The CSI Indaba 2026 produced a decisive challenge to one of the social-investment sector’s oldest habits: communities are too often invited into the room after priorities, budgets and measures of success have already been determined. They may be consulted, counted or photographed, but they seldom hold meaningful decision-making power.
The outcome report calls for a fundamental correction. Communities must participate from diagnosis through design, implementation, governance and evaluation. This is more than respectful engagement. It is a shift in authority—from treating people as recipients of institutional generosity to recognising them as co-authors of development.
This shift matters because lived experience contains intelligence that formal systems frequently miss. Community leaders know which facilities are failing, which routes are unaffordable, which young people have disappeared from the education pipeline, and why a technically sound programme may not survive local realities. Asset-based community design begins with what people already do, value and organise, rather than beginning with an external institution’s predetermined solution.
The report also warns that “community voice” cannot become another slogan. Representation must be legitimate. Who has a mandate to speak? How are representatives selected? What decision rights do they hold? How does information return to the constituency? Without answers, the language of participation can conceal the same power arrangements it claims to change.
The 2027–2030 planning period must therefore establish a community co-governance standard for the Indaba and its partners. At minimum, this should define representation, voting rights, feedback loops and the proportion of priorities originating from communities themselves. Grassroots organisations should participate in investment committees and programme governance, not merely implementation. Public reporting should show how community input changed a decision, a budget or a delivery model.
This approach requires funders to examine their own systems. Governance and compliance remain necessary because public-purpose capital must be protected. However, compliance should be proportionate to the funding and risk involved, and institutional readiness should be built rather than used only as an exclusion threshold. If capable local organisations are rejected because they lack finance, monitoring or digital systems, the appropriate response may be to invest in those systems—not to redirect the work automatically to a large intermediary.
Flexible institutional support is especially important. Many local founders carry deep knowledge and trust but cannot pay themselves, retain staff or manage growing administrative demands. They eventually leave the community organisation to earn a living inside a larger NGO, taking irreplaceable knowledge with them. If CSI only funds activities and never the institution delivering them, it weakens the very infrastructure on which sustainable change depends.
Between 2027 and 2030, the Indaba can demonstrate a different model. It can create shared services for finance, compliance, human resources, monitoring and proposal development. It can make support accessible through low-bandwidth channels. It can track how much funding reaches locally led and rural organisations after intermediary costs. Most importantly, it can test whether communities become more capable, organised and powerful—not only whether more services are delivered to them.
This is how the 25-year vision begins to take practical form. Dismantling inequality is not simply about redistributing resources within existing relationships. It is about changing who defines the problem, who controls capital and who judges success. By 2030, the Indaba should be able to show that community co-governance has moved from aspiration to standard practice among participating partners.
Yet transferring voice without strengthening institutions can leave communities holding responsibility without the means to act. The next article therefore turns to the infrastructure of transformation: the organisations, public systems and local capabilities that must remain standing long after individual grants have ended.
Leave a Reply