For years, development has followed a familiar script. Donors design. Organisations implement. Communities participate. The Reverse Call for Proposals (RCfP) challenges that script.
It asks a different question. What happens when communities define their own priorities and external actors respond to them?
At its core, the RCfP is not just a funding mechanism. It is a deliberate shift in power. One that places community institutions, such as community foundations, at the centre of decision making, resource allocation, and implementation.
But as recent reflections from Nyankanga Community Foundation show, shifting power is not a single moment. It is a process. And like any process, it comes with both promise and pressure. It also comes with mindset shift on both communities and funding partners.
The Reality Behind Community-Led Development
At Nyankanga, the experience of implementing the RCfP model reveals something often overlooked in development conversations. When communities lead, they do not suddenly become perfect implementers. They become real ones who must also learn in the process.
A three-week training period was followed by a compressed implementation timeline, creating immediate pressure to translate knowledge into action. In practice, this exposed gaps. Documentation processes were not always adequate on the part of the community foundation. Bulk procurement created management challenges. Some planned activities, such as beekeeping under natural resource management, could not be implemented within the timeframe.
Environmental realities also played a role. Gardening activities were suspended due to waterlogged dambos and full streams, a reminder that community-led development is deeply tied to context in ways that rigid project timelines often fail to accommodate.
And yet, within these constraints, progress emerged.
Livestock management interventions, supported by vaccination programmes, delivered tangible benefits. Seeds distributed during horticulture training continue to support households. Engagement with schools opened up new pathways for involving young people in development processes.
These are not perfect outcomes. But they are real, grounded, and owned.
Power Shift Meets System Constraints
One of the clearest lessons from Nyankanga is that shifting power to communities does not automatically shift the systems around them.
Community foundations were expected to lead, but often within structures that were not designed for them. Administrative costs were not included in the budget because the community foundation overlooked. Communication gaps, such as delays in notifying the foundation about fund disbursement, slowed implementation.
High transport and facilitation costs, particularly on the part of public service officers, placed additional strain on already limited resources. In some cases, concerns emerged that external service providers may have taken advantage of the foundation’s position, highlighting the persistent imbalance that can exist even within “community-led” approaches.
This tension raises an important question. Can communities truly lead if the systems they operate within remain unchanged?
Rethinking Partnership
Reflections from Plan International Zambia point to a critical shift in how partnerships must be understood. True partnership is not about oversight. It is about mutual respect.
True partnership requires recognising communities not as beneficiaries, but as equal actors, even when capacity gaps exist. It requires resisting the instinct to intervene or control, while still providing the support needed to strengthen systems and accountability.
True partnership means allowing communities to make decisions, and sometimes mistakes, while ensuring that resources are used responsibly. It means supporting without overshadowing. Walking alongside, rather than ahead.
It also requires internal reflection. Acknowledging that traditional development approaches often position external actors as the “experts,” and actively working to dismantle that dynamic.
This balance is not easy.
What the Model Is Teaching Us
From Zambian Governance Foundation’s perspective, the RCfP is reaffirming something fundamental. Process matters as much as outcomes.
Training materials designed for larger organisations proved difficult to translate at community level, highlighting the need for more accessible, context-driven tools. Short liquidation periods created pressure rather than accountability. And timelines that did not align with seasonal realities limited what communities could realistically achieve.
These are not failures of the model. They are insights. They show that if development is to be truly community-led, then every element of the system, from budgeting to documentation to timelines, must be designed with communities in mind.
Looking Forward: From Experiment to Practice
What emerges from these reflections is not a rejection of the RCfP model, but a deeper understanding of what it demands. Community foundations like Nyankanga are already pointing the way forward.
There is recognition of the need:
To diversify initiatives, including the introduction of savings groups as an empowerment mechanism for communities.
To strengthen governance structures.
To create more consistent feedback loops with communities.
To bring young people more intentionally into development processes.
At the same time, funding partners must adapt. There is a need:
For longer timelines, more flexible funding structures, and stronger communication systems.
For deeper engagement that goes beyond project implementation to truly understanding community realities.
For continued investment in capacity, without undermining ownership.
There is also a growing recognition that learning must be shared. Platforms for peer exchange, documentation of experiences, and collective reflection will be critical in shaping the future of this model.
Beyond Shifting Power
The Reverse Call for Proposals was designed to shift power. But what Nyankanga’s experience reveals is that shifting power is only the beginning.
The real work lies in what comes after:
In building systems that support that power.
In strengthening institutions that can sustain it.
In navigating the complexity of letting go, while still holding accountability.
Because community-led development is not about getting everything right. It is about getting closer to something more honest. More responsive. More grounded.
And perhaps, more lasting.
To join in the discussion, please feel free to reach out via info@zgf.org.zm
