Successful projects what makes them work A crossnational comparative analysis

1
Successful projects- what makes them work? A
cross-national comparative analysis
Inclusion International Congress November 2006
2
Our research

• In depth qualitative case studies of 13
  individual projects in India, Romania, Kenya and
  South Africa, working with
• national and cross-national comparisons
• local researchers in each country
• help, advice and co-ordination from international
  team of academics, disability organizations and
  NGOs

3
Original purpose

• Evaluation of a number of projects meeting a
  defined set of quality of life criteria.
• identify common factors for success
• develop model of best practice to promote across
  countries

4
Early lessons

• There is not one way or one model that works
  everywhere.
• Criteria for selecting successful projects must
  be culturally valid
• Learning something general requires an
  understanding of the specific

5
Conceptual framework

• Comparing culturally specific features needed a
  new conceptual framework.
• We needed to study projects that were locally
  seen as successful.
• The cultural contexts of the four countries were
  so different.

6
Conceptual framework cont.

• Only way to find common factors was to search for
  the culturally specific.
• Even different things can belong to the same
  category or phenomenon.
• The new concepts were developed through working
  with the material.

7
New methodology

• Common methodology framework
• same type of data
• rich description
• all relevant voices
• Need to understand the essential factors and
  processes in each project.

8
Must see it from the local perspective

• Because good projects look very different

9
(No Transcript)
10
all around the world
11
The analysis

• Local (counter) perspective
• Action space
• Activity
• Routinization
• Sources to success and lessons learnt

12
1. Local (counter) perspective

• Most projects started by parents as a response
  to local dissatisfaction.
• Parents felt
• angry and worried about the future
• they had no power
• A local (counter) perspective was formed through
  sharing of common experiences .

We wanted something better for our children
13
2. Action space

• Internal action space
• personal belief in what is possible
• isolated parents feel powerless
• External action space
• options for action in the community
• limited by dominant perspectives, bureaucracy,
  lack of resources and lack of leadership

14
From anger to action

• When they meet other parents, with the same
  experiences, they are empowered.
• Their internal action space increases.
• They find self-belief and discover
• change is possible
• they had power

15
Leadership

• Good projects also needed a leader with
• charisma, personality, passion and power that
• gives them a voice
• the respect of the group to bring them together
  and
• make them take action

16
Mam Duma South Africa

• Passion and fight came from her own experiences
  as a mother of a disabled child.
• Aggressive and passive resistance strategies used
  to raise awareness
• Charismatic leadership attracted supporters
  including Nelson Mandela
• Strategies resulted in development of Happy Home
  for 77 children from surrounding rural villages

Its not that I instigate the people, but that I
support them. I am not turning against my
governmentbut I want the situation corrected.
Mam Duma
17
3. Activity

• Measures type of activity
• (education, rehabilitation etc)
• varies according to local needs
• Strategies reflect local perspectives
• similar across cases, countries and measures

18
Measures
employment
education
housing
rehabilitation
19
Meeting local needs

• Activities are very varied according to local
  needs.
• Parents with younger children will typically set
  up an educational facility.
• Parents of adults will set up vocational or
  supported living projects.

20
Shared strategies

• All projects shared same strategies giving their
  project a certain profile and direction.
• Through community involvement, awareness
  raising, capacity building, self-representation
  and extensive use of the public room they all
  worked for same goal of inclusion.

Goal to promote acceptance, participation and
inclusion of people with intellectual
disabilities in the local community.
21
4. Routinization

• Process of informal groups developing and
  gaining a structure through
• organization
• formalization
• professionalization
• Necessary to secure stability and sustainability.

22
Risks of routinization

• At risk of losing energy and vitality that comes
  from the local perspective.
• Not all projects can maintain the vitality and
  energy so characteristic of early stages.

23
Continual revitalization

• good systems and structures
• professional
• formal well organized

• energy and open to new ideas
• parents and local people involved
• able to change

24
5. Sources to success

• A project can succeed if
• a local (counter) perspective exists with shared
  experiences of dissatisfaction giving energy and
  direction for local action
• there is a charismatic leader with sufficient
  respect and power to voice this perspective and
  direct the action
• there is external action space

25
Lessons learnt

• No such thing as a model or ideal project.
• The idea of developing a model of best practice
  would never work we could never apply it across
  cultural contexts
• No one can design a project from the outside and
  impose it on an area it must grow from below
  and develop its own preconditions.

26
Donors / government agencies

• Can facilitate successful projects by
• creating arenas for parents (and others) to meet
• supporting local leaders
• supporting projects to share their experiences
  with others
• revising applications and other donor strategies
  used to identify fundable projects