Hands holding./PHOTO ; Courtesy
Across philanthropy and social investment, there is a growing emphasis on approaches that place communities at the centre of development efforts.
Often described as community‑led, these approaches move beyond simple consultation, emphasising shared decision‑making and local ownership.
Across East Africa, several organisations are putting these principles into practice. In Kenya, the Kenya Community Development Foundation (KCDF) supports initiatives that communities themselves identify and lead.
In Uganda, the Foundation for Community Development and Empowerment strengthens grassroots partners to define and drive their own priorities.
Meanwhile, Spark MicroGrants helps rural communities plan and implement locally designed projects through facilitated collective action and small seed grants.
Even so, practitioners can find it challenging to see how it works in real-world settings.
What does this way of working actually change in day-to-day practice? And how does it differ from more familiar project-based models?
This explainer looks at how locally driven approaches tend to shift decision-making, program design, funding use, and sustainability, drawing on existing research and sector learning.
Decision-Making Moves Closer to the Ground
One of the most visible shifts is who sets priorities.
In conventional development models, problems are often defined at the institutional level, with communities asked to validate or respond to pre-determined plans.
Locally driven approaches aim to reverse this order. Communities are involved earlier, helping to identify challenges and shape responses before funding decisions are finalised.
In practice, this means local groups influence whether resources focus on livelihoods, education, water access, or social protection, based on lived experience rather than external assumptions.
For practitioners, this often requires creating space for dialogue, negotiation, and collective agreement processes that take time but can improve relevance.
Program Design Becomes More Context-Specific
A second change is how interventions are designed.
Rather than applying standard models across different locations, organisations adapt activities to local realities.
Existing structures such as savings groups, cooperatives, faith networks, or informal leadership systems — are often used as entry points instead of being bypassed.
This can result in initiatives that appear modest or less technical but are better aligned with how communities already organise themselves.
Evaluations of community-driven programmes suggest that such alignment increases acceptance and local commitment, even if results emerge gradually.
Funding Supports Process, Not Just Activities
These approaches also affect how funding is used.
Instead of financing only visible activities and short-term outputs, resources may support coordination, leadership development, administration, and community-level governance.
These costs are often excluded from traditional project budgets but are essential for local groups to function effectively.
For non-profit practitioners, this can ease pressure to fit work into rigid categories.
At the same time, it requires clear financial management and transparency at local level.
Donor learning reports increasingly note that when communities have more control over resources, accountability becomes shared rather than purely external.
Sustainability Is Built In, Not Added Later
Sustainability remains one of the most persistent challenges in development work.
Locally led approaches do not guarantee long-term success, but they change the conditions that support it.
When people help design and manage initiatives, they are more likely to maintain them after external funding ends.
Solutions are often adapted, absorbed into existing systems, or supported through local contributions. Because priorities are locally defined, adjustments can be made without waiting for external approval.
These outcomes tend to develop over time rather than at the end of a funding cycle.
External Actors Take on a Different Role
This way of working does not remove the need for NGOs, donors, or social investors. Instead, it reshapes their role.
External organisations are more likely to act as facilitators supporting coordination, offering technical assistance when needed, and helping communities engage with policy or funding systems.
This requires skills such as listening, mediation, and long-term engagement.
For practitioners, the shift can be challenging, especially where funding structures still prioritise speed and measurable outputs.
Many organisations report having to balance these expectations with the slower, relationship-based nature of local leadership.
Understanding the Limits
While locally driven approaches are often presented as more effective and equitable, they are not a solution to every development challenge.
Understanding their limits is important for practitioners working within real-world constraints.
First, these approaches do not remove structural barriers.
Communities may have strong ideas and leadership, but they still operate within broader systems shaped by national policy, market forces, and public investment decisions.
Issues such as land rights, access to healthcare, education financing, or infrastructure development often require government action and cannot be resolved at community level alone.
Second, locally led work can be slow and resource-intensive.
Building trust, facilitating inclusive decision-making, and resolving internal disagreements takes time.
This can sit uncomfortably with funding models that prioritise short project cycles, rapid delivery, or clearly defined outputs.
For practitioners, this often means managing tension between process-focused work and donor expectations.
Third, there is a risk of uneven capacity.
Not all communities start from the same position. Some may lack experience managing funds, coordinating groups, or engaging with external institutions.
Power dynamics within communities also present a challenge.
Without adequate support or deliberate safeguards, shifting decision-making to the local level can reinforce existing inequalities rather than address them.
There’s also the risk of burnout or mismanagement.
Finally, there is a risk of over-romanticising local solutions. Communities are not always aligned, and local knowledge does not automatically lead to effective outcomes.
Treating community-led approaches as inherently better can discourage honest reflection when things do not work as planned.
Recognising these limits does not weaken the case for locally driven development.
Instead, it helps practitioners apply the approach more realistically as one part of a broader ecosystem that includes policy reform, institutional support, and long-term public investment.
Why This Matters for Practitioners
Interest in community-led approaches has grown as funders and organisations reflect on why many well-funded interventions struggle to last.
In contexts facing climate stress, economic uncertainty, and shrinking civic space, solutions rooted in local decision-making are seen as more adaptable.
On the ground, the changes are often subtle rather than dramatic.
They show up in stronger relationships, better-aligned programmes, and increased confidence among communities to shape their own priorities.
For non-profit practitioners, this way of working is less about adopting new terminology and more about everyday practice, which is listened to, how decisions are made, and what success is understood to mean.
