The ability to adapt to unexpected shocks—whether natural disasters, political unrest, or economic crises—can determine the success or failure of a project. Dexis examines how to adjust programming in response to such disruptions, specifically for conflict prevention and stabilization.
From its origins in social protection, shock-responsive programming has evolved into a crucial approach across various sectors of development. USAID provides guidance on adapting a contract to be shock responsive, through such things as a “Supplemental Technical Assistance” line item, which allows projects to quickly adjust in response to unforeseen events. And USAID’s Office of Transition Initiatives (OTI) programs also offer a model for some aspects of shock-responsive programming.
As programs increasingly operate in fragile and volatile environments, the need for flexible, adaptive strategies has never been greater. A study by Oxford Policy Management (OPM), which outlines five strategies for adapting social protection programming to shocks, offers insights into how shock-responsive programming can be applied to stabilization and conflict prevention, as described below:
1. Design Tweaks: Adjusting Routine Interventions
One of the most straightforward approaches is to modify the design of current programming. In environments with escalating political repression, for example, Dexis pivoted its focus from providing long-term organizational development assistance to offering grants for essential services and human rights advocacy. In other fast-paced contexts, Dexis uses short-term grants to rapidly expand into new technical areas or geographies, work with new groups, or pilot ideas to test what works and what doesn’t before taking interventions to scale.
Trainings across borders can serve as a proactive measure to ensure that local systems can adapt and effectively respond to crises when they arise. USAID/Mexico and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) selected Irma Rebecca Gonzalez (pictured) to participate in an elite “hotshot” firefighting crew in California and attend the annual “Women in Fire” seminar in Arizona. Photo Credit: Rafael Flores/USAID.
2. Piggybacking: Leveraging Existing Infrastructure
Piggybacking involves using an existing program’s infrastructure to deliver additional goods and services in response to a shock. For example, during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, some projects quickly adapted their infrastructure to distribute personal protective equipment and other critical supplies. Projects can also use their existing context monitoring processes to expand what is being monitored. This approach aligns with USAID’s “Supplemental Technical Assistance” line item, which allows projects to expand their scope without straying from the contract’s original objectives.
3. Vertical Expansion: Increasing Benefits for Existing Recipients
Vertical expansion entails temporarily increasing the value or duration of benefits for current program recipients. This could involve providing additional training, larger grants, or extended support to beneficiaries already engaged in the program. For instance, if donors withdrew from a country facing civil unrest, civil society organizations would likely appeal for direct awards rather than organizational development support. In response, the project could rescope its activities to issue multiple small grants in six months, focusing on areas such as combatting sexual and gender-based violence and promoting citizen security, digital literacy, social service delivery, and positive youth engagement.
4. Horizontal Expansion: Reaching New Beneficiaries
Horizontal expansion refers to increasing the number of recipients in an existing program by tapping into pre-existing infrastructure, systems, and partnerships. For example, during periods of drought a food security and livelihood development initiative providing cash and food transfers can temporarily include households that would not typically qualify for support. This ensures that those facing acute need due to the shock receive rapid assistance. And by preventing households from falling into deeper poverty, the project still maintains its original focus.
5. Alignment: Coordinating with Other Interventions
Finally, alignment involves coordinating with other current or planned interventions to avoid duplication of efforts and ensure a coherent response. This could mean aligning with host government-led responses or other donor-funded programs. For example, if a government launches a job training initiative for internally displaced persons in response to violent extremist activity, a stabilization program might shift its focus to complement this effort rather than duplicating services.
In addition to these approaches, Dexis teams also employ shock-responsive management techniques such as six-month rolling workplans, flexible monthly budget reviews and reforecasting, and short- and medium-term scenario planning to maintain continuity of programming in fluid environments.
Implementing shock-responsive programming requires ongoing context monitoring and a conflict-sensitive approach to understand how changes will impact affected communities. Taking a proactive stance allows for the continuous adaptation of programs in response to evolving conditions, ultimately ensuring that development efforts remain relevant and effective in the face of uncertainty. By incorporating shock-responsive strategies into stabilization and conflict prevention programs, we can better prepare for the unexpected and help communities navigate crises with even greater resilience.
For additional perspectives on adjusting programs to on-the-ground realities, see Crisis Without Conclusion: Adapting Programming to Protracted Conflicts, part of the Dialogues with Dexis series.
