Case Study: Lessons of Challenge Funds for resilience building

The document examines the design, selection, implementation, and scaling of Challenge Funds (CFs) specifically for resilience building. It compares GRP's operational experience with a broader literature review of various international CFs, such as the African Enterprise Challenge Fund and the Global Innovation Fund. Key findings emphasize the need for clear definitions of resilience, the value of multi-stage application processes to support local innovators, and the necessity of long-term strategies to move innovations beyond the 'valley of death' toward sustainable scale. The report concludes with specific recommendations for future resilience-focused challenges, highlighting the importance of adaptive management and robust, long-term impact evaluations.

• Effective resilience programming requires a shared understanding and clear definition of resilience as a precursor to design and evaluation, as the concept is complex and involves various 'principles,' 'qualities,' 'dimensions,' and 'characteristics'.
• Multi-stage application processes, such as the one used in GRP's Round 1, can improve the quality of final products by providing funding for problem diagnosis and solution development, though they increase transaction costs.
• Small, local, and non-traditional innovators face significant barriers to applying for Challenge Funds, including a lack of capacity and the use of development jargon in guidelines; overcoming this requires significant non-financial assistance and mentoring.
• Resilience-building projects are difficult to evaluate for impact because increased capacities (intermediate outcomes) may take years to translate into actual resilience, and a significant shock may not occur during the project's lifetime.
• Challenge Funds often fail to support scaling because they lack long-term planning and engagement beyond the initial grant period, risking the loss of value created during the project.
• The route to scaling is highly dependent on sub-national and national contexts; for example, some businesses in Ghana chose to scale only within their specific part of the country due to differing social and economic contexts between the north and south.
• Literature suggests that a narrower regional or sectoral focus generally improves outcomes by preventing the dilution of the call to action, although a clear theory of change can make broad poverty-reduction focuses successful.
• There is a risk of cognitive bias where funders are seduced by the 'newness' of technology-related approaches, potentially overlooking the more critical factor of cost-effectiveness for pro-poor solutions.

APA

Yaron, G., Hepworth, C., & Verkaart, S. (2019). Case Study: Lessons of Challenge Funds for resilience building. Global Resilience Partnership. https://www.globalresiliencepartnership.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/grp-challenge-funds.pdf

Chicago

Yaron, Gil, Catrin Hepworth, and Simone Verkaart. Case Study: Lessons of Challenge Funds for resilience building. Global Resilience Partnership, 2019. https://www.globalresiliencepartnership.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/grp-challenge-funds.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Yaron |first1=Gil |last2=Hepworth |first2=Catrin |last3=Verkaart |first3=Simone |title=Case Study: Lessons of Challenge Funds for resilience building |publisher=Global Resilience Partnership |date=September 2019 |url=https://www.globalresiliencepartnership.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/grp-challenge-funds.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{yaron2019case, author = {Yaron, Gil and Hepworth, Catrin and Verkaart, Simone}, title = {{Case Study: Lessons of Challenge Funds for resilience building}}, institution = {Global Resilience Partnership}, year = {2019}, month = sep, url = {https://www.globalresiliencepartnership.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/grp-challenge-funds.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }