Chris Connolly
Research questions:
1) What is the local role of The Hunger Project’s project facilitators in scaling
up empowerment programs?
2) What are the organizational and programmatic features of The Hunger
Project that promote (or constrain) the fulfillment of this local role on a
wide scale?
Making Equal Rights Real/
Vers la pleine réalisation de l'égalité des droits
May 1, 2010
McGill University
THP Overview
INGO that employs a bottom-up development
strategy in 13 countries in the global South.
Conceptualizes the empowerment of
individuals and communities as the means to
overcoming hunger and poverty.
Pursues goals around the MDG framework
through their epicenter strategy.
Organizational structure
Operates in a decentralized manner through their
Global Office in New York.
THP-Global provides financial management and
strategic oversight.
Program scale-up
Attempting to “change the way the world does
development” by demonstrating the scalability of
The epicenter strategy
Mobilizes clusters of rural villages to
the epicenter strategy.
implement THP-initiated programs and projects. Epicenter approach was consolidated into a wellFocuses on the right to meet basic needs
defined, five-year phased process to be implemented
through community self-reliance.
for the first time in the Eastern Region of Ghana.
Dozens of multi-sectoral projects take place
Field work took place at the beginning of the third
within the community-built epicenter building.
year of scale-up in July-August, 2009.
“Our mission is to transform the way the world does development. We’re never just doing our
projects for their own sake. We actually want to convince the world that this is the way to go. […]
By 2004 and 2005, we noticed that… our package, our methodology was probably as good as it was
going to get.The moral imperative at that point is to scale up.”
—VP Strategy & Impact, THP-Global
Community-based development (CBD)
Involves promoting community involvement
within international development programs.
Defined by the WB as “strengthening
community groups with training support,
providing them with an opportunity to control
decisions and resources… and creating an
enabling environment for these activities.”
Empowerment and participation
A complex theoretical construct that roughly
corresponds to increasing the degree of choice
over development decisions.
Contains two subcomponents: agency (i.e.
assets) and opportunity structure (i.e.
institutions).
The role of external project facilitators
Field workers have a crucial role in negotiating
project objectives with local populations.
Very little generalizable evidence on their role.
Case study evidence: facilitators can successfully
realize community participation and project success,
but this local role is fraught with difficulties.
Scaling up CBD
Scale up: refers not merely to a technical or
mechanical exercise, but to principles and processes.
Implies adaptation, modification and
improvement and not just replication.
Requires a corollary process of ‘scaling down’, by
which managing partners must adapt modes of
operation that are supportive of communities.
Scaling up the role of facilitators in CBD
If success in CBD can be negotiated locally by external facilitators…
How and to what extent can this dynamic be recreated by large donors and INGOs?
Case site selection
A multiple-site design was employed with the
selection of two epicenter case sites at early and
late stages of implementation:
Site 1 – Early-stage epicenter.
Site 2 – Intermediate-stage epicenter.
Quantitative and ethnographic methods
Interviews:
~50 semi-structured, open-ended interviews.
Subjects included academics, local politicians,
THP facilitators, national and international THP
leaders, community volunteers.
Observations:
Observed 8 THP workshops and committee
meetings.
Accompanied by translator.
Eastern
Region
Site 1:
Dominase
epicenter
Site 2:
Supreso
epicenter
Sensitizing community members
and promoting the role of women
Developing leadership
Constructing the epicenter
building
Creating the epicenter community
Coaching communities through
THP project implementation
Facilitating new community
projects
Building
agency
(improving
assets)
Reshaping
opportunity
structures
(opening up
institutions)
• Sensitizing community
members
• Developing leadership
• Promoting the role of
women
• Creating the epicenter
community
• Coaching communities
through THP project
implementation
• Facilitating new community
projects
Epicenter
building
construction
Selfsustaining
basic needs
interventions
“I can see that, when THP is no longer coming here, the community people will realize that [the
epicenter building] belongs to them… When they leave us, and we are on our own… we will
discuss it and decide among ourselves.”
—Epicenter Chairman, Supreso epicenter
District level
(Intermediary)
Opportunity
structure
Domain Subdomain Agency
*Formal and
Public
informal
service
State
networking with
delivery
local gov’t
Labour
Goods
Market
Private
services
Society
Intracommunity
Level
Epicenter level
(Local)
Opportunity
Agency
structure
*Gov’t provision of
resources and
expertise (e.g.
nurses for clinic)
*Agricultural
training
*Microcredit
program
*Community farm
*Communityinitiated projects
*Epicenter
*Leadership
committees
training
*Sub-committees
*Skills training
*Association of
*Conscientization
chiefs
workshops
*Gender quotas
Village level
(Sub-local)
Opportunity
Agency
structure
*Gov’t provision of
resources and
expertise (e.g.
building materials)
*Corresponding
Village-level
improvements
*Corresponding
Village-level
improvements
*THP village
committees
*Changing gender
roles
Table 3: Overview of the ‘theory of change’ of THP’s epicenter strategy. Visual illustration of the theory of
change behind THP’s epicenter strategy in terms of how particular primary and secondary actions fit within
the empowerment analytic framework.
Source: Adapted from Alsop et al, “Empowerment in Practice: From Analysis to Implementation” (2006), Box 5.2, p. 63.
Obstacles to effective empowerment at the
local level are expressed as a lack of
commitment to community participation.
Reasons for lack of local participation
Explicit rejection of the principle that
communities should work for themselves.
Unwillingness of elites to cede authority.
Disempowered state of mind (e.g. fatalism).
Inability to participate due to, e.g., distance
or the outcomes of poverty.
Communities sufficiently protected by other
communal resources (e.g. a clinic).
Community characteristics
Local power structures undermine inclusive form
of participation.
Old prejudices about the way village society ought
to be organized (e.g. gender dynamics).
Low levels of education.
Lack of community resources and capacity.
Community expectations
Culture of dependency on external actors.
Perceived “Otherness” of THP and facilitators.
Structural nature of problems
Village level implications of structural problems
(e.g. poverty and social marginalization)
“When [THP] said that there is no money and... therefore, we are going to do it ourselves, then...
a lot of people got out from there. Some people, it is their ideology that the government provides
all the necessary funds to do everything.”
—Epicenter committee member, Dominase epicenter
“It’s a big distance to be able to get the committee members to understand this whole
framework… It’s complex. Empowerment depends on where you are taking the people from—it
can be a long and winding journey.”
—THP-Ghana National Programs Officer
Enormity of goals
Personnel requirements
Tremendously ambitious range of programs. Decentralization results in large, dispersed and
Fundamental reorganization of village society. heterogeneous staff.
All this in a five-year window of involvement.
Organizational complexity of interventions
Strategic imperatives and donor
and programs
Complexity: extensive network of committees;
expectations
Formalization of implementation plan into 5- overlapping volunteer roles; myriad basic needs
year process with fixed yearly targets.
projects; amorphous role of THP staff.
Unintended outcome: Delay or de-emphasis
Implications for community: confusion over roles/
of empowerment activities (e.g. training,
responsibilities; failure to gain high-level
mobilization) vs. building construction.
understanding of project.
“We need a kind of a compromise between having things done within reasonable time, and at the
same time allowing the communities some time to mobilize. We shouldn’t forget the reason why
we are in the villages—it’s because they are poor. You have to stop and ask yourself: Are you
overburdening them with your approach?”
—THP-Ghana National Programs Officer
“There’s always this kind of tension between the pure field practitioner who wants to stay with
each family forever and have them maximally empowered, and the bigger picture called—Look,
children aren’t going to start being saved and food security won’t be assured until the building is
there. So let’s move it along. It’s a healthy tension.”
—VP Strategy and Impact, THP-Global
Overview of main findings
 THP employed a process of phased scaling up to expand their
intended agency-building and structurally-transforming
empowerment program.
 Community informants, while demonstrating an increased ‘capability
to aspire’, engaged minimally with proposed structural
transformations compared to the operational imperatives of
concurrent basic needs interventions.
 Observations of project implementation divulged well-qualified,
autonomous personnel struggling to prioritize community
empowerment amidst overall organizational priorities from above.
 Interviews with international THP leadership revealed an
organizational philosophy of ambitious goal-setting, results-oriented
action and self-reflective learning by doing.
Decentralization of decision-making
and autonomy/ training of field staff
Actions: autonomy of field staff to innovate
and adapt to local circumstances; training to
do so in an effective manner; group-based
learning and collaboration.
Allows facilitators to perform their myriad
facilitative, educational, representational and
technical roles.
Recognition of the need to empower
facilitators themselves.
A learning-by-doing approach to local
empowerment
Actions: building community/ individual
agency by coaching people through project
implementation; encouraging the initiation of
new village projects.
Legitimates the diverse ways in which
people participate.
Values local culture, knowledge and skills.
Community-building and institutionbuilding
Actions: creates formal committees and volunteer
roles; fosters sense of community and solidarity.
Formal institutions do not present very viable
community processes.
Excessive organizational complexity may frustrate
progress.
The pace of development
Actions: five years to complete the program;
construction of the building within the first year.
Facilitators do not have enough flexibility to adjust
the pace to suit community needs.
Centrality of building seems overstated, receiving
disproportionate attention vs. empowerment
activities.
The long-term nature of community development
is not given proper emphasis.
Adapting the model to local
circumstances
Actions: in-country innovations to particular
socio-political realities; staff structure that
allows facilitators to make further tweaks
Incorporates local needs and processes to
some extent, but not enough!
The development process is not truly
developed within and by the community.
Addressing structural disadvantage
Actions: working primarily at the local level to
combat the effects of hunger and poverty.
Does not sufficiently take account of class,
although gender is given proper attention.
Motivation and confidence are important, but
it is insufficient to claim that people can get
what they want if only they work hard at it.
Consciousness-raising should be given more
thorough attention.
Sheer number of programs may be too much
of a burden on people who are, after all, poor.

Evidence supports the idea that scaling up empowerment
programs requires an organization-wide commitment to
 (a) well-trained, autonomous and locally-sensitive field staff;
 (b) a culture of continuous learning and flexibility; and
 (c) a gradual approach with long time horizons.
Project facilitators must have the time and flexibility to
adapt specific empowerment strategies to the particular
historical, political and social environments of program
sites.
 Program coordinators must take into account the degree
of empowerment of the facilitators themselves, including
their agency and opportunity structure.
 These conclusions support a consensus on the need for
prudence in the wide-scale implementation of
community-based programs.

Special thanks to:
Magda Barrera, Tinka Markham Piper, Norma
Vite Leon, Leo Perez Saba and all IHSP staff…
for your guidance and support.
The staff of THP-Global…
for providing the opportunity to make this study
a reality.
The staff members and Project Officers of
THP-Ghana…
for your commitment to reinvigorating village
life in Ghana.
My translator and host family in Ghana…
for your devotion, hospitality and camaraderie.
The people of the Dominase and Supreso
epicenters…
for being my inspiration throughout the last 9
months.