Community Engagement Practices

After $1B invested over 15 years, the Gates-backed Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) promised agricultural prosperity. Instead, AGRA delivered ecological damage, farmer debt, and increased hunger, leaving target countries worse off than before the program began. AGRA began in 2006 with bold targets to double yields and incomes for 30M smallholder farmers while cutting food insecurity in half by 2020. Evaluations reveal what farmers already knew—AGRA failed to meet even its reduced goal of reaching just 9M farmers instead of the original 30M. The productivity gains fell dramatically short—only an 18% yield increase over 12 years against AGRA's promised 100%. Many regions saw growth equal to or worse than pre-AGRA rates. This structural failure hides behind selectively presented data and isolated success stories. Hunger increased by 30-31% across AGRA's 13 focus countries. The very metric AGRA was designed to improve has significantly worsened, exposing critical flaws in their entire approach to agricultural development. AGRA's single-crop farming model caused biodiversity loss by pushing farmers toward maize at the expense of hardy local varieties. Traditional climate-resilient crops declined measurably, with millet production dropping 24% between 2006-2018. Research in Zambia and Tanzania shows farmers trapped in debt after taking loans for fertilizer and hybrid seeds when harvests didn't deliver promised yields. This financial burden from input-dependency affects multiple generations of farming families. Beyond economic impacts, AGRA's chemical-intensive approach has accelerated soil degradation across target regions. Synthetic inputs disrupt soil microbial communities, compromising fertility and essential ecosystem functions like water storage and carbon sequestration. Specific soil contaminants associated with AGRA's model include PCBs, PBDEs, perfluoro carboxylic acids, benzene, and bisphenol A—compounds with documented adverse effects on ecological and human health. While AGRA now acknowledges soil degradation (65% of Sahel land affected), its solutions remain tied to chemical-intensive farming. New programs like ESMS and RE-GAIN show recognition of problems yet still fail to address their root causes. African civil society organizations increasingly call for redirecting funding from AGRA toward agroecological systems that align with both ecological imperatives and the lived realities of farming communities rather than imposing external technological dependencies. AGRA fundamentally misdiagnosed the problems facing African agriculture. After 15 years and $1B, hunger increased by 30%, yields barely improved, soils degraded, and farmers accumulated debt. Real solutions must restore ecological health while providing farmers with a pathway to prosperity.

What would happen if healthcare was centered around neighborhood residents co-creating health instead of depending on providers to respond to our ill health?   This visual, which comes from Wong Sweet Fun at Yishun Health, shows three types of health promotion.   What we have today is on the bottom – someone gets sick, and we respond to it.   A better approach would enable early intervention due to neighbors checking in on each other.   The ideal approach would nurture social connectivity such that neighbors improved each other’s health through close connectivity and regular activities organized by them – a real community.   Going from what we have to what we should have requires a major change in how we think about healthcare. Instead of providers being center stage residents should be. Providers adopt an asset-based community development strategy centered on galvanizing residents to undertake communal health-creating activities on their own, strengthening social bonds and interfamily networks in the process. The goal is co-create health, transforming service providers into facilitating supporters rather than central actors—a reversal of roles—and reimaging care such that it is integrated across health, social, environmental and behavioral domains.   This approach focuses on identifying and enhancing assets within rather than looking for problems that outside entities must address. It works in a defined geographical area—a neighborhood—and leverages groups of people bonded by common interests, local institutions, nature, built infrastructure, a variety of relationships and networks, and the stories, culture, and heritage of residents. The main assets are the residents, each of whom can contribute their talents, skills, experience, and time. The residents own their own—and their neighbors’—health, not the service providers, with social interaction a way for them to discover their own capacities for contribution to others. All of this enhances belonging, cohesion, and a sense of importance and agency. And the more these residents work together to produce health on their own, the less the need for outside systems. The result is much lower cost - something our current system desperately needs. How possible is this approach in the US? Anyone know any good examples? What would shift incentives such that this approach became more common? #health #community #neighborhood #singapore #relationships #aging Placemaking Education Cormac Russell Frances Kraft Usha Srinivasan Jennifer Prophete Gordon Strause Michael Skoler Kara Revel Jarzynski Sam Pressler Tracy Hadden Loh PlacemakingX Kevin Ervin Kelley, AIA Lory Warren Noah Baskett Dr J.R. Baker Matt Abrams Reyn Archer MD Daron Babcock Anna Scott Ethan Kent John B. Carol Naughton

Most people saw Bushwick as a neighborhood in decline. A few visionaries saw potential waiting to be unlocked. For decades, Bushwick was known for its abandoned warehouses, struggling economy, and lack of investment. But beneath the surface, it had something invaluable—a strong local culture, a resilient community, and an artistic spirit that couldn’t be ignored. The transformation of Bushwick wasn’t just about real estate. It was about revitalization, community, and creating opportunities—and that’s what makes it such a powerful case study for developers and city planners alike. 🎨 Local artists made Bushwick a destination. Instead of erasing the neighborhood’s identity, early efforts focused on celebrating it. The Bushwick Collective, a community-led street art project, turned blank walls into open-air galleries, attracting visitors and bringing in new businesses that supported local artists and entrepreneurs. 🏗️ Developers restored, rather than replaced. Many of Bushwick’s industrial buildings weren’t torn down—they were repurposed into vibrant mixed-use spaces. Old warehouses became artist studios, community centers, and small-business hubs, creating affordable spaces for local entrepreneurs and preserving the area’s unique character. 🚆 Transit accessibility brought new opportunities. With direct access to Manhattan via the L train, Bushwick became an attractive option for young professionals looking for affordability without leaving the city. This influx of new residents supported local businesses, restaurants, and cultural spaces, boosting the neighborhood’s economy. 💡 New investment created jobs and local business growth. As Bushwick evolved, it wasn’t just large developers who benefited. Small businesses flourished—local coffee shops, restaurants, and markets thrived as foot traffic increased. City-backed initiatives helped ensure that affordable housing and community spaces remained a priority. What developers and city planners can learn from Bushwick: 🏡 Preserve the local identity. Development works best when it enhances a community rather than replacing it. 🎭 Invest in arts and culture. Creative spaces bring vibrancy, attract visitors, and support small businesses. 🔑 Balance growth with affordability. Sustainable development ensures long-term success for both new and existing residents. Bushwick’s story isn’t just about real estate—it’s about revitalization done right. When developers, artists, and the local community work together, they can create lasting value for everyone. — Thank you for reading! If you liked my content on commercial real estate, entrepreneurship, and personal growth, follow for more! #RealEstateDevelopment #BrooklynRealEstate #AdaptiveReuse #CommercialRealEstate

Today @NHSProviders have published a new report https://lnkd.in/dxdM-tfj on co-production and engagement with communities as a solution for reducing health inequalities. NHS trusts have a legal duty to involve people and communities in the design and delivery of their services. The report provides practical advice for how senior leaders can champion engagement activities across their trust, including an overview of the value of co-production and engagement, potential activities and key considerations. Importantly, there are tips for designing inclusive engagement that involves those more likely to experience health inequalities. The report has been published as part of @NHSProviders #HealthInequalities programme, which supports Trust Board members to embed action on health inequalities as part of core Board business. 

Dear donor/s, please fund informal groups! The “must be registered” eligibility requirement in grants and funding opportunities is doing more harm than good. Hear me out—this criterion excludes community-based groups that are actively making an impact at the grassroots level. These groups rely on funding to sustain their work, yet they are locked out of critical financial support simply because they lack formal registration. The reality is that registering an organization is not easy, especially for grassroots groups and individuals working in social impact. Take Kenya, for example—excessive bureaucracies, high costs, and long, complicated processes make it incredibly difficult for small, community-led initiatives to gain official status. As a result, many groups doing crucial work remain ineligible for funding. Meanwhile, individuals who are not genuinely engaged in community work feel compelled to register organizations just to qualify for funding, despite having no real initiatives or impact on the ground. Another major downside of this system is the unnecessary duplication of efforts. Instead of collaborating with existing grassroots initiatives, many new organizations emerge simply because founders want control over funding. As a result, resources are fragmented, and many projects end up replicating work that is already being done. And while social impact can never be "too much," wouldn’t strategic collaboration be far more effective? This restrictive funding model has been normalized for too long—it’s time for a change!

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗗𝗶𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗕𝗲𝘁𝘄𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗖𝗼-𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗱𝘂𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗧𝗼𝗸𝗲𝗻𝗶𝘀𝗺: 𝗠𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗕𝗲𝘆𝗼𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗜𝗹𝗹𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝗜𝗻𝗰𝗹𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 True co-production involves genuine partnership where power is shared equally between professionals and those with lived experience. Unfortunately, many organisations claim to practise co-production while actually engaging in tokenism and creating harm – where people with lived experience are involved superficially without meaningful influence. 𝗨𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝗽𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗺 𝗼𝗳 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗶𝗽𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 Sherry Arnstein's "Ladder of Citizen Participation" (1969) remains a valuable framework for evaluating authentic involvement: 1. Manipulation & Therapy (Non-participation) 2. Informing & Consultation (Tokenism) 3. Placation (Tokenism) 4. Partnership, Delegated Power & Citizen Control (Citizen Power) 𝗘𝘅𝗮𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗧𝗼𝗸𝗲𝗻𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗰 𝗣𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗲: • Creating lived experience steering groups whose governance decisions are consistently ignored, with others making all decisions, and lived experience experts are merely informed • Inviting people with lived experience to meetings but not providing accessible information beforehand or after • Paying people with lived experience less than professionals for their expertise, and not recognising the disablism of expense policies on disabled people on benefits/low-incomes • Exploiting the skills of lived experience experts and then disregarding the work they do e.g., have them write reports or policies with no intention of applying the lived expert findings/guidance I wish the above were not real experiences I have seen or personally experienced, but there is a better way... 𝗘𝘅𝗮𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗚𝗲𝗻𝘂𝗶𝗻𝗲 𝗖𝗼-𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗱𝘂𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻: • Ensuring people with lived experience are involved and governing projects from the earliest planning stages • Providing appropriate support, including financial compensation and equitable expense policies, training, and accessible materials • Creating decision-making structures where professionals cannot overrule those with lived experience • Valuing different types of expertise equally, whether academic or experiential 𝗠𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗱 If your organisation claims to practise co-production, ask yourself: Where does your approach sit on Arnstein's ladder? Are you sharing power or simply creating an illusion of involvement? Genuine co-production takes time, resources and commitment, but the results – more effective services, genuine empowerment, and meaningful change – are worth the investment. 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗲𝘅𝗮𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗼𝗸𝗲𝗻𝗶𝘀𝗺 𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗲 𝗰𝗼-𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗱𝘂𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗱? 𝗜'𝗱 𝗯𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗵𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘂𝗴𝗵𝘁𝘀. #Inclusion #CoProduction #LivedExperience #SocialCare #MeaningfulEngagement

Global climate finance is failing the people who need it most because it’s built for top-down pledges and compliance, not for getting resources into the hands of vulnerable communities. Today, less than 1% of funds reach grassroots adaptation, while 1.3 billion people remain excluded from basic financial services—leaving them unable to absorb climate shocks. In this Forbes article by Felicia Jackson, Tom Mitchell, Executive director of the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) and myself at CGAP argue that, to turn commitments into real resilience, we must redesign climate finance to prioritize locally led approaches, radically simplify and speed up access to funds, and align risk perception with market realities. We call for donors, MDBs, and governments to widen local access to climate finance through simplified approvals at major climate funds, channeling more financing through local intermediaries, and setting explicit targets for adaptation and direct community access—so climate money finally reaches the frontlines where it has the greatest impact. Read more at: https://lnkd.in/d8sfiSU4 #climatefinance #inclusivefinance #financialinclusion #locallyledadaptation

You talk about sustainable development. But when local knowledge shows up, it’s told: “You don’t fit.” We praise “community-led solutions” in speeches. We reference “grassroots expertise” in proposals. But too often, when it’s time to decide what counts as evidence, What gets funded What gets published The pieces that don't sound, look, or measure like Global North knowledge get quietly pushed aside. What we call a knowledge gap is sometimes just a gap in recognition. Local knowledge isn’t missing. It’s being filtered. This isn’t about adding a token voice to a panel. It’s about changing the frame entirely.... So that what communities know by living, is valued alongside what professionals know by training. Until then, the puzzle will always be missing something essential. Here are 5 ways to redesign for knowledge equity: 1. Co-define what counts as “evidence” → Include stories, oral histories, and lived experience as valid forms of data. 2. Budget for translation, not just language, but meaning → Translate indicators, methods, and outputs across cultural ways of knowing. 3. Hire community researchers as co-investigators → Not assistants. Not footnotes. But as decision-makers in the process. 4. Use participatory tools like Outcome Harvesting or Most Significant Change → They’re designed to surface change from within, not just top-down. 5. Rethink how funding proposals are structured → Many grants require academic English and technical jargon that can exclude grassroots organisations. Push for formats that welcome diverse ways of expressing ideas, like storytelling, diagrams, or even video pitches. Otherwise, we end up funding those who know the language, not necessarily those doing the work. Until local knowledge fits by design, not exception, we’re just solving half the puzzle. #KnowledgeEquity 🔔 Follow me for content related to inclusion and equity

Funding Pullbacks in Africa: A Reality Check for Founders & Ecosystem Builders Over the past year, several major players have either paused, reduced, or completely withdrawn funding to African startups and ecosystems: = USADF – Cancelled several ongoing programs, affecting grassroots innovation. = Mastercard Foundation – Scaled down major youth and entrepreneurship initiatives across multiple countries. = Google for Startups – Slowed expansion in funding for African cohorts. = FMO, Norfund, etc. – Reassessing exposure in early-stage African ventures. = VCs from Europe & US – Delayed or diverted capital to "safer markets." Meanwhile, inflation is biting harder, and many local startups are still over-reliant on foreign grants or equity that comes with conditions far removed from on-the-ground realities. The message is clear: African ecosystems must build their own capital engines. We must rethink overdependence on foreign VCs, create more local DAOs, cooperative funding models, and push for true local investment ecosystems that are transparent, inclusive, and scalable. This isn’t panic — it’s planning. The future of African innovation will be funded by us or not at all. #AfricaRising #VCinAfrica #BuildLocal #EcosystemShift #FundingReality #StartupAfrica #DecentralizeFunding #OwnOurNarrative

Following USAID's funding freeze, the UK government has also announced cuts to its international ‘aid’ budget. While these cuts will impact organizations across the development and humanitarian sectors, they will hit grassroots and feminist organizations the hardest—especially those working on issues that are already overlooked and underfunded. For years, women-led, feminist, and grassroots organizations have struggled to access even the smallest amounts of funding. Now, with over $60 billion annually (or even more) in cuts in international development funding, these organizations will find it even harder to access resources. Yes, we can debate the bureaucratic power imbalances that institutions like USAID have reinforced between funders and implementing organizations and the unequal playing field. But we cannot deny that lives are at stake. And maybe this is the time we can interrogate how we can create a funding ecosystem that is actually just, equitable, and capable of addressing structural and systemic challenges. As development practitioners, a few things we need to explore: First, how do we create a balance between responding to urgent humanitarian crises and investing in long-term solutions? Important life-saving programs are in crisis, and while we need to mobilize funding for them, we also need to think about channeling funds to solutions that last. Second, I cannot emphasize enough the need to fund grassroots movements and community-led organizations. We will never be able to address structural issues if sustainable, long-term, flexible funding is not channeled to grassroots-led solutions and if the power is not shifted back to the communities. This needs to be the topmost priority for funders right now. Third, can we rethink how individual philanthropy and crowdfunding work? How can we mobilize and encourage individual donors and philanthropic organizations to move away from one-off campaigns and short-term initiatives and instead invest in long-term change? Fourth, Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) funding is such an untapped resource. Can corporations / private-sector build meaningful, long-term partnerships with grassroots movements instead of just funding feel-good initiatives? #USAID #feministorganizations #grassrootsorganizations #gender #fundingfreeze