by Hadassah Okandeji
Why Projects Fade!
on September 04, 2025
The Root Causes
1. The Savior Complex in Design
● What happens: External organizations identify a problem, design a solution, secure funding, implement, then exit
● Why it fails: Communities become recipients rather than architects. There's no psychological ownership because they didn't diagnose the problem or shape the solution
● Real example: Water wells installed by NGOs that break down within 2 years because no one locally knows how to maintain them or feels responsible
2. Misaligned Incentives
● Donor/funder incentives: Quick wins, measurable outputs (# of people trained, facilities built), photo opportunities, annual reports
● Community incentives: Long-term sustainability, solutions that fit their actual lives, resources they can manage
● The gap: Projects are optimized for what looks good in a boardroom presentation, not what works in year 5
3. Capability vs. Capacity Confusion
● Capability = Can they technically do it? (Skills training ✓)
● Capacity = Do they have the resources, authority, systems, and motivation to sustain it? (Usually ✗)
● Most programs build capability but ignore capacity—so skills exist but not the ecosystem to use them
4. The Exit Paradox
● Organizations are judged on "impact at scale" and "efficiency"
● This creates pressure to exit quickly to show the model works and move to new communities
● But sustainable change takes 5-10 years, not 18-month project cycles
● So programs are designed for exit rather than entrenchment
THE OWNERSHIP TRANSFER PROBLEM
Why Ownership Transfer Fails:
1. Power Dynamics Are Never Addressed
● CSR teams control: the budget, the timeline, the metrics, the narrative
● Communities control: almost nothing
● "Consultation" ≠ Co-design. Asking for input on a predetermined plan isn't ownership
2. Dependency Is Built Into The Model
● External funding creates expectations
● Local leaders become "project coordinators" paid by outsiders
● When money stops, the role disappears—and so does the project
3. The Wrong Things Get Transferred
● What gets transferred: Activities, reports, maintenance checklists
● What doesn't get transferred: Decision-making power, budget control, relationships with stakeholders, institutional knowledge
● Communities inherit tasks without authority
4. No One Owns The Risk
● If the project fails post-exit, the CSR team has moved on
● The community suffers the consequences but had no say in the risk they were taking
● This asymmetry of risk/reward dooms sustainability
DESIGN PRINCIPLES FOR SUSTAINABLE, SCALABLE PROGRAMS
Phase 1: Foundation (Months 0-6)
Co-Design From Day One
● Start with participatory needs assessment led by community members, not consultants
● Use tools like:
○ Asset mapping: What strengths already exist? (Don't lead with deficits)
○ Power mapping: Who makes decisions? Who should?
○ Theory of Change workshops: If we achieve X, what needs to be true? Who needs to believe in it?
Key principle: If the community can't articulate WHY this matters to them in their own words, the design is wrong.
Identify Local Champions Early
● Not just "leaders" (who may be appointed/elite)
● Find the doers people who show up, who others trust, who have informal influence
● These are your sustainability anchors
Resource Realism Check
● What will this cost in year 3? Year 5?
● Can the community/local government afford it without external funding?
● If not, DON'T START. Or radically simplify.
Phase 2: Build Capability + Capacity (Months 6-24)
Train Systems, Not Just People
● Individual training is necessary but not sufficient
● Also build:
○ Governance structures (Who decides? How? When?)
○ Financial systems (Budgets, accountability, local fundraising)
○ Feedback loops (How do beneficiaries give input? Complaint?)
○ Knowledge management (Documentation in local languages, mentorship pipelines)
The "Train the Trainer" Trap
● Training trainers sounds scalable but often fails
● Why? The best trainer still depends on external support for curriculum, materials, legitimacy
● Better approach: Create locally-controlled learning systems where knowledge flows naturally (peer networks, apprenticeships, community-led workshops)
Build Economic Sustainability Into the Model
● Can this generate income? (User fees, social enterprise model, government integration)
● Can it reduce costs elsewhere? (Preventive healthcare saves money, education increases earning potential)
● If the only sustainability plan is "find more donors," it's not sustainable
Measure What Matters for Ownership Don't just measure:
● of people trained
● Facilities built
● Activities completed
Also measure:
● % of decisions made by community (vs. CSR team)
● % of budget controlled locally
● of community-initiated improvements to the program
● Local leader time allocation (Are they still dependent on external facilitation?)
Phase
3: Transfer Power
(Months 18-36)
Gradual Power Shift (Not Abrupt Exit)
● Year 1: CSR team leads, community advises
● Year 2: Co-leadership, shared decision-making
● Year 3: Community leads, CSR team advises
● Year 4: Community runs, CSR team monitors from distance
● Year 5+: Community owns, CSR relationship becomes peer-to-peer
Transfer Budget Control First
● Ownership is meaningless without financial authority
● Start small: Let the community control 20% of the budget, then 50%, then 80%
● If you're not comfortable with this, ask yourself: Do you actually trust them?
Build Institutional Homes
● Programs embedded in existing institutions (schools, health clinics, local government) survive
● Programs that exist as standalone "projects" die
● Embed early: Which local institution will house this in year 5?
Create Exit Criteria (Not Exit Dates) Don't exit because the grant ends. Exit when:
● Local leadership is making key decisions independently
● Financial sustainability is demonstrated for 12+ months
● Community has resolved a crisis without external help
● Beneficiaries report to local leaders, not CSR team
● The community has adapted/improved the program themselves
SCALABILITY: Making It Work Beyond One Community
The Scaling Dilemma
● Pressure to scale often undermines sustainability
● Rapid scaling = less time for ownership building = replication of extractive model
Scaling Approaches That Work
1. Scale Depth Before Breadth
● Get it truly sustainable in 3-5 communities first
● Document what actually makes it work (not what you hoped would work)
● Then scale the process, not just the program
2. Horizontal Scaling (Community-to-Community)
● Communities that succeed become trainers for neighboring communities
● Creates networks, not hub-and-spoke dependency
● Example: Self-help groups in India where successful groups split and seed new ones
3. Integrate Into Existing Systems
● Scaling through government = sustainability at scale
● Work becomes policy, not project
● Requires patience and political navigation but vastly more sustainable
4. Platform Models vs. Program Models
● Program model: We deliver services
● Platform model: We create infrastructure others use to deliver services
● Example: Instead of running trainings forever, create open-source curriculum + train-the-trainer system that others can adopt
5. Franchise Models
● Clear standards, proven methodology, but local ownership and adaptation
● Central organization provides: brand, quality assurance, knowledge sharing
● Local organizations own: implementation, funding, adaptation
● Example: BRAC's approach to scaling microfinance and health services
COMMON PITFALLS (And How To Avoid Them)
Pitfall 1: "We'll Build Local Capacity Later"
● Capacity building is treated as Phase 3, after implementation
● Fix: Capacity building IS the implementation. If locals can't run it from day 1, redesign it.
Pitfall 2: Confusing Participation With Ownership
● Attending meetings ≠ making decisions
● Fix: Track WHO makes final calls on budget, staffing, program changes. If it's still the CSR team in year 2, ownership hasn't transferred.
Pitfall 3: Designing For Scale Before Proving Sustainability
● Pressure to show "impact at scale" leads to replicating unsustainable models
● Fix: Make "1-2 year post-exit sustainability" a prerequisite for scaling funding
Pitfall 4: Ignoring Local Power Dynamics
● Programs often reinforce existing inequalities (elite capture)
● Fix: Explicitly analyze who benefits and who's excluded. Build inclusion mechanisms from the start.
Pitfall 5: Over-Reliance On Charismatic Local Leaders
● Program works because of one amazing community champion
● Fix: Build systems that outlive individuals. Distribute leadership. Create succession plans.
Pitfall 6: Sophisticated Solutions For Simple Problems
● High-tech, complex interventions in low-resource settings
● Fix: Appropriate technology. If it can't be fixed with local tools/knowledge, it will break.
Pitfall 7: No Real Feedback
Loops
● "Feedback" = surveys at the end, controlled by CSR team
● Fix: Build complaint mechanisms, community scorecards, regular town halls where beneficiaries can challenge the program
PRACTICAL TOOLS FOR PROGRAM MANAGERS
1. The Ownership Matrix
Track this quarterly. If ownership isn't shifting, sound the alarm.
2. The Sustainability Checklist
Before launching ANY program, ask:
Financial:
● [ ] Can this run on local resources within 3 years?
● [ ] Have we identified income sources or local budget lines?
● [ ] Is the cost structure realistic for the local economy?
Technical:
● [ ] Can it be maintained with local skills?
● [ ] Are replacement parts/supplies available locally?
● [ ] Is it simple enough that it won't collapse if one person leaves?
Political:
● [ ] Do local authorities support it (genuinely, not just ceremonially)?
● [ ] Does it align with government priorities/policies?
● [ ] Have we built relationships beyond the current administration?
Social:
● [ ] Does it fit local culture and norms?
● [ ] Are the actual users (not just leaders) involved in design?
● [ ] Does it address power imbalances or reinforce them?
Institutional:
● [ ] Which local institution will house this long-term?
● [ ] Have we built it into existing structures (not parallel systems)?
● [ ] Is there a succession plan for key roles?
If you have more than 2 "no" answers, the program will likely fade post-exit.
3. The Community Scorecard
Create a simple tool where community members rate (quarterly):
● How much control do we have over this program? (1-5)
● How well does it meet our actual needs? (1-5)
● Could we run this without external help? (1-5)
● Do we feel ownership of this? (1-5)
If scores aren't improving over time, ownership isn't transferring.
CASE STUDY: What Works
BRAC's Ultra-Poor Graduation Program (Bangladesh)
● What they did right:
1. Worked with the most marginalized (not "easy wins")
2. 2-year intensive support (not 6-month projects)
3. Transferred assets (livestock, training, stipends) directly to participants
4. Built social capital through group formation
5. Linked to existing government services for long-term support
6. Measured success 5-10 years post-exit
7. Scaled only after proving 7-year sustainability
● Results: 95% of participants remained out of poverty 10 years later. Model replicated in 50+ countries.
Why it worked: They built capacity (confidence, networks, assets, skills) not just capability (training). And they measured what mattered.
READ MORE ON OUR WEBSITE