USAID/Malawi Integration Approach: How Do Beneficiaries Experience Integrated Development?

This approach involves integrating programmatic areas and implementing partners across sectors, with the expectation of achieving more efficient and effective development outcomes. For example, USAID implementing partners from the education and health sectors partnered to develop comic books about malaria control to boost both child reading skills and malaria prevention. The integrated approach in Malawi is part of a growing trend among development stakeholders. However, little is known about whether and how integration leads to efficiencies or improved outcomes, particularly for beneficiaries. A study conducted by Social Impact, Inc. (SI) in 2014 aimed to assess the effects of the integrated development approach on development outcomes related to education, agriculture, health, environment, and poverty status. The study found that beneficiaries are generally aware of integration occurring in their communities and have a positive overall view of integration, especially in terms of increased message consistency, reduced time burden, and improved program quality. The study used a quasi-experiment design and included a sample of nearly 5,000 households randomly drawn from eight Malawian districts. At the midpoint of the study, results showed particularly strong outcomes in the agriculture sector. Soy yields, consumption, and gross profit margins were significantly higher in districts targeted by USAID for the most comprehensive "full integration" approach than in non-integrated districts. Groundnut yields were also significantly greater in the fully integrated districts than in the non-integrated districts. A stakeholder analysis (SHA) was conducted as a complement to the impact evaluation, serving as an in-depth case study of the process of integration in the agriculture sector from the implementing partner (IP) staff, USAID, and beneficiary perspectives. The case study focused on USAID agriculture and environment sector activities in the fully integrated districts of Machinga and Balaka. To understand beneficiaries' experiences with integration, SI conducted 12 focus group discussions (FGDs) using a community mapping exercise to facilitate discussions among participants, including community leaders, men, and women in communities served by USAID programs in these districts. The study found that partnerships between USAID and implementing partners (IPs) appeared to fall into one of three types: value-chain, co-equivalent, and cross-sectoral. Value-chain partnerships involve partnerships between actors with different but complementary missions, activities, and populations. Co-equivalent partnerships involve partnerships between actors with similar or crosscutting missions, activities, and populations. Cross-sector partnerships involve partnerships between actors working in different sectors. Beneficiaries were generally aware of one or more organizations working together in their communities. They were most often aware of integration when they received joint trainings, community visits, or other services in the same physical spaces (co-location). In eleven of the 12 FGDs, participants named at least one way that integration has improved the effectiveness of the services they receive. The specific effects of integration perceived by beneficiaries included message consistency, reduced time burden, better goal alignment, reduction in duplication of services, increased community unity, and increased program quality.