 
to the project that appeared to be resolved in the end. 
Findings from Social Network Analysis
To further understand aspects of mutual trust, the evaluation team also conducted a basic 
social network analysis (SNA) to understand who project teams engaged with in the design and 
implementation of their projects. This was intended to understand the composition of project 
teams and the extent to which structures exist within communities to support development 
efforts. The results of the social network analysis are visualized in the graphic on the following 
page. 
• Each cluster indicates a specific project that was selected for field work. A total of 11 
SNAs were completed among 1 to 3 members of the project team. 
• Each actor is represented by a dot. Central dots represent the EFP or local leader who 
was interviewed. Peripheral dots represent the individuals they were connected to during 
the project.
• The color of each actor represents the type of organization.
• The color of each connecting line represents whether the connection was new as a result 
of the project (blue) or existing before the project began (orange). 
• The size of each connecting line represents whether the actor was frequently involved in 
the project (thick line) or not frequently involved (thin line). 
• The bullseye indicates that the actor does not typically have an opportunity to participate 
in development processes. 
21
As visualized in the SNA graphic, a wide variety of actor types were involved in the design and 
implementation of the projects. These networks were dominated by people within the local 
community, rather than from district, national, and international organizations. Individuals from 
local structures (defined as VDCs, ADCs, school committees, and health committees) and local 
government were most frequently cited. Government participants at the district, regional, and 
national level were included in above half of the sampled projects. Some projects included 
individual citizens as important actors involved in the projects, with one project in particular 
(visualized on the righthand side of the graphic) naming a large number of citizens. Private sector 
and faith-based actors were less frequently cited. 
Most connections listed were those who were frequently involved in the projects, the majority 
of whom had relationships with the project team before the project began. However, new 
connections were generated as a result of implementing the projects as well. Additionally, most 
of the connections cited were those who were frequently involved in the projects, and 
respondents were less able to recall those who were infrequently involved. It is not surprising 
that it is easier to recall individuals who were more frequently involved, though this may also 
reflect that the projects were led by relatively smaller core groups. This finding raises some 
questions about whether actors who are more distant, but could be strategic partners, are 
involved in the projects. Among projects where more than one SNA was completed by project 
team members (visualized as clusters that have multiple hubs), project team members did not 
name the same individuals in their networks very frequently. 
Government
Citizen
Private Sector
Local NGO
Academic
Local Government
Local Structure
22
The SNA also examined inclusion (related to evaluation question 3) by asking whether each 
connection typically had a chance to participate in development activities or not. This analysis 
uncovered relatively few new voices: six total, three of which were from one project. We 
consider that this question had some challenges in its implementation, both with the researchers 
remembering to capture this data correctly in the interview process, as well as with the research 
participants understanding the intent of the question. Nevertheless, this finding does warrant 
reflection on whether the community-led process in its current form is encouraging inclusion of 
marginalized groups, or reinforcing existing power structures in the communities. The SNA did 
not collect data about the gender of each individual, but this would be useful information for 
future such efforts. 
Evaluation Question 3: What evidence exists that the communities in which the program 
operates have increased agency, as defined by improvements in collective action, social 
capital, and inclusiveness? 
Similar to the evaluation question 2 on leadership, in the development of this evaluation, we 
developed with World Connect a more specific definition of what are the factors of local agency
that the program is intended to affect. These aspects were: 
• Collective action: Communities have desire and momentum to work together on shared 
goals. 
• Social capital: Relationships and social structures support action for community 
development. 
• Inclusiveness: Community development is driven by a broad base of community members, 
including women and marginalized groups.
These themes were examined from different data sources (grantee survey, social network 
analysis, grantee reports, and field work), which are further detailed in the sections to follow. 
Findings from Grantee Survey
Survey respondents were presented with a series of statements about community capacity, which 
were drawn from the program’s theory of change, literature review, and review of project 
documentation. 
Theme Statement
Collective 
action
Community members come together to discuss community needs
Community members are confident in their ability to lead change
Community members work together to achieve shared goals
Social capital
Community members respect each other
Community members trust each other
Community members ask for and provide help to each other
Community members hold each other accountable for development
Community members hold their leaders accountable for development
Inclusiveness Different types of community members are engaged in the development processes, 
including women and youth
23
Respondents were then asked if each statement is important for achieving project goals, which 
among the statements were most important, and whether these aspects had gotten better, stayed 
the same, or gotten worse since implementing the project. 
Respondents had near universal agreement that each of the themes were important. While this 
high level of agreement likely reflects some bias toward agreeability and positive response, it is 
useful validation that the project teams agree that community capacity is important in advancing 
project goals and development. When asked to select up to three themes that were most 
important, respondents identified statements related to collective action (community 
members come together to discuss community needs, community members work together to 
achieve shared goals) and inclusion (different types of community members are engaged in the 
development process). Respondents were allowed a free choice response to add their own 
themes, but very few added their own themes in this format. 
Of the following themes, which are the most 
important? Choose up to 3.
# of 
respondents
% of 
respondents
Community members come together to discuss community 
needs
51 77%
Community members work together to achieve shared goals 40 61%
Different types of community members are engaged in the 
development processes, including women and youth
33 50%
Community members are confident in their ability to lead change 26 39%
Community members trust each other 13 20%
Community members hold each other accountable for 
development
13 20%
Community members hold their leaders accountable for 
development
11 17%
Community members ask for and provide help to each other 6 9%
Community members respect each other 4 6%
With regard to the trends of these themes in their communities, 70% or more of survey 
respondents indicated the themes had gotten better since implementing the project. The most 
frequently cited improvements were in collective action (community members are confident 
in their ability to lead change, community members work together to achieve shared goals) and 
inclusion (different types of community members are engaged in the development process). It 
is noteworthy that two of these themes, community members working together and engaging 
different types of community members, were also identified as the most important themes for 
achieving their goals. 
24
Survey respondents indicated moderate levels of agreement that measures of their inclusion 
have increased since implementing their projects. 33% percent strongly agreed and 59% agreed 
that decision-makers pay more attention to their priority issues. The survey also asked whether 
people whose voices are not usually heard have more opportunities to participate in 
development, which related both to inclusion and local leadership. 48% strongly agreed 
and 47% agreed with this statement. 
53
60 57
46 47 54 54 49
59
13
6 9
19 17
12 12 17
7
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Community
members come
together to
discuss
community
needs
Community
members are
confident in their
ability to lead
change
Community
members work
together to
achieve shared
goals
Community
members respect
each other
Community
members trust
each other
Community
members ask for
and provide help
to each other
Community
members hold
each other
accountable for
development
Community
members hold
their leaders
accountable for
development
Different types
of community
members are
engaged in the
development
processes
Please indicate if you think the theme has gotten better, stayed the 
same, or gotten worse since implementing the project.
Improved Stayed the Same Gotten Worse
22
32
39
31
3
3
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100%
Since implementing the project, decision-makers
pay more attention to the issues that I care
about.
Since implementing the project, people whose
voices are not usually heard have more
opportunities to participate in development.
Please read the following statements and answer if you 
strongly disagree, disagree, agree, or strongly agree.
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
Collective Action Social Capital Inclusion
25
Findings from Grantee Reports and Field Work
These findings were aligned with grantee reports, which detailed many examples of collective 
action. The main themes in collective action activities involved community members who 
organized themselves to:
• Collect and manage resources, 
• Maintain current activities of the intervention
• Extend the reach of the intervention to additional individuals, groups, or communities, 
• Solve related or additional local problems. 
Grantees reported many examples of engaging with different types of organizations in order to 
launch these collective action activities, which is aligned with the findings of the SNA, detailed in 
the previous section. During field work, some community members reflected that the process of 
jointly discussing local problems, developing solutions, and then implementing the solutions 
together was a new idea. These community members were more accustomed to receiving news 
about what was coming to their village or town or the results of decisions made by others. 
Closely related to this theme is the idea of social capital, and whether relationships and social 
structures support action for community development. Most frequently, grantees discussed how 
local leaders and champions used their influence to encourage community involvement in the 
programs and maintenance of structures. Less frequently, grantees discussed using connections 
with technical specialists within or outside their 
communities. For example, one grantee 
working on employment training noted a 
missed opportunity to affiliate with a center of 
higher education to confer certificates and 
credentials upon the project participants. 
Another grantee working on new methods for 
briquette making notes that several other 
groups in the country are working on a similar 
activity, and they would have benefited from 
learning from them before they started. 
Many grantees and community members 
discussed how they strengthened bonds among 
each other through their in-kind contributions 
to the project, specifically by spending time 
together on labor tasks. In the words of one 
grantee: “I think it promotes oneness among 
the community members, bring different people 
from villages to work on one common goals.” 
The grantee went on to describe how as the 
women worked together on the construction, 
they would share ideas and advice with one another, such as better ways to cook beans. In other 
examples, community members appeared to enjoy the time spent with each other in support of 
the project goals, in particular while working on construction or agriculture (either as part of the 
project or to generate income for the project). 
Illustrative Quotations from Grantees
“The school management committee has begun to construct 
a similar structure as the one erected from the project.”
“Women with disabilities have formed committee within 
their zone so that they should encourage each other to 
bring their children for the physio therapy and rehabilitation. 
The committees have helped to register more cxhildren at 
the centre.”
“The project has managed to initiate the community led 
economic development thinking and communities are 
demanding professional expertise from [our] group which 
has led to formation of other new (four) beekeeping groups 
awaiting resourcing for modern beehives.” 
“The high pressure in the deliver pipes has led to frequent 
bursts which has forced people to constantly engage in 
maintenance to restore water flow. This has seen 
strengthened water point committees which collect 
monthly contributions and use such proceeds to carry out 
maintenance costs.”
26
Grantees also cited many examples of reciprocity, meaning that community members contributed 
something to the projects and built stronger bonds in their community as a result. Broadly, this 
included the in-kind contributions by community members, but other examples were noted as 
well. For example, a community member volunteered to take on facilitation activities when the 
project staff member needed to take time away for personal reasons. In another example, a local 
NGO offered an additional training on innovation to individuals who were receiving employment 
training through the project. 
With regards to inclusion, many projects included a direct goal of increasing inclusion as part 
of the project design. These objectives included increasing youth employment, offering services 
to people with disabilities, and increasing school participation for girls. In these cases, it was 
common that the affected group was involved in the design and implementation of the projects. 
In some cases, this was achieved directly by having marginalized group members as leaders, and 
in other cases it was achieved indirectly by taking a youth- or girl-centric view to the project 
design. However, the intentional engagement of marginalized groups was generally limited to 
those projects that were focused on marginalized groups. As a result, it was less likely that other 
types of projects, such as a general economic development project, had an intentional approach 
to inclusion. This appeared to be aligned with findings from the SNA on inclusion, described 
previously. 
Field work revealed some additional learning related to inclusion and specifically gender. 
Some of the World Connect projects are offering opportunities for women to engage in 
traditionally male activities. In S/He Innovates, young women were targeted to be part of the 
project’s training for barbershop work. This was novel in the local context where it is rare that 
women are barbers. It was reported that when this activity emerged, the community didn’t 
understand why women are shaving men’s heads, but that over time the people from the 
community have accepted it. A similar example was noted in Water for Kalima, which had women 
participate in digging the trenches for a new water system, which is also an activity that women 
do not typically participate in. It was reported that the women were involved in the physical 
construction not “because the project said so,” but rather because everyone would benefit from 
the water source, and everyone should work as a team to contribute. As a result, the community 
decided the women would take part in the trench digging, referencing the 50/50 campaign for 
gender equity that is ongoing in the country. In the case of S/He Innovates where community 
workshops were done, it was also interesting to note that women who had participated in the 
program were very active participants in the workshops, feeling confident to share their opinions 
even in a mixed gender setting. 
Internal Community Capacities: Findings from Workshops
In the four communities where field work was conducted completely in-person, the evaluation 
team facilitated a series of workshops with community members. (As noted in the methodology 
section of this report, due to the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic, in-person field work 
was reduced from 12 communities to 4 communities.) During these sessions, participants 
reflected on the major development challenges in their communities. They then generated a set 
of ideas on what is needed to address these challenges from outside their community, as well as 
inside their community. The purpose of this part of the workshop was to generate an open￾ended understanding of what internal capacities and assets communities believe are relevant to 
long-term development, allowing the evaluation team to compare World Connect’s theory of 
change with local perspectives. In the final part of the workshop, using the specific community 
27
capacity themes that the participants had generated, the groups voted and held conversations on 
whether each theme was getting better, staying the same, or getting worse in the last year, and 
why. The purpose of this activity was to understand trends in community capacity, and provide 
some insight into the extent to which World Connect support may have contributed to any 
changes. A summary of the community capacities, their status, and drivers of perceived changes 
is listed in the table below.
Community Capacity Status Drivers of Change
Trust in leadership Getting 
better
- Leaders’ hardworking spirit and dedication
- Leaders listen to people’s voices
- Leaders are humble
- Leaders are able to complete projects
- Mentoring others and fostering the development of future 
leaders 
Lack of corruption Getting 
better
- Leaders are accountable in management of funds
- Leaders are transparent
Getting 
worse
- Leaders support their own interest and not the community’s 
shared goals
- Leaders don’t listen to people’s views
Unity among leaders and local 
structures
Getting 
better
- Increased commitment to area development
- Understanding that all leaders need to work together to 
solve community problems
- Everyone plays their role
About the 
same
- Decreased commitment to area development because they 
lack transparency and accountability
- Lack of coordinated efforts among leaders
Networking among local 
structures
Getting 
better
- Sharing of information, knowledge and skills
- Openness in doing things
Oneness among community 
members
Getting 
better
- Respect for one another encourages others to join hands
- Desire to solve own problems compels community 
members to come together and deal with a common 
challenge.
About the 
same
- Desire to solve own problems, but do not achieve effective 
results
- People take what they want and don’t consider the 
community needs
Ownership of projects by 
community members
Getting 
better
- Leaders encourage community members to develop their 
own ideas
- Leaders help people understand the benefit to the 
community as a whole
- People are getting to know that they are in charge of their 
development
Inclusion Getting 
better
- Local leaders emphasize that everyone is equally important 
in development
- NGOs raise awareness on importance of social inclusion 
and how marginalized groups can contribute to the 
development of their community
28
It can be considered that there is a social desirability bias in these responses: participants are 
more likely to tell a positive story that they believe will please researchers and reflect their 
communities in a positive light. It should also be recognized that, although the evaluation team 
sought to encourage participation by community members who were not directly involved in the 
projects, workshop participants were selected and assembled by the local project teams for
practical reasons. 
That said, it is still noteworthy that among the capacities that participants thought were most 
necessary for addressing the most pressing development 
challenges, many participants generally believed that these 
capacities are improving in their communities. In general, 
participants more readily discussed the role of local 
leadership, often referring to formal and established leaders 
in their communities. For example, when discussing the topic
of inclusion, workshop participants were likely to discuss 
how local leaders could foster the inclusion of marginalized 
groups. When discussing community ownership, they 
discussed what approaches leaders could take to confer 
ownership among the community members. 
Related to social capital, participants prioritized a few 
different types of relationships that were important for 
addressing development issues: 
• Relationships between leaders and their community 
members
• Relationships between leaders and local structures 
(such as the ADCs and VDCs)
• Relationships among local structures 
While participants discussed relationships 
among average community members, 
particularly related to how they respected each 
other and worked together on community 
goals, this type of relationship was less 
frequently emphasized compared to other 
relationship types. 
Corruption and how leaders engage with their 
communities were prominent themes in the 
discussions. In some communities, these 
aspects were perceived to be improving, and in 
other communities, staying the same or getting 
worse. Regardless of the trajectory, 
communities identified the role of transparency, 
accountability, and whether leaders listen to 
community needs as driving forces. On a related note, most communities discussed the theme of 
oneness among community members, which related to the evaluation themes of mutual trust
and collective action. In most cases, participants said oneness was improving, driven by 
Participants identified what internal 
capacities are most important for 
development. (Photo: MChimlaza)
Participants identified trends in community capacity in 
their community. (Photo: CMatundu)
29
improvements in respect and dealing with common challenges. In some cases, participants 
considered that oneness among community members was not improving, which was driven by 
individualism and the failure to achieve results effectively. 
Internal Community Capacities: Interpretation
To interpret findings from the community workshops, the first consideration is that the questions 
posed about community capacity were at community level and not directly restricted to World 
Connect projects. This was purposeful in order to explore the definition of community capacity 
as well as understand World Connect’s contribution to the high-level outcome of community 
capacity. Of course, in any one community, there is a constantly evolving range of development 
projects as well as contextual factors and events that could affect how the community functions 
overall. However, it was noteworthy that among communities sampled, overall, community 
capacity was reported to increase at the local level, both in terms of leadership and agency. Most 
participants reflected that increases in community capacity highly depended on local leaders. 
In defining community capacity and drivers of change, the workshops used an open-ended format. 
This activity showed that the types of community capacity that are targeted or expected through 
the World Connect grants (such as leadership skills, collective action, and mutual trust) were 
also identified as important factors by local communities. In addition to the factors specifically 
explored through this evaluation, participants also emphasized the important role of transparency 
and accountability. Particularly in combination with data collected in other parts of the evaluation, 
it was plausible that the World Connect intervention contributed to these community-level 
changes. There was a logical pathway between the World Connect interventions and the 
underlying drivers of community capacity as identified by local community members, as described 
in the table below.
World Connect interventions Drivers of change
Community ownership/engagement in 
project design
Leaders listen to people’s voices
Leaders encourage community members to 
develop their own ideas
Leaders help people understand the benefit to the 
community as a whole
Development of leadership skills and 
project management skills
Leaders are able to complete projects
Mentoring others and fostering the development of 
future leaders
Community ownership/engagement in 
project implementation
Local leaders and local structures (such as VDC, 
ADC, school committees) work together to solve 
community problems
Respect for one another encourages others to join 
hands
Desire to solve own problems compels community 
members to come together and deal with a 
common challenge
Community contribution Leaders are accountable in management of funds
30
In areas where communities said certain aspects of community capacity were staying the same 
or getting worse, common drivers were lack of effectiveness, lack of transparency and 
information sharing, and lack of consideration of community-wide needs. Understanding how 
communities view the process of strengthening their internal capacities can serve as an important 
foundation for supporting projects in the future. 
Evaluation Question 4: What strategies have been used to mobilize community 
contributions (financial and in-kind)? 
One of the grant requirements is to have a 25% cost-share from the community, which must 
include a minimum of cash (10%) contributions. This requirement applied across different types 
and settings of projects, though in a few cases the cost-share was reduced or waived—for
example, projects in the refugee camp. The evaluation team examined the strategies that project 
teams used to generate community contributions, as well as perceptions of grantees and 
community members about the community contribution requirement. 
Strategies for Mobilizing Contributions
Survey respondents were asked how the 25% community contribution was generated. Most 
respondents cited local materials and/or supplies, local labor, and local land, which are all in-kind 
contributions. Fewer responses were gathered related to the financial contributions, which most 
frequently cited new financial contributions, fundraising events, existing village development fund, 
and village saving and loans. Additional write-in responses included school fees and school 
development fund. For the financial contribution, other response options in the survey included 
new contributions from local businesses, contributions from diaspora family members, and other 
donor/project funds. Each of these options was only selected by 1 or 2 respondents. The greater 
number of responses related to the in-kind contributions may reflect a stronger understanding 
and recall of in-kind contributions compared to financial contributions. 
This summary from the survey is aligned with project documentation and field work. For 
construction projects, in-kind contributions typically came from donated unskilled labor from 
local community members. Often these members were individuals who would benefit from the 
project or lived in the vicinity of the project—for example, parents and neighbors helped build 
7
8
8
14
44
46
54
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Interest from village savings and loans group
Existing village development fund/savings
Fundraising event in community
New financial contributions from beneficiaries
Local land or property
Local labor at low or no cost
Local materials and/or supplies
How did the local community raise funds and 
resources for the 25% community contribution? Check 
all options that apply.
31
the school that their children would attend. In other cases, contributing individuals had some 
connection to the project’s purpose, such as youth from the local technical college who helped 
to build a science lab for secondary school students. In-kind contributions also included land or 
property on which to build the structure. In one of the field work sites (Water for Kalima), a 
local agriculture firm offered use of their existing irrigation infrastructure, so that the community 
could build a pipe connection and add an access point for clean water. 
For materials donation, in some cases the materials were already available in a community 
stockpile, in recognition of the fact that many donor activities require a community contribution. 
Brick-making was a frequent contribution, and in other cases building materials were collected 
through a community drive. 
For projects without construction, in-kind contributions typically included labor and time of 
volunteers as part of the project delivery, as well as materials. In some cases, materials were 
items that project participants used to conduct the project – for example, the calculated value of 
one’s own scissors for a sewing skills training, or pens and paper to take notes in a health 
education session. 
In order to meet the requirements for the cash contribution, for both projects with and without 
construction activities, project teams used a few main strategies:
• Use existing community funds: Particularly for construction projects and for those 
associated with schools and health centers, project teams obtained funding from 
VDCs/ADCs, school committees, and health committees, who maintain their own small 
development funds. 
• Raise new funds (one-time): Project teams and local leaders requested 
contributions from the community. In most cases, they asked for an equal amount from 
each individual or household. Selling maize, other agricultural products, and forestry
products were other methods used to raise funds.
• Raise new funds (recurrent): Project teams created recurrent community 
contributions through increased school fees, membership fees, and use fees. In some 
cases, these contributions were applied to individuals involved in the program, such as 
youth who participated in entrepreneurship training. 
• Develop income generating activities: Some project teams included an income￾generating component to raise their contribution as well as sustain the project over time. 
This included activities such as purchasing and raising livestock, as well as launching or 
expanding small businesses. 
On the whole, cash contributions were likely to be small amounts raised from a larger number 
of people, rather than a large amount raised from one or a few people. Among the field work 
sites, in most cases World Connect was the only funding going toward the project. In a few cases, 
World Connect funding complemented activities being funded by other donors. These grantees 
seemed confident and consistent in explaining what was funded by World Connect versus other 
donors. 
Perceptions of Community Contribution
Participants spoke with great pride about their in-kind contributions of labor and time to the 
projects. There was a strong perception that when community members participate in the 
execution of the project, they have greater ownership of the project. Grantees and community 
32
members reflected that the joint effort strengthened their bonds with each other, as well as 
contributed to inclusion because women, youth, and people with disabilities could all contribute 
in one way or another. 
As noted earlier under evaluation question 1, the community cash contribution was one of the 
most frequently discussed aspects of how World Connect grants are different from other donor 
programs. While the majority of project teams were eventually able to collect the necessary cash 
contributions, they consistently highlighted fundraising as a challenge. Interviewees referenced 
the poverty of their communities and reflected on the discomfort they felt when they asked for 
contributions in a low-resource setting. Interviewees often commented that there is a “hand-out 
culture” and that people expect to receive, not give, to donor-funded initiatives. A similar theme 
was reflected in several projects that had challenges in obtaining participation from community 
members in project meetings and trainings without remuneration, as they are accustomed to 
receiving fees from other donors. 
In terms of raising the cash contribution, a difference was observed in the ease with which project 
teams could generate community contributions according to several dimensions:
• “Hardware” projects that included construction and had a tangible space in the 
community were easier to raise funds, versus “software” projects that provided 
education, technical assistance, and other types of support. 
• Economic projects that could generate income were easier to raise funds versus social 
projects that provide public good and are in competition with other public needs. 
• Projects that were seen to have a community-wide benefit were easier to raise funds 
versus those that were seen to be private.
Some participants, particularly those that seemed to face fewer challenges in raising the cash 
contribution, referenced how community-generating funding gives more control to the 
community, as well as how communities that have funded a resource are more likely to maintain 
it. Some of the effective strategies used by project teams included:
• Work through local leaders such as chiefs and block leaders
• Emphasize the community-wide benefit and recognize shared responsibility for public 
goods 
• Emphasize local design and ownership, i.e., that the project was chosen by the community, 
not external groups or donors
• Develop a plan for how resources will be generated and distributed among community 
members collaboratively with the community members themselves
• Inclusion of the project in the main community/school development priorities 
Evaluation Question 5: How do leadership and agency (Q2 and Q3) relate to development 
outcomes such as those in health, education, and economic growth? What additional 
evidence is needed to understand this relationship? 
According to the program theory of change, grant projects have a direct pathway to affecting 
long-term outcomes in health, education, and economic growth, as well as an indirect pathway 
to change based on strengthening community capacity, which in turn strengthens the foundation 
for other development efforts. The final evaluation question sought to understand stakeholder 
33
perspectives and available evidence for this connection between community capacity and long￾term development outcomes.
The role of community capacity and assets in advancing development outcomes has been 
documented in the literature. As summarized in a recent USAID report, “Collaborating, Learning, 
and Adapting Fosters Local Ownership and, Ultimately, Better Results: A Review of the 
Evidence”:5
Local engagement—i.e., when local actors are involved in defining development challenges 
and solutions via program activities—leads to local ownership and, ultimately, improved 
development outcomes. Evidence from a deep dive on the Ebola crisis in Liberia, a deep
dive on Community-led Total Sanitation in Zambia, and several CLA case stories
demonstrates that when local stakeholders experience ownership over development 
efforts, the results are more relevant and effective, which in turn increases local 
stakeholders’ commitment to and engagement in identifying sustainable solutions to 
community challenges. This is consistent with the literature, which increasingly 
emphasizes that local ownership—with solutions that are locally negotiated and 
delivered—leads to more effective development. 
The Global Fund for Community Foundations offers additional perspectives:
6
In recent years, interest has grown around a more people-led paradigm that shifts power 
closer to the ground. It has found expression among funders, researchers and activists 
alike. #ShiftThePower is both a call for new behaviours, mindsets and ways of working 
and a reminder both that few interactions are ever power neutral and that often, those 
we seek to “help” have much more power – knowledge, skills, networks – than they are 
given credit for. It is the job of those institutions that are serious about real, lasting change 
to know when to give up their own power, stand back and help make that happen.
These themes are reflected by USAID in its policy framework for the Journey to Self-Reliance, 
outlining how the Agency is reorienting itself to support “country capacity to plan, finance, and 
implement solutions to local development challenges, as well as the commitment to see these 
through effectively, inclusively, and with accountability.”7 With regard to the focus of this 
evaluation, as described in previous sections, project teams and communities valued the building 
of internal community capacity, including leadership and agency. They cited the role of community 
capacity related to the sustainability of interventions as well as for long-term growth and 
development more broadly. Small grants from World Connect attracted additional funds for 
development activities, both from internal community sources as well as external donor sources. 
Stakeholders emphasized that a critical component of attracting new funds and follow-on 
activities was that the original project idea came from the community and that the community 
contributed its own labor and funds to see it succeed. 
 
5 Lindell, K. “Collaborating, Learning, and Adapting Fosters Local Ownership and, Ultimately, Better Results: A Review of the 
Evidence.” USAID LEARN (2020). Available at: 
https://usaidlearninglab.org/sites/default/files/resource/files/cla_local_ownership_briefer_2020.pdf
6 Global Fund for Community Foundations. “Community Philanthropy and #ShiftThePower.” Available at: 
https://globalfundcommunityfoundations.org/what-we-stand-for/shiftthepower/
7 USAID. Policy Framework: Ending the Need for Foreign Assistance. (2019). Available at: https://www.usaid.gov/selfreliance/
34
As a result, it was plausible that projects that were collaboratively designed and implemented 
with community members would contribute to broader changes in outcomes such as school 
enrollment, reading and numeracy skills, child health, youth employment, agricultural productivity, 
income levels, and gender equity. During field work and in project documentation, some grantees 
made claims that outcomes had changed as a result of their projects. At the same time, due to 
small size and the short period of implementation of the grants, it seemed reasonable that any 
major changes observed were driven by a wider variety of factors and set on a positive or negative 
trajectory well before the project began. 
A broader and longer-term study that examines the relationships among community-level 
interventions, agency, and development outcomes would be needed to assess such changes. This 
study may make use of quasi-experimental methods such as propensity score matching of 
communities that did and did not receive the intervention, or a stepped-wedge comparison of 
communities that received intervention earlier versus later. In theory, a future study could use 
an experimental design through randomization, though this can often be politically and 
operationally challenging. Alternately, if adopting a systems theory of how change occurs in 
communities, which this evaluation team would recommend, a future study may use approaches 
such as mapping and modelling to better understand the pathways among different interventions, 
community capacities, and development outcomes. Ideally, such an effort would be in a 
participatory manner with local communities and with local leadership. Insights from this 
evaluation would serve as useful insights into such a study. It may be argued, however, that 
whether and how development actors support community leadership and agency may be driven 
more by values and principles, rather than statistics and evidence. 
Sunflower fields in northern Malawi (Photo: DHarper)
35
IV. Conclusions and Recommendations
World Connect Progress and Support: Data collected and analyzed during the course 
of this evaluation lead the evaluation team to conclude that the World Connect program in 
Malawi has progressed very well according to its objectives. Grants are well aligned with the 
priorities of local grantees and responsive to needs in the local communities. In addition, grant 
activities and support have been efficiently executed. Data is efficiently and effectively integrated 
into the program M&E system, and easily accessible for verification, analysis, and visualization.
Grantees and partners assigned a high and positive value for the support provided by World 
Connect, including trainings, site visits, and virtual support. Project teams benefited from 
operational support as well as technical support in their interventions. Moreover, grantees 
particularly valued the mentoring and encouragement they gained through engagement with the 
field team. Grantees appeared to benefit when the full project team was engaged in trainings and 
support from World Connect, as opposed to focused only on the EFP. 
Recommendation 1: Maintain provision of high-quality support through in-person site 
visits, virtual support, and training. 
Recommendation 2: Continue to include the full project teams including local leaders in 
World Connect support activities. 
Grant Processes: World Connect grant processes were reported to be manageable in rural 
and low-resource settings, including for those receiving direct grants for the first time. The 
program was highly praised for its flexibility in allowing grantees to adapt, allowing grantees to 
learn from mistakes and build leadership and management skills. This was particularly useful in 
adjusting timelines and adjusting the details of project implementation plans, which were found 
to be useful as there were changes in the local context or learning generated through 
implementation. In some cases, grantees voiced the needs for additional offline tools and 
strategies for communication in low-connectivity settings, for example, alternatives to uploading 
large files like receipts. 
Recommendation 3: Maintain flexibility in grant processes, including adjustments to 
timelines and project implementation plans. 
Recommendation 4: Maintain the simplicity of grant application, management, and 
reporting processes, including offline tools. 
Community Support and Engagement: World Connect in Malawi uses a strategy to 
generate locally-driven ideas by working through a network of EFPs. In most projects reviewed, 
this approach functioned well to generate ideas that offered a community benefit, had a wide base 
of engagement, and were prioritized at the local level. In a few cases, projects were generated
that had less community support. Consistently, these project teams had challenges in attracting 
community contributions, implementing, and sustaining their interventions.
Recommendation 5: Review and, if necessary, refine approach to community engagement 
in EFP outreach, grant reviews, and project team trainings. Emphasizing the World 
Connect theory of change to build local leadership and agency at the community level 
may aid in this process. 
36
Environmental Effects: In some cases, actions taken by project teams had negative or 
unsustainable environmental effects. For example, cutting down trees to generate income for 
community contribution or to burn wood for making bricks. The team reflects that the simplicity 
of the grant process and the lack of extensive oversight fosters the independence of the project 
times. At the same time, given the large portion of construction projects as well as the observed 
practices of communities, it appears that additional support is needed to avoid environmental 
degradation. 
Recommendation 6: Consider how to incorporate environmental controls and 
assessments into grant processes, either directly or through partnerships. 
Inclusion: There was strong evidence of women’s participation and leadership in World 
Connect projects, as well as the role of some projects in affecting gender equity and other gender 
issues. It was less clear the extent to which projects were engaging new and unheard voices in 
development, including those of other marginalized groups such as LGBT, people with disabilities, 
and the extreme poor. At the same time, communities highlighted that meaningful inclusion of 
women and marginalized groups is important in advancing local capacity and development. 
Recommendation 7: Incorporate a more diverse inclusion lens in support to project 
design and implementation support. Engaging a more diverse group in the monitoring 
project progress may aid in this effort. 
Community Contribution: Project teams and communities viewed the community 
contribution as important to the ownership and sustainability of local initiatives. In-kind time and 
labor contributions helped to build bonds among community members in the process. The cash 
contribution was one of the most readily and frequently mentioned ways in which World 
Connect programs are different than other donor initiatives. While the move toward 
sustainability and local ownership is laudable, continued awareness and sensitivity to the historical 
and cultural system in which cash contributions are being requested may be useful. Seeing the 
contribution as part of the community ownership of the project rather than a prescribed donor 
requirement was useful for many project teams, though this took time for community 
communication and engagement. In addition, a difference was observed in the ease with which 
project teams could generate community contributions according to several dimensions:
• “Hardware” projects that included construction and had a tangible space in the 
community were easier to raise funds, versus “software” projects that provided 
education, technical assistance, and other types of support. 
• Economic projects that could generate income were easier to raise funds versus social 
projects that provide public good and are in competition with other public needs. 
• Projects that were seen to have a community-wide benefit were easier to raise funds 
versus those that were seen to benefit a smaller group.
Projects that engaged community members collaboratively to define the method, amount, and 
distribution of the financial contribution were more likely to gain traction. Additionally, many 
projects incorporated creative strategies to generate income, even when they were not 
economic projects. These strategies served to increase local resource availability for development 
as well as generate increased community support for the activities. 
37
Recommendation 8: Consider how to support grantees to adopt different resource 
generation strategies for different types of projects, as well as to better engage community 
members on decision-making related to financial contributions. 
Recommendation 9: Support grantees to understand the range of income-generating 
strategies that can be incorporated into projects. Partners working on social 
entrepreneurship may be useful for this. 
Community Capacity: In alignment with the program’s theory of change, the data collected 
and analyzed for this evaluation demonstrated good evidence that community capacity is 
increasing at the local level, both in terms of leadership and agency. Moreover, it was plausible 
that the World Connect intervention was contributing to these community-level changes. There 
was a logical pathway between the World Connect interventions and the underlying drivers of 
community capacity as identified by local community members. New tools introduced through 
this evaluation, specifically the social network analysis and community capacity workshops, were 
feasible to implement and well received in the local setting. 
Recommendation 10: As appropriate, include efforts and tools to assess community 
capacity in future monitoring and evaluation efforts. 
Potential Topics for Future Learning
Policy change and implementation: Relatively few projects were identified that focused on policy 
change. However, the one example in the field work sample (ending the practice of girls’ early 
marriage) appeared to be very successful in generating community support for implementing 
policy changes, as well as building consensus to address the root causes of the problem. It may 
be useful to examine why policy interventions are so few in the portfolio; whether it is due to 
lack of interest/prioritization among communities or lack of knowledge/motivation to use the 
grants for these purposes. 
Networking, sharing, and advocacy: Grantees did not commonly discuss many current or desired 
activities to network and share practices among other grantees. This was surprising to the 
evaluation team, as networking among members is often a feature of grant programs and/or a 
request among grantees. It may be useful to verify this finding, as it was not a major focus of the 
evaluation. At the same time, it was noted that it is very common culturally that when neighboring 
communities hear about a successful activity, they take the initiative to visit and seek to replicate 
the activity. There may be a role for World Connect or its partners to support project teams in 
sharing and replicating successful approaches to community-led development, in order to achieve 
a wider effect. In addition, the World Connect team may further extend their effects by joining 
with other partners who are advancing community-led development in advocacy initiatives. 
38
Annex A: Evaluation SOW
Scope of Work
In Malawi, World Connect is implementing the “Investing in Locally-Led Development in 
Malawi” Project funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). 
Through this three-year Project, World Connect is advancing the mutually agreed objective, 
Citizen Rights and Responsibilities Exercised. This mid-term evaluation will assess progress to 
date, as well as analyze the project's approach to M&E, in order to inform the remainder of the 
project implementation period.
Tasks
• Conduct a desk review of existing data, M&E systems, and approaches
• Travel to Malawi for 2 weeks to 1) conduct meetings with project staff and stakeholders, 
and 2) accompany project staff on project site visits
• Develop an evaluation methodology and implementation plan
• Train and oversee local partners on data collection and analysis
• Product a mid-term evaluation report with findings, conclusions, and recommendations
Draft evaluation questions
• To what extent has the current portfolio of grants progressed against the overall program 
objectives?
• What evidence exists that the theory of change is valid and complete? What shifts, if any, 
in the implementation strategy are needed?
• What evidence exists that World Connect is contributing to sustainable and community￾level outcomes (such as leadership, confidence, social capital, and collective action)?
• What additional evidence is needed to validate the theory of change and to communicate 
results by the end of the project? How should this data and information be collected, 
analyzed, and validated?
Final questions will be defined in the evaluation plan. 
Deliverables
1. An evaluation plan including methodology, tools, and implementation timeline.
2. An evaluation report detailing the work undertaken, results against key learning objectives 
and questions, and recommendations for future monitoring and evaluation strategies.
3. Presentation of results (virtual or in person in New York).
39
Annex B: Survey Tool
Note: The survey was distributed on SurveyMonkey and appeared slightly different than the 
questions listed below due to the computer-generated, fixed-choice format. The survey was also 
offered in Chichewa. 
1. Beyond the grant funding, did you receive any support from World Connect from the 
design through the completion of the project? 
• Project proposal and design: Support to apply for, plan, and launch project
• Project management: Support to finance, operations
• Project monitoring and reporting: Support for measuring success or change and how to 
complete reporting on projects
• Site visit: In-person visit from the World Connect team
• Virtual support: Phone, WhatsApp, or other virtual support to help us be more successful
• Other (please describe) 
If so, please rate to what extent the support was useful.
• Not useful Somewhat useful Useful Very useful
2. Overall, how important was the World Connect support to achieving your project goals? 
Circle your response.
• Not at all important Somewhat important Important Very important
3. World Connect projects include a minimum 25% contribution from the community. How 
did the local community raise funds and resources for this contribution? Check all that 
apply. 
 Local materials and/or supplies 
 Local labor at low or no cost
 Local land or property
 Existing village development fund/savings
 New financial contributions from local businesses
 New financial contributions from beneficiaries
 Financial contributions from diaspora family members
 Interest from village savings and loans group
 Fundraising event in community
 Other donor/project funds
 Other (Please describe): _________________
 Other (Please describe): _________________
 I don’t know. 
4. Please read the following statements and consider the whether you strongly disagree, 
disagree, agree, or strongly agree. 
Since implementing the project… 
a. I have improved my leadership skills. 
40
b. I have improved my relationships with others in the community. 
c. I am better able to identify needs in the community. 
d. Decision-makers are paying more attention to the issues that I care about.
e. There are more opportunities for people whose voices are not usually heard to 
participate in development. 
• Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
5. We would like to learn more about how you work with the project team. 
In the table below, please rank the overall strength of your relationship with each 
individual. Then, please indicate if your relationship has improved, stayed the same, or 
gotten worse since implementing the project. 
Do not fill out the row that refers to yourself. For example, if you are a local leader, leave 
the row for relationships with the local leader blank. 
Individual What is the overall strength of your 
relationship?.
Has your relationship has improved, stayed the 
same, or gotten worse since implementing the 
project? 
Community 
organization
Weak Moderate Strong Very Strong Improved Stayed the same Gotten worse
Local leader Weak Moderate Strong Very Strong Improved Stayed the same Gotten worse
Field 
partner
Weak Moderate Strong Very Strong Improved Stayed the same Gotten worse
6. Please read the statements in the table below. In the first column, check the box if you think 
the theme was important to achieving the project goals. You can select as many or as few 
themes as you wish. If you think an important theme is missing, you may suggest your own 
ideas at the bottom of the table.
Then, please indicate whether in general, you think this theme has improved, stayed the 
same, or gotten worse since you started implementing the project. 
• Community members come together to discuss community needs
• Community members are confident in their ability to lead change
• Community members respect each other
• Community members trust each other
• Community members work together to achieve shared goals
• Community members ask for and provide help to each other
• Community members hold each other accountable for development
• Community members hold their leaders accountable for development
• Different types of community members are engaged in the development processes, 
including women and youth
• Other (please describe)
41
7. Of these themes, which are the 3 most important to achieving your project goals? If you 
think an important theme is missing, you can write in your idea.
8. Overall, how do you feel about your experience with the World Connect program?
• Very Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Satisfied Very Satisfied
9. What about working with World Connect was different than your experience with other 
development projects, if anything? Check the box. You can select as many or as few 
options as you like. If you think a theme is missing, you can add it. 
 Opportunity to define my own project goals
 Community engagement process
 Community financial and in-kind contribution
 World Connect support during project design
 World Connect support during project implementation
 Partnerships in the community for implementation
 Receiving and managing a grant directly
 Other (Please describe):
10. Please write any other comments you would like to share with us.
42
Annex C: Key Informant Interview Guide
INTRODUCTION AND CONSENT:
My name is [name] and I am working with World Connect to conduct a mid-term evaluation of 
their program in Malawi. Since 2017, World Connect has been providing small grants and other 
assistance for locally-led projects throughout the country with support from USAID. At this stage, 
we would like to understand what is working well, what can be improved, and what lessons we 
can share with the wider development community about this work. 
Your responses are confidential, meaning that we will not attribute any comments directly to you 
in our report and our discussions with World Connect and USAID. Nothing we discuss will be 
used to inform your current or future benefits from the project. Following completion of our 
evaluation, we will share the results back with you through [EFP name]. If you have any questions 
about this evaluation, you can contact one of the evaluation research directors: Dr. Wales Singini 
at the University of Mzuzu, or Diana Harper at LINC. I will leave their contact information with 
you. 
Do you consent to participate? Yes No
PART I: PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION (45 MINUTES)
1. Please tell me about yourself. What are your roles and responsibilities?
2. When did you first hear about the WC project? What did you think about it at that time? 
3. How was the project idea generated? Who was involved in this process? Did the idea exist 
before the call for proposals, or did the call for proposals prompt development of the idea?
4. Did you participate in the following processes with World Connect? If so, please tell me 
your impressions about it. 
a) Project Design workshop
b) Project Management, monitoring and reporting workshop
c) Project Site Visits 
d) Virtual support for implementation
e) Any other type of support?
5. Tell me about the implementation of the project. What went well? What was challenging?
6. Tell me how women and other marginalized groups were involved? Did they take 
leadership roles? If so, how? 
7. What are your overall impressions of working with WC? What is positive? What is 
challenging or could be improved? 
8. Do you know that this project’s budget included a contribution from the community?
a) Was the full contribution (25%) achieved? If No: Why not?
b) How was the contribution generated? (in-kind, financial) 
c) What was difficult about generating the contribution? What was easier?
d) What do you think about having communities contribute to financing of the project?
e) Specifically, do you think there is a relationship between communities contributing 
their own funds and their ownership of the project? Between communities 
contributing their own funds and the sustainability of the project? Why or why not? 
9. What has happened since the project has ended? Are activities continuing? Why or why 
not? 
43
10. What type of benefits or changes have occurred, if any, beyond the direct goals of the 
project? 
PART II: SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS 
[See SNA Tool]
PART III: CONTEXT (20 MINUTES)
11. Is World Connect similar or different to other development projects in this community? 
Why? 
12. How does this community identify what its development needs are? What formal and 
informal processes exist? What are the results of these processes? Who makes the 
decisions? 
PART IV: WRAP UP (5 MINUTES)
13. Do you have any other reflections and recommendations that you’d like to share with us?
Thank you for your time. We look forward to continuing our evaluation and sharing the results 
with you. As I mentioned, if you have any questions in the meantime, you can contact Dr. Wales 
Singini. 
44
Annex D: Social Network Analysis Interview Guide
PART A—DEVELOP THE NETWORK: 20 MINUTES
I’d like to understand what different members of the community you engaged with during the 
project. This could include people who participated directly in the project, people who provided 
support to make the project successful, people who emerged as important partners or stakeholders 
in the project, etc. For now, don’t include people who benefited from the project, unless they were 
also active in the design and/or implementation. 
On this piece of paper, please write your name in the center. First, we will make a list of the people 
who were involved in the project. Then, I will ask you a few questions about these people. 
Let’s start. Who did you engage with during the design and implementation of this project? Please 
make a list and tell me what type of organization or group they are from. It is ok to list more than 
one person from an organization. 
• G=government (district, regional, 
national)
• LG=local government (chiefs)
• LS=local structure (VDCs, ADCs)
• LN=local NGO
• IN=international NGO
• A=school, university
• P=business, private sector
• F=church
• Z=other citizen, neighbor, parent, etc. 
not affiliated with a specific group
Who else? [Repeat as needed.] 
Now, I’m going to ask you a couple questions about your relationship with each person. Starting 
from the top of your list:
1. How frequently was this person involved in the project? 
o If they were frequently engaged, write their name in a circle close to yours. 
o If they were not frequently engaged, write their name in a circle farther away. 
2. Was this a new relationship? Meaning, you didn’t know or collaborate with this person 
until the project. 
o If yes, use this RED marker to draw a line from your name to their name. 
o If no, use this BLACK marker to draw a line from your name to their name. 
[Repeat.]
PART B—IDENTIFY UNHEARD VOICES: 5 MINUTES
3. Now, let’s look at the map as a whole. Is there anyone on this map who does NOT usually 
have an opportunity to participate in community development? If so, please circle their 
names. 
PART C—REFLECTION: 5 MINUTES
4. What does this map mean to you? 
5. What is the significance of these relationships going forward? 
45
Annex E: Community Workshop Outline
1. INTRODUCTION AND CONSENT: (10 minutes)
2. ICE BREAKER (5 minutes)
3. SMALL GROUP WORK ON DEVELOPMENT ISSUES (15 minutes)
[FLIPCHART 1]
1. What are the most important 
development issues in your 
community?
4. SMALL GROUP WORK ON ADDRESSING DEVELOPMENT ISSUES (30 
minutes)
[FLIPCHART 2]
2. What is needed to address these issues?
From OUTSIDE the 
community 
From INSIDE the 
community 
5. SUMMARIZE RESULTS AS A GROUP (15 minutes)
6. COFFEE BREAK (15 minutes)
7. ASSEMBLE PRIORITY THEMES AND VOTE ON EACH THEME (10 minutes)
[FLIPCHART 3]
Theme: Getting Better
About the Same
46
Getting Worse
Why is this theme getting better / about the same / getting 
worse?
8. PARTICIPANTS CHOOSE A THEME FOR DISCUSSION (30 minutes)
9. WRAP UP (20 minutes)