1

Helping impoverished communities without creating dependency

Neal Lesh, Co-founder Spark Microgrants

2

Bit about me1998: PhD in Computer Science. 2005: Masters of Global Health. 2009: Co-launched CommCare, a mobile app for community health workers. 2010: Co-launched Spark Microgrants2011+: Primarily work on mobile health; support Spark

3

Innovation in Healthcare in Ilolangulu, Tanzania (2009)

4

Increasing Access to Education in Wanteete Uganda (2010)

5

Spark in 2013• 37 new communities

start process

• 23 communities completed process

• 20 staff, most in Rwanda or Uganda.

• 655 facilitated meetings

• $364,290 total expenses

6

Why This Is Important

It suggests development efforts should be more:– patient– trusting– empowering

and less:– solution oriented– expert driven

7

More Eloquently….

“If you have come to help me, you are wasting your time. But if you have come because your liberation is bound up with mine, then let us walk together…”

- Lila Watson

8

More Humorously….

9

Spark’s Process1 •The community identifies their own development goals

2 •Community members propose a pathway to one goal and craft a project proposal to realize the solution

3 •Spark solicits expert feedback on proposals & communities integrate feedback to improve proposal

4 •Spark awards a microgrant to enable project implementation

5 •The community launches their project and realizes their goal

10

Facilitators

11

Sasha Fisher, Executive Director

Flew to Kigali in 2010 with few months funding. Never really came back…

Has rallied a growing band of “communatarians” and quickly learned fundraising, HR, ect..

See her 2013 Do Something Finalist (video)

12

Takes Time

• Weekly meetings for five months• Over time, see more:– Meeting start on time, follow up on actions– Women participation– Group cohesion– Confidence

13

Why This is Different

• Typical solutions often inappropriate.– Hypothetical example: chopsticks for obesity

• Typical aid creates dependency• Handoffs are hard

14

The Benefits

• Good projects– Efficient use of resources– Locally appropriate– No handoffs / ownership

• Empowered Communities– Civic engagement– Capacity– Leadership– Cohesion

15

Results

• 95% projects still running• 64% increase in female participation. 40% of

leadership committees are women. • Of 430 community-elected leaders, 79% had

never previously held a leadership role.• 35 independent community initiatives

launched by end of 2013.

16

Example of Inspiring Change

17

Challenges

• Follow up after initial grant / avoiding dependence on spark

• Providing expert support where needed• Communities that choose challenging

projects, e.g. building a health center

18

Some Related Approaches

• Microcredit• Participatory design• GiveDirectly

19

Some takeaways

• Beware of solutions and expertise. • It’s difficult to transfer a true sense of

ownership

20

Thanks!

For more information, visit Spark Microgrants (www.sparkmicrogrants.org) or email Neal Lesh (nlesh@dimagi.com) or Sasha Fisher (sasha.fisher@sparkmicrogrants.org)