Exit Strategies: How to Ensure
Sustainability of Impact after
Program Exit
Beatrice Lorge Rogers
Research Team: Jennifer Coates
Katie Houk, Elizabeth Kegode, Leslie Sanchez
TOPS FNS Knowledge Management Workshop
Addis Ababa, June 11, 2012
Acknowledgements
• FANTA2 and USAID Food for Peace
• Research team
– Tufts team
– Research collaborators in country
• Cooperating sponsor agencies
• Community counterparts
• Community members
The authors have no conflict of interest to report
Overview of Session
• Exit Strategies Results to Date (30 mins)
• Breakout: (20 mins)
– How feasible is it to incorporate these
principles into your own programs? Which
ones?
• Report out and discussion (20 mins)
• The way forward: future contributions of
TOPS activities (15 mins)
Overview of the Exit Strategy Study
• Rationale
– Title II programs closing in non-priority
countries
– Little systematic knowledge of how to maintain
program impacts
– Effectiveness of Title II programs depends on
both short term impact and long term
sustainability
– Immediate and long term impact may be
trade-offs
Overview of the Exit Strategy Study
• Goal: Provide guidance to Food for Peace
and to Cooperating Sponsors
– General approaches to planning for
program exit
– Key elements of an exit strategy, including
development and implementation
– How to build sustainability into program
design from the beginning
Objective of Exit Strategy Study
• Identify program characteristics that make
it possible to sustain program effects after
the program shuts down
• Determine whether implementing explicit
exit strategies contributes to sustainability
• Provide guidance to future programs on
how to exit while assuring sustainability
Key Concepts
• Sustainability
– Sustainability of activities
– Sustainability of impacts
– Expansion of activities and improvement of
impact
– Long term sustainability may compete with
short term impact
• Exit
– From specific activities
– Departure of CS from the area
Key Concepts
• Phase out: program activities stop;
benefits/effects are presumed to be lasting
without further input
• Phase over: responsibility for program
activities is transferred to another entity
–
–
–
–
Community based organization
Government (local to national)
Key individuals
Another NGO or donor
Key Concepts
• Exit strategy
– Explicit plan for transition from program
support to exit
– Specifies approach to exit: phase over (to
whom), phase out (of resources)
– Includes timeline, benchmarks for progress,
mechanisms for monitoring and allocation of
responsibility for ensuring progress
– Should be part of long term program
implementation
– Often called ‘sustainability plan’ in agency
documents
Sustainability Throughout the Project Cycle
Independent
operation of
services and
systems
Partnership
formation,
demand creation
Capacity
development;
development of
financing sources
Sustainable Design
Transfer
and Phaseout
Methods: Overview of Study
• Three phases
– Baseline at time of exit – qualitative
– Quantitative end line evaluations from agencies
– Qualitative description one year after exit – to
identify the trajectory of program development,
determine critical periods for success
– Qualitative and quantitative data two years after
exit
• Mix of qualitative and quantitative data
• Data collection now complete except in India
Methods: Overview of the Study
Study Locations
•
•
•
•
•
Bolivia
Kenya
Honduras
India
Selection is based on
– Programs judged to have had impact
– Programs implemented explicit exit
strategies or incorporated sustainability
plans
Program Technical Sectors
•
•
•
•
Maternal and child health and nutrition
Agricultural production/income generation
Potable water and sanitation
Livestock sector development
– Paravets
– Market development
• Micro-finance and micro-lending
• Natural resource management
• Infrastructure
Hypothesized Factors Contributing to Sustainability
RESOURCES
• Self financing
business model
• Legal
registration
• Alternative
sources of
resources are
operational
• Food ration
withdrawal
CAPACITY
MOTIVATION
LINKAGES
• Access to
continued
training
• Visible benefit
• Profits/Income
• Vertical and
horizontal
linkages
• Technical and
managerial
• Felt need in
community
• Long-term
contracts
• System for
identifying and
training
replacements
• High
community
participation
• Designated
responsible
party for
supervision
• Prestige and
social respect
STRATEGIES
Phase over at most local level possible
Post-project source of resources identified and tested
Build capacity at most local level
Explicit ES benchmarks and timelines
Advance communication to stakeholders about exit
Independent operation before exit (exit transition is gradual)
Health Sector Exit Strategies
Health Sector Exit Strategies
• Capacity
– CHWs would continue using knowledge and skills
after the project ended.
• Resources:
– Resources for service delivery (eg. Scales, growth
charts) to be provided by the MOH after phaseover.
– Rations for supplementary feeding to be replaced
with local foods.
Health Sector Exit Strategies
• Motivation:
– CHWs would rely intangible incentives, like
community respect
– Mothers would be motivated by visible
improvements in child health
• Linkages:
– Horizontal: CHWs would meet regularly as a group
– Vertical: Government will provide oversight and
supervision after end of project.
Health Sector Exit Strategies
• Self financing model is not feasible in
health sector
• Government support for health activities
depends on resources, commitment and
capacity
• Motivation for CHWs diminished unless
linkages with formal health sector and
demand for services were maintained
Health Sector Exit Strategies
• Health behaviors were maintained –
depending on resource cost
• Participation in growth monitoring sessions
fell off
Ag Sector Exit Strategies
Ag Sector Exit Strategies
• Capacity
– Knowledge taught by Extension farmers would be selfsustaining.
– Farmers Associations would have technical and mgmt skills
to continue
• Resources:
– Ag inputs would be purchased from profits from crop sales
• Linkages
– Value chain linkages would continue to strengthen
– Government ag extension workers would provide some
technical support
• Motivation:
– Benefits – income improvements - demonstrated during
project would motivate continuation
Ag Sector Exit Strategies
• Commercialization of production was
the key to sustainability in agricultural
interventions
• Gradual withdrawal allowed farmer
marketing groups to develop
independent functioning
• Capacity building to manage
commercial activities was key
Water/Sanitation Exit Strategies
Water/Sanitation Exit Strategies
• Capacity:
– Technicians trained in maintenance and repair
– Water committees trained to manage funds
• Resources:
– User fees cover expenses
• Incentives:
– Beneficiary appreciation of piped water in home
– No such appreciation of microbiological quality
• Linkages:
– Vertical linkages for water quality testing, horizontal
linkages for cross-community committee support
• Technical quality of the infrastructure is critical
• Access to adequate water source is necessary
Water/Sanitation Exit Strategies
• System of user fees to support
maintenance of water systems was the
critical element in sustainability of water
systems
• Depends on willingness to pay
(beneficiaries) and capacity to enforce
(water committees)
• Willingness to pay depends on quality and
reliability of water supply
Livestock
Sector
Sustainability
Strategies
Community-based Animal Health Workers
• Capacity:
– Train Community Based Animal Health Worker
(CBAHW) or Paravets/“Peritos” who will assume
primary responsibility after project.
• Resources:
– Fee-for-service structure and access to microfinance
• Motivation
– Willingness to pay for perceived benefit to livestock
• Vertical Linkages:
– Government veterinary officers engaged in training and
field visits.
– Government to provide extension support
Livestock Sector Market Support
• Capacity: Livestock marketing management
committees (LMMCs) and radio operators trained
• Resources: Market user-fees
• Incentives: In-kind benefits for LMMC members,
such as privileged access to market and price data.
• Vertical Linkages:
– LMMCs linked to various government institutions
– Joint trainings and sectoral evaluations.
• Phase-out: Responsibility left to LMMCs
Livestock Sector
• Paravet system works because of fee for
service model and paravet access to
training through government ministry
• Livestock market committees work because
they are institutionalized and demand for
services is sustained – market user fees are
paid
• Drought, cattle raids threaten ability to pay
Microfinance Sector Sustainability
Strategies
Microfinance Sector Sustainability
Strategies
• Capacity: Individuals savings and loan groups
trained
• Resources: No outside capital required. Women
save and take loans. Donations made to
support group operations.
• Motivation: Credit, visible impact, field agents
receive payment for services.
• Linkages: COSAMO savings groups linked to a
community field agent who is tied to MFI
COSAMO: Microfinance Success Story
• Capacity: Individuals savings and loan groups trained to
manage their groups
• Resources: No outside capital required. Women save
and take loans. Donations made to support group
operations.
• Incentives: Credit, huge visible impact, female
empowerment; field agents receive payment for
services.
• Linkages: Women’s groups are training new groups
Strategies:
• Graduated independent operation; agency support only
as “technical resource” after first savings cycle.
• groups inspiring new activity – groups training new groups.
Natural Resource Management
Exit Strategies
Natural Resource Management Strategies
• Capacity:
– Communities trained in construction and
maintenance of NRM infrastructure
• Resources:
– Establish functioning businesses (e.g.
greenhouses)
– Incorporate into local government plans
(budgets and oversight)
• Motivation: Contributes to productive
agricultural activity
Natural Resource Management Strategies
• Sustainability was achieved when
interventions met short term visible needs
and provided tangible material benefit
• When this is the case, FFW no longer needed
• Phase out is possible if permanent changes
are made
Infrastructure Exit Strategies
Infrastructure Exit Strategies
• Capacity: Train community members in
construction and maintenance
• Resources: Municipalities, CBOs recognize
benefits and fund maintenance
• Motivation: Clear benefits may motivate
volunteer labor
• Linkages:
• Quality of construction is critical
What’s Working: Resources
• Self-financing business models (water
[irrigation, household] paravets)
• Profits/increased income (agriculture,
microenterprises, microcredit)
• Funds from government or other external
source (inherent risk)
• Vertical linkages, if resources are there to
support those linkages
– Health sector
– Ag marketing contracts
What’s Working: Capacity
• Behavior change is
sustained where new
resources are not
required or when they
are available.
• High quality assets and
technical capacity
developed during the
project were maintained
What’s Working: Withdrawal
• Gradual phase over of responsibility
• Creating community awareness of its roles and
responsibilities after exit from the outset
• Philosophy of sustainability from program design
to withdrawal.
• Longer duration of operation in a community
prior to exit (when agencies also manage
expectations of permanence).
What’s Not Working: Withdrawal
• Withdrawal of food rations (as incentive/pay):
jeopardize sustainability of program activities when
there is no consideration of substitute incentives
• Food rations: created unsustainable expectations
• Vertical linkages with government, where
governments are understaffed and under-resourced,
or when their priorities shift.
• Horizontal linkages: mixed results
Preliminary Conclusions
• Motivation to continue activities and
practices must be combined with the
necessary resources and technical capacity
– Tangible benefit is critical, but capacity and
resources equally so
• Source of material resources
– Business model (potable water, irrigation)
– Profits/increased income (agriculture,
microenterprises)
– Funds from government or other external
source (inherent risk)
Preliminary Conclusions
• Quality of assets produced and technical
capacity are critical
• Interventions and exit/sustainability plans
must be adapted to the local context
– Resource availability
– Local institutions
Preliminary Conclusions
• Exit is more successful if community is
aware of its roles and responsibilities after
exit
• Exit is more successful if phase over of
responsibility is gradual – transition to
independent functioning
Preliminary Conclusions
• Building on institutional priorities of the
government can be successful if
commitment is long term and resources are
available
– Willingness to pay for “public” services can
jeopardize resource flows
• Government priorities shift; governments
at all levels may be understaffed and
under-resourced
Preliminary Conclusions
• Different program components can
reinforce each other
– Water/sanitation with health
– Agriculture/RIG with natural resources
– Agriculture/RIG with nutrition (diet)
• Withdrawal of food rations (as
incentive/pay) can jeopardize sustainability
of program activities if there is no
consideration of substitute incentives
• And food rations may have created
unsustainable expectations
Summary
• Motivation: Tangible benefit is key to
sustainability
• Resources: Source of resources is critical
• Capacity building must be both technical
and managerial
• Time operating in community less
important than hypothesized
• Importance of vertical linkages depends on
sector and capacity
Summary
• Horizontal linkages depend on context and
sector
• Sustainability should be built into the
design of programs from the beginning
• Multiple elements of sustainability must be
implemented together – all are necessary
THANK YOU!
Your opinions?