Don't chase scale at the expense of excluding the bottom billion

Frameworks of program design when working with adolescents must go deeper than just looking at outcomes of English, Science or Math or enrollment in schools to include factors such as equity, caste, gender, ethnicity, disability, age and race that continue to marginalize populations in different ways.

We need to reach greater depths of rights based linkages and services globally for the bottom billion and scale systemic innovations for this to happen. Good governments need good innovations from the nonprofit sector all the time. This is difficult, but not impossible if we design for both scale and depth simultaneously and not be fearful of sharing difficult insights with the government and funders. It's as much our role as NGOs to spotlight these conversations and best practices and bring relevant stakeholders to the same page for development of the communities at the last mile. Linkages with the system of the bottom billion are critical to get things done correctly in an equity-led framework, which can also be called the 'common-sense' framework.?NGOs, as well as global governments and funders, need to start thinking about how we can design the system so that it is more responsive to the needs of the people who are most affected by poverty. These systems change conversations cannot be cornered to white-men's-club conferences in Geneva or Brussels. This means not just providing services and infrastructure but also creating opportunities for the bottom billion to participate in decision-making processes.

People at the last mile are not just clients and beneficiaries, but stakeholders who deserve to be consulted. If we continue to operate under the assumption (or arrogance?) that NGOs know what is best for people living in poverty, then we will continue to miss opportunities for local ownership of development programs which can lead to sustainable change. The new framework is based on the idea that poverty is not just about a lack of material resources but also lack of power. So, by designing systems in which adolescent girls' voices are heard and their needs are considered, we can create more effective solutions.

Design for both scale and depth simultaneously?

Design for both scale and depth simultaneously. If a program is too large, it can get lost in the shuffle during evaluations; if it’s too small, it’s not going to have enough impact on its target population or community. You need to strike a balance between these two extremes. Equity must be baked into randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Evaluations are a key tool for understanding the impact of social programs. But RCTs are often used only to measure whether a program is effective, not whether it’s equitable. Can we change that?

Many published studies have found that when researchers didn't account for gender or socioeconomic status in their RCTs, they underestimated the effects of health interventions by up to 50%. Researchers at RAND found that when they accounted for gender, they were able to capture up to a third more of the benefits of their interventions.?It has been proven that researchers prize the internal validity of the RCT so much that they forget about problems of external validity and problems with statistical inference. Or as PubMed Central cites, some of us are not against RCTs, only magical thinking about them in real-world complexity.?

In order for the efforts at scaled-up levels of development to work effectively, you need all stakeholders involved at each stage of program development so they can understand what's happening along with fulfilling their roles within these processes as they unfold over time (and adjust accordingly). A good start could be to not look at communities as 'projects' to be worked in, rather understand the communities as rights holders. Not only will we be able to better understand what's happening on the ground, but we can begin to think about how it might fit into a long-term strategy and goals as 'programs' that eventually are owned by the communities. The best way to start is by looking at the community as a system. What are its inputs, outputs and feedbacks? How do they work together? And what are their relationships with one another (for example, how does the water supply chain or child protection network work in a community)? By answering these questions, we can begin to understand how communities function as a 'system' rather than just 'projects'.

If you are not intersectional and inclusive, quit it already?

Intersectionality is about recognizing that there are multiple layers of marginalization that includes gender, race, ability and class.

If we are not intersectional and inclusive, we'll only bring quick-fix solutions with a patriarchal lens, deeply rooting interventions in the misogynistic standards that uphold the funder's interests over that of the community's best interests and independence of thought.

The bottom billion globally live in urban slums and other impoverished spaces where they have no access to clean drinking water or adequate sanitation; they don't have access to free or affordable healthcare; they often struggle with gendered impact of hunger and malnutrition because some families only manage to eat once per day. In many cases, as Protsahan saw during the peak of Covid, these kinship care communities are also dealing with the loss of a loved one and trying to figure out how to provide for their children without a parent or caregiver around. This section of society is further hit hardest by climate change and natural disasters. They have little to no access to education or job opportunities, and they live in places where governments everywhere have failed them for decades.?

If you want to improve the lives of those who live at the bottom of society then start by nurturing spaces that give them a fair chance at access to gender-transformative education so they can learn how to become self-sufficient members of their communities rather than beneficiaries dependent on aid which will always be short term solutions for long term problems like poverty. Rights based program design before needs based program design, should be our starting point.

From siloed programs to interdisciplinary collaboration at grassroots?

The notion that gender transformative and girls' programs are exclusive of other stakeholders in the community is false.?

In fact, the opposite is true. By understanding how gender transformative and girls' programs fit into a community's larger system, you can make sure that they are inclusive and holistic rather than exclusive of other stakeholders. For example, when designing a water supply system in a community, it will be important to include women so that they have access to clean water too. It is important that you are able to communicate all ground insights clearly, including:

• How will the program address gender-specific barriers and how will it impact gender transformative outcomes?
• How do we anticipate unique challenges in implementing gender transformative programs in this context (such as low-income or minority groups)?

Don't be afraid to share all of these insights with the girls and women who are involved in these programs. The best inputs will always and always come from the rights holders (and not beneficiaries!). Make time to listen and then listen some more.

Ask questions like: 'What did you like about this program? What didn’t work? How could it be improved? What barriers did you experience when trying to access this program and what can we do about them?'

Ask boys and men what they think about the program and how it could be improved. This is a great way to get insights from the perspective of those who will also be affected by these programs, but don’t often have a chance to weigh in on them. Be sure to listen carefully and respectfully when they share their thoughts. When you’re done listening, think about how you can use this information to make your program better. For example, if boys and men are saying that they don’t like the fact that the program is too long or boring, consider making it shorter or more engaging. If they mention specific things they liked about it (like how it taught them practical skills), then keep those elements in mind when designing future versions of your program.

You'll be surprised at what you hear from the last person at the last mile on how to better your programs. My best program strategy consultants have been children and adolescents at the last mile. No one else comes close in having that wisdom. You just need the experience to ask the right questions and have the humility to shut up and listen.

While doing a needs assessment, try to get information from a variety of people who have different perspectives. For example, if you’re working with a group of young men who are involved in gang related activities, don’t just ask them what they think about your program—ask their mothers as well. If you're trying to give people a voice, don't just ask them what they want; ask them how they want it. For example, when designing a program for young parents, don't just ask them what kind of activities they'd like to see included—ask them if there are any specific skills that would be helpful for their kids to learn. The notion that gender transformative and girls' programs are exclusive of other stakeholders in community is false.

In fact, we found that many grassroots leaders believe the same thing—that their work with children or youth should not be siloed from other areas in the sector. They want to see more coordination between different sectors, so they can leverage each other's strengths and resources when it comes to addressing issues affecting children, youth and families.

We need more collaboration among all levels of government; this includes local governments, provincial governments, national government, and international organizations. There needs to be more interdisciplinary collaboration between funders of larger nonprofits too on issues directly or indirectly impacting children (e.g., child protection services) in order to ensure that best practices are shared across sectors without compromising on quality services.

I believe that we need to move away from this siloed, exclusionary worldview of nonprofits into a more holistic approach towards development.

The way I see it, we need to create programs that are dynamic and aspirational for the people at the last mile. We need to build programs that are inclusive of all stakeholders in their communities, country, or continent - including for women who have been traditionally marginalized within development initiatives, for invisiblized adolescent girls and LGBTQIA+ who haven't been given opportunities by traditional education systems, and those living with disabilities. We need to move away from the old-fashioned ‘charity’ model, and move towards development as a holistic process of change that is inclusive of all stakeholders. We need to think about how people can participate in their own development and how can we enable them to create that change on their own terms.