2018 MALAWI STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS

DISCLAIMER: This publication was produced at the request of the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared independently by Alison H. Smith, Andrew I. Epstein, and Leslie G. Hodel of Social Impact, Inc. The authors’ views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government.

2018 MALAWI STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS

IDENTIFYING AND SUSTAINING PROCESS-LEVEL

BENEFITS OF INTEGRATION IN MALAWI

ALISON SMITH FOR SOCIAL IMPACT, INC.

2018 MALAWI STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS

IDENTIFYING AND SUSTAINING PROCESS-LEVEL

BENEFITS OF INTEGRATION IN MALAWI

USAID/MALAWI

AID-612-C-14-00002

FEBRUARY 28, 2019

iii | 2018 MALAWI STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS USAID.GOV

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Social Impact would like to acknowledge the support it received from USAID/Malawi, without which it

would not have been possible to complete this stakeholder analysis. We especially appreciate support

from Archangel Chinkunda, who facilitated all our meetings, in addition to Ryan Walther and Amy

Stenoien. We would also like to acknowledge the USAID implementing partners, other donor

organizations and implementers, Government of Malawi officials, and community members for their

willingness to meet with us and share their experiences. Finally, this report would not have been possible

without the extraordinary efforts of our local qualitative researchers.

USAID.GOV 2018 MALAWI STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS | iv

CONTENTS

Executive Summary viii Design, Methods, and Limitations viii

Data Collection viii

Analysis ix

Key Report Findings and Conclusions ix

Recommendations xi

Planning for Integration xi

Creating Integration Partnerships xii

Managing Integration Partnerships xiii

Local Engagement xiv

Introduction 1

Methods, Analysis, and Limitations 2

Research Questions 2

Methods 2

Qualitative Interviews and Focus Group Discussions 3

Quantitative Web-Based Survey 7

Data Analysis 7

Qualitative Interviews and Focus Group Discussions 7

Quantitative Web-Based Survey 8

Limitations 8

Findings & Conclusions 9

Research Question 1: Findings 9

Beneficiary Perspectives 10

Government Perspectives 11

Implementing Partner Perspectives 12

USAID Perspectives 13

Research Question 1: Conclusions 15


Implementing Partner Perspectives 16

USAID Perspectives 17

Non-USAID Perspectives 19

Perceptions on Impact 20



Challenges with Implementing Partners 22

Challenges with USAID 23

Challenges with the Government 23

Challenges from the Beneficiary Perspective 24



Integration in the Next CDCS: Valued Approaches 26

Integration in the Next CDCS: Valued Practices 29

v | 2018 MALAWI STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS USAID.GOV

District Coordination 36


Recommendations 45

Planning for Integration 45

Creating Integration Partnerships 45

Managing Integration Partnerships 48

Local Engagement 48

Annex A: Web Survey Demographics 49

Implementing Partner Respondents 49

USAID Respondents 49

Annex B: Fieldwork Schedule 51

Annex C: Interview Protocols 53

USAID.GOV 2018 MALAWI STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS | vi

ACRONYMS

A/COR Agreement/Contracting Officer’s Representative

ADS Automated Directives System

AEC Area Executive Committee

AgDiv Agriculture Diversification

AIDS Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome

ASPIRE Malawi Girls’ Empowerment through Education and Health Activity

CDCS Country Development Cooperation Strategy

CHAG Community Health Action Group

CLA Collaboration, Learning, and Adaptation

COP Chief of Party

DADO District Agriculture Development Officer

DC District Commissioner

DEC District Executive Council

DEO District Education Officer

DG Democracy & Governance

DHO District Health Officer

DIAS Director of Inspectorate and Advisory Services

DIP District Implementation Plan

DPD Director of Planning and Development

ELF Education and Learning Foundation

FGD Focus Group Discussion

FY Fiscal Year

GHSC-PSM Global Health Supply Chain—Procurement and Supply Management

GI Group Interview

GIZ German Corporation for International Development

GoM Government of Malawi

HC4L Health Communication for Life

IE Impact Evaluation

IP Implementing Partner

KII Key Informant Interview

LGAP Local Government Accountability and Performance

MERIT Malawi Early Grade Reading Improvement Activity

MoEST Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology

NGO Non-governmental Organization

ONSE Organized Network of Services for Everyone’s Health Activity

PAD Project Appraisal Document

PCI Project Concern International

PMIL Peanut and Mycotoxin Innovation Lab

PSI Population Services International

SBCC Social and Behavioral Change Communication

SHA Stakeholder Analysis

SI Social Impact, Inc.

SIL Soybean Innovation Lab

SWAP Sector-Wide Approach

vii | 2018 MALAWI STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS USAID.GOV

UNICEF United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund

USAID United States Agency for International Development

VDC Village Development Committee

YONECO Youth Net and Counselling

USAID.GOV 2018 MALAWI STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS | viii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

United States Agency for International Development (USAID)/Malawi’s Country Development

Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) for 2013–2018 aims to improve Malawians’ quality of life through three

Development Objectives (DOs): (1) improvement in social development, (2) increase in sustainable

livelihoods, and (3) assurance that citizen rights and responsibilities are exercised.

USAID/Malawi is applying a collaboration,

learning, and adaptation (CLA) approach to

realizing a dynamic CDCS strategy that

evolves and adapts from on-the-ground

learning. One critical element of this

strategy is an annual Stakeholder Analysis

(SHA) to continue local stakeholder

consultations that began during the CDCS

design process. Through the SHAs, Social

Impact, Inc. (SI), examines the current state of integration at various levels and how integration is

implemented to describe outcomes, successes, and challenges, and ultimately to develop

recommendations that detail the environment needed to make integration a success.

The 2017 SHA1 aimed to understand the extent to which integration may have contributed to positive

outcomes in the agriculture sector, as detailed in the impact evaluation midline report. In focus group

discussions (FGDs) with beneficiaries and group interviews (GIs) with implementing partners (IPs), SI

uncovered several positive process-level integration effects. In consultation with USAID, SI designed the

2018 SHA to investigate these process-level benefits and others in the health, education, and democracy

& governance (DG) sectors. The objective of the 2018 SHA is to inform USAID/Malawi’s next CDCS by

(1) illuminating benefits and challenges of the current integration strategy from the perspectives of multiple

stakeholder groups, (2) identifying integration modalities that are particularly effective or desirable

according to stakeholders, and (3) exploring district coordination and self-reliance as they relate to

integration.

DESIGN, METHODS, AND LIMITATIONS

SI adopted a mixed-methods approach to address several research questions, employing qualitative semi-

structured group interviews (GIs) and key informant interviews (KIIs), qualitative focus group discussions

(FGDs), and a small quantitative web-based survey.

DATA COLLECTION

SI conducted data collection in the Balaka, Machinga, and Lilongwe Rural districts of Malawi from

October to November 2018 with the following stakeholders:

1. USAID Program Office and Mission management staff: GIs, web survey

1 USAID/Malawi, 2017 Malawi Stakeholder Analysis: Integrated Activities in the Agriculture Sector; A Multilevel Case Study

in Malawi, by Social Impact, Inc. (February 2018), https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00STTV.pdf.

USAID/MALAWI CDCS DEVELOPMENT

HYPOTHESIS If assistance is integrated then

development results will be enhanced, more

sustainable, and lead to achievement of our CDCS

goal: Malawians’ quality of life improved

(USAID/Malawi CDCS, 2013).

https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00STTV.pdf

ix | 2018 MALAWI STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS USAID.GOV

2. USAID sector leads and Agreement/Contracting Officers’ Representatives (A/CORs) of

activities: GIs, KIIs, web survey

3. USAID implementing partner management and field staff: GIs, KIIs, web survey

4. Non-USAID funders/implementers: GIs, KIIs

5. Government of Malawi officials and Area Executive Committee (AEC) members: GIs, KIIs

6. Community beneficiaries: FGDs

ANALYSIS

Following data collection, SI analyzed interview and focus group transcripts through a rigorous process of

qualitative coding designed to capture the range of ideas and themes expressed by respondents. SI also

cleaned and analyzed quantitative survey results to produce descriptive statistics disaggregated by

respondent type.

KEY REPORT FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

Research Question 1: To what extent have direct beneficiaries of integrated health,

education, DG, and agriculture activities experienced any benefits of integration?

• The majority of respondents in all groups viewed integration as having an overall positive effect

on beneficiaries, resulting in both perceived process-level and outcome-level benefits.

• The majority of beneficiary FGDs identified at least one positive effect of integration on

beneficiaries.

• Though the majority of beneficiary groups were aware of integration and able to articulate

benefits, this awareness was much more prevalent in male groups than in female groups.

• The types of benefits to beneficiaries listed and frequencies mentioned differed by respondent

group. Generally, USAID and IPs articulated a wider variety of beneficiary benefits than did

GoM, AEC, and beneficiary groups (Figure 1).

• Reduction of conflicting messages and increased access to services were the most consistently

mentioned beneficiary benefits across all groups.

FIGURE 1. PERCEPTIONS OF POSITIVE EFFECTS OF INTEGRATION BY PARTICIPANT TYPE (QUALITATIVE INTERVIEWS AND FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS)

USAID.GOV 2018 MALAWI STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS | x

Research Question 2: To what extent have implementers in health, education, DG, and

agriculture sectors experienced any benefits of integration?

• Both IPs and USAID see integration overall as beneficial to implementers, resulting in specific

process-level benefits.

• IPs most commonly reported expansion of skills, expertise, or activities; organizational

efficiencies; cost savings; and reduced duplication of services as process-level benefits of

integration to implementers.

• USAID most commonly reported organizational efficiencies and expansion of skills, expertise, or

activities as process-level benefits of integration to implementers.

• Both IPs and USAID commonly reported increased impact as an additional benefit of integration.

• Both beneficiaries and IPs reported benefits of message consistency and reduced duplication.

Research Question 3: To what extent did implementers experience any challenges to

integration?

• Most implementing partners face challenges in the establishment and management of integration

partnerships, though many share the sentiment that the challenges are worth the benefits.

• The most common challenges IPs faced are navigating competing priorities among IPs, difficulties

integrating workplans, determining which IP takes credit for work in a community, different

basic policies among IPs, working within government structures, and getting the GoM to take

leadership (Figure 2).

• Though much of the feedback on integration as it affects beneficiaries is positive, there are two

recurring negative effects on beneficiaries that should be addressed: the perception of loss of

short-term benefits as a result of fewer programs operating in a given area and delays in

implementation—and therefore services—due to the management burden of integration.

FIGURE 2. IP-RELATED CHALLENGES EXPERIENCED BY IPS (QUALITATIVE INTERVIEWS)

Research Question 4: Which approaches to or models of integration: (1) should be

retained for the next CDCS? (2) show the most promise in realizing and sustaining the

benefits of integrated programming at the district government level?

• Implementing partners, government, AECs, and beneficiaries largely view the government as an

integration partner rather than in the role of managing or coordinating integration.

xi | 2018 MALAWI STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS USAID.GOV

• IPs saw joint meetings between IPs as the single integration practice that is most critical to the

success of the partnership.

• USAID saw joint planning at the USAID/Malawi level as the integration practice that is most

critical to the continued success of integration partnerships; however, very few IP respondents

felt the same.

• USAID sector leads identified connections between the USAID requirement to include

integration in workplans, the IP practices of integration workplans or MOUs and IP coordination

meetings, increased technical support to districts, and increased access to services.

• The results from the SHA do not suggest that integration can necessarily increase the

effectiveness of a poorly-designed program; however, SHA results do support the conclusion

that integration may contribute to making a well-designed program more effective and efficient.

• District governments do not acknowledge the role of sub-district structures, including AECs, in

integration. Some AEC members are aware of integration occuring and are tangentially involved,

but many AEC members would like to see more AECs involved in planning and executing

integrated activities.

• Government respondents most frequently recommended that USAID facilitate meetings

between IPs and districts to improve integration for the next CDCS, followed by building GoM

capacity to coordinate integration.

• There are inconistent understandings among USAID and IPs both about the current entity

driving integration and the preferred entity to drive integration in the future.

• Community member beneficiaries are willing to contribute to the development process with the

right support.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Based primarily on findings and conclusions in the 2018 SHA and drawing on findings in the 2017 SHA,2

SI proposes the following recommendations for consideration in planning the next CDCS.

PLANNING FOR INTEGRATION

1. USAID: Promote Clear and Consistent Integration Messaging. Prior to working integration

into the next CDCS, USAID should refine its definition of integration. Resources to draw on include

previous SHAs, policy briefs, and reports from the impact evaluation, as well as publications from

other USAID missions. USAID may consider definitions specific to each integration type (value chain,

co-equivalent, cross-sector, inherently integrated activity) In redefining integration, USAID should also

establish its goals for integration; roles and responsibilities among USAID, IPs, and GoM; and a future

vision for integration. SI recommends that in the near term, no one party should be responsible for

driving integration; however, stakeholders should have a clear understanding of their roles and

expectations. These definitions and goals should guide integration planning in the next CDCS and

should be communicated clearly and consistently to all stakeholders.




USAID.GOV 2018 MALAWI STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS | xii

2. USAID: Periodically Learn and Reflect. To ensure that integration relationships are adaptive,

USAID/Malawi should use strategy-level portfolio reviews3 to assess how intervention approaches and

integration relationships are contributing to achievement of Intermediate Results and progress toward

Development Objectives. These events are an opportunity to revalidate the strategic overall approach,

check assumptions, revisit scenarios, engage stakeholders, and then, if needed, adapt approaches and

relationships based on new information and lessons learned.

CREATING INTEGRATION PARTNERSHIPS

3. USAID: Incorporate Integration Scenario Planning. As part of context analysis, USAID should

consider incorporating integration scenario planning. Integration scenario planning involves group

consultations among USAID staff, IP staff, and other stakeholders to systematically identify existing

and emerging development conditions and their plausible combinations in a particular context in order

to consider models of intervention, activity integration, and risk reduction.4 Used by many missions

in CDCS planning, scenario planning is an exercise that does not produce single point predictions but

examines a range of possible development and humanitarian conditions, as well as potential economic,

political, and social situations, to help prepare for both intended and unintended or unexpected

outcomes. Systematically examining a range of possibilities in a given country or region in the process

of developing a CDCS enables missions to address the range of conditions that may occur in the

course of strategy implementation and consider how different intervention approaches, activity

integration types, and risk reduction strategies can increase the ability to adapt to changing conditions

and the likelihood of achieving development goals.

Integration scenario planning requires facilitators to have a clear understanding of integration types

and their uses (Table 4) and integration benefits to IPs (Figure 10 and Figure 11) and beneficiaries

(Figure 4 and Figure 6). Working within these frameworks will ensure that planners understand the

possibilities and limitations of integration.

4. USAID: Conduct Integration Context Analysis. Context analysis is a required section of a

Project Appraisal Document (PAD). Throughout the project design process and specifically during

problem analysis, whether during development of the Project Design Plan or PAD, it is important to

understand the local system and context, making explicit all external donor, government, civic, and

secular actors interacting with the target populations. Developing stakeholder maps is one way to

attain this understanding and analyze the potential for different kinds of integration partnerships (value

chain, co-equivalent, cross-sector, inherently integrated activity) between USAID IPs, as well as

between USAID and other donors. Project Design Teams should focus on understanding the root

causes of the particular development problem, the role of current actors and factors within the local

system that may perpetuate or address the problem, and where opportunities for integrated

interventions make the most sense.

3 USAID Bureau for Policy, Planning, and Learning, How-To Note: Strategy-Level Portfolio Review (October 2017),

https://usaidlearninglab.org/library/how-note-strategy-level-portfolio-review. 4 For more information, see the USAID Learning Lab page on Scenario Planning at

https://usaidlearninglab.org/library/strategy-development-scenario-testing-and-visioning.

https://usaidlearninglab.org/library/strategy-development-scenario-testing-and-visioning

xiii | 2018 MALAWI STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS USAID.GOV

5. USAID & IPs: Utilize a Pre-Integration Checklist/Guide. USAID should develop and use an

easy to use, step-by-step guide based on the integration typology (Table 4) and IP and beneficiary

outcome frameworks to help planners (during the PAD and solicitation stages) and IPs (during and

after consultation and proposal stages) think through the right topics and make explicit solutions to

common integration challenges. Proposed questions for the guide are detailed in the

Recommendations section below. Addressing these questions and forming solutions to common

challenges up front may assist USAID and IPs in (1) avoiding integration partnerships that will not be

effective for all stakeholders and (2) reducing the ongoing management burden of the partnership.

6. USAID & IPs: Articulate and Adapt Integration Theories of Change. In addition to the

integration scenario planning at the CDCS level recommended above, the project description of a

PAD should include detailed theories of change, making explicit the anticipated inputs, outputs,

outcomes, and assumptions that lead to one or more of the IP and/or beneficiary impacts, such as

reduction of conflicting messages and increased access to services in the case of beneficiaries.

Theories of change are also useful in scenario planning, where “expected” theories of change can be

developed alongside “alternative” theories of change that anticipate potential changes in development

conditions or the cast of implementing partners. Typically, two alternatives are developed: one that

anticipates improving conditions and another that anticipates deteriorating conditions. Planning in this

manner increases adaptive management capability and increases the resilience of integration

partnerships.

To plan for activities to be integrated, SI recommends that project teams use the PAD to: (1) articulate

the integration type; (2) define the problem in a manner that addresses why integration is a viable

solution; (3) develop expected and alternative theories of change for each integration relationship or

group of relationships; and (4) establish a monitoring framework that the team can use to assess the

expected and emerging theory of change, revisit its underlying assumptions during portfolio reviews

and midterm evaluations, and make course corrections as necessary.

Activities at the PAD level can be organized into “integration clusters” and even sub-clusters, which

are groups of activities comprising multiple partnership types and organized around the achievement

of a sub-IR, IR, or DO, or as a mechanism to increase management efficiencies. Theories of change

can be made more efficient by developing one for each cluster rather than for each partnership.

Once IPs are contracted for integrated activities, USAID/Malawi should share the integration theories

of change for the partnerships with the involved IPs. IPs should then have the opportunity to make

any recommended revisions to the theory of change. During this stage and depending on the necessity

of the integration partnership to each IP’s overarching goals, IPs may wish to plan individually for a

scenario where the integration partner does not deliver.

MANAGING INTEGRATION PARTNERSHIPS

7. USAID: Increase Efficiency of USAID Management of Integration. As was recommended in

the 2017 SHA, space, time, and resources to coordinate, communicate, and observe integration

partnerships should continue to be made for USAID staff. Program staff can maximize integration

efficiencies through clustering, clear communication and support to IPs about the requirements and

best practices of integrated activities, and the use of well-articulated MOUs.

USAID.GOV 2018 MALAWI STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS | xiv

LOCAL ENGAGEMENT

8. USAID: Leverage LGAP’s Existing Role to Provide Capacity Building in Integration for

District and Sub-District Level Structures. Utilizing LGAP’s in-depth knowledge of local

government structures to plan for intervention approaches and integration relationships will increase

effectiveness and adaptability of integration relationships at the district and sub-district levels. Capacity

building in integration should include USAID’s definition and goals for integration, roles and

responsibilities, opportunities for districts, integration types, planning for integration in District

Development Plans, communicating integration to communities, and engaging community members in

planning. Training should focus on DEC members, who should be capacitated to train AECs, ADCs,

and other DEC members after LGAP ends.

9. IPs: Continued IP Engagement with Districts. USAID should continue to encourage IPs to

work through existing government structures, including District Development Plans. IPs should take

advantage of government technical working group meetings to maintain communication with District

governments and seek out mutually beneficial partnerships, particularly with non-USAID IPs.

1 | 2018 MALAWI STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS USAID.GOV

INTRODUCTION

United States Agency for International Development (USAID)/Malawi’s Country Development

Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) for 2013–2018 aims to improve Malawians’ quality of life through three

Development Objectives (DOs): (1) improvement in social development, (2) increase in sustainable

livelihoods, and (3) assurance that citizen rights and responsibilities are exercised.

USAID/Malawi is applying a collaboration,

learning, and adaptation (CLA) approach to

realizing a dynamic CDCS strategy that

evolves and adapts from on-the-ground

learning. One critical element of this

strategy is an impact evaluation (IE) aimed

at assessing the validity of USAID/Malawi’s

CDCS development hypothesis and

informing further integration efforts and

future planning. In May 2014, USAID/Malawi awarded Social Impact, Inc. (SI), a U.S.-based international

development management consulting firm, a five-year (2014–2019) contract to conduct the IE.

In addition to the IE and to further increase opportunities for CLA, USAID/Malawi requested that SI

conduct an annual Stakeholder Analysis (SHA) over the same five-year period to continue local

stakeholder consultations that began during the CDCS design process. The SHAs are intended to help

USAID/Malawi understand what is and is not working in its integration strategy and to inform the IE.

Through the SHAs, SI examines the current state of integration at various levels and how integration is

implemented to describe outcomes, successes, and challenges, and ultimately to develop

recommendations that detail the environment needed to make integration a success. By doing so, the

SHA complements the CDCS IE by providing regular feedback on progress toward integrated

development.

The 2017 SHA5 aimed to understand the extent to which integration may have contributed to positive

outcomes in the agriculture sector, as detailed in the impact evaluation midline report. In focus group

discussions (FGDs) with beneficiaries and group interviews (GIs) with implementing partners (IPs), SI

uncovered several positive process-level integration effects. For beneficiaries, these benefits included

increased message consistency, reduction of time burden, improved program quality, goal alignment,

reduction of duplication of services, and increased community unity. Among USAID implementing

partners, benefits included cost savings, organizational efficiencies, diversification of activities and

expertise, and expansion of geographic and population scope. In consultation with USAID, SI designed the

2018 SHA to investigate these process-level benefits and others in the health, education, and democracy

& governance (DG) sectors. SI worked with USAID to define the research questions and developed study

methods to address them. The sections below present the methods, findings, conclusions, and

recommendations from the 2018 SHA conducted in Malawi during September and October 2018.



USAID/MALAWI CDCS DEVELOPMENT

HYPOTHESIS If assistance is integrated then

development results will be enhanced, more

sustainable, and lead to achievement of our CDCS

goal: Malawians’ quality of life improved

(USAID/Malawi CDCS, 2013).


USAID.GOV 2018 MALAWI STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS | 2

METHODS, ANALYSIS, AND LIMITATIONS

The objective of the 2018 SHA is to inform USAID/Malawi’s next CDCS by (1) illuminating benefits and

challenges of the current integration strategy from the perspectives of multiple stakeholder groups, (2)

identifying integration modalities that are particularly effective or desirable according to stakeholders, and

(3) exploring district coordination and self-reliance as they relate to integration.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

1. To what extent have direct beneficiaries of integrated health, education, DG, and agriculture

activities experienced any benefits of integration, including:

• reduction of conflicting messages,

• reduction of duplication of services,

• reduction of time burden, and

• other process-level benefits of integration?

2. To what extent have implementers in health, education, DG, and agriculture sectors

experienced any benefits of integration, including:

• cost savings,

• organizational efficiencies,

• diversification of activities and expertise,

• expansion of geographic and population scope, and

• other process-level benefits of integration?

3. To what extent did implementers experience any challenges to integration, including problems

with:

• governance/coordination,

• administration,

• institutional autonomy,

• mutuality/collaboration, and

• proximity/co-location?

4. Which approaches to or models of integration:

• should be retained for the next CDCS?

• show the most promise in realizing and sustaining the benefits of integrated

programming at the district government level?

METHODS

SI adopted a mixed-methods approach to address the research questions, employing qualitative semi-

structured group interviews (GIs) and key informant interviews (KIIs), qualitative focus group discussions

(FGDs), and a small quantitative web-based survey. The methodological approach and samples for the

qualitative interviews and the quantitative survey are detailed in Table 2 and Table 3 below.


QUALITATIVE INTERVIEWS AND FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS

As part of the IE design, the CDCS districts are divided into three treatment groups: full integration

districts, partial integration districts, and health sector only districts (more detail about the IE design can

be found in the midline report available on USAID’s Development Experience Clearinghouse6). The full

integration districts of Balaka, Machinga, and Lilongwe Rural have been required to practice all three

dimensions of USAID’s definition of integration (collaboration, coordination, and co-location) throughout

the current CDCS. SI focused the qualitative interviews for the 2018 SHA in these three full integration

districts in order to understand the benefits, challenges, and perspectives on district coordination from

the perspective of those who have engaged in or interacted with all three components of integration.

SI selected participants for the qualitative interviews through purposive sampling. After reviewing fiscal

year 2018 (FY18) workplans for each USAID activity implemented in at least one full integration district,

the SHA team selected six activities that represent a variety of sectors and types of integration activities,

as identified through the 2017 SHA (cross-sectoral, co-equivalent, and value chain). The team included

USAID/Malawi flagship activities in the health, education, and DG sectors, as well as relatively more health

activities given the size of USAID/Malawi’s health portfolio. Summaries of the selected activities’ goals are

detailed below. Summaries of the integration partnerships IPs discussed in the interviews are presented

in Table 1.

• Health: Organized Network of Services for Everyone’s Health (ONSE) works to

improve maternal, newborn, and child health in Malawi through increased access to priority health

services, improved quality of priority health services, strengthened performance of health systems,

and increased demand for priority health services.

• Health: Global Health Supply Chain—Procurement and Supply Management (GHSC-

PSM) works to ensure uninterrupted supplies of health commodities through supporting country

strategies related to global commodity procurement and logistics, systems strengthening technical

assistance, and global collaboration to improve long-term availability of health commodities.

• Health: Health Communication for Life (HC4L) aims to provide a robust, comprehensive,

and evidence-based social and behavior change communication (SBCC) approach to support

Malawi’s efforts to strengthen health systems, increase health service uptake, and change health

behaviors for better health outcomes.

• Education: Malawi Early Grade Reading Improvement Activity (MERIT) works to

provide technical assistance to the Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MoEST) to

improve the reading performance of Malawian learners in Standards 1–4 nationwide.

• Education: YESA—Assess the Learners Activity (YESA) aims to build the Malawian

education system’s capacity to measure students’ reading acquisition and to create citizen demand

for improved reading instruction.7

6 USAID/Malawi, Malawi Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) Impact Evaluation: Midline Report, by Social

Impact, Inc. (April 2017),

https://dec.usaid.gov/dec/content/Detail_Presto.aspx?ctID=ODVhZjk4NWQtM2YyMi00YjRmLTkxNjktZTcxMjM2

NDBmY2Uy&rID=MjI2MzQw&inr=VHJ1ZQ%3d%3d&dc=YWRk&bckToL=. 7 YESA was not one of the six activities originally selected but was added by request of USAID/Malawi. SI

conducted one interview with YESA management staff but did not sample additional interviews from YESA

referrals.

https://dec.usaid.gov/dec/content/Detail_Presto.aspx?ctID=ODVhZjk4NWQtM2YyMi00YjRmLTkxNjktZTcxMjM2NDBmY2Uy&rID=MjI2MzQw&inr=VHJ1ZQ%3d%3d&dc=YWRk&bckToL=

https://dec.usaid.gov/dec/content/Detail_Presto.aspx?ctID=ODVhZjk4NWQtM2YyMi00YjRmLTkxNjktZTcxMjM2NDBmY2Uy&rID=MjI2MzQw&inr=VHJ1ZQ%3d%3d&dc=YWRk&bckToL=


• DG: Local Government Accountability and Performance (LGAP) works to support

decentralization efforts at the national and local levels to strengthen Malawi’s governance systems

and improve service delivery.

• Agriculture: Feed the Future Agriculture Diversification (AgDiv) activity aims to

increase incomes and food production for smallholder famers in Malawi by working to bridge the

gap between buyers and producers, engaging private firms to enhance key service areas like

financing, agriculture processing, and training in new technologies and practices.

TABLE 1: INTEGRATION PARTNERSHIPS DISCUSSED BY IPS IN QUALITATIVE INTERVIEWS

ACTIVITY IMPLEMENTING PARTNER MAIN INTEGRATION PARTNERSHIPS DISCUSSED IN INTERVIEWS

ONSE Management Sciences for Health (MSH) LGAP (cross-sector): Worked together on dissemination of information collected through health facility assessment to district governments

HC4L (co-equivalent): Split development of SBCC messages and capacity building of district staff in incorporating SBCC strategies in District Implementation Plans (DIPs)

German Corporation for International Development (GIZ)* (co-equivalent): Engaged with Ministry of Health to revise and streamline guidelines for DIPs

GHSC-PSM Chemonics International, Inc. ONSE (value chain/co-equivalent): GHSC-PSM produces reports on medical product supply in Malawi, and ONSE provides technical services; Regional Commodity and Logistics Officers for GHSC-PSM and ONSE communicate regularly to share data

Health Policy+ (value chain): GHSC-PSM contributed to quality assurance reporting tools used by HP+

Population Services International* (value chain): PSI conducts quantification for voluntary male circumcision program; GHSC-PSM does procurement

HC4L FHI 360 ONSE (value chain): HC4L works with ONSE on development of messages; ONSE disseminates messages through community structures

AgDiv (cross-sector): HC4L works with AgDiv on development and testing of agriculture messages, and AgDiv provides the technology; HC4L does communication and community mobilization

United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF)* (co-equivalent): Collaboration in organizing meetings and disseminating information on capacity strengthening for GoM; coordination to ensure consistent strategies and messages

MERIT RTI International PERFORM (cross-sector): MERIT included environmental messages from PERFORM in its supplementary reading materials


LGAP (cross-sector): Collaboration on training for education committee at district councils (still in planning stages)

World Vision* (co-equivalent): Coordination in areas where both programs work to ensure that messages to teachers do not contradict each other

YESA Abt. Associates MERIT (co-equivalent): Working together to develop materials, aligning training activities for teachers

Education and Learning Foundation (ELF)* (value chain): Working with ELF to adapt existing training approach to Malawian context

LGAP Development Alternatives, Inc. (DAI) ONSE (cross-sector): LGAP linked ONSE to health service committees in districts; ONSE provided technical training to service committee

MERIT (cross-sector): LGAP linked MERIT to education service committees in district; MERIT will provide training to education service committee

United Kingdom Department for International Development (DFID)* (co-equivalent): LGAP worked with DFID-funded program Options to continue governance activities after program ended

AgDiv Palladium International LLC PERFORM (co-equivalent): Working together on trainings for beneficiaries (PERFORM has expertise in areas AgDiv does not)

Peanut and Mycotoxin Innovation Lab (PMIL) and Soybean Innovation Lab (SIL) (value chain): AgDiv looks at whole value chain for peanuts and soy, funds PMIL and SIL to expand their specific services/technologies

United Purpose* (value chain): Expanded reach of agriculture and nutrition extension services through services provided by United Purpose

* Non-USAID partner

SI reached out to Chiefs of Party (COPs) of each of the activities to request interviews with management

and field staff who would be familiar with the activity’s integration partnerships, especially those

partnerships with other activities included in the sample. During the IP management interviews, the

facilitators asked for recommendations of non-USAID partners and government officials that interact with

each activity in one of the three focus districts. Government positions included in the interviews were:

District Commissioner (DC), District Agricultural Development Officer (DADO), District Education

Officer (DEO), Director of Planning and Development (DPD), the Director of Inspectorate and Advisory

Services (DIAS), and the District Health Office (DHO) Head of Pharmacy. During field staff interviews,

facilitators requested recommendations for Area Executive Committee (AEC)8 members with whom they

8 Area Executive Committees are a local governance structure comprised of government and non-governmental

extension workers (such as Health Surveillance Assistants). This body is responsible for advising Area

Development Committees within a Traditional Authority. More information on AECs can be found under research

question 4 below.


worked, who in most cases arranged the beneficiary interviews. Data collection for the qualitative

interviews took place from late September to early November 2018.

The goals of the USAID management

office and sectoral leads interviews

were to understand the extent of the

changes made to managing

integration over the past year,

discuss outstanding challenges, and

detail perceived connections among

USAID practices, IP practices, IP

outcomes, and beneficiary outcomes.

In IP management and field staff

interviews, facilitators asked

respondents to focus on two to

three of the activity’s specific

integration partnerships, ideally

capturing a cross-sector example, a

same-sector example, and a

partnership with a non-USAID

funded activity, if available. The

questions focused on perceived

benefits and drawbacks to the

organization and to beneficiaries, the

specific integration practices most closely tied to the benefits, and government involvement in integration.

Government and AEC interviews focused on roles regarding development activities and integration of

development partners, as well as benefits of integration, especially to communities. Finally, the beneficiary

FGDs used a participatory community mapping approach to prompt community members to discuss the

various IPs/activities working within their communities, any existing partnerships among them, the value

of those partnerships, and aspects of citizen agency. The protocols for each interview type can be found

in Annex C.

TABLE 2: SAMPLE SIZE, QUALITATIVE INTERVIEWS

PARTICIPANTS DATA COLLECTION METHOD

SAMPLE SIZE (NUMBER OF INTERVIEWS)*

USAID Management Office GI 1

USAID Sectoral Leads KII/GI 4

USAID IPs: Management Staff KII/GI 7

USAID IPs: Field Staff KII/GI 8

Non-USAID Funders/Implementers

KII/GI 4

Government Officials KII/GI 6

Area Executive Committees GI 5

Beneficiaries FGD 10

Total 45

*KIIs had one participant. GIs had 2–5. FGDs had 7–10.


QUANTITATIVE WEB-BASED SURVEY

In addition to the qualitative

interviews, SI conducted a small

quantitative web-based survey in

order to capture the perspectives of

a wider USAID and IP audience, and

especially to include IPs that are not

heavily engaged in integration, to

contrast with the IPs selected for the

qualitative interviews described

above. SI reached out to

USAID/Malawi staff for contact

information of recommended

respondents and sent the link to the

survey via email in November 2018.

The response rate among the sample

was 32%. The respondents

disaggregated by type are displayed in

Table 3.

The goals of the web survey were to gain anonymous perspectives on the extent of engagement with and

perceived value of integration by partnership type, benefits of integration to IPs and beneficiaries,

motivations for practicing integration, perceptions of drawbacks of integration, and recommendations for

integration in the next CDCS, with a focus on district coordination and sustainability. Results of the web

survey are combined with qualitative results throughout the report to provide a comprehensive picture

of the results. The web survey instrument can be found along with the qualitative instruments in Annex C.

DATA ANALYSIS

QUALITATIVE INTERVIEWS AND FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS

SI’s qualitative analysis team developed a codebook for the qualitative data using a two-step coding process

derived from Grounded Theory. The first step was open coding a subset of the transcripts, which involved

labeling (or coding) words, phrases, sentences, and paragraphs as expressions of the wide variety of specific

ideas, opinions, experiences, and examples that arose in the course of the group interviews and focus

group discussions. The resulting list of labels was grouped into axial codes—usually broader, Likert-scale

labels—and pared down further into focused codes that represent the variety of ways in which questions

were answered. Using these codes, the qualitative team then coded the transcripts, keeping track of the

frequency of each code using a tally sheet in Microsoft Excel. The team then disaggregated by interview

type and used these results to interpret the qualitative data.

The qualitative data described in the Findings sections below detail the variety of specific ideas, opinions,

experiences, and examples mentioned by interviewees. The frequencies for each code or theme are not

statistically representative and should be interpreted as the number of interviews or focus groups in which

the theme arose, rather than the number of individuals who mentioned a given topic.

TABLE 3: SAMPLE SIZE, QUANTITATIVE SURVEY

GROUP RESPONDENTS SAMPLE SIZE (NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS)

Implementing Partners

IP Management Staff 16

IP Field Staff 10

USAID Technical Staff

USAID A/CORs 7

USAID Technical Office 5

USAID Management Staff

USAID Program Support Office

4

USAID/Malawi Management

2

Total 44

*Sample sizes listed here represent the total number of participants who completed

the web survey. Because respondents could refuse questions, the sample sizes listed

here will sometimes differ from the sample sizes listed within the charts below.

Sample sizes listed within chart titles represent the total number of participants who

responded to the specific question in each chart.


QUANTITATIVE WEB-BASED SURVEY

The quantitative survey was conducted online using SurveyCTO software. At the end of the response

period, the SI team downloaded and imported the data to Stata for cleaning and analysis. The analyst ran

basic frequencies of each variable disaggregated by respondent type. The four groups of respondents

described below are IP management staff, IP field staff, USAID technical staff (A/CORs and Technical

Office), and USAID Program Office/Management (Program Office and Mission Management).

LIMITATIONS

This study does not make any statistically validated conclusions, as the samples for each of the data

collection methods are not representative of all stakeholders or integration partnerships in the three

districts or within USAID/Malawi, given limited sample sizes and respondents being purposively selected

(in the case of qualitative interviews) or self-selected (in the case of the web survey). Rather, this SHA is

intended to present the range of perceptions, practices, and experiences of integration among

stakeholders. Additionally, it should be noted that all findings represent perceptions of individual

respondents. The SI team cannot, for example, determine the extent of actual reduction of time burden

or cost savings in this report.


FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS

RESEARCH QUESTION 1: FINDINGS

TO WHAT EXTENT HAVE DIRECT BENEFICIARIES OF INTEGRATED HEALTH, EDUCATION,

DG, AND AGRICULTURE ACTIVITIES EXPERIENCED ANY BENEFITS OF INTEGRATION?

Both USAID implementing partners and USAID staff who received the web survey reported that the main

reason they practice integration is because they perceive benefits to beneficiaries, as displayed in Figure 3

below. The following section details these benefits to beneficiaries from the perspectives of multiple

stakeholders.

FIGURE 3: USAID & IP REASONS FOR PRACTICING INTEGRATION (WEB SURVEY)

KEY FINDINGS

• Respondents in 34 of 45 total qualitative interviews and FGDs identified at least one

benefit of integration to beneficiaries.

• The most commonly mentioned beneficiary benefits among IPs, GoM, and beneficiaries

were increased access to services, reduction of conflicting messages, and diversification of

activities.

• The most commonly mentioned beneficiary benefits among USAID respondents were

reduced duplication of services, message consistency, and reduced time burden.

• Among the beneficiary population, all five of the men’s FGDs identified at least one positive

observed effect of integration on beneficiaries, while only two of five women’s FGDs did

so.


BENEFICIARY PERSPECTIVES

Among beneficiary, government, Area Executive

Committee (AEC), and IP groups, participants in

35 of the 40 interviews and FGDs identified at

least one positive observed effect of integration

on beneficiaries. The heat map (Figure 4) below

displays the frequencies of positive effects that

were mentioned by participant type.

The most commonly mentioned positive effects

were increased access to services (13),

reduction of conflicting messages or confusion

(12), diversification of activities or expertise

(10), increased service quality (9), and a holistic

approach to development (9).

Among beneficiaries, participants in seven of the

10 completed FGDs identified at least one

positive effect; however, this frequency differed

by gender, with five of five men’s FGDs

identifying positive effects compared to only two

of the five women’s FGDs.9

FIGURE 4: PERCEPTIONS OF POSITIVE EFFECTS OF INTEGRATION BY PARTICIPANT TYPE (QUALITATIVE INTERVIEWS AND FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS)

9 The Focus Group Activity & Discussion Protocol in Annex C shows the way in which beneficiaries discussed

integration. Rather than defining integration for participants at the outset of the FGD, facilitators used a

community mapping approach to discuss the various organizations and services operating in the communities.

After mapping the organizations, facilitators then asked participants if any of the organizations are working

together. To further probe as to whether the partnerships are cases of integration, facilitators asked how the

beneficiaries know they are working together, in what ways are they working together, and to what extent the

partners are working well together.

INTERPRETATON OF QUALITATIVE

DATA & HEAT MAPS

All frequencies cited in reference to the

qualitative interviews refer to the number of

interviews or FGDs during which a certain topic

was mentioned. These numbers do not imply a

number of individuals.

The dots in the heat maps displayed throughout

this report are sized based on frequencies as

described above. The larger and darker dots

represent higher frequencies, while the smaller

and lighter dots represent frequencies on the

lower end of the range. Frequencies are

displayed relative to the number of completed

interviews or FGDs for each participant type.

While the levels of color/size vary throughout

the report based on the number of interviews

included, the largest/darkest dot usually

represents 80-100% of interviews, while the

smallest/lightest represents 10-30%.


A male respondent in Balaka detailed a particularly strong example of integration between USAID

partners:

In addition to the topics raised above, another male respondent raised

the additional benefit of increased accountability of organizations to

each other and the communities, saying, “I can also add that there can be

transparency and accountability. When someone wants to do something

different to their goal, like corruption, they [IPs] can oppose or direct one

another.”

The three women’s FGDs that did not identify positive effects of

integration were unaware of integration happening in their

communities. In cases where participants did not identify integration

relationships occurring, the interviewers asked about effects of

integration in the hypothetical: What would be the benefits and

drawbacks if integration were to happen in these communities? All

three of these women’s FGDs identified one or more positive effects

in the hypothetical.

GOVERNMENT PERSPECTIVES

The Government of Malawi (GoM) mentioned benefits of integration to beneficiaries in five of the six

interviews completed. Discussing access to services, one District Agriculture Development Officer

(DADO) said: “Yes, we have noted tremendous benefits especially when it comes to resource mobilization. I have

mentioned of the big events which we have implemented in the district like the District Agriculture Fair. Whereby

through coordination [of] resources, [we] have been able to mobilize together and implement a very big event in

a district like care fair, manure launches, and even irrigation launches.” Government respondents also noted

When a problem has been identified, those who deal with or address to the problem are not only

from one side like those who come from ONSE [Organized Network of Services for Everyone’s

Health Activity] or from LGAP [Local Government Accountability and Performance] or from PCI

[Project Concern International] only but people are dealing with the problem or try to address to

the problem as a team. They deal with it through various groups from the communities. For

example, if we have a problem like from this area, whether it is about health or malaria, which

has troubled us in this area, it means those that deal with malaria are not only those from

Community Health Action Group (CHAG) who are in ONSE, no, but all the members from PCI

and others, we work together to deal with the problem because everybody when the

problem has come it affects them and everybody is concerned with it. . . . So we work together so

that all the groups are reached by these organizations. We work as a team in order to deal with

the problem, or as development we work to develop what we have planned from this area.

–Male Respondent, Balaka

FIGURE 5: FGD PARTICIPANTS

DISCUSS COMMUNITY MAP


some benefits of integration to the GoM. These benefits included capacity building, increased resources,

increased use of District Development Plans,10 and increased government accountability.

AEC members mentioned benefits of integration to beneficiaries in just one of the five interviews. AEC

members were largely unaware of integration occurring in their communities. However, as with women

beneficiaries, all interviews that did not mention observed benefits identified potential positive effects if

integration were to occur (see Research Question 4 for further discussion of government and AEC

perspectives). In the AEC interview that did discuss observed benefits, the respondent said, “We have

noted a lot of [benefits]. Messages reach impact areas at the same time and in the right manner. People in the

communities work with more dedication without necessarily attaching the efforts to a specific organization.”

IMPLEMENTING PARTNER PERSPECTIVES

In five of seven interviews

with USAID implementing

partner management staff,

respondents named one or

more positive effects of

integration on beneficiaries.

Benefits were mentioned as

well in all seven IP field staff

interviews. Figure6 displays

benefits reported by IPs in the

web survey. Message

consistency, increased service

quality, and increased access

to services are ranked

consistently high compared

to qualitative interview

results.

Regarding message consistency and access to services, one IP respondent explained: “Integration has helped

to minimize confusion amongst beneficiaries in the sense that partners go to the community with one song. . . .

Integration has given an opportunity to learn from other partners. For [IP 1] we have learnt from [IP 2] [the]

family-led care model of caring for low birthweight babies, and we are scaling up to the whole nation . . . for [IP 2]

it was only in one district and selected facilities, [but] with this [partnership] Malawi as a nation will benefit from

[IP 1] a concept which has been borrowed from [IP 2].”

10 District Development Plans (or Urban Development Plans in towns, municipalities, or city councils) are

community-driven plans for development. These plans originate from Village Action Plans (VAPs) created by Village

Development Committees (VDCs). VAPs are forwarded to District Councils, where they are aligned with national

priorities and consolidated into the District Development Plan. This plan represents the development priorities for

the entire district (Source: Guidebook on the Local Government System in Malawi). More information on local

governing structures can be found under research question 4 below.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

No benefits

Don’t know

Other

Improved timeliness of services

Community unity

Improved continuation of services

Reduced duplication of services

Reduced time burden

Increased access to services

Increased service quality

Message consistency

IP Field (n=10) IP Management (n=15)

FIGURE 6: INTEGRATION BENEFITS TO BENEFICIARIES, AS OBSERVED

BY IMPLEMENTING PARTNERS (WEB SURVEY)


USAID PERSPECTIVES

Among USAID web survey respondents, 92 percent believe that integration has improved outcomes for

beneficiaries to a large or moderate extent, compared to 76 percent of implementing partner respondents.

Figure 8 below displays frequencies of specific benefits reported by USAID respondents. The USAID

Program/Management group includes respondents from USAID/Malawi management and the Program

Support Office; the USAID technical group includes respondents from USAID Technical Offices and

Agreement/Contracting Officers’ Representatives (A/CORs) of activities. Respondents from the

management group reported beneficiary benefits of integration more frequently than did the technical

group in most categories; however, respondents in the technical group reported community unity more

frequently than did management. In addition to the categories described below, one USAID technical

respondent explained that integration allows beneficiaries to engage with development assistance in

different ways: “Integrated development assistance creates opportunities for beneficiaries to engage differently

with development assistance. It creates avenues for reflecting on the sustainability of aid. For example, integrating

democracy and governance in humanitarian assistance triggers

an examination of self-reliance and resilience.”

Figure 9 below displays the differences in frequencies of

beneficiary benefits between IP respondents and USAID

respondents as reported in the web survey. Message

consistency was ranked highly among both IPs and

USAID. Though reduced duplication of services ranked

the highest among USAID respondents, it ranked much

lower (fifth) among IP respondents. Improved

continuation of services, community unity, and improved

timeliness of services were ranked consistently low by

both IPs and USAID. The frequency of reported

beneficiary benefits among USAID and IPs combined was

generally higher in the health, population, and nutrition

sector than in the other sectors. The HPN sector also

showed the most variability in beneficiary benefits, though

the variability is likely due to the larger number of

interviews completed in the HPN sector. The most

common beneficiary benefits among HPN interviews

were increased access to services and increased service

quality (6 of 8 interviews each). Among SEG, the most

common benefits mentioned were increased access to

services and a holistic approach to development (2 of 3

interviews each). The most common beneficiary benefit

in education interviews was a reduction of conflicting

messages (2 of 4 interviews). There were no themes that

arose across interviews in the DG sector.

To a large

extent44%

To a moderate

extent32%

To a small

extent24%

To a large extent

50%To a

moderate extent

42%

To a small

extent8%

FIGURE 7: EXTENT TO WHICH IPS & USAID

BELIEVE INTEGRATION HAS IMPROVED

OUTCOMES FOR BENEFICIARIES (WEB

SURVEY)

Implementing Partners

USAID


FIGURE 8: INTEGRATION BENEFITS TO BENEFICIARIES, OBSERVED BY USAID (WEB SURVEY)

FIGURE 9: IMPLEMENTING PARTNER VS. USAID FREQUENCIES OF BENEFICIARY BENEFITS OF

INTEGRATION (WEB SURVEY)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

No benefits

Don’t know

Other

Improved timeliness of services

Community unity

Improved continuation of services

Increased access to services

Increased service quality

Reduced time burden

Message consistency

Reduced duplication of services

USAID Program/Management (n=4) USAID Technical (n=9)


RESEARCH QUESTION 1: CONCLUSIONS

• The majority of respondents in all groups viewed integration as having an overall positive

effect on beneficiaries, resulting in both perceived process-level and outcome-level

benefits.

• Among only the beneficiary population, the majority of FGDs identified at least one positive

effect of integration on beneficiaries.

• Though the majority of beneficiary groups were aware of integration and able to articulate

benefits, this awareness was much more prevalent in male groups than in

female groups. This divide may be due to differing levels of participation in the local

development planning process between men and women, and therefore different levels of

knowledge about how development organizations work in their communities. This local planning

process is described in further detail under Research Question 4 below.

• USAID staff generally expressed a more positive view of integration as it relates

to beneficiaries than did IP respondents.

• The types of benefits to beneficiaries listed and frequencies mentioned differed by respondent

group. Generally, USAID and IPs articulated a wider variety of beneficiary benefits than did

GoM, AEC, and beneficiary groups.

• Reduction of conflicting messages and increased access to services were

the most consistently mentioned beneficiary benefits across all groups.



TO WHAT EXTENT HAVE IMPLEMENTERS IN HEALTH, EDUCATION, DG, AND

AGRICULTURE SECTORS EXPERIENCED ANY BENEFITS OF INTEGRATION?

IMPLEMENTING PARTNER PERSPECTIVES

Of the 14 qualitative interviews with USAID implementing partner management and field staff, respondents

in all 14 interviews cited at least one positive effect of integration on their organization or activity. The

benefits discussed are displayed in Figure 10. Organizational benefits mentioned were mostly consistent

between IP management and field staff; however, management staff mentioned diversification of

expertise/learning and increased impact more frequently than did field staff. Field staff cited time savings

and decreased competition for beneficiaries more frequently than did management staff. Regarding

decreased competition, one field staff respondent explained: “If we are working in parallel, there is a lot of

competition other than achieving the results. . . But with integration, the community is able to come up with any

issue that they are having, and now we look on which [organization] can assist. . . Our target is not to achieve how

many activities that we have done, but to improve the community.”

One strong theme that

emerged was reduced

duplication of governing

structures in communities. IPs

at both the management and

field levels explained that

integration can lead to

efficiencies in community

engagement. One IP at the

management level said:

“Because all of us work in the

same sixteen districts, we don’t

for example go set up a

community structure where

[another IP] has a community

structure. Because we should not

use [US]AID money to go set up

another community structure that

[another IP] using this . . . money

KEY FINDINGS

• In all 14 qualitative interviews with USAID IPs, respondents cited at least one positive

effect of integration on their organization or activity.

• Organizational efficiencies and expansion of skills, expertise, or activities were ranked

highest by both IPs and USAID. Improved accountability was consistently ranked the

lowest by each group.

FIGURE 10: OBSERVED POSITIVE EFFECTS OF INTEGRATION ON IPS

(QUALITATIVE INTERVIEWS)


has already set up.” Another respondent at the field level said simply, “You don’t have like so many governing

structures [or] committees.”

FIGURE 11: INTEGRATION BENEFITS OBSERVED BY IMPLEMENTING PARTNERS AMONG

ORGANIZATION/ACTIVITY (WEB SURVEY)

Implementing partner respondents to the web survey reported organizational benefits at similar

frequencies as did the qualitative respondents, as displayed in Figure 11 above. While many frequencies by

category were similar across management and field staff, field staff reported time savings and increased

USAID visibility in districts more frequently than did management staff, and management staff noted

improved accountability far more frequently than did field staff.

USAID PERSPECTIVES

Figure 12 below displays USAID responses to the web survey question regarding integration benefits

observed in the implementation of activities supervised or in the respondent’s sector overall. It is

important to note that the benefits below represent USAID’s perceptions on benefits to implementers,

as opposed to those mentioned under Research Question 1 above, which discusses stakeholder

perspectives on benefits to beneficiaries. While the top five benefits cited were reported consistently

between USAID program office/management staff and USAID technical staff, the bottom five benefits were

reported much more frequently by technical staff than by management staff. This difference may be related

to differing levels of visibility of these benefits between program and technical sector-specific staff.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

No benefits

Improved accountability

Expansion of geographic and/or population scope

Increased GoM engagement/access to GoM…

Increased USAID visibility in districts

Goal alignment

Time savings

Increased impact

Cost savings

Organizational efficiencies/maximization of resources

Expansion of skills, expertise or activities



FIGURE 12: INTEGRATION BENEFITS OBSERVED BY USAID AMONG ACTIVITIES (WEB SURVEY)

Figure 13 displays the differences in frequencies

of benefits to activities between IP and USAID

web survey respondents. Organizational

efficiencies and expansion of skills, expertise, or

activities were reported most frequently for

both IPs and USAID. The box to the right

displays examples of these topics from the web

survey. Improved accountability was

consistently reported least frequently in each

group. The frequency of reported implementer

benefits among USAID and IPs combined was

generally higher in the health, population, and

nutrition and sustainable economic growth

sectors than in DG or education. The HPN

sector showed the most variance in IP benefits

as well, though the variance is likely due to the

larger number of HPN interviews completed

versus other sectors. The most common IP

benefits cited among the HPN sector were

access to more resources, reduced duplication

of services, and the partners speaking with one

voice (6 of 8 interviews each). Within SEG, the most common were cost savings and access to more

resources (2 of 3 interviews each). While fewer trends generally stood out within the education and DG

interviews, access to more resources was the most common in education interviews, coming up in 2 of

the 3 interviews.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

No benefits

Don’t know

Improved accountability

Goal alignment

Expansion of geographic and/or population scope

Cost savings

Time savings

Increased GoM engagement/access to GoM…

Increased USAID visibility in districts

Increased impact

Expansion of skills, expertise or activities

Organizational efficiencies/maximization of resources

USAID Program/Management (n=4) USAID Technical (n=9)

EXPANSION OF SKILLS, EXPERTISE OR

ACTIVITIES: EXAMPLES

A stakeholder noted that LGAP and MERIT are

working together to strengthen education service

committees whereby LGAP is providing technical

guidance and expertise to MERIT on how to best

conduct the activity.

Another stakeholder described collaboration

between AgDiv and PERFORM in which AgDiv

trains PERFORM staff in the use of selected post-

harvest technology, such as Purdue Improved Crop

Storage (PICS) bags, which PERFORM promotes

among its beneficiaries. Similarly, PERFORM

provides expertise to AgDiv on improved

cookstoves.


FIGURE 13: IMPLEMENTING PARTNER VS. USAID FREQUENCIES OF ORGANIZATIONAL/ACTIVITY

BENEFITS OF INTEGRATION (WEB SURVEY)

NON-USAID PERSPECTIVES

Non-USAID partners overall had a positive view of integration. Most mentioned existing partnerships with

USAID activities, GoM entities, and some other non-USAID partners. These respondents had mixed

answers when asked about the ways in which partnerships with USAID activities were established: two

partners applied formally for funding through the USAID partner, one partner said the partnership was

established informally through meetings within their geographical areas, and one cited meetings within

their technical areas. There was some confusion among non-USAID partners about the type or extent of

relationships that define integration. One non-USAID partner explained that their organization works with

many partners but considers most of that work to be partnerships or collaboration; the respondent

considered integration to be a much stronger word implying a deeper relationship than most of their

partnerships.

In the qualitative interviews, GIZ, UNICEF, World Vision, and United Purpose each reported that they

had experienced one or more positive effects of integration as implementers. In two of the four group

interviews, respondents noted that integration increased their impact. Each of the following benefits was

raised once: access to more resources, increased funding, time savings, reduced duplication of services,

partners speaking with one voice, diversification of activities, diversification of expertise/learning,

diversification of beneficiaries, expansion of geographic scope, completing program value chains,

organizational networking, access to more data, and improved district government accountability.


PERCEPTIONS ON IMPACT

In many of the SHA interviews discussed throughout this report, participants cited increased or more

holistic impact as a benefit of integration. While the SHA interviews represent perceptions of impact in

a small non-random sample, the Malawi CDCS impact evaluation looks at the actual beneficiary impacts

of integration as measured via household surveys and should be taken as the more definitive measure of

impact.11

Results of the impact evaluation showed that USAID’s full integration approach (co-location,

coordination, and collaboration) in the three focus districts targeted in this SHA significantly improved

perceived well-being among beneficiaries as well as other selected outcomes related to health behavior

change, health service quality, and nutrition and food security, when compared to households in districts

that had only health sector activities from USAID. Neither the scope of the SHA nor the scope of the

impact evaluation permits the presumption that any individual activity or integration partnership caused

any observed impacts; however, it is conceivable that some of the integration partnerships examined

through this 2018 SHA could have contributed in some part to impacts observed in the endline

evaluation, together with other integrated activities over the past five years and possible factors external

to USAID’s activities. For example, the impact evaluation found a significant reduction in drug stockouts

reported by households in full integration districts compared to non-integration districts. The value

chain/co-equivalent partnership between ONSE and GHSC-PSM in which both communicate and share

data on commodities may have contributed to this. The impact evaluation also found a significant

increase in children 6–23 months who received a diet meeting minimum criteria for meal frequency and

diversity in full integration districts. The simple co-location of activities like AgDiv with activities

promoting nutrition messaging such as HC4L addresses both needs for food quantity and diversity and

knowledge of improved feeding practices.

SHA participants expressed the way they perceive there to be a boost in impact through the quotations

in the box below.

“When we talk about integration l think in essence we are talking of a holistic approach. [This] is more

sustainable because we are addressing multiple issues with the same resources, [so] we have a greater

impact which is more sustainable rather that looking at just silos [and] addressing one issue at a time. Just

thinking of a community [where] we only have issues to do with food security only hav[ing] a health project.

[….] Once we integrate that with a food security activity, then you deal with the issue on several fronts and

with that the impact is greater than focusing [on a] single piece.”

– IP Management

“Health extension workers are already trained by government and ONSE just uses them, so if they cannot

work together, then there would be less impact.”

–Male Beneficiary

11 The design and results of the impact evaluation are described in detail in Malawi CDCS Integrated Development

Impact Evaluation Endline Report located at: [add DEC link when available]


“Integration served to strengthen impact—ONSE and LGAP and work on HEC [Health and Environment

Committees]: ONSE provided technical health input into DECs—governance capacity strengthened.”

–IP Management (Web Survey)

“I look at it holistically. . . . If we don't do integration and continue to work in our silos and kept all those

technologies just for our beneficiaries . . . that’s not what this is about. This is about making sure everyone has

access to those technology integrations. Is that net positive? Absolutely, yes.”

–IP Management

“To me working in isolation does not have a bigger impact. It impacts the area but in a small way and people

will forget and draw back, because you only develop one aspect of human life while neglecting others. So the

moment you finish developing that aspect of human life, but if the other part is not developed, we will always

slide back because the balance is not there.”

–District Government


• Both IPs and USAID see integration overall as beneficial to implementers, resulting in specific

process-level benefits.

• IPs most commonly reported experiencing expansion of skills, expertise, or

activities; organizational efficiencies; cost savings; and reduced

duplication of services as process-level benefits of integration to implementers.

• USAID most commonly reported organizational efficiencies and expansion of

skills, expertise, or activities as the process-level benefits of integration to

implementers.

• In addition to the process-level benefits, both IPs and USAID also commonly reported

increased impact as an additional benefit of integration.

• Some of the benefits to implementers discussed—especially message consistency and reduced

duplication—overlapped with benefits to beneficiaries.



TO WHAT EXTENT DID IMPLEMENTERS EXPERIENCE ANY CHALLENGES WITH

INTEGRATION?

CHALLENGES WITH IMPLEMENTING PARTNERS

In 13 of the 14 qualitative interviews completed with implementing partner staff, respondents raised at

least one challenge they have faced internally or among implementing partners. Figure 14 below displays

the comparative challenges faced by IP management staff and IP field staff. Management and field staff

typically mentioned similar challenges, though management staff mentioned the challenge of lack of

flexibility of resources where field staff did not. Conversely, field staff found it challenging to navigate

different policies between cooperating IPs and noted occasions where they have had to account for

another IP not having enough field staff. Management staff did not raise these issues.

IPs explained that some of these challenges are not difficult to overcome, but the solutions require

additional time. One IP raised this point specifically in relation to lack of flexibility of resources. The

respondent said, “You can’t just split receipts between projects—it’s not difficult [to overcome], but it takes time.”

Though many of the qualitative interview respondents discussed challenges alongside negative effects of

integration, some

distinguished challenges

from negative effects, and

most expressed that the

benefits of integration well

outweigh the negatives.

Participants in five of seven

IP management interviews

explicitly stated that there

are no negative effects of

integration on their

organization or activity,

compared to zero of seven

field staff interviews. Three

KEY FINDINGS

• In 13 of the 14 qualitative interviews completed with implementing partner staff,

respondents raised at least one challenge they have faced within or among implementing

partners.

• The most common challenges mentioned by IPs were navigating competing priorities

among IPs, difficulties integrating workplans, determining who takes credit for work in a

community between IPs, different basic policies among IPs, working within government

structures, and getting the GoM to take leadership.

• Beneficiaries raised concerns about missing out on short-term benefits like incentives for

participation or additional programs as a result of integration.

FIGURE 14: IP-RELATED CHALLENGES EXPERIENCED BY IPS

(QUALITATIVE INTERVIEWS)


of the seven field staff interviews pointed out specific negative effects of integration. The negative effects

discussed were increased competition for beneficiaries (1), double counting of beneficiaries (1),

uncertainty about another IP’s capacity if dependency on that IP is high (1), and delays in implementation

(1). On the subject of delays, one IP explained: “When you bring in integration, when you bring in collaboration,

there is one thing that gets affected, it’s the time factor. You find for you to have to achieve synergy, for you to

reach collaboration, time becomes a key factor that gets affected.”

IP web survey respondents expressed the same concern about delays. In an open-ended question asking

about negative effects of integration on beneficiaries, six of the 26 IP respondents explained unprompted

that they have seen delays in implementation of activities owing to delayed inputs from a partner or the

time it takes to get both partners ready for implementation.

CHALLENGES WITH USAID

In five (four management and one field staff) of the 14 qualitative

interviews completed with implementing partner staff,

respondents raised at least one challenge they have faced related

to USAID integration leadership. Their most common complaint

addressed a lack of a clear definition or goals of integration from

USAID. Quotations on this subject are displayed in the box to the

right. Respondents who discussed this challenge generally

expressed that it is not clear what integration means to USAID or

what USAID/Malawi thinks can be achieved through integration.

IP management staff members also brought up a perception that

there is too little guidance from USAID (1) and that USAID’s

expectations for integration are too high (1). A management staff

member also raised timelines as a challenge with USAID (1). The

respondent explained that the implementation timeline mandated

by USAID did not allow for enough planning time with the activity’s

integration partner.

USAID web survey respondents raised the additional challenge of

creating dependencies on other donors or IPs. In an open-ended

question, one respondent described a situation where most of the

results were dependent on other donors’ funds. When the donor

backed out, there was little time to adjust and fund the program

adequately. Three more respondents explained that the time it

takes to manage integration can detract from important program components or cause delays. This point

was the most common downside of integration discussed by both IPs and USAID in relation to negative

effects on both IPs and beneficiaries.

CHALLENGES WITH THE GOVERNMENT

Respondents in seven of the 14 qualitative interviews with IPs (three management, four field staff)

identified one or more challenges with integration as it relates to working with the GoM. The most

common integration challenge was working within government structures and bureaucracy, with

LACK OF CLEAR

INTEGRATION

DEFINITION OR GOALS

“I’ve observed that different entities

at USAID have different

expectations.”

–IP Management

“Integration doesn’t always seem

very concrete in terms of what

they’re looking for.”

–IP Management

“No one is against [integration],

but I’m not sure there is common

understanding.”

–IP Management

“I think it's because of the different

levels of understanding of what

does integration seek to achieve.”

–IP Management


respondents in five of the 14 interviews raising this

challenge. Respondents in three of 14 interviews

explained that it is difficult to get the government to

take ownership of its role in coordinating activities. One

field staff respondent said on this theme, “the Ministry

. . . should be more proactive than reactive.” Other

challenges included the GoM’s limited financial and

human resources, GoM delays in approving activities,

and a lack of trust both ways between NGOs and the

GoM. Regarding lack of trust, one field staff respondent

explained that NGOs often do not have faith in the

government’s ability to carry out activities, and

government staff often feel like they are being “used” by

implementers. The respondent said, “and [with] that kind

of relationship, integration becomes a challenge.” The same

respondent followed up by saying that this lack of trust

is less of an issue when IP staff have personal

relationships with government staff. The respondent

said establishing personal relationships is much easier in

smaller or more targeted areas than in larger areas.

Challenges with the government were cited

consistently across districts among field staff

interviewed.

Government respondents echoed the challenges of the GoM having limited financial resources and having

trouble taking ownership of its role in coordinating activities. Regarding leadership, one District

Commissioner (DC) described a “missing link” in the activity approval process, possibly within the district

executive councils (DECs): “Perhaps there is a missing link somewhere where maybe the sectors within the

council [are] much involved, but when it comes to bringing these [activities] together to the council members to

appreciate, that’s where we have a missing link.”

CHALLENGES FROM THE BENEFICIARY PERSPECTIVE

The main challenge or downside to integration raised by beneficiaries was a perceived loss of short-term

benefits, like incentives or allowances. Participants explained a concern that they may be missing out on

those short-term benefits because of a reduced number of activities being implemented in their

communities or that they may be missing out on additional programming. The concern for loss of short-

term benefits was not only mentioned by beneficiaries but also by USAID IP management and field staff.

Regarding incentives, one male beneficiary respondent said, “For now, there are no major challenges. However,

there are missed incentives . . . such as drinks.” The general concern is that they may be missing out on

incentives for participation provided by one IP if that IP is no longer implementing in their community

because of integration. Expanding on perceived loss of programs, one male beneficiary said, “I think the law

that says that—where there is [one] organization and it is doing work, another organization with another project

should not go in the same areas—is not good. Because it might happen that the project which is going in there

has less money to run the work, [and] as a result we are denied a chance to access some other developments

which could have come with the other project."

The bureaucratic challenges

associated with the funding of

integrated efforts detracts

considerably from the potential

benefits. Successful integration

requires an unwavering focus on the

primary objectives and the exercise of

advanced troubleshooting and

problem management skills and

competencies. It requires a

commitment to complexity and

openness to working in a

multidisciplinary manner. Integration

requires compromise and a real

commitment to continuous learning

and adaptation. In the absence of

these investments and commitments,

integration can be difficult, messy,

and grossly undermined.

–USAID Respondent


USAID respondents of the web survey noted downsides of integration on beneficiaries as well. Similar to

a point noted by IPs, one USAID technical respondent said: “Integration requires high levels of effort, and as

a result staff time, as well as a specific staff orientation. We took on integration without being configured to manage

the associated workload and problem-solving competencies, and this has led to implementation delays in some

instances. The resultant delays negatively affect the timeliness and value for money gains for beneficiaries.”


• Most implementing partners face considerable challenges in the establishment and management

of integration partnerships, though many share the sentiment that the challenges are

worth the benefits.

• The most common challenges IPs faced are navigating competing priorities among IPs,

difficulties integrating workplans, determining who takes credit for work in a community among

IPs, navigating different basic policies among IPs, working within government structures, and

getting the GoM to take leadership.

• Though much of the feedback on integration as it affects beneficiaries is positive, there are two

recurring negative effects on beneficiaries that should be addressed: the perception of loss of

short-term benefits as a result of fewer programs operating in a given area, and delays

in implementation, and therefore services, due to the management burden of integration.

• Similar to the point raised under Research Question 1 regarding negative effects on

beneficiaries, IPs also experienced the time burden of integration and resulting delays.



WHICH APPROACHES TO OR MODELS OF INTEGRATION:

• SHOULD BE RETAINED FOR THE NEXT CDCS?

• SHOW THE MOST PROMISE IN REALIZING AND SUSTAINING THE BENEFITS OF

INTEGRATED PROGRAMMING AT THE DISTRICT GOVERNMENT LEVEL?

INTEGRATION IN THE NEXT CDCS: VALUED APPROACHES

Among USAID IP web survey respondents, 38

percent reported that they practice integration with

other groups to a large extent, and another 38

percent reported that integration is part of

everything they do. Figure 15 displays these results

disaggregated by IP staff type. Figure 16 below shows

the types of partners with whom IP respondents

report integration partnerships. USAID-funded

implementers within the IP’s own sector were the

most common partner type, followed by the GoM,

and then non-USAID funded implementers in the IP’s

own sector.

In the qualitative interviews, the most commonly

discussed integration partner type across USAID IPs,

non-USAID respondents, GoM, and AECs (30

KEY FINDINGS

• In the qualitative interviews, the most commonly discussed integration partner type across

USAID IPs, non-USAID respondents, GoM, and AECs was the GoM as a partner, followed

by other USAID partners, and then non-USAID partners.

• IP web survey respondents reported engaging in co-equivalent and value chain partnerships

more frequently than cross-sector partnerships and inherently integrated activities;

however, they most frequently reported that inherently integrated activities and value

chain partnerships offered large added value as compared to the other types.

• USAID web survey respondents reported engaging in cross-sector and inherently

integrated activities most frequently; however, they most frequently reported that value

chain and co-equivalent types of integration offered a large added value.

• USAID IPs and non-USAID respondents cited joint meetings between IPs or other

opportunities for direct interaction with integration partners as the most common among

all integration practices. Joint meetings were cited most frequently as a priority integration

practice.

• The most common recommendations among GoM respondents were facilitating meetings

between IPs and districts and capacity building for the GoM; the most common

recommendation among AEC members was more involvement of sub-district structures in

planning.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Not at all

To a small extent

To a large extent

It's part of everything

we do


FIGURE 15: TO WHAT EXTENT DOES YOUR

ORGANIZATION PRACTICE INTEGRATION

WITH OTHER GROUPS? (WEB SURVEY)


interviews) was the GoM as a partner (24), followed by other USAID partners (23) and then non-USAID

partners (20). In 10 USAID IP, non-USAID respondent, and AEC interviews, participants described local

NGO subcontractors as integration partners of USAID IPs, reflecting an understanding of integration that

deviates from that of USAID/Malawi. In four interviews with GoM and AEC respondents, the government

was said to be in the role of coordinating between partners, and in one interview with a USAID IP, a

private sector organization was named as an integration partner. Results of the qualitative interviews are

largely consistent with the partnerships reported in the web survey, as displayed in Figure 16 below.

FIGURE 16: IP PARTNER TYPES (WEB SURVEY)

In addition to types of partners, web survey respondents also reported on the types of integration

partnerships they have engaged in, using categories identified through the 2017 SHA exercise (Table 4).

Figure 17 below displays the proportion of IPs that noted engaging in this type of partnership, and Figure

18 displays IP web survey respondents’ perceptions of value added to the activity for each type of

integration partnership they engaged in.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Other (specify)

Non-USAID-funded implementers in a different…

Government of Malawi coordinating between…

Local Malawian organizations

Private sector

USAID-funded implementers in a different sector

Non-USAID-funded implementers in my own sector

Government of Malawi as integration partner

USAID-funded implementers in my own sector



TABLE 4: INTEGRATION PARTNERSHIP TYPES

PARTNERSHIP TYPE DEFINITION

Value Chain

Partnerships between actors with different but complementary missions, activities,

and populations

Co-Equivalent

Partnerships between actors with similar or cross-cutting missions, activities, and

populations

Cross-Sector Partnerships between actors working in different sectors

Inherently Integrated Activity Activity is cross-sectoral by nature and designed to be integrated through joint

funding12

Though inherently integrated activities were the

least common among the specified types in

engagement among IPs, this type ranked the

highest for perceived added value. Cross-sector

partnerships ranked the lowest in perceived added

value among IPs respondents. More IP field staff

than management staff reported a large value

added in cross-sector partnerships. Some

respondents generally expressed the opinion that

cross-sector partnerships come less naturally than

same-sector partnerships and take more time and

effort to establish and maintain. Regarding cross-

sectoral integration, one IP management

respondent noted that it “doesn’t result in integrated

ideas just because you have cross-thematic

programming.”

In contrast to IPs, USAID web survey respondents reported engaging in cross-sector and inherently

integrated activities most frequently; however, they most frequently cited value chain and co-equivalent

types as providing a large added value.

12 LGAP is an example of what USAID/Malawi refers to as an inherently integrated activity. Given the cross-cutting

value of local government capacity to all sectors, this activity was designed with integration partnerships in mind

and is funded cross-sectorally within USAID.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Other (specify):

Inherently integrated

activity

Cross-sector

Value chain

Co-equivalent


FIGURE 17: WHICH TYPES OF INTEGRATION

HAVE YOU ENGAGED IN?


INTEGRATION IN THE NEXT CDCS: VALUED PRACTICES

In the qualitative interviews, facilitators asked USAID IPs and non-USAID respondents about the specific

integration practices they implement within their various integration partnerships, and of these, the ones

they see as the most important factors in achieving the benefits of integration they named (these benefits

are discussed under Research Questions 1 and 2 above). Figure 19 below displays these practices.

FIGURE 18: IP PERCEPTIONS OF VALUE ADDED TO ACTIVITY BY INTEGRATION PARTNERSHIP

TYPE

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

No value added or lost

Small amount of value added

Large amount of value added










CR

OSS

-

SEC

TO

R

CO

-

EQ

UIV

ALEN

TV

ALU

E C

HA

IN

INH

ER

EN

TLY

INT

EG

RA

TED



USAID implementing

partners and non-USAID

respondents cited joint

meetings between IPs or

other opportunities for

direct interaction with

integration partners as the

most common among all

integration practices. Joint

meetings were cited most

frequently as a priority

integration practice. USAID

and IP management staff

showed the most agreement

within the three respondent

groups in terms of priority

integration practices: of the two USAID IP management interviews that identified priority integration

practices, both cited the importance of joint meetings. There was more variety in priority practices within

USAID IP field staff and non-USAID respondents, with four field staff interviews mentioning five different

priority practices and three non-USAID respondents mentioning three different priority practices.

As in the qualitative interviews, the web survey asked USAID IPs to select all of the tools they use that

have been helpful in fostering successful integration partnerships and outcomes. Of all the tools they

selected, IPs then ranked the most helpful one or two practices. The results from these questions are

displayed in Figure 20 below. Reflecting a theme similar in the qualitative interviews, IPs most commonly

practiced regular planning or IP coordination meetings. Management and field staff also cited this as a

priority integration practice.

In contrast to the general consensus with IPs, USAID/Malawi staff reported joint planning at the

USAID/Malawi level most frequently as a helpful tool, though only 25 percent of program staff and 40

percent of technical staff ranked joint planning as the most helpful practice. Regular planning or IP

coordination meetings was reported the next most frequently but was not ranked as the most helpful tool

by any of the USAID web survey respondents. The third most common practice and the tool that the

most respondents ranked as most helpful was USAID negotiations with integration partners: 60 percent

of USAID technical staff who reported this practice ranked it as the number one most important tool in

fostering successful integration partnerships and outcomes.

FIGURE 19: IP INTEGRATION PRACTICES—ALL PRACTICES (A) AND

PRIORITY PRACTICES (P) (QUALITATIVE INTERVIEWS)

A = All practices implemented within integration partnerships; P = Priority for achieving benefits

of integration


In qualitative group interviews with USAID sector leads and program office staff, facilitators worked with

the participants to connect the various USAID and IP integration practices to positive and negative

outcomes of integration they have seen at the IP and beneficiary levels. Figure 21 below displays these

results from the four USAID sector lead interviews. Each box represents a practice or outcome identified

by sector leads, with the darker colored boxes representing more frequent mentions across sector

groups. The red boxes represent outcomes that sector leads described as negatives. Solid lines represent

pathways that sector leads described as currently existing, while dashed lines represent pathways that

sector leads would like to see in the future.

Sector leads identified a variety of practices and outcomes. The figure below displays the practices and

outcomes that may apply to more than one sector, though some sector leads brought up additional sector-

specific points and pathways as well. In one of the four sector lead interviews, a participant described a

pathway connecting a few of the more frequently mentioned practices and outcomes. In this interview,

participants related the USAID requirement to include integration in workplans to IP establishment of

integration workplans or Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs). The participant also described that the

integration workplans or MOUs are closely related to the additional IP practice of coordination meetings.

These two IP practices were mentioned more frequently than others in the sector leads interviews. Finally,

participants in this interview connected these practices to increased IP technical support to districts and

increased access to services at the beneficiary level.

In another sector leads interview, participants identified pathways connected to negative beneficiary

outcomes. The respondents traced delayed services and wasted taxpayer funding directly to the USAID

FIGURE 20: TOOLS SEEN BY IPS AND USAID AS MOST HELPFUL IN FOSTERING SUCCESSFUL

INTEGRATION PARTNERSHIPS AND OUTCOMES (WEB SURVEY)

Implementing Partners USAID


practice of shared or pooled funding, explaining that cross-sectoral funding felt like a “tax” on their own

sector’s budget. The respondent expressed doubt that the funds contributed to the pool would be worth

the opportunity cost of losing those funds in their own sector. The respondent explained that currently,

the practice of beginning integration with shared or pooled funding leads to these negative outcomes;

however, if partners were brought together to influence pooled funding, the outcomes may be different.

To the contrary, another sector lead felt positively about shared or pooled funding and identified the

related positive pathway pictured below.


FIGURE 21: PERCEIVED RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN USAID INTEGRATION PRACTICES, IP PRACTICES, IP OUTCOMES, AND BENEFICIARY OUTCOMES—USAID SECTOR OFFICE PERSPECTIVES (QUALITATIVE INTERVIEWS)

Solid lines = current

relationships perceived

by USAID

Dashed lines =

relationships

recommended by

USAID

Asterisks (*) indicate

whether box was

discussed in beneficiary

interviews. The number

of asterisks indicates

frequency:

* = low

** = medium

*** = high


FIGURE 22: HEAT MAP: PERCEIVED RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN USAID INTEGRATION PRACTICES, IP PRACTICES, IP OUTCOMES, AND BENEFICIARY OUTCOMES—USAID IMPLEMENTING PARTNER PERSPECTIVES (QUALITATIVE INTERVIEWS, ABBREVIATED)

Note on Figures 21 and 22: While Figure 21 and Figure 22 convey similar information, there are limitations in the comparisons we can make based on these

data. As seen in the interview protocols in Annex C, the way the we collected this information was different between the USAID Sector Offices and USAID

Implementing Partners. The Sector Offices were directly asked to construct these relationships, while IPs described them as part of the interview. Figure 21

shows all practices and outcomes discussed along with pathways, while Figure 22 shows only the most commonly named practices and outcomes, along with the

most commonly named relationships among IPs. SI made the decision to limit the scope of the IP figure in order to preserve the quality and usefulness of the

data visualization. There were many more instances where lines could be drawn based on only one or two interviews; however, displaying all these lines is not

feasible in this graphic. It should also be noted that Figure 22 does not contain the downsides or challenges mentioned by IPs (see Research Question 2). The IP

interview discussion around challenges is not conducive to the format of this visualization.

Solid lines = current

relationships perceived

by IPs

Asterisks (*) indicate

whether box was

discussed in beneficiary

interviews. The number

of asterisks indicates

frequency:

* = low

** = medium

*** = high


One beneficiary outcome that was raised by both USAID and IPs as well as beneficiaries was increased

access to services. IPs related this outcome to the IP outcome of diversification of expertise or learning,

a subject that was also discussed by beneficiaries. USAID respondents related increased access to services

to the IP outcome of increased technical support to districts, the IP practice of integration workplans or

MOUs, and the USAID practice of requiring integration in workplans.

Another beneficiary outcome raised by USAID, IPs, and beneficiaries alike was a reduction of conflicting

messages or confusion. While one USAID respondent related this outcome to the more activity-specific

IP outcome of HR reforms, IPs most frequently related this outcome to the more general IP outcomes of

access to more resources, reduced duplication of services, and partners speaking with one voice. The

most frequent connection IPs made between each of these outcomes and an IP practice was the

relationship of each of these to joint (IP-IP) meetings, or other opportunities for direct interaction with

the partner IP. USAID respondents also mentioned IP coordination meetings, and linked these meetings

to the IP practice of integration workplans or MOUs. While this pathway for USAID traces back to the

requirement to include integration in workplans, IPs more frequently cited methods of USAID facilitating

opportunities for interaction between IPs as critical practices related to IP coordination meetings.

An important caveat in interpreting this information, is that some of the beneficiary outcomes displayed

above rely on well-designed programs in order to occur, for example increased service quality and

increased effect of USAID intervention. It is important to understand that the results from the SHA do

not suggest that integration can increase the effectiveness of a poorly-designed program; however, SHA

results do support the conclusion that integration may contribute to making a well-designed program

more effective and efficient.


DISTRICT COORDINATION

Figure 23 displays the organization of local government structures and development planning in Malawi.

The information used to compile this graphic was obtained from both qualitative interviews as part of the

SHA and GoM’s Guidebook on the Local Government System in Malawi.13 The solid arrows represent

the development planning process, and the dashed arrows represent service delivery. This graphic serves

as a reference to the SHA results described throughout this section.

FIGURE 23: DISTRICT AND SUB-DISTRICT-LEVEL GOVERNMENT DEVELOPMENT STRUCTURES IN

MALAWI

When discussing the current role of the GoM within integration, respondents tended to describe the

government’s current role in development planning in general rather than the role specifically as it relates

to integration of development activities. Figure 24 below displays the ways in which respondents discussed

current government roles. Respondents in the USAID IP, non-USAID, and government groups most

13 Government of Malawi, Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development, Guidebook on the Local

Government System in Malawi (October 2013),

http://www.resakss.org/sites/default/files/Malawi%20MLGRD%202013%20Guidebook%20on%20the%20Local%20Go

vernment%20System%20in%20Malawi.pdf.


frequently discussed the role of the government at the national, district, and unspecified levels. AEC

respondents mainly discussed roles at the sub-district level.

FIGURE 24: PERCEPTIONS OF CURRENT GOVERNMENT ROLES IN INTEGRATION (QUALITATIVE

INTERVIEWS)

District Government Perspectives

In the government interviews,

respondents discussed the

role of the GoM in integration

at the national, district, and

unspecified levels but did not

discuss current roles of sub-

district-level structures,

including AECs, ADCs, and

VDCs, in integration. Though

government respondents did

not generally see the GoM as

the current responsible party

for integration, many

described an active role for

the government as a partner,

and all respondents brought up the government when asked which entity should have the responsibility

for sustaining integration. Table 5 below displays quotations by position regarding the responsibility for

sustaining integration and support from USAID recommended to achieve that ideal. The support

requested included facilitating meetings, training and capacity building, framework development, providing

resources, and mapping development partners. Additional recommendations from both government and

AEC respondents are shown in Figure 25.

N = National government; D = District government; S = Sub-district government structures; U = Level of government unspecified

FIGURE 25: GOVERNMENT AND AEC INTEGRATION

RECOMMENDATIONS (QUALITATIVE INTERVIEWS)


TABLE 5: DISTRICT GOVERNMENT PERCEPTIONS ON RESPONSIBILITY FOR INTEGRATION AND

RECOMMENDED USAID SUPPORT (QUALITATIVE INTERVIEWS)

Who should have the responsibility for sustaining

integration?

What kind of support would

you recommend USAID

provide to reach this ideal?

DC “It should be the council, given full

mandate and responsibility to

oversee the same. It should not be

seen as the partners’ role but the

council itself. So long as all

these partners are working in the

district it should still be the councils

to coordinate all those.”

“They should bring us together

with the IPs, the council, and the

IPs and also facilitate

quarterly meetings.”

DADO “I think on that issue I can

mention the local government

structures. There I am talking

about the VDCs, ADCs, those are

the structures when it comes to

sustainability are very vital and

very crucial because they are like

permanent structures they have

been there and will be there.”

“I think on that we can mention

issues of training, in terms of

integration how we can integrate

together, training and capacity

building . . . Yeah. so, I think

capacity building can be mentioned

on that.”

DEO “It should be every stakeholder

including both government and

NGOs.”

“Integration cannot work without

frequent meetings. But this is not

happening. This is a gap. We

would like to have frequent

meetings of all partners in the

district. In the meeting we would

like to have open days where all

these partners are put together

. . . What they do should be

displayed, and we can monitor. . . .

USAID should provide resources

like funds and mobility because we

need to monitor.”

DPD “The controlling officers [part

of the government].”

“If USAID can help the council on

how we can develop [a]

framework and probably learn

how to implement it, obviously

including resources as well. The

gaps that are there as of now are

that maybe the integration process

is not done in a coordinated


manner . . . but if we had those

guiding principles or

frameworks that would be

better.”

DHO “For me I think USAID is in a

better position to coordinate . . .

The government has also a big

role [it] can play especially by

regulating partners that will get on

the ground so that there should

not be much duplication of

activity.”

“I think by mapping the

partners . . . which are there and

their intentions I think in that way

they can easily coordinate the

activities.”

AEC Perspectives

Outside of AECs themselves, only one USAID IP field staff

interview and two women beneficiary FGDs discussed the

role of sub-district government structures in integration.

In AEC interviews, respondents talked far more about the

role of sub-district government structures than did any

other group; however, most AEC commentary on their

role in integration was not in reference to integration

between development partners but in reference to

development partners “integrating” with government

structures. One AEC member explained: “Mostly, these

organizations work with the government. But to say that an

independent organization working with another independent

organization, that doesn’t happen.” The same respondent

also explained that lack of coordination in the field can

result in duplication: “That’s why at times you see another organization doing this project and another

organization bringing in a similar project to the same community. But if they link up with the extension workers,

they are guided on what projects are underway in that particular community. Independent organizations working

together, there are always conflicts, they all want to achieve their targets. There are a lot of these conflicts. The

end result: the project dies. Sustainability is an issue because of these conflicts.”

In three of five AEC interviews, respondents expressed the need for more involvement of sub-district

level structures like AECs, ADCs, and VDCs in integration.

Regarding coordination and communication

between IPs, one AEC respondent explained:

“But the problem is that these organizations

don’t come direct to us. They meet with the DCs,

DHO, or someone there. So it’s hard that way

for us to be heard. . . . Yes, we have tried [talking

We have tried even talking to the

people in charge of the projects, but

it’s like they involve us just to use us.

–AEC Respondent

AREA EXECUTIVE COMMITTEES

“Us as AEC, we are more like

representatives working on behalf of

government on development projects in the

villages . . . AECs are like government people.

We are categorized in sectors. Some are

from water, health, development, and social

welfare. AEC members mainly are there to

direct and observe on developments at VDC

level and ADC level. And I also teach people

various things.”

–Balaka AEC Member


to IPs directly], but it has proved to be futile because they come here with their plan without consulting us. But we

have tried meeting them at the ADCs and ask them what projects have they brought, and we enlighten them on

what is needed in our community. But it doesn’t work because they have come in with their goals and targets, so

they don’t change.” A respondent in another AEC interview explained a similar problem: “There are some

organizations which just come without consulting us. For instance, they may go straight to the chief and start

working without considering that there is an extension worker. Sometimes we just see mobile campaigns on moving

vehicles even on health, and we feel they were supposed to involve us.”14

Despite a general feeling of not being involved in integration planning, some AEC members did identify

integration partnerships occurring in their districts and spoke about the existing partnerships in a positive

way. Balaka AEC members described joint events referred to as “open days” involving Save the Children,

Population Services International (PSI), One Community, Youth Net and Counselling (YONECO), Pact,

and ADCs. The same AEC members described IPs developing a joint manual: “We have developed a manual

with education as well as health content stakeholders from the education sector like ASPIRE and MERIT sitting

down with health stakeholders like ONSE. I will also use another example, whereby we also development HIV

messages to be used by teachers in teaching learners about HIV and AIDS. The booklet was developed by ASPIRE,

ONSE, YOUTH IMPACT, and YONECO, sat down to develop those booklets so that they contain child rights, health,

and education messages.”

USAID and IP Perspectives

USAID and IP web survey responses were mixed when asked about the entities currently responsible for

driving integration efforts, as displayed in

Figure 26 below. Overall, IPs most frequently identified implementing partners themselves as the primary

entity responsible for driving integration efforts, while USAID most frequently identified the Program

Office. However, results were especially mixed among USAID respondents, with 60 percent of

Program/Management staff naming USAID sector teams as the most responsible entity and 64 percent of

USAID technical staff naming the USAID Program Office as the most responsible entity. When asked

which entity should be responsible for driving integration, there was not a clear majority among any of the

14 The specific IPs discussed in this quote are not clear in the transcript.

USAID advises that all USAID-funded projects should make an effort on coordination, co-location,

and collaboration. . . . It means we have to plan together with them including on some budgetary

items on how to implement it so that we should efficiently use resources. It’s useless to go with same

interventions as two organizations in the same area, this only wastes resources when the people we

target are the same, when others we could say you go to this community and you go to that to reach

many people. So they are working to achieve that . . . [But] I feel we can do even better than that. For

instance, as much as we say we collaborate, USAID can stipulate that all USAID activities should

be planned together at the initial stages by the stakeholders [rather] than for us to know

through the DEC meetings that there is this other stakeholder doing something funded by the same

USAID.

–AEC Respondent, Balaka


respondent groups, though one IP field staff respondent who answered “other” said, “No one entity should

have to drive integration; it should be driven by institutionalized practices so that it is not dependent on the people

or [organizations] currently in place.”

When discussing district involvement specifically, most IP respondents in the web survey said that district

and sub-district actors are either not very equipped at all to coordinate development activities or that it

ranges widely depending on the district. Only 19 percent of IP management staff (and no IP field staff) said

the districts were somewhat or adequately equipped.

USAID respondents reported on the ways that IPs have attempted to engage with district governments

and government structures, as displayed in Figure 27. Of the methods respondents reported, attending

meetings with the district government was selected the most frequently among USAID management staff

as the most successful method for engaging with district governments (40%). USAID technical staff felt

providing capacity building (36%) as well as working through established district development plans (36%)

were most successful. Both USAID management and technical staff most commonly indicated that

reporting on activities to district governments was the least effective method (40% and 36%, respectively),

though another 46 percent of technical staff also felt that working through established district development

plans was the least effective method.

FIGURE 26: IP AND USAID PERCEPTIONS ON CURRENT RESPONSIBILITY FOR DRIVING

INTEGRATION EFFORTS (WEB SURVEY)

All Entities Responsible

IP Field

(n=10)

IP

Management

(n=16)

USAID

Program/

Management

(n=6)

USAID

Technical

(n=9)

Implementing partners themselves 90% 75% 50% 33%

USAID program office 40% 50% 50% 75%

USAID sector teams 40% 50% 67% 58%

District government 20% 31% 17% 25%

National government 20% 19% 0% 25%

Sub-district level government structures 0% 19% 0% 33%

Other 0% 6% 0% 0%

Primary Entity Responsible Implementing partners themselves 60% 38% 0% 9%






Other 0% 0% 0% 0%

Should be Responsible Implementing partners themselves 20% 31% 20% 9%






Other 10% 0% 20% 0%


Community Engagement

At the end of beneficiary FGDs, community members discussed concepts of citizen agency, or, as defined

by USAID/Malawi, the ability to define one’s goals and act on them. In one FGD, respondents described

an example of integration where community members were particularly involved:

In this example, the respondents were likely discussing the relationship between village action plans

supported by LGAP and training for community health action groups (CHAGs) supported by ONSE;

however, it is unclear whether the integration of LGAP- and ONSE-supported planning in this case was

FIGURE 27: USAID PERCEPTIONS ON IP METHODS OF ENGAGEMENT WITH

DISTRICT GOVERNMENTS (WEB SURVEY)

The district government should be capable of managing implementing partners at district level.

USAID should help district governments develop plans that can improve livelihoods of people

in the district. This will help implementing partners develop and/or align programs/projects that

would contribute to district plans.

–USAID IP Field Staff

At the beginning, in the village, group level, Traditional Authority (TA) level, and also at the

council, there were no plans. When our friends from LGAP came, we developed plans right

from households up to the group level and to the TA level . . . The plans that came from this

group were taken to VDC. When ONSE came to train us . . . we found that plans for the

under-five [clinics] are already existing so we tried as much as possible to fulfill those plans

because of the help from this organization . . . that is another important benefit about

this integration.

–Community member, Balaka


intended by the IPs or facilitated by sub-district structures. In the same FGD, respondents expanded on

this example of coordinated planning to describe their involvement in implementing the activity:

In other FGDs, respondents expressed a willingness to dedicate resources to their community’s

development as well. When prompted on this topic, the most common resource beneficiaries were

willing to commit was their dedication or willingness (7 of 10 FGDs), followed by materials (6) and labor

(5). These results were generally consistent between men and women, though slightly more women’s

FGDs mentioned materials than did men’s FGDs. One beneficiary FGD comment (shared above) about

a challenge of integration being reduced incentives such as free drinks at trainings slightly tempers this

perspective on citizen engagement, as it suggests some people may not be sufficiently motivated by

community or personal development benefits as a driver of engagement.

Most community members explained that they expected the government to bring services to communities

(6) as opposed to donors or NGOs (4). One beneficiary explained that the government consistently does

not provide certain services, so someone else needs to provide what they do not. In three FGDs,

respondents explained that the government’s not fulfilling promises is holding beneficiaries back from

obtaining services that are needed in their communities. On this topic, respondents also cited lack of

infrastructure or resources (6), poor community leadership (2), and lack of technical expertise (2) as

barriers to development. In two women’s FGDs, respondents recommended motivating community

members to show commitment as a way to increase citizen involvement in development.


• Implementing partners, government, AECs, and beneficiaries largely view the

government as an integration partner rather than in a role of managing or

coordinating integration.

• Co-equivalent and value chain partnerships within the same sector are the most

common types of integration partnerships practiced by USAID IPs, though inherently

integrated and value chain partnerships were seen as the most valuable partnerships by IPs.

USAID respondents reported the most value add with value chain and co-equivalent types

of partnerships.

• IPs saw joint meetings between IPs as the single integration practice that is most

critical to the success of the partnership.

I can see that most of the activities in the areas now are moving together, for example the problem

that came as a result of something just talking about but we could not fulfill it. We were failing to

fulfill this vision because of lack of proper expertise. Through trying to investigate the

problems that CHAG looked at and found out that we have this problem, and also through the plans

that VDC . . . did, it’s like there is coordination indeed. . . . People wanted to build an under-five shelter.

With the coordination it seems that we are able to fulfill the plan. As we are talking now

we have molded about 50,000 bricks, and we are going to burn the bricks so that this under-five clinic

should be erected. This is happening because all is in the plans of VDC, and also it came from the

investigation of problems that CHAG did.

–Community member, Balaka


• USAID saw joint planning at the USAID/Malawi level as the integration

practice that is most critical to the continued success of integration partnerships; however,

very few IP respondents felt the same.

• USAID sector leads identified connections between the USAID requirement to include

integration in workplans, the IP practices of integration workplans or MOUs and IP

coordination meetings, increased technical support to districts, and increased access

to services. Though respondents in one sector leads interview had a negative view of

shared or pooled funding, respondents in another sector leads interview had a positive view.

Respondents with the negative view explained that if the partners themselves could drive

the vision for pooled funding, adverse outcomes may be avoided.

• The results from the SHA do not suggest that integration can necessarily increase the

effectiveness of a poorly-designed program; however, SHA results do support the

conclusion that integration may contribute to making a well-designed

program more effective and efficient. • District governments do not acknowledge the role of sub-district structures, including

AECs, in integration. Some AEC members are aware of integration occuring and are

tangentially involved, but many AEC members would like to see more involvement

of AECs in the planning and execution of integrated activities.

• Government respondents most frequently recommended that USAID facilitate meetings

between IPs and districts to improve integration for the next CDCS, followed by

capacity building for the GoM to coordinate integration.

• There is inconistent understanding among USAID and IPs about both the current

entity driving integration and the preferred entity to drive integration in the future.

• Community member beneficiaries are willing to contribute to the development

process with the right support.


RECOMMENDATIONS

Based primarily on findings and conclusions in the 2018 SHA and drawing on findings in the 2017 SHA,15

SI proposes the following recommendations for consideration in planning the next CDCS.

PLANNING FOR INTEGRATION

As missions develop and move to implement Country Development Cooperation Strategies (CDCS),

USAID staff undertake analyses and assessments, participate in learning activities such as stocktaking

exercises and portfolio reviews, engage stakeholders, and use monitoring and evaluation information to

inform a vision for the next five years of development assistance. To facilitate the use of activity integration

in strategic planning and implementation, approaches to consider include:

1. USAID: Promote Clear and Consistent Integration Messaging. Prior to working integration

into the next CDCS, USAID should refine its definition of integration. Resources to draw on include

previous SHAs, policy briefs, and reports from the impact evaluation as well as publications from other

USAID missions. USAID may consider definitions specific to each integration type (value chain, co-

equivalent, cross-sector, inherently integrated activity) In redefining integration, USAID should also

establish its goals for integration; roles and responsibilities among USAID, IPs, and GoM; and a future

vision for integration. SI recommends that in the near term, no one party should be responsible for

driving integration; however, stakeholders should have a clear understanding of their roles and

expectations. These definitions and goals should guide integration planning with the next CDCS and

should be communicated clearly and consistently to all stakeholders.

2. USAID: Periodically Learn and Reflect. To ensure that integration relationships are adaptive,

the mission should use strategy-level portfolio reviews16 to assess how intervention approaches and

integration relationships are contributing to achievement of Intermediate Results and progress toward

Development Objectives. These events are an opportunity to revalidate the strategic overall approach,

check assumptions, revisit scenarios, engage stakeholders, and then, if needed, adapt approaches and

relationships based on new information and lessons learned.

CREATING INTEGRATION PARTNERSHIPS

Project design is defined in Automated Directives System (ADS) 201.3.3 as “the process by which USAID

defines how it will operationalize a result or set of results in a CDCS or other strategic framework to

ensure that efforts are complementary and aligned in support of the strategy.” Building integration

relationships into projects during the design process is critical. Managing integrated projects adaptively

during implementation allows project teams to react and adjust as necessary to ensure USAID is achieving

its objectives. Some approaches to incorporating integration into the design process and during project

implementation include:


in Malawi, by Social Impact, Inc. (February 2018), https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00STTV.pdf. 16 USAID Bureau for Policy, Planning, and Learning, How-To Note: Strategy-Level Portfolio Review (October 2017),

https://usaidlearninglab.org/library/how-note-strategy-level-portfolio-review.



3. USAID: Incorporate Integration Scenario Planning. As part of context analysis, USAID should

consider incorporating integration scenario planning. Integration scenario planning involves group

consultations among USAID staff, IP staff, and other stakeholders to systematically identify existing

and emerging development conditions and their plausible combinations in a particular context in order

to consider models of intervention, activity integration, and risk reduction.17 Used by many missions

in CDCS planning, scenario planning is an exercise that does not produce single point predictions but

examines a range of possible development and humanitarian conditions, as well as potential economic,

political, and social situations to help prepare for both intended and unintended or unexpected

outcomes. Systematically examining a range of possibilities in a given country or region in the process

of developing a CDCS enables missions to address the range of conditions that may occur in the

course of strategy implementation and consider how different intervention approaches, activity

integration types, and risk reduction strategies can increase the ability to adapt to changing conditions

and the likelihood of achieving development goals.

Integration scenario planning requires facilitators to have a clear understanding of integration types

and their uses (Table 4) and integration benefits to IPs (Figure 10 and Figure 11) and beneficiaries

(Figure 4 and Figure 6). Working within these frameworks will ensure that planners understand the

possibilities and limitations of integration.

4. USAID: Conduct Integration Context Analysis. Context analysis is a required section of a

Project Appraisal Document (PAD). Throughout the project design process and specifically during

problem analysis, whether during development of the Project Design Plan or PAD, it is important to

understand the local system and context, making explicit all external donor, government, civic, and

secular actors interacting with the target populations. Developing stakeholder maps is one way to

attain this understanding and analyze the potential for different kinds of integration partnerships (value

chain, co-equivalent, cross-sector, inherently integrated activity) between USAID IPs as well as

between USAID and other donors. Project Design Teams should focus on understanding the root

causes of the particular development problem, the role of current actors and factors within the local

system that may perpetuate or address the problem, and where opportunities for integrated

interventions make the most sense.

5. USAID & IPs: Utilize a Pre-Integration Checklist/Guide. USAID should develop and use an

easy to use, step-by-step guide based on the integration typology (Table 4) and IP and beneficiary

outcome frameworks to help planners (during the PAD and solicitation stages) and IPs (during and

after consultation and proposal stages) think through the right topics and make explicit the answers

to questions such as:

a. What are the expected outcomes of the integration partnership? In what ways will each

organization work toward achieving them?

b. What are the expected mutual and individual benefits of the integration partnership for each

participating organization, and what are the risks and tradeoffs? How will this be measured?

c. What are the expected benefits of the integration partnership to target beneficiaries, and what

are the risks and tradeoffs? How will this be measured?

17 For more information, see the USAID Learning Lab page on Scenario Planning at

https://usaidlearninglab.org/library/strategy-development-scenario-testing-and-visioning.

https://usaidlearninglab.org/library/strategy-development-scenario-testing-and-visioning


d. How will the roles and responsibilities of each organization in the integration partnership be

detailed and ratified?

e. Who will manage the integration partnership for each organization? Where and how often

will they meet?

f. How will integration-related outcomes, deliverables, and activities be monitored, reported,

and credited?

g. How will activity timelines, contracts, and budgets be aligned and structured so as to enable

efficient and effective integration partnerships?

h. Do activity policies, values, and overarching messages align?

i. Which government and community structures will each activity work with, and are there

opportunities to streamline government/community engagement?

Addressing these questions and forming solutions to common challenges up front may assist USAID

and IPs in (1) avoiding integration partnerships that will not be effective for all stakeholders and (2)

reducing the ongoing management burden of partnerships.

6. USAID & IPs: Articulate and Adapt Integration Theories of Change. In addition to the

integration scenario planning at the CDCS level recommended above, the project description of a

PAD should include detailed theories of change, making explicit the anticipated inputs, outputs,

outcomes, and assumptions between them that lead to one or more of the IP and/or beneficiary

impacts, such as reduction of conflicting messages and increased access to services for beneficiaries.

Theories of change are also useful in scenario planning, where “expected” theories of change can be

developed alongside “alternative” theories of change that anticipate potential changes in development

conditions or the cast of implementing partners. Typically, two alternatives are developed: one that

anticipates improving conditions and another that anticipates deteriorating conditions. Planning in this

manner increases adaptive management capability and increases the resilience of integration

partnerships.

To plan for activities to be integrated, SI recommends that project teams use the PAD to: (1) articulate

the integration type; (2) define the problem in a manner that addresses why integration is a viable

solution; (3) develop expected and alternative theories of change for each integration relationship or

group of relationships; and (4) establish a monitoring framework that the team can use to assess the

expected and emerging theory of change, revisit its underlying assumptions during portfolio reviews

and midterm evaluations, and make course corrections as necessary.

Activities at the PAD-level can be organized into “integration clusters,” and even sub-clusters, which

are groups of activities comprising multiple integration types and organized around the achievement

of a sub-IR, IR, or DO, or as a mechanism to increase management efficiencies. Theories of change

can be made more efficient by developing one for each cluster rather than for each partnership.

Once IPs are contracted for integrated activities, USAID/Malawi should share the integration theories

of change for the partnerships with the involved IPs. IPs should then have the opportunity to make

any recommended revisions to the theory of change. During this stage and depending on the necessity

of the integration partnership to the IP’s overarching goals, IPs may wish to plan individually for a

scenario where the integration partner does not deliver.


MANAGING INTEGRATION PARTNERSHIPS

7. USAID: Increase Efficiency of USAID Management of Integration. As was recommended in

the previous year SHA, space, time, and resources to coordinate, communicate, and observe

integration partnerships should continue to be made for USAID staff. Program staff can maximize

integration efficiencies through clustering, clear communication and support to IPs about the

requirements and best practices of integrated activities, and the use of well-articulated MOUs.

LOCAL ENGAGEMENT

8. USAID: Leverage LGAP’s Existing Role to Provide Capacity Building in Integration for

District and Sub-District level Structures. Utilizing LGAP’s in-depth knowledge of local

government structures to plan for intervention approaches and integration relationships will increase

effectiveness and adaptability of integration relationships at district and sub-district levels. Capacity

building in integration should include at minimum:

a. USAID’s definition and goals for integration

b. Integration roles and responsibilities as envisioned by USAID

c. Opportunities for districts, sub-district structures, and communities provided by integration

(including IP and beneficiary benefits)

d. Integration types, and benefits and drawbacks of each

e. Planning for integration through District Development Plans

f. Facilitating integration partnerships between IPs

g. Communicating integration to community members

h. Engaging community members in planning and ensuring gender balance in planning and

executing integration partnerships at the district level

Training should focus on DEC members, who should be capacitated to train AECs, ADCs, and other DEC

members after LGAP ends.

9. IPs: Continued IP Engagement with Districts. USAID should continue to encourage IPs to

work through existing government structures including District Development Plans. IPs should take

advantage of government technical working group meetings to maintain communication with District

governments, and seek out mutually beneficial partnerships particularly with non-USAID IPs.


ANNEX A: WEB SURVEY DEMOGRAPHICS

STAKEHOLDER NUMBER OF

RESPONDENTS

Implementing Partner (Management) 16

Implementing Partner (Field Staff) 10

Implementing Partner Total 26

USAID A/COR 7

USAID Technical Office 5

USAID Program Support Office 4

Mission Management 2

USAID Total 18

Total 44

IMPLEMENTING PARTNER RESPONDENTS

SECTOR FREQUENCY*

Sustainable Economic Growth 14

Education 6

Health, Population, and Nutrition 8

Democracy and Governance 0

*Respondents could select multiple sectors for this question, so the frequencies total to 28 rather than the 26 total IP respondents.

LENGTH OF TIME ORGANIZATION HAS BEEN WORKING ON PRESENT USAID-FUNDED ACTIVITY

FREQUENCY

1 year 2

2 years 2

3 years 22

USAID RESPONDENTS

SECTOR FREQUENCY*

Sustainable Economic Growth 4

Education 2

Health, Population, and Nutrition 6


Democracy and Governance 1

N/A (Cross-Sector or not Sector-Specific) 4

*One respondent did not answer this question, so the frequencies total to 17 rather than the 18 total USAID respondents.

LENGTH OF TIME AT MALAWI MISSION FREQUENCY*

Less than 1 year 4

1-2 years 1

Greater than 2 years 12

*One respondent did not answer this question, so the frequencies total to 17 rather than the 18 total USAID respondents.

USAID ROLES PLAYED WITH REGARD TO INTEGRATION IN THE PAST FIVE YEARS

FREQUENCY*

Provided input/oversight to integration partnerships of implementing partners

(e.g. as an AOR/COR or other function)

9

Provided input about integration opportunities during activity design 9

Provided or received technical expertise to/from a colleague in another

sector to help with activity management or design

6

Authorized joint funding for integrated activities 3

Provided input on overall Mission integration strategy/approach 9

N/A. No work with integration to date 4

* Respondents could select multiple answers for this question, so the frequencies total to 40 rather than the 18 total USAID

respondents.


ANNEX B: FIELDWORK SCHEDULE

DATE INTERVIEW GROUP POPULATION TYPE

9/24/2018 In-brief USAID Program Staff

9/25/2018 Interviewer Training SI & Consultants N/A



9/27/2018 KII IP Management MERIT

9/28/2018 GI IP Management ONSE

9/28/2018 KII USAID DG Sector Leads

10/1/2018 GI IP Management AgDiv

10/1/2018 KII IP Management HC4L

10/2/2018 KII IP Management GHSC-PSM

10/2/2018 KII USAID HPN Sector Leads

10/2/2018 KII GoM DIAS

10/4/2018 GI IP Field Staff ONSE

10/4/2018 KII GoM DC

10/5/2018 GI AEC Balaka

10/5/2018 FGD Beneficiaries Balaka Men

10/5/2018 FGD Beneficiaries Balaka Women

10/8/2018 GI IP Field Staff LGAP

10/9/2018 GI IP Field Staff HC4L

10/9/2018 GI USAID EDU Sector Leads

10/9/2018 GI USAID SEG Sector Leads

10/9/2018 GI USAID Program Office

10/10/2018 Out-brief USAID Program Staff

10/10/2018 KII Non-USAID Partner GIZ

10/12/2018 KII Non-USAID Partner United Purpose

10/17/2018 KII GoM DHO Head of

Pharmacy

10/18/2018 KII Non-USAID Partner World Vision

10/19/2018 KII Non-USAID Partner UNICEF

10/19/2018 KII IP Management LGAP

10/22/2018 KII IP Management YESA

10/23/2018 KII IP Field Staff GHSC-PSM

10/23/2018 GI IP Field Staff LGAP

10/24/2018 KII GoM DADO

10/24/2018 KII GoM DPD

10/25/2018 KII IP Field Staff AgDiv

10/26/2018 KII IP Field Staff GHSC-PSM

10/26/2018 GI AEC Machinga

10/29/2018 GI AEC Machinga

10/29/2018 FGD Beneficiaries Lilongwe Men

10/29/2018 FGD Beneficiaries Lilongwe Women


10/30/2018 FGD Beneficiaries Machinga Men

10/30/2018 FGD Beneficiaries Machinga Women

11/1/2018 GI AEC Balaka

11/2/2018 GI AEC Lilongwe

11/2/2/2018 FGD Beneficiaries Machinga Men

11/2/2/2018 FGD Beneficiaries Machinga Women

11/9/2018 KII IP Field Staff MERIT

11/9/2018 KII GoM DEO

11/10/2018 FGD Beneficiaries Machinga Men

11/10/2018 FGD Beneficiaries Machinga Women


ANNEX C: INTERVIEW PROTOCOLS

USAID Program Office: Group Interview Protocol

Interview Tracking Data

Interview ID: Date:

Interviewer: Notetaker:

Length of Recording (hours/minutes): File Name:

Interview Protocol

Name: Position:

Name: Position:

Name: Position:

Name: Position:

Name: Position:

Thank you for taking the time to meet with us. We’re with Social Impact, and USAID/Malawi has contracted us to

do an annual stakeholder analysis (SHA) to better understand how the Mission’s integrated development strategy

has played out from the perspective of different stakeholders. USAID will draw on lessons from this exercise as it

plans its next five-year CDCS strategy. This year, we are especially trying to understand the benefits and

challenges of integration across all USAID sectors (health, education, democracy and governance, and agriculture),

with an eye toward sustainability.

We’d like just an hour of your time to hear your experiences and perspectives on this topic. To help you feel

comfortable sharing your honest perspective, in our report we won’t give your name as the person sharing a

certain opinion. We don’t anticipate any questions will be sensitive, though.

Do you have any questions?

Are you willing to do this interview?

To make sure we don’t miss anything, we’d like to record the interview with your permission. Only our study

team will have access to the recordings. If there’s any time you’d like me to pause the recording, that’s fine.

Is it OK if we record?

1. How has the process of managing integrated development changed over the past year?

a. Have you made any changes to the way you design, implement, and /or manage

integration relationships over the last year, or since our last SHA (September 2017)?

• If no, why not?

• If yes, describe the change and then tell us the following for each:

1. Why the change and what challenges were you attempting to address?

2. Did any past CDCS/SHA research influence this change?

3. Did this change successfully address the challenge? How, or why not?

b. Are there any remaining challenges?

• Are there plans to address these challenges? If so, how?

c. Have any new challenges to integration emerged since the last SHA?


2. As you may know, one of the objectives of this year’s SHA is to inform the planning cycle for the next CDCS.

Similar to last year’s SHA, we’d like to further understand from different stakeholders in multiple sectors how

IPs and beneficiaries experience integration and their potential benefits. Additionally, we’d like to examine the

pathways underlying these benefits as described by different sectors so that you can use the resulting

framework to plan, manage, and assess the effectiveness of future integration activities.

The objective of this next activity is to construct a modified theory of change (TOC) for integration. We will

use four categories that we’ll think of as steps in a process: USAID practices, IP practices, IP outcomes, and

beneficiary outcomes. At each step, use post-it notes to write your ideas and we’ll post them on the board

before we start the next step. Let’s use BLUE for USAID practices, ORANGE for IP practices, PINK for IP

outcomes, and GREEN for beneficiary outcomes. Please use a separate post-it note for each practice or

outcome.

Interviewer: hand out post-it notes. Write “USAID practices,” “IP Practices,” “IP Outcomes,” and “Beneficiary

Outcomes” on one post-it of each corresponding color, and place at the top of the board/wall/table.

Notetaker: collect post-it notes from participants at each step, and begin grouping ones that seem similar.

a. STEP 1: USAID Practices. Think about the following kinds of practices related to integration –

please focus on practices that USAID is currently implementing:

• Administrative/management policies, processes, requirements, and planning mechanisms

• Resources and materials provided to IPs and government counterparts

• Integration-related activities lead or initiated by Mission staff with IPs and government

counterparts

• Roles and responsibilities of Mission staff

b. STEP II: IP Practices. Consider specific integration practices implemented by IPs – please focus on

ones that you know of an example of an IP practicing. You may want to consider specific practices

related to the 3C’s. Some examples are:

• Establishment of MOUs

• Designated integration manager

• Meetings with integration partner

c. STEP III: IP Outcomes. Think about outcomes of integration at the IP level – please focus on ones

that you know an example of an IP experiencing.

Interviewer, give examples only if needed:

• Cost savings

• Organizational efficiencies

• Goal alignment

• Diversification of activities and expertise

• Expansion of geographic and population scope

d. STEP IV: Beneficiary Outcomes. Think about outcomes of integration at the beneficiary level –

please focus on ones that you know or have hear of beneficiaries experiencing.


• Message consistency

• Reduced duplication of services

• Reduced time burden

• Community unity

• Increased service quality

Facilitator, read post-its under USAID Practices heading and work with participants to clarify and confirm groupings. Repeat

with 3 other categories.


3. Looking at post-it notes, ask:

Notetaker, throughout this section be sure to record the writing on post-its if any non-verbal communication, like

pointing, is done to answer the questions.

a. Now that you’ve seen what others have suggested, is there anything missing?

b. Which of the practices or outcomes displayed here are the most important to sustain?

• Interviewer, work with group to make connections “forward” and “behind” in the display. If a

practice is described as important to sustain, work forward with group to establish which outcomes

are most closely related. If an outcome is described as important, work backward with group to

establish which practices are most closely related.

1. Probe on specific examples with IPs/beneficiaries.

c. Which IPs or integrated activities would you say are good examples of some of these pathways now?

Which ones are not?

d. Looking at these pathways we’ve drawn, who is responsible now for sustaining these?

• Which boxes/pathways rely on USAID’s integration initiative to occur? Which ones do not?

• Where does LGAP fit in? Where should they?

• Where does the GoM fit in? Where should they?

e. How are these practices or pathways different when both partners are USAID IPs versus when one

partner is non-USAID-funded?

f. What can USAID do increase government and community self-reliance in sustaining these practices

and outcomes?


USAID Sectoral Leads: Group Interview Protocol


Interview ID: Date:



Interview Protocol

Name: Position:

Name: Position:

Name: Position:

Name: Position:

Name: Position:















4. How has the process of managing integrated development changed over the past year?

a. Have you made any changes to the way you design, implement, and /or manage

integration relationships over the last year, or since our last SHA (September 2017)?

• If no, why not?

• If yes, describe the change and then tell us the following for each:

1. Why the change and what challenges were you attempting to address?

2. Did any past CDCS/SHA research influence this change?

3. Did this change successfully address the challenge? How, or why not?

b. Are there any remaining challenges?

• Are there plans to address these challenges? If so, how?

c. Have any new challenges to integration emerged since the last SHA?

5. As you may know, one of the objectives of this year’s SHA is to inform the planning cycle for the next CDCS.

Similar to last year’s SHA, we’d like to further understand from different stakeholders in multiple sectors how


IPs and beneficiaries experience integration and their potential benefits. Additionally, we’d like to examine the

pathways underlying these benefits as described by different sectors so that you can use the resulting

framework to plan, manage, and assess the effectiveness of future integration activities.

The objective of this next activity is to construct a modified theory of change (TOC) for integration. We will

use four categories that we’ll think of as steps in a process: USAID practices, IP practices, IP outcomes, and

beneficiary outcomes. At each step, use post-it notes to write your ideas and we’ll post them on the board

before we start the next step. Let’s use BLUE for USAID practices, ORANGE for IP practices, PINK for IP

outcomes, and GREEN for beneficiary outcomes. Please use a separate post-it note for each practice or

outcome.

Interviewer: hand out post-it notes. Write “USAID practices,” “IP Practices,” “IP Outcomes,” and “Beneficiary

Outcomes” on one post-it of each corresponding color, and place at the top of the board/wall/table.

Notetaker: collect post-it notes from participants at each step, and begin grouping ones that seem similar.

a. STEP 1: USAID Practices. Think about the following kinds of practices related to integration –

please focus on practices that USAID is currently implementing:

• Administrative/management policies, processes, requirements, and planning mechanisms

• Resources and materials provided to IPs and government counterparts

• Integration-related activities lead or initiated by Mission staff with IPs and government

counterparts

• Roles and responsibilities of Mission staff

b. STEP II: IP Practices. Consider specific integration practices implemented by IPs – please focus on

ones that you know of an example of an IP practicing. You may want to consider specific practices

related to the 3C’s. Some examples are:

• Establishment of MOUs

• Designated integration manager

• Meetings with integration partner

c. STEP III: IP Outcomes. Think about outcomes of integration at the IP level – please focus on ones

that you know an example of an IP experiencing.


• Cost savings


• Goal alignment



d. STEP IV: Beneficiary Outcomes. Think about outcomes of integration at the beneficiary level –

please focus on ones that you know or have hear of beneficiaries experiencing.





• Community unity


Facilitator, read post-its under USAID Practices heading and work with participants to clarify and confirm groupings. Repeat

with 3 other categories.

6. Looking at post-it notes, ask:


Notetaker, throughout this section be sure to record the writing on post-its if any non-verbal communication, like

pointing, is done to answer the questions.

a. Now that you’ve seen what others have suggested, is there anything missing?

b. Which of the practices or outcomes displayed here are the most important to sustain?

• Interviewer, work with group to make connections “forward” and “behind” in the display. If a

practice is described as important to sustain, work forward with group to establish which outcomes

are most closely related. If an outcome is described as important, work backward with group to

establish which practices are most closely related.

1. Probe on specific examples with IPs/beneficiaries.

c. Which IPs or integrated activities would you say are good examples of some of these pathways now?

Which ones are not?

d. Looking at these pathways we’ve drawn, who is responsible now for sustaining these?

• Which boxes/pathways rely on USAID’s integration initiative to occur? Which ones do not?

• Where does LGAP fit in? Where should they?

• Where does the GoM fit in? Where should they?

e. What can USAID do increase government and community self-reliance in sustaining these practices

and outcomes?


USAID Implementing Partners (Management & Field Staff): Group Interview

Protocol


Interview ID: Date:



Interview Protocol

Name: Position:

Name: Position:

Name: Position:

Name: Position:







We’d like just an hour of your time to hear your experiences and perspectives on this topic. In our report we’ll

talk about integration activities [IP] is doing, but if you share any sensitive personal opinions about integration, we

won’t share that it was you or [IP] saying it. We don’t anticipate any questions will be sensitive, though.

Do you have any questions? Are you willing to do this interview?




Initial Questions

We would like to focus on 2-3 of your specific integration partnerships. We have read your workplan and have a

general understanding of [IP’s] main objectives and activities, but is there anything critical you would like to share

about [IP’s] activities before I ask about your partnerships?

1. Specify particular activity we’re interested in. Then for additional examples:

2. Ideally capture both cross-sector and same-sector examples that they have enough to say about

3. Include a non-USAID integration partnership, if available

4. Please don’t feel compelled to pick all partnerships that are working well. We learn the most from contrasting

the good and challenging examples


Part I: Semi-Structured Interview 1. [For each activity selected] Could you please give us a brief summary of your activities with each of

these three partners?

For these questions, please give responses as they pertain to these integration activities you mentioned. However,

if you have examples from other integration partnerships, you can feel free to bring those in.

2. In what ways, if any, has integration benefited your organization? [Probe for examples]

If needed: for example, in past years we have heard IPs mention the following benefits:

• Cost savings


• Goal alignment



Are any of these examples benefits that you have experienced? [Probe for examples]

a. Which specific integration requirements or practices do you think are the most important

factors in achieving these benefits? (These may be practices we’ve already mentioned, or any new

practices.) Why?

i. Probe about USAID practices (thinking of our modified log frame structure for sectoral

leads)

ii. Probe about IP practices (thinking of the structure of our modified log frame for sectoral

leads)

3. In what ways if any, has integration negatively affected your organization? How?

a. Probe for specific challenges and examples

4. In what ways, if any, do you think integration has benefited your target beneficiaries? [Probe for

examples]

• If needed: for example, in past years we have heard IPs mention the following benefits:




• Community unity


Are any of these examples benefits that you have experienced? [Probe for examples]

- Beneficiary fatigue

o Both HC4L and ONSE work with community action groups

o Reduced duplication


factors in achieving these benefits? (These may be practices we’ve already mentioned, or any new

practices.) Why?

i. Probe about IP benefits

ii. Probe about IP practices

iii. Probe about USAID practices

5. In what ways, if any, has integration negatively affected your target beneficiaries? How?

a. Probe for specific challenges and examples

6. We’ve talked a lot about integration requirements, practices, and short-term outcomes. Now I want to think

about integration in the long-term. What do you think is the ultimate end-goal of integration? In other words,


what are we, or should we be, hoping to gain in the long-term by continuing to promote

integration?

a. Of all of the requirements, practices, and short-term outcomes we’ve discussed, which of these are

the most important intermediate steps in achieving this long-term goal?

7. We have discussed now your partnerships with other IPs and work with USAID. Can you tell us now

generally to what extent the GoM is involved in integration?

a. How is it going?

b. Is there anything you would change about the GoM’s involvement in integration?

8. One of the objectives of this study is to help inform the integration component of the next CDCS. Is there

anything we haven’t talked about yet that you think is important for USAID to consider if it includes an

integration component in the next CDCS?

Part II: Additional Contact Information

Name of Implementer/Activity: __________________________

We are finished now with the interview portion of our meeting. Before we conclude, I would like your assistance

in gathering information for additional interviews. Please let us know if there is someone else who would be better

placed to provide this information.

IP Field Staff (those involved in implementing the integrated activities you discussed)

District (only within LLW, Balaka, or Machinga):

Contact Names:

Contact Positions:

Contact Emails:

Contact Phones:

Non-USAID IPs (for the non-USAID activity you discussed, if applicable)

Name of Organization:

Funder:

Activity:

Brief description of integration with this partner:

Contact Names:

Contact Positions:

Contact Emails:

Contact Phones:

Government (Ideally those involved in integration activities discussed, but can be another)


Positions:

Brief description of integration or interaction with this group:

Contact Names:

Contact Emails:

Contact Phones:

Area Executive Committee Members (Ideally those involved in integration activities discussed, but can be

another)



Positions:

Brief description of integration or interaction with this group:

Contact Names:

Contact Emails:

Contact Phones:

Beneficiaries (Ideally those involved in integration activities discussed, but can be another)


Village:

Brief description of integrated activities in this area:

Contact name for person who can arrange interview

(6-10 community members per FGD, 1 male FGD, 1 female FGD):

Contact Email:

Contact Phone:


Non-USAID Implementing Partners (Management & Field Staff): Group Interview Protocol


Interview ID: Date:



Interview Protocol

Project Name:

Name of Implementing Organization

Name of Donor Institution

Name of known USAID activity with which they’re integrating (per USAID work plan) _______________

Name: Position:

Name: Position:

Name: Position:

Name: Position:

Name: Position:

Part I: Initial Questions




plans its next five-year country development cooperation strategy (CDCS). This year, we are especially trying to

understand the benefits and challenges of integration across all USAID sectors (health, education, democracy and

governance, and agriculture), with an eye toward sustainability.










Part II: Semi-Structured Interview

1. We learned that your organization is working together with [USAID activity], implemented by [IP name]

on [basic description of integration activity from USAID workplan]. Could you give us a brief summary

of your activities with this partner, and what each partner contributes to the partnership?

a. How did you establish a partnership with this activity?

b. Why did you choose to partner with them for this?

2. USAID defines integration based on what they call the “3C” approach: coordination, collaborate, and co-

location. How common is it for your organization to coordinate, collaborate, or co-locate

with other programs within your funding organization? Outside of your funding

organization?

a. Can you give examples of other USAID-funded programs you integrate with?

i. How did you establish partnerships with these organizations/programs?

ii. Why did you choose these organizations/programs to partner with?

b. Any examples of non-USAID-funded programs you integrate with?

i. How did you establish partnerships with these organizations/programs?

ii. Why did you choose these organizations/programs to partner with?

c. How, if at all, are your USAID partnerships different than your non-USAID partnerships?

d. Does [funding organization] provide any support or guidance to implementing partners regarding

integration/partnering?

3. In what ways, if any, have your integration partnerships benefited your organization? [Probe

for examples]

a. Which specific integration practices do you think are the most important factors in achieving

these benefits? (Meetings, agreements, etc.)

4. In what ways if any, has integration negatively affected your organization? [Probe for examples]

5. In what ways, if any, do you think integration has benefited your target beneficiaries? [Probe

for examples]

a. Which specific integration practices do you think are the most important factors in achieving

these benefits? (Meetings, agreements, etc.)

6. In what ways, if any, has integration negatively affected your target beneficiaries? [Probe for

examples]

7. We’ve talked a lot about integration requirements, practices, and short-term outcomes. I want to end our

conversation by thinking about integration in the long-term. What do you think is the ultimate end-goal of

integration? In other words, what are we, or should we be, hoping to gain in the long-term by continuing

to promote integration?

a. Of all of the requirements, practices, and short-term outcomes we’ve discussed, which of these

are the most important intermediate steps in achieving this long-term goal?

b. Who ultimately should coordinate integration? What role should the Government of Malawi

have? USAID? What role should your funding organization have?


District Government: Group Interview Protocol


Interview ID: Date:



Interview Protocol

Name: Position:

Name: Position:

Name: Position:

Name: Position:

Name: Position:







We’d like just an hour of your time to hear your experiences and perspectives on this topic .






1. I want to begin our conversation today by first thanking you for your time, and second by asking you

generally to describe your overarching objectives here in the district as they relate to health,

education, agriculture, and democracy and governance. This won’t be the main focus of our interview so

you don’t need to get into too much depth here, but will be helpful context for us as we proceed with

our questions.

2. Now that we have an idea of what your objectives are, we would like to talk more about the activities

working in your district. We are interested in knowing about both USAID-funded and non-USAID-funded

activities. What are some of the main programs or funders working in your district?

a. Do you believe that these partners are working to achieve the objectives you have for your

district?

b. Are any of the activities in your district integrated activities (i.e. involve IPs who are

working together on the activity via coordination, collaboration or co-location)?


i. Probe for examples, and follow each example with the questions below. Focus especially on

partnerships that include our 6 focus IPs: HC4L, LGAP, GHSC-PSM, MERIT, AgDiv, ONSE.

1. What is the nature of the partnership?

a. Probe for funders

2. How do you know this activity is integrated?

3. Are you aware of how this integration partnership was established? If yes, to

what extent was the GOM involved in identifying the integration

partners? Who at the district plays this role?

4. To what extent is the GOM involved in the ongoing coordination or

maintenance of the integrated activities? Who at the district plays this

role?

c. Thank you for giving us this background. Now I want to talk about integration in a more

general sense. To what extent are you aware of USAID’s involvement in the

coordination of integrated activities?

i. We know that coordinating integration is part of the USAID-funded activity,

LGAP’s, objectives. From your perspective, what role, if any, does LGAP play

in coordinating integration in your district?

a. How does the coordination happen?

b. What do you think of LGAP’s involvement? How is it going?

d. We have now discussed the roles of USAID, the government of Malawi, and LGAP in

coordinating and managing integrated activities. Are there any other key stakeholders

that play a role in district coordination in your district? If yes, what role do they play?

e. Are there any specific benefits you have noticed with integrated activities? On the part of

the GOM? On the part of the IPs? On the part of beneficiaries?

Interviewer: as examples are given, be sure to note the funders, clarifying as appropriate. Probe

away from direct results of individual programs, and guide toward benefits of integration: “How

might that be different if the programs were not working together?”

i. Of the benefits you mentioned, which are the most important to sustain?

a. Which specific integration requirements or practices do you think are

the most important factors in achieving these benefits?

f. Are there any specific drawbacks you have noticed with integrated activities? On the part

of the GOM? On the part of the IPs? On the part of beneficiaries?

Interviewer: as examples are given, be sure to note the funder, clarifying as appropriate.

i. What are the challenges that have led to these drawbacks?

g. To wrap things up, I want to talk about integration in the long-term. To what extent do

you think integration should continue?

i. Who should have the responsibility for sustaining integration?

ii. What, from your perspective, is the ideal process for establishing and

managing integrated activities? As you describe this process, please be sure to

specify roles.

1. Are there gaps between where the process stands now and where you think it

should be in the future? If yes, what kind of support would you

recommend USAID provide to reach this ideal?


Area Executive Committee Members: Group Interview Protocol


Interview ID: Date:



Interview Protocol

Name: Position:

Name: Position:

Name: Position:

Name: Position:

Name: Position:

Thank you for taking the time to meet with us. We received your contact information from [NAME OF IP]. We’re

with Social Impact, and USAID/Malawi has contracted us to do an annual stakeholder analysis (SHA) to better

understand how the Mission’s integrated development strategy has played out from the perspective of different

stakeholders. USAID will draw on lessons from this exercise as it plans its next five-year CDCS strategy. This

year, we are especially trying to understand the benefits and challenges of integration across all USAID sectors

(health, education, democracy and governance, and agriculture), with an eye toward sustainability.

We’d like just an hour of your time to hear your experiences and perspectives on this topic, based on your

interaction with [NAME IPs THEY WORK WITH ON INTEGRATED PROJECTS] and any other projects. To help

you feel comfortable sharing your honest perspective, in our report we won’t give your name as the person

sharing a certain opinion. We don’t anticipate any questions will be sensitive, though.






3. I want to begin our conversation today by first thanking you for your time, and second asking about each

of your roles in more detail. Could you each please give an introduction including your position, how

long you have served in this position, and your main responsibilities in this role?

4. To what extent are you aware of the development activities happening throughout your area?

a. Are you aware mostly of the activities in your sector, or aware of activities of other sectors as

well?

b. How do you know about these activities?

5. Now I want to ask about the specific activities you interact with.

a. Which USAID activities do you interact with in your position?


i. What specific activities does [USAID IP] do in your area?

b. Which non-USAID activities do you interact with?

i. What specific activities does [non-USAID IP] do in your area?

6. In what capacity do you interact with these activities?

7. Are you aware of any of these activities or implementing partners working together?

a. How do you know they are working together?

b. In what ways are they working together?

Interviewer: probe for specific examples of integrated activities

8. Do you play a role in establishing, coordinating or managing the integration of activities in

your area?

a. What is your role in this now?

b. What do you think your role should be?

c. What role does USAID currently play in coordinating/managing integration? What roles should

they be playing?

d. What role do other government institutions in Malawi currently play in coordinating/managing

integration? What roles should they be playing?

e. What role do other non-governmental institutions in Malawi play in coordinating/managing

integration? What roles should they be playing?

f. What role do other international organizations (for example, DFID, World Vision, etc.)

working in Malawi play in coordinating/managing integration? What roles should they be playing?

9. Are there any specific benefits you have noticed with integrated activities? On the part of the area

executive committee members? On the part of the GOM? IPs? Beneficiaries?

Interviewer: as examples are given, be sure to note the funder, clarifying as appropriate. Be sure that

participants focus on the aspect of integration leading to the benefit – not the topical focus of the

activity. Probe on these potential benefits:

Implementing Partners:

• cost savings,

• organizational efficiencies,

• goal alignment,

• diversification of activities and expertise, and

• expansion of geographic and population scope

Beneficiaries:




• Community unity


10. Are there any specific drawbacks you have noticed with integrated activities? On the part of the area

executive committee members? On the part of the GOM? IPs? Beneficiaries?

Interviewer: as examples are given, be sure to note the funder, clarifying as appropriate. Be sure that participants

focus on the aspect of integration leading to the drawback – not the quality of a specific program.

11. Of the benefits you mentioned, which do you think are the most important to sustain?


factors in achieving these benefits?

b. Who is responsible for making sure these things are sustained now? Who should be?

c. If the responsibility for sustaining integration were to shift to Malawian institutions,

what would have to consider?


12. One of the goals of this interview is to help USAID in designing its next Country Development

Cooperation Strategy, or CDCS. This document will detail USAID’s plan for development in Malawi over

the next 5 years. Is there anything else you would like USAID to know about your experience

with integration?

a. Are there any recommendations you would like to make for USAID or the GOM in planning,

coordinating and managing the integration effort?


Beneficiaries: Focus Group Activity & Discussion Protocol


FGD Group: □ Male □ Female Village:

Interview ID: Date:

Facilitator: Notetaker:


Facilitation

Research team: 1 facilitator, 1 notetaker

1. Introductions and informed consent

Hello everyone, thank you for coming here today. We are grateful that you are giving us your time.

First, let me introduce the team: [The facilitator and notetaker should introduce themselves].

We are here on behalf of Social Impact and USAID to conduct research on the effects of development

projects funded by the United States government on your community.

We’ve invited you to participate in this focus group discussion, which will take about 2 hours. During

this time we’ll ask you about where you go for different services and what your experiences have been

with different projects in your community.

Before we begin, you should know that neither this research nor your answers to our questions will in

any way determine if a project will be implemented here, continue to be here, or effect your ability to

access or receive any services. The benefit of this research is to ensure that future projects are designed

well and work well together based on local people’s input. We have these refreshments for you in order

to make your participation more comfortable.

We would like to audio record these discussions and take notes to make sure we don’t miss anything.

The recordings and the notes we take will not be shared with anyone outside the research team, and

your names will be kept confidential. We hope this makes you feel comfortable to express your ideas

freely.

Your participation in this discussion is voluntary and so if you do not feel comfortable, then you are

welcome to excuse yourself at any time during the research without any consequences.


Do you agree to participate?

Will you allow us to record the conversations?

Will you allow us to take photos?

Thank you.


2. Record participant information

The facilitator will ask each member of the group to provide the following information:

First name (only) Age

(range)

Profession/Livelihood Gender

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

3. Introduction of the activities

In this step, the facilitators will describe exactly what activities will be done over the course of the next

two hours.

We are going to ask you to do three things with us today. The first is to draw a map of your community, and

some of the different places and people that are in it. We will guide you through the process of drawing the

map by asking some specific questions about where certain things are. So don’t worry, you do not need to be

an artist!

Second, we will ask you to use the map to tell us about the different health, agriculture, education and other

services you receive in your community. We are interested in knowing which services or organizations are

working together, and which ones are not.

Last, we will ask for your recommendations to improve development in this community.

PART A: CONSTRUCTING THE MAP: PLACES & PEOPLE

In this step, group members will begin constructing their map.

Materials: Flip chart-size paper, colored markers (at least 6 different colors available).

The map should be drawn using six different colors: one for drawing/identifying places and people (Part

1), four for drawing/identifying services (Part 2), and one for connecting the services (Part 3).

Now, we would like two volunteers to help draw the map. You don’t need to be an artist, but you should feel

comfortable drawing with markers.

Ok, we are going to use six colors to draw this map. We’re going to start with GREEN to draw the

PLACES.


Part A: Constructing the map: Places & People

Questions Prompts & Probes

1. Draw the approximate boundaries of the

community and the primary landmarks

and roads. Mark them on the map.

• Roads, lakes and waterways, and other

major physical landmarks.

2. Where are the public places found in the

community? For example, where the

…(probes) Mark them on the map.

• Schools, libraries, health clinics, recreation

centers, transportation hubs, government

offices.

3. Where are the places where people

gather, such as…(probes)? Mark them on

the map.

• Mosques or churches, community centers,

markets, parks/squares, laundry areas,

mills, and other social spaces where

people typically gather together.

4. Where are the areas where people work,

such as... (probes)? Mark them on the

map.

• Mines, shops, restaurants, other retail,

offices, etc.

• Areas used for the cultivation, production,

and/or processing of crops, dairy products,

poultry, livestock, trees, or fish for

commercial sale or personal subsistence

5. Identify the places where people live.

Mark them on the map.

• Ask about different social groups based

on the following (and let the group define

them):

o different ethnic/religious groups

o amount of education,

o rich and poor

o refugees or migrants

PART B: CONTRUCTING THE MAP: SERVICES

Now we’re going to identify the services people use. Be sure that beneficiaries identify places where

they interact with these services – not only where the offices are located.

Part B: Constructing the map: Services


6. a) Where are the places where people get

HEALTH services? Mark them on the

map in BLUE, and label each with a word

or a symbol.

b) Also ask about services they receive

that may come from outside the

community.

• This could include:

o Services

o Training

o Supplies

o Other forms of assistance

• This could be from:

o NGOs, local community-based

organizations, the government

• Ask what the names of these

services are if they know/who

provides them.


AGRICULTURE services? Mark them

on the map in ORANGE, and label them

with a word or a symbol.


o Services

o Training

o Supplies




community.



o NGOs, local community-based

organizations, the government,

extension workers



provides them.

8. a) Where are the schools that receive

EDUCATION services? Mark them on

the map in PURPLE, and label them with

a word or a symbol.

b) Also ask whether there are places

other than schools that they are aware

receive support from the education

sector.

c) Also ask about services they receive


community.


o Services

o Training

o Supplies



o Schools, NGOs, local community-

based organizations, the

government



provides them.


ANY OTHER services, training, or

assistance from the government, NGOs,

or local community-based organizations?

Mark them on the map in YELLOW, and

label them with a word or a symbol.



community.


o Direct food aid

o Democracy & governance-related

activities



provides them.

10. a) (While pointing one at a time to different

NGO and government services on the map)

For this service, tell us more specifically

about the people who use this service:

b) How people know about this service?

c) Why do they use this service?

d) Where do people interact with this

service?

• Ask about characteristics such as:

a. gender

b. age

c. occupation

d. religion/ethnicity

e. education levels

f. rich and poor

g. refugees or migrants


PART C: CONSTRUCTING THE MAP: CONNECTIONS

Now we will draw connections between any of the organizations or services that are working together.

Part C: Connections


9. Of all the organizations and services we

drew on the map in blue, orange, purple,

and yellow, which ones are the

GREATEST VALUE to you? Circle

these on the map in RED.

a) Probe on why

b) Another way to ask this is: “which ones

would you miss the most if they weren’t

here?”

10. Of all the organizations and services we

drew on the map, are any of them

working together as far as you can tell? If

two of the organizations on the map are

WORKING TOGETHER, draw a solid

line between the two in RED.

c) Examples of “working together” include:

partners conduct joint trainings, partners

coordinate service delivery, one partner

provides another partner with materials,

etc.

PART D: FURTHER DISCUSSION OF MAP

Ask each of the below questions about each red line drawn on the map, pointing to the relevant line again with

each question.

1. Point to each of the red lines, one at a time and for each ask:

a. I am now going to ask a question and have you vote. Please feel free to abstain

from the vote if you are not comfortable answering individually.

How many of you have interacted with this partnership? Please raise your hand if

you would say you have interacted with the partnership shown by this red

line. Notetaker, count and record number of hands raised.

b. How do you know that [PARTNER 1] and [PARTNER 2] are working together?

i. In what ways are they working together?

ii. Would you say they are working together well or not so well?

c. Are there any benefits of this partnership?

Probe on long-term outcomes related to health, education, agriculture and democracy &

governance. Be sure emphasize that you are asking about the PARTNERSHIP, and not

about the services themselves.

i. Would these benefits be the same if these two organizations were not

working together? How would the situation be different?

ii. To you and your family?

iii. To the community?

iv. To the country?

d. Are there any challenges or drawbacks that come with these organizations working

together?


Ask these final questions after each red line is discussed.

2. Now that we have discussed each of the connections we drew on the map, first I want to ask if

there are any we missed?

Interviewer, if connections were missed, allow participant to draw on map and repeat above questions for each

new red line.

3. Are there any connections or partnerships that do not currently exist, but you think

should exist? Can I have a volunteer to please draw these on the map in a RED DASHED line?

a. Why do you think these connections should exist?

b. In what ways would the partnership help you or the community in the short-term? In

the long-term?

4. We’ve talked about the different services you receive from organizations. I want to ask before

we end: what resources are you most willing to commit in order to benefit from these

services?

a. For example: time, money, expertise, crops, meeting space

5. Are there any other services you think your community needs that aren’t pictured here now?

a. Who do you expect to bring these services to your community?

b. What are some things holding you or your community back from having these services?

c. What would it take to increase citizen involvement in making these things a reality?

6. Are there any final thoughts on the map or the connections that anyone would like to add

before we wrap up?

THANK YOU!!


Web Survey (Anonymous)

Instructions

- IP respondents: We ask that one project office and one field representative from every active

USAID-funded activity fill out this survey. The representative should be very familiar with at

least one, but ideally several of the organization’s integrated activities.

- USAID respondents: We ask for completed surveys from the A/COR for each active USAID-

funded activity as well staff from the Technical Office, Program Support Office, and Mission

Management

Informed Consent

USAID/Malawi has hired Social Impact, Inc. (SI). to provide independent evaluation services related to

the integrated development approach it adopted through its last Country Development Cooperation

Strategy (CDCS). This anonymous web survey is part of SI’s annual Stakeholder Analysis activity. It is

designed to gather candid feedback from both implementing partners and USAID staff about their

experience with and opinions about integration to date. USAID/Malawi will use these data to improve

integration processes and inform the planning of the new CDCS. We are sending this survey to two

representatives of each USAID-funded activity as well as A/CORs and several representatives from each

USAID office.

We kindly ask for 10-15 minutes of your time to fill out this brief survey. To ensure you feel

comfortable sharing your honest opinions, this survey is completely anonymous. We do not ask for your

name or any identifying information. Only the SI research team will have access to a person’s complete

survey responses. SI will summarize all responses in a report to USAID. In a few cases the survey asks

for anecdotes or written input. SI will ensure any potentially identifying information within these written

responses (e.g. organization names or other unique details shared) are removed prior to sharing them in

the report.

Given the anonymous nature of the survey, we do not foresee any risks to participating. The indirect

benefit to filling out this survey is that your input may lead to improvements that affect your work in the

future. If you agree to participate in the web survey, please click the link below to begin. If you have any

questions or concerns about this survey, please contact Leslie Hodel ([email protected]). Thank

you very much for your time!

Routing

1. What type of stakeholder do you represent?

a. Implementing partner (main project office)

b. Implementing partner (field staff)

c. USAID A/COR for current activity (Skip to USAID section)

d. USAID Technical Office (Skip to USAID section)

e. USAID Program Support Office (Skip to USAID section)

f. Mission Management (Skip to USAID section)


Questions For USAID IPs Only

1. Under which USAID technical office does your primary USAID-funded activity sit? (select

multiple)

a. Sustainable Economic Growth

b. Education

c. Health, Population, and Nutrition

d. Democracy and Governance

2. How long has your organization been working on your present USAID-funded activity in

Malawi?

a. Less than 1 year

b. 1-2 years

c. >2 years

We’d like to understand your experience with development integration. USAID/Malawi defines this as

co-location, collaboration, and coordination between different partners to achieve a common goal that

is beyond what any one person or group can accomplish alone. However, integration can take other

forms and include other activities. For the next questions, please respond on behalf of the organization

you represent and speak to all activities you’re familiar with that involve integration.

Integration Involvement

3. To what extent does your organization practice integration with other groups?

a. Not at all (skip to 16)

b. To a small extent

c. To a large extent

d. It’s part of everything we do

4. With which types of partners have you practiced integration? (select multiple)

a. USAID-funded implementers in my own sector

b. USAID-funded implementers in a different sector

c. Non-USAID-funded implementers in my own sector

d. Non-USAID-funded implementers in a different sector

e. Government of Malawi as integration partner

f. Government of Malawi coordinating between partners

g. Local Malawian organizations

h. Private sector

i. Other (specify)


5. Which types of integration have

you engaged in? (select multiple)

6. For each type you selected, how

would you rate the overall value

added from integration? (select

one)

5a. Value chain: Partnerships between

actors with different but complementary

missions, activities, and populations

6a.

0 – Large amount of value lost

1 – Small amount of value lost

2 – No value added or lost

3 – Small amount of value added

4 – Large amount of value added

5b. Co-equivalent: Partnerships between

actors with similar or cross-cutting missions,

activities, and populations.

6b.






5c. Cross-sector: Partnerships between

actors working in different sectors.

6c.






5d. Inherently integrated activity: Activity

is designed to be integrated through joint

funding.

6d.






5e. Other (specify): 6e.







Benefits of Integration

7. How has integration benefitted your organization, if at all? (select multiple)

a. No benefits

b. Cost savings

c. Time savings

d. Goal alignment

e. Increased impact

f. Increased GoM engagement/access to GoM structures

g. Increased USAID visibility in districts

h. Improved accountability

i. Expansion of skills, expertise or activities

j. Expansion of geographic and/or population scope

k. Organizational efficiencies/maximization of resources

l. Other (specify)

m. Don’t know

8. In what ways, if any, has integration negatively affected your organization? (free response)

9. Which of the following integration benefits, if any, have you observed among your target

beneficiaries? (select multiple)

a. No benefits

b. Message consistency

c. Reduced duplication of services

d. Reduced time burden

e. Community unity

f. Increased service quality

g. Increased access to services

h. Improved continuation of services

i. Improved timeliness of services

j. Other (specify):

k. Don’t know

10. In what ways, if any, has integration negatively affected your target beneficiaries? (free

response)

11. Overall, to what extent do you believe integration has improved outcomes for beneficiaries

compared to if you hadn’t taken an integrated approach?

a. Integration has negative impact on beneficiaries

b. No added value

c. Improved to a small extent

d. Improved to a moderate extent

e. Improved to a large extent

f. Don’t know

Do you have any general comments or examples you can share about benefits or downsides of

integration? (free response)


Informing the Next CDCS

12. Why do you practice integration? (Select multiple. Then rank the top reason.)

a. USAID requires it

b. It’s common practice in our organization

c. It benefits our organization

d. It benefits USAID

e. It benefits beneficiaries

f. Other (specify)

13. If USAID were not actively promoting integration, do you think your organization would still do

it?

a. Yes

b. No (please explain):

c. It’s complicated (please explain):

14. In your experience, which tools have been most helpful in fostering successful integration

partnerships and outcomes? (Select multiple. Then rank the most helpful 1-2)

a. MOUs and/or work plans between partners

b. USAID involvement in negotiations with integration partners

c. Regular planning/coordination meetings

d. Coordination with district-level government

e. Integration is built in to my organization’s contract/cooperative agreement

f. Integration is built in to my organization’s budget

g. Joint planning at Mission level

h. Other (specify):

15. How do you prefer to identify integration partners? (select multiple)

a. Organically through interactions and personal networks

b. Through USAID suggestion at the activity design/proposal stage

c. Through USAID introductions/facilitation post-award

d. Stakeholder mapping

e. Other (specify)

f. N/A (I don’t prefer to do integration)

16. In your opinion, which entity currently has responsibility for driving integration efforts? (Select

multiple. Then rank the one most responsible party.)

a. USAID program office

b. USAID sector teams

c. Implementing partners themselves

d. National government

e. District government

f. Sub-district level government structures

g. Other (specify)

h. Don’t know

17. In your opinion, which entity should have the ultimate responsibility for driving integration

efforts?








g. N/A. Don’t believe integration should be happening

h. Other (specify)

i. Don’t know

18. What should USAID change or improve in the way it supports integration? (free response)

19. Of the things USAID is currently doing to support integration, what should USAID continue?

(free response)

District Coordination/Sustainability

20. Which district and sub-district level actors are you aware have a role in coordinating

integration? (Select multiple)

a. District Commissioners (DCs)

b. Director of Planning and Development (DPD)

c. Area Executive Committees (AECs)

d. Area Development Committees (ADCs)

e. Village Development Committees (VDCs)

f. Other (specify)

21. On average across the districts where you work, how equipped are district and sub-district

government actors you work with to coordinate development activities within their districts?

a. Not very equipped at all

b. Somewhat equipped

c. Adequately equipped

d. Ranges widely depending on the district from poor to strong

e. Don’t know

22. In your opinion, what would it take from USAID to support district/sub-district government

actors in this function? (Select multiple. Then rank the most important choice.)

a. Capacity building for district governments

b. Capacity building for sub-district level government structures

c. Financial support to district governments

d. Increased enforcement to IPs to work within existing governing structures (district

action plans, area executive committees, village development committees, etc.)

e. Support to governments to conduct stakeholder mapping

f. Increased encouragement to IPs regarding reporting to District Councils

g. Increased support to IP field staff to engage with stakeholders at district level

h. Other (specify)

i. Don’t know

23. Do you have any general comments or examples you’d like to share about the district

government role in coordinating development? (free response)


Wrap-Up

24. Do you have any further input USAID should consider when considering an integration

component of the next CDCS?

Questions for USAID

1. In which sector do you work?

a. Sustainable Economic Growth

b. Education

c. Health, Population, and Nutrition

d. Democracy and Governance

e. N/A (cross-sector or not sector-specific)

2. How long have you been at the Malawi Mission?

a. Less than 1 year

b. 1-2 years

c. >2 years

Integration Involvement

3. In the past five years, what types of roles have you played with regard to integration at USAID?

(select all that apply)

a. Provided input/oversight to integration partnerships of implementing partners (e.g. as an

AOR/COR or other function)

b. Provided input about integration opportunities during activity design

c. Provided or received technical expertise to/from a colleague in another sector to help

with activity management or design

d. Authorized joint funding for integrated activities

e. Provided input on overall Mission integration strategy/approach

f. Other (specify)

g. N/A. No work with integration to date (Skip to 16)


4. Which types of integration have

you been involved in (e.g.

supervised, advised, or any other

direct involvement)? (select

multiple)

5. For each type you selected,

how would you rate the

overall value added from

integration? (select one)

4a. Value chain: Partnerships between

actors with different but complementary

missions, activities, and populations.

5a.






4b. Co-equivalent: Partnerships between

actors with similar or crosscutting missions,

activities, and populations.

5b.






4c. Cross-sector: Partnerships between

actors working in different sectors.

5c.






4d. Inherently integrated activity:

Activity is designed to be integrated through

joint funding.

5d.






4e. Other (specify): 5e.






Benefits of Integration

6. Which of the following integration benefits, if any, have you observed in the implementation

of activities you supervise, or for activities in your sector overall? (select multiple)

a. No benefits

b. Cost savings

c. Time savings

d. Goal alignment

e. Increased impact

f. Increased GoM engagement/access to GoM structures

g. Increased USAID visibility in districts

h. Improved accountability


i. Expansion of skills, expertise or activities

j. Expansion of geographic and/or population scope

k. Organizational efficiencies/maximization of resources

l. Other (specify)

m. Don’t know

7. In what ways, if any, has integration negatively affected the implementation of activities you

supervise, or your work overall? (free response)

8. Which of the following integration benefits, if any, have you observed among target

beneficiaries in your sector? (select multiple)

a. No benefits

b. Message consistency

c. Reduced duplication of services

d. Reduced time burden

e. Community unity

f. Increased service quality

g. Increased access to services

h. Improved continuation of services

i. Improved timeliness of services

j. Other (specify):

k. Don’t know

9. In what ways, if any, has integration negatively affected target beneficiaries of the activities

you supervise, or activities in your sector overall? (free response)

10. Overall, to what extent do you believe integration has improved outcomes for beneficiaries

compared to if implementers hadn’t taken an integrated approach?

a. Integration has negative impact on beneficiaries

b. No added value

c. Improved to a small extent

d. Improved to a moderate extent

e. Improved to a large extent

f. Don’t know

11. Do you have any general comments or examples you can share about benefits or downsides of

integration? (free response)

Informing the Next CDCS

12. Why do you practice integration? (select multiple. Then rank the top reason.)

a. The Program Office requires it

b. It’s common practice in development today

c. It benefits my office’s work/goals

d. It benefits beneficiaries

e. Other (specify)

13. If the Program Office were not actively promoting integration, do you think you would still do

it?


a. Yes

b. No

c. It’s complicated (specify):

14. In your experience, which tools have been most helpful in fostering successful integration

partnerships and outcomes? (Select multiple. Then rank the most helpful 1-2)

a. MOUs and/or work plans between partners

b. USAID involvement in negotiations with integration partners

c. Regular planning/coordination meetings

d. Coordination with district-level government

e. Integration is built in to my organization’s contract/cooperative agreement

f. Integration is built in to my organization’s budget

g. Joint planning at Mission level

h. Don’t know

i. Other (specify):

15. How do you prefer that integration partnerships be identified? (select multiple)

a. By implementers, organically through interactions and personal networks

b. By implementers, through stakeholder mapping

c. Through USAID suggestion at the activity design/proposal stage

d. Through USAID introductions/facilitation post-award

e. Other (specify)

f. N/A (I don’t prefer to do integration)

16. In your opinion, which entity currently has responsibility for driving integration efforts? (Select

multiple. Then rank the one most responsible party.)







g. Other (specify)

h. Don’t know

17. In your opinion, which entity should have the ultimate responsibility for driving integration

efforts?







g. N/A. Don’t believe integration should be happening

h. Other (specify)

i. Don’t know

18. What changes or improvements can you suggest for the way USAID supports integration? (free

response)


District Coordination/Sustainability

19. To what extent do you feel that district governments are engaged in integration?

a. Not at all engaged

b. Engaged to a small extent

c. Engaged to some extent

d. Engaged to a large extent

e. Ranges widely depending on the district

f. Don’t know

20. In what ways have IPs in your sector attempted to engage with district governments and

government structures? (Select both successful and unsuccessful methods)

a. Attend meetings with district government actors

b. Attend meetings with sub-district level structures (AECs, VDCs, etc.)

c. Provide capacity building for integration to district governments

d. Work through established district development plans

e. Reported on activities to district governments

f. Provided financial support for integration to district governments

g. Other (specify):

21. Of the ways you selected, which one has been the most successful in engaging with district

governments?







g. Other (specify):

22. Of the ways you selected, which one has been the least successful?







g. Other (specify):

23. What can USAID do to improve IP engagement with district governments? (free response)

Wrap-Up

24. Do you have any further input USAID should consider when considering an integration

component of the next CDCS?

U.S. Agency for International Development

1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C. 20523

2018 MALAWI STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS

Documents

Transcript of 2018 MALAWI STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS