Coordinating CTs

How are CTs coordinated?

Coordination is important in UCTs, which often rely on lower level officials and groups for help implementing the program.

  • In Malawi’s SCT, district social welfare committees are composed of members from various sectors. These committees play a role in approving lists of potential beneficiaries (Miller et al. 2010).
  • Rwanda’s VUP also delegates responsibilities to groups at various levels, making coordination indispensible. Districts are responsible for financial administration of VUP, including contracting with partners and making payments (Republic of Rwanda 2009).

Some programs using decentralized groups allow local-level implementation variations.

Programs that work with outside entities, such as NGOs, also must coordinate activities.

  • Kenya’s HSNP works with various outside organizations that are in charge of administration, payments, complaints, monitoring and evaluation. Many of these groups are NGOs. This structure requires communication among all groups, and higher level coordination by a secretariat within the Ministry for the Development of Northern Kenya (Hunger Safety Net Program n.d.).

Coordination is also important for CTs that want to link beneficiaries to complementary programs and/or graduate beneficiaries from the program.

  • In Kenya’s CT for OVC, an advisory area council has district-level officials involved in various activities, beyond simply the CT, that help children.
  • Lesotho’s CGP will use district child protection teams, who will work with community committees to implement the CGP and coordinate other child social services across the district (Blank 2008).
  • These linkages have proved vital to the impact of Ethiopia’s PSNP, where program impacts were muted when beneficiaries did not have access to related programs supporting their food security (World Bank 2010c, Gilligan et al. 2009a).

Since line ministries are often involved in monitoring conditions, coordination between program units, decentralized line ministries, and other partners is crucial in CCTs.

  • For example, village committees against AIDS and decentralized line services monitor the fulfillment of conditions in Burkina Faso’s CCT/CT. Coordination is required between provincial and regional committees against AIDS, local committees, and representatives of the line ministries (CNLS 2008).
  • Senegal’s CCT for OVC must work with local NGOs to identify OVC, implement the program, and coordinate with schools. It has found such coordination among the various groups to be essential, especially at decentralized levels (CNLS & Banque Mondiale n.d., Document de Cadrage Technique 2009).

In Sub-Saharan Africa’s CTs, formal arrangements among groups are still growing, and ofen program coordination improves over time.