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

[Dr. E. Mohamed Rafique]

For earlier or 2011 thoughts on this article on Why CLCP is far better than Targeted Interventions (TI) see Part II and Part I

The following table made in Nov 2024 was created to provide a clear comparison and contrast between externally owned and led programs, Community-Led Development (CLD) programs, and the Community Life Competence Program (CLCP). It serves as a guide for communities of practice (CoP) to understand which approach best aligns with their goals, cultural values, and operational capacities. At a glance, CLD and CLCP may appear similar as both prioritize community involvement; however, this table highlights their nuanced differences, particularly in methodologies, ownership, and long-term impact. By dissecting these elements across various program phases and outcomes, the table equips practitioners and decision-makers with a practical framework to evaluate program fit and foster strategies tailored to specific community needs.

Criteria for Comparison	Externally Owned and Led Programs like (TI)	Community Led Development (CLD)	Community Life Competence Process (CLCP)
Stakeholders	Driven by international NGOs, government agencies, or private donors with limited local input.	Community members are the primary actors, supported by local NGOs or facilitators.	Involves all levels of the community, guided by trained facilitators.
Goal or Vision	Align with external funders’ goals, often shaped by global development agendas.	Reflect community aspirations, prioritizing localized needs and sustainable outcomes.	Focuses on building self-reliance and collective competence.
Mission	Typically aligned with broader, often standardized, objectives such as poverty reduction or health improvement.	Aimed at empowering communities to take charge of their development.	To cultivate life competence through shared vision and self-assessment.
Concept	Conceptualized by external stakeholders based on global practices or funding priorities.	Emerges from community deliberations and shared goals.	Community-driven with a focus on fostering resilience and collaboration.
Design	Designed by external experts; limited adaptation to local contexts.	Co-designed by communities with local facilitators, ensuring cultural relevance.	Designed around the SALT methodology, emphasizing learning and transfer.
Tools and Methodology	Standardized tools developed externally, requiring adaptation to local needs.	Participatory tools like community mapping, needs assessment, and visioning exercises.	Uses SALT, self-assessment frameworks, and community-driven action plans.
Proposal Development	Proposal development often led by external agencies with little community involvement.	Proposal development is a collaborative process involving all stakeholders.	Proposals emerge from self-assessments and collective aspirations.
Sampling	Sampling done with statistical rigor, often lacking cultural considerations.	Sampling incorporates local knowledge and cultural considerations.	Sampling informed by inclusivity and representation.
Trial Phase	Pilot projects implemented by external teams with minimal community input.	Pilots involve significant community participation.	Trial phases emphasize community ownership and learning.
Course Correction	Course corrections driven by donor feedback or external evaluations.	Course corrections are community-driven, with iterative feedback loops.	Course corrections guided by SALT principles and iterative feedback.
Implementing Phase	Implemented through a top-down approach, focusing on deliverables.	Implemented collaboratively, leveraging community resources and leadership.	Implemented through a participatory process with shared responsibilities.
Monitoring & Evaluation	Monitoring done by external evaluators with limited community feedback.	Monitoring integrates community feedback with external validation.	Monitoring emphasizes community-led evaluation and reflection.
Reviews	Periodic reviews conducted externally, focusing on funder goals.	Reviews conducted jointly by communities and facilitators.	Reviews integrate community insights and global learning.
Expansion Phase	Expansion based on external scaling models, often without adapting to local diversity.	Expansion guided by community readiness and peer learning.	Expansion facilitated through knowledge transfer and peer support.
Documenting	Documentation focused on reporting to funders.	Documentation serves as a tool for community learning and accountability.	Documentation focused on capturing and sharing community stories.
Knowledge Management	Knowledge managed centrally by external organizations.	Knowledge shared openly within and across communities.	Knowledge managed collaboratively, promoting local-global learning.
Research	Research led by external academics or consultants.	Research is participatory and action-oriented.	Research is participatory and embedded in the SALT process.
Dissemination and Transfer	Dissemination tailored to funder priorities, often bypassing community ownership.	Dissemination prioritizes community ownership and practical transferability.	Dissemination fosters global connections while preserving local identity.
Ownership	Ownership primarily lies with funders and external stakeholders.	Ownership firmly lies with the community.	Ownership is deeply rooted in community processes.
Motivation	Motivation driven by funding incentives rather than intrinsic community interests.	Motivation stems from shared goals and community-driven success.	Motivation driven by shared vision and intrinsic empowerment.
Other Outcomes	Focus on meeting predefined outcomes rather than fostering intrinsic growth.	Focus on community empowerment and resilience.	Outcomes include strengthened resilience and global competence sharing.

Through detailed comparisons, the table underscores why the CLCP stands out as an ideal approach for communities of practice. Unlike other CLD programs, which emphasize empowerment through participation, CLCP integrates unique methodologies like SALT (Stimulate, Appreciate, Learn, and Transfer) that cultivate self-reliance, collective learning, and global interconnectedness. Its emphasis on community-led ownership, iterative learning, and sustainable outcomes gives it a distinct edge. By blending the strengths of traditional CLD models with an innovative competence-building focus, CLCP positions itself as a transformative tool for communities seeking both localized solutions and global relevance. This nuanced differentiation reaffirms CLCP’s potential as the most effective approach for long-term, community-driven impact.