Why CLCP is far better than Targeted Interventions (TI) - Part II

[Dr. E. Mohamed Rafique]

In an earlier blog titled, "Why CLCP is far better than Targeted Interventions (TI)", I had stated that I would continue with this blog that would state the main differences between CLCP and Targeted or Traditional Interventions (TI). Accordingly, in order to better understand CLCP and TI, I present a compare and contrast table:

Table comparing CLCP and TI

	Community Life Competence Process	Targeted Intervention
1	Community mobilizes members and identifies strengths - Asset Based “What’s right here?”	Implementing NGO partners do a needs assessment and identifies issues -Deficit Based “What’s wrong here?”
2	Community decides what it wants to work on and dreams can change	Issues may differ from the community’s and are restricted, like: Health, HIV, Education
3	Community decides where it wants to go – Community driven	Donors pre-decide what community needs – donor driven
4	Internally Fueled by “people like us”, with same culture and resources	Externally Fueled mainly by “experts” or internal authority
5	Down-up, Inside-out	Top-down, Outside-in
6	Community assesses its current situation - Begins with analysis of demonstrably successful Solutions	Implementing NGO or Researchers do a baseline - Begins with analysis of underlying causes of Problem
7	Solution Space enlarged through discovery of actual parameters	Solution Space limited by perceived problem parameters
8	Bypasses Immune System as solution shares same “DNA” as host	Triggers Immune System “defense response”
9	Community sets its own targets and plans action – Flexible target, goals and programs	Implementing NGO develop log frame, action plan, and indicators - Fixed target, goals, programs
10	Community acts	NGO provides services and or referral links
11	Community assesses their progress, learns and adapts	Implementing NGO monitors, donors evaluate
12	Communities share, learn and capture good practices	NGO analyze and synthesize their own lessons and rarely disseminate
13	Program is unrestricted as community depends on its own resources	Program is restricted and highly dependent on external resources and funds
14	Sustainable and does not end until community decide to change program	Not sustainable, and all project activities ends at project end-line

 

I would like everyone to suggest changes, edits, additions, and deletions,

With best regards,

Rafique

Following are the responses to this post from the India Civil Society page at:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/indiacso/289401961092695/?ref=notif...

Mohamed Rafique Hi Meena, Anand Chaudhuri, and Geetha Narayanan,
Specifically to continue our discussion on TI and CLCP, posted is a comparison table at:
https://aidscompetence.ning.com/ /profiles/blogs/why-clcp-is-far-better-than-targeted-interventions-ti-part-ii

Why CLCP is far better than Targeted Interventions (TI) - Part II -...

aidscompetence.ning.com

In an earlier blog titled, Why CLCP is far better than Targeted Interventions (TI) , I had stated that I would continue with this blog that would state the ma…

22 hours ago near New Delhi

• • 

    Anand Chaudhuri

    Raf, Brilliant analysis of design elements differentiating the logframe of the two. The only problem I see in this kind of analysis is 1) If the community is "resilient" then this may work for all problems it faces and will solve the same..2) If the community is NOT resilient then there may be need for inviting external resources and actors....3) If the problem is LARGER than local then also the community may not have all the resources and good practices.....initial thoughts and thanks for sharing. It relects deep insights. I await other voices...

    
    

    22 hours ago ·
  • 

    Anand Chaudhuri

    One other contrast btw CLCP & TI: CLCP- an enabling environment does need to be created in CLCP as the process followed is one of internalization, so this becomes a de facto baseline by itself. Hence there is no issue of fighting/addressing stigma and/or discrimination...TI: as the community is never engaged with in the initial deliberations, a lot of energy, time and perhaps escalation of the problem/vulnerability occurs due to a hostile & fear psychosis driven environment which propogates/fuels stigma and discrimination...

    
    

    18 hours ago ·
  • 

    Mohamed Rafique Wow! Anand, These are more forceful and emphatic terms which you use, and I will rob and use in the table of comparison, to strengthen the CLCP cause.
    I remember a role play by Joma Neihsial, which he did in Mouva village in Nagaland, where the elements you describe, Anand were so endearingly enacted, they are still fresh in my mind, as if it is being played out in front of me when I read your lines!

    7 hours ago ·
  • 

    Anand Chaudhuri tnx, in solidarity....

    6 hours ago ·
  • 

    Geetha Narayanan Thank You!Mohamed Rafique!Any thing top down will never work.I have been very bitter about TI approaches.the way BCC materials described women and the oppreesed were quite objectionable.The key words are participation,ownership of the community ,equity,Rights and empowerment approach integrated into the process(not programs).Many thanks for tagging me!It is a good write up!

    5 hours ago ·
  • 

    Rituu Competence Thanks Geetha Narayanan and Anand Chaudhuri for this rich contribution.

    5 hours ago ·
  • 

    Geetha Narayanan Thanks!Rituu Competence!.

    4 hours ago ·
  • 

    Rituu Competence Rafique, Geetha Narayanan and Anand Chaudhuri please can I share your responses with our international community? thanks!

    4 hours ago ·
  • 

    Anand Chaudhuri Rituu, yes pl

    3 hours ago ·
  • 

    Meena Saraswathi Seshu My problem is the minite it reaches log frames it looses reach. give me simpler non literate analysis to share with the community.

    2 hours ago ·
  • 

    Mohamed Rafique

    Meena Seshu, I agree with you that a log frame is lost in a community. So the Competence Process has come up with a Self Assessment Framework. We introduce this in the community say for an activity or practice which is an everyday one, like: brushing the teeth. Then, everyone in the community assesses themselves how competent they are in the practice of 'brushing their teeth', on a level 1 to 5. 1 being not aware, and 5 being the practice comes naturally as part of the person's lifestyle, and the person also transfers the practice to others if applicable.
    Thank you Rituu, for sharing in http://aidscompetence.ning.com/

[Dr. E. Mohamed Rafique]

Dear Gaston,

I am pasting below the response from Anand Chaudhuri which is on FB at:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/indiacso/289401961092695/?ref=notif...

Anand Chaudhuri ‎@Gaston, if one defines TI communities as "primary" i.e. those most vulnerable, at risk or infected, needing care & support, then, one would like to design behaviour based risk reduction interventions with their involvement. With this design however, one also needs to spend time and resources creating an enabling environment for work to be iniated. This would involve a stakeholder building process with the larger community (CLCP) and include in the behaviour modification strategy, the resilience factors that are the bedrock of the larger group. Thus, TIs are but one side of the coin or currency for successful program implementation. They can exist and expand as a subset of the other till such time there is need for social reintegration...TIs (all said and done) define behaviour and universal access (CLCP) defines sustainable behaviour mitigation principles and practices.

[Dr. E. Mohamed Rafique]

Dear Gaston,

 

Your questions stimulate further thinking and also much of letting the cat out of the bag! For if we remember that the original need for making this table is to sell CLCP to TI, then we must acknowledge that there is a definite CLCP bias, which makes us gloss over the advantages of TI! Accordingly coming to your first question:

1. Is there anything we can appreciate in the TI?

My answer would be there are many things we can appreciate in TI. That is why I always say that mixing up TI and CLCP is like mixing oil and water. For this you need a good emulsifier, which I am convinced is SALT. For, if we do the "Are we Human?" WoW, WoT, correctly and consistently with the hard-core TI practitioners, the water of TI and the oil of Community Competence, will emulsify into good wholesome milk!

And now to answer what we can appreciate in TI, It is the funding might, the insistence on project design,
logic, LFA, MIS, the accountability of evaluation, as well as the non-negotiable milestones, and deadlines.

 

2. If TI has so many drawbacks, why does it still exist?

From my answer to your first question, you will see that what we appreciate as the very strengths of TI are
also its weakness or drawbacks, that is why CLCP is able to complement it, not only geographically - first dimension, but also thematically –second dimension, as well as in resource-mobilization, which is the third dimension; as illustrated in the figure in my blog at:

http://aidscompetence.ning.com/profiles/blogs/targeted-intervention...

I could add time as the fourth-dimension!

Coming to the Raison d'être or reason for existence of TI is, it serves the nature of fast-paced intervention that can be well-managed in a rigorous strait-jacket, with all the attendant strengths some of which I have already enumerated. Moreover, as funding agencies must know beforehand how every penny of theirs would be spent, and the rigidity of budget line items vis-à-vis activities, the TI appears to the funding agencies as one whose activities can be better audited or and finances better accounted. Remember, I have used the word, ‘appears’,  in the previous sentence! So, you can conclude where my money goes! :-)

3. If we work with communities with very low prevalence and a perception of many other priorities, what can we best do? This is a question from experience this week at a conference on Malaria elimination (low prevalence).

This is a tough question, as it is best answered with the wisdom of experience. TI is prescribed when you want to bring a quick result, and this is warranted by the difference between the baseline surveys and end-line evaluations. Hence, TI is best suited for high prevalence, where the potential for divergence between baseline and end-line would be very high.

Therefore, a low prevalent area, would most-probably not be selected for pilot interventions of TI, and would only be covered in the mopping up operations of the TI, which mostly always is not successfully carried out, namely, in the various scale-up and scale-out re-runs of the TI. For, the few scale-up and scale-out, projects that have been done in TI do employ and rely largely on the “Community mobilization” and “Sustainability” strategies, which are the prime strengths of CLCP!   

Hope I have been able to do justice to your excellent questions,

Rafique

[Gaston]

Thank you Rafique for sharing your analysis. Three questions come up:
1. Is there anything we can appreciate in the TI?

2. If TI has so many drawbacks, why does it still exist? 

3. If we work with communities with very low prevalence and a perception of many other priorities, what can we best do? This is a question from experience this week at a conference on Malaria elimination (low prevalence). 

Thanks

[Dr. E. Mohamed Rafique]

Pasted into the blog are also the responses to this post from the India Civil Society page at:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/indiacso/289401961092695/?ref=notif...