Skip to Main Content

RTI uses cookies to offer you the best experience online. By and clicking “accept” on this website, you opt in and you agree to the use of cookies. If you would like to know more about how RTI uses cookies and how to manage them please view our Privacy Policy here. You can “opt out” or change your mind by visiting: http://optout.aboutads.info/. Click “accept” to agree.

Accept
RTI International
  • About
    • Office Locations
    • Executive Leadership
    • Corporate Governance
    • Partner with Us
      • U.S. Government
      • Clients and Funding Agencies
      • Industry and Commercial Clients
      • Foundations and Associations
      • Bilateral Agencies and Multilateral Banks
      • Universities and Academic Research Institutions
      • Suppliers and Small Businesses
    • Commitment to Quality
      • RTI's Client Listening Program
    • Ethics and Human Research Protection
    • Living Our Mission
    • Veteran Opportunities at RTI

    About

  • Practice Areas
    • Health
      • Public Health and Well-Being
      • Health Care Transformation
      • Behavioral Health
      • Health Behavior Change
      • Precision Medicine
      • RTI Health Solutions (RTI-HS)
      • RTI Center for Community Health Evaluation and Economics Research
      • Health Equity
      • RTI Health Advance
    • Transformative Research Unit for Equity​
      • Equity Capacity Building Hub
      • Social and Economic Justice Research Collaborative
      • Narrative Research and Community Engagement Lab
    • Education and Workforce Development
      • Early Childhood
      • K-12 Education
      • Postsecondary Education
      • Career and Adult Education and Workforce Development
      • Education Policy, Systems, and Governance
      • Education Research Methodologies
      • Education Technologies
    • International Development
      • Energy for Development
      • Environment
      • Global Food Security, Agriculture, and Nutrition
      • Global Health
      • International Education
      • Monitoring, Evaluation, Research, Learning, and Adapting (MERLA)
      • Youth and Economic Opportunity
      • Building Resilience Against COVID-19 in Developing Countries
      • Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene (WASH)
      • RTI Center for Governance
    • Climate Change
      • Clean Energy Technology and Renewables
      • Climate Finance
      • Climate Justice and Equity
      • Climate Planning, Preparedness and Resilience
      • Climate Policy
      • Climate Vulnerability, Adaptation, and Mitigation
      • Economic Impacts of Climate Change
    • Water
      • Food-Energy-Water Nexus
      • Water Quality
      • WASH (Water, Sanitation, Hygiene)
      • Water Resources Management
    • Energy Research
      • Carbon Capture and Utilization
      • Biomass Conversion
      • Natural Gas
      • Energy Efficiency
      • Industrial Water
      • Syngas Processing
    • Environmental Sciences
      • Air Quality
      • RTI Center for Water Resources
      • Urban Sustainability
      • Toxics
      • Building Resiliency in the FEW Nexus
      • Climate Change Sciences and Analysis
      • Environmental Policy
      • Environmental Justice
      • Sustainable Materials & Waste Management Solutions
    • Justice Research and Policy
      • RTI Center for Community Safety and Crime Prevention
      • RTI Center for Policing Research and Investigative Science
      • Child Well-Being and Family Strengthening
      • RTI Center for Forensic Sciences
    • Food Security and Agriculture
      • Market Systems Strengthening
      • Food Safety
      • Food and Nutrition
      • Global Food Security, Agriculture, and Nutrition
      • Climate-Smart Agriculture
      • Agricultural Innovation
      • Obesity Prevention
    • Innovation Ecosystems
      • Innovation Advising
      • Innovation for Economic Growth
      • Innovation for Emerging and Developing Economies
      • Innovation for Organizations
      • Research, Technology, and Innovation Policy
      • Technology Acceleration
    • Military Support
      • Military Behavioral Health
      • Military Health and Human Performance
      • Military Sexual Assault, Harassment, and Domestic Violence Prevention
      • Wearable Sensor Technologies
      • Military Health System Transformation

    Practice Areas

  • Services + Capabilities
    • Surveys and Data Collection
      • Survey Design
      • Instrument Development
      • Survey Methodologies
      • Data Collection
      • Establishment Surveys
      • Health Registries
      • Data Analysis and Reporting
      • Research Operations Center
    • Statistics and Data Science
      • Survey Statistics
      • Environmental Statistics
      • Coordinating Centers for Multisite Studies
      • Analysis and Design of Complex Data
      • Biostatistics
      • RTI Center for Data Science
    • Evaluation, Assessment and Analysis
      • Evaluation Design and Execution
      • Advanced Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods
      • Evaluation, Monitoring, and Assessment
      • Economic Analysis
      • Evaluating Communication Interventions and Campaigns
      • Evidence Synthesis for Policy and Practice
      • Risk Assessment and Prediction
    • Program Design and Implementation
      • Systems Strengthening and Scaling
      • Capacity Assessment and Building
      • Policy Reform Support
      • Curriculum and Teacher Professional Development
      • Interventions and Prevention Programs
      • Implementation Science
    • Digital Solutions for Social Impact
      • Human-Centered Design of Digital Solutions
      • Digital Product Development
      • Digital Communication Campaigns
      • Digital Data Analytics
    • Research Technologies
      • Survey Technologies
      • Data Management and Decision Support Systems
      • Geospatial Science, Technology, and Visualization
      • ICT for Limited-Resource Settings
      • Mobile Applications
      • Web Applications
      • Bioinformatics
      • Interactive Computing
    • Drug Discovery and Development
      • Medicinal Chemistry
      • Molecular Design and Cheminformatics
      • Behavioral Pharmacology
      • Drug Metabolism and Pharmacokinetics (DMPK)
      • In Vitro Pharmacology, Bioassay Development, and High-Throughput Screening (HTS)
      • Isotope Labeling
      • Regulatory Consulting and Support for Medical Products
    • Analytical Laboratory Sciences
      • Bioanalytical and Toxicology Research
      • Forensic Sciences
      • Physicochemical Characterizations
      • Metabolomics
      • Proficiency Testing and Reference Materials
      • Microbiology
      • Analytical Chemistry and Pharmaceutics
    • Engineering & Technology R&D
      • Biomedical Technologies
      • Decarbonization Sciences
      • Environmental Exposure & Protection
      • Materials & Environment
      • Sustainable Energy Solutions

    Services + Capabilities

  • Centers
    • RTI Center for Advanced Methods Development
    • RTI Center for Communication Science
      • Communication Research
      • Communication Design
      • Communication Delivery
    • RTI Center for Data Science
    • RTI Center for Education Services
      • Teaching and Learning
      • Education Leadership
      • Peer Learning Networks
      • Strategic Consulting
    • RTI Center for Forensic Sciences
    • RTI Center for Global Noncommunicable Diseases
      • Program Financing & Economics for NCDs
      • Health Systems Strengthening for NCDs
      • Communication Science and Behavior Change for NCDs
      • Implementation Science for NCDs
    • RTI GenOmics, Bioinformatics, and Translational Research Center
      • Disability Studies
      • Ethics
      • Newborn Screening
    • RTI Center for Water Resources
      • Water Resources Sectors
      • Water Resources Services
      • Water Resources Tools
    • RTI Center for Governance
    • RTI Global Gender Center
    • North Carolina Center for Optimizing Military Performance
    • NCCU-RTI Center for Applied Research in Environmental Sciences
    • RTI Center for Climate Solutions

    Centers

  • Impact
    • Newsroom
    • Insights Blog
    • Events
    • Publications
    • RTI Press
      • About the RTI Press
      • Instructions for Authors
      • RTI Press Collections
    • Projects
    • Global Reach
      • Asia
      • Eastern Europe and Central Asia
      • RTI International India
      • Africa
      • Middle East and North Africa (MENA)
      • Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC)

    Impact

  • Experts
    • Our Experts
    • In-Depth With Our Experts
    • Related News
    • Experts In the Media
    • RTI Fellow Program

    Experts

  • Emerging Issues
    • COVID-19 Research
    • Artificial Intelligence
    • Global Health Security
    • Cannabis Research
    • Opioid Research
      • Interventions for Opioid Use Disorders
      • Preventing Opioid Misuse and Overdose
      • Treating Opioid Use Disorders
    • Policing Research and Investigative Science
    • Drone Research and Application
    • E-cigarette Research
    • Zika Virus Research
    • Integrated Governance

    Emerging Issues

  • COVID-19 Research + Response
  • Global Reach
  • Insights Blog
  • Newsroom
  • RTI Press
  • Publications
  • Partner With Us
  • Careers
  • Facebook IconTwitter IconInstagram IconYouTube IconLinkedin Icon
  • Home
  • Impact
  • RTI Press
  • The value of integrating governance and sector programs

The value of integrating governance and sector programs

Evidence from Senegal

By Sarah Frazer, Anna Maria Wetterberg, Eric M. Johnson.

September 2021 Open Access Peer Reviewed

DOI: 10.3768/rtipress.2021.rb.0028.2109

Check for Updates Download PDF
Frazer, S., Wetterberg, A. M., & Johnson, E. M. (2021). The value of integrating governance and sector programs: Evidence from Senegal. RTI Press. RTI Press Research Brief No. RB-0028-2109 https://doi.org/10.3768/rtipress.2021.rb.0028.2109
Copy citation
Share
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Twitter
  • Share on Linkedin
  • Email
Key Points
  • Research has shown that effective governance enhances social sector investments, yet little evidence exists on the results of integrated development programming that intentionally combines governance and sectoral investments.
  • This quasi-experimental study of an initiative in Senegal shows that integrated governance is associated with some improvements in health service delivery, specifically some aspects of access and quality at health facilities.
  • The findings—that health facilities are more likely to be open seven days a week, with higher quality infrastructure and staff following correct procedures, after integrated governance treatment—suggest that integrated governance adds value by improving health service readiness.
  • We posit that capacity-building of local governance bodies and an emphasis on social accountability could explain the added value of integrating governance and health programming.

Abstract

As the global community works toward the Sustainable Development Goals, closer integration between governance and sectoral interventions offers a promising, yet unproven avenue for improving health service delivery. We interrogate what value an integrated governance approach, intentionally combining governance and sectoral investments in strategic collaboration, adds to health service readiness and delivery using data from a study in Senegal. Our quasi-experimental research design compared treatment and control communes to determine the value added of an integrated governance approach in Senegal compared to health interventions alone. Our analysis shows that integrated governance is associated with improvements in some health service delivery dimensions, specifically, in aspects of health facility access and quality. These findings—that health facilities are more open, with higher quality infrastructure and staff more frequently following correct procedures after integrated governance treatment—suggests a higher level of service readiness. We suggest that capacity building of governance structures and an emphasis on social accountability could explain the added value of integrating governance and health programming. These elements may help overcome a critical bottleneck between citizens and local government often seen with narrower sector or governance-only approaches. We discuss implications for health services in Senegal, international development program design, and further research.

Creative Commons © 2023 RTI International. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Contents

  • Introduction
  • The Case of Senegal
  • Research Design
  • Does Integrated Governance Enhance Health Service Readiness and Delivery?
    • Access
      • Quality
      • How Does Integrated Governance Add Value to Health Service Delivery?
      • Implications for Health Care in Senegal, Program Design, and Achieving the SDGs
        • Stronger Health Governance Structures and Social Accountability
          • Implications for Health Services in Senegal
            • Implications for International Development Program Design
            • Acknowledgments
            • References

            The Value of Integrating Governance and Sector Programs: Evidence from Senegal

            By SarahFrazerAnnaWetterbergEricJohnson

            Introduction

            By agreeing to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in 2015, the global community set a bold, shared vision to end poverty and improve human welfare. The SDGs, as well as the preceding Millennium Development Goals, have prompted substantially increased investment in development. From 2000 to 2016, US government foreign aid more than doubled from $25 billion to $53 billion, with health programs attracting the most funding.1 Yet progress toward the global goals has been mixed, particularly in health where advances against prominent diseases such as malaria, tuberculosis, and HIV have been celebrated, but major challenges remain, including access to quality care and sustainable financing.

            As the global community has searched for novel ideas and innovations—technology solutions, private sector partnerships, alternative financing—something more foundational has emerged as a promising avenue for advancing the goals: closer integration between governance and sectoral interventions. As defined by international development donors2, 3 and researchers,4 “governance” encompasses the institutions and interactions through which authority is exercised in a given context, including the selection and monitoring of leaders; capacity to establish and implement policies, services, and programs; and the inclusive involvement of relevant stakeholders (e.g., governments, citizens, and community groups) in decisions.2–4 Research has shown that effective governance can enhance sector investments,5 including economic growth,6 education,7 and health,8 and that it can be an important condition for achieving the SDGs.9

            Some donors, such as the US Agency for International Development (USAID), have prioritized integrated programming,3 intentionally combining governance and sectoral investments in strategic collaboration to boost outcomes in specific contexts.10 Yet, integration at the programmatic level has often proven challenging in practice.11, 12 Even when sectoral and governance investments are combined, limited empirical evidence exists on the results of integrated governance on service outcomes, hampering further adoption of integrated program designs.

            This brief provides new evidence by interrogating what value an integrated governance approach adds to health service readiness and delivery using data from a quasi-experimental study in Senegal. The study contributes to an emerging body of research examining governance and sector program integration, including recent or active studies in Malawi,13 Democratic Republic of the Congo,14 and Guinea.15 We find that integrating governance and health programs can enhance access to and quality of health services, and we explore pathways that link good governance to these service readiness improvements. The remainder of this brief lays out the Senegalese context and research design, presents our findings, and draws implications for future integrated governance programs and research.

            The Case of Senegal

            Improving health outcomes (SDG 3) is a policy priority but remains a challenge for the Government of Senegal.16 SDG monitors have noted Senegal’s moderate health improvements, but flag significant remaining issues.17 In the Senegalese health system, local health facilities range from village-level health huts to commune-level health posts and department-level health centers.18 Health huts deliver basic primary care and a minimum package of family planning, maternal, and child health services, supervised by health post staff. Service range and facility sophistication increase at posts and centers.19

            In Senegal’s decentralized governance structure, local governments (communes) play an important role in improving healthcare because they have been delegated overall management of the budget and specific government, regulatory, and service provision responsibilities. However, communal planning and budgeting for health services are often unresponsive to community needs. Facility budgets are frequently driven by funds earmarked by the central government and routinized budget management rather than by local priorities and the actual costs to provide needed services.20

            Realizing this untapped potential for local governments to improve healthcare, USAID concurrently funded the Governance for Local Development (GoLD) [2016–2022] and the Integrated Services and Healthy Behavior Adoption (Neema) [2016–2021] programs and mandated they work together in targeted regions, with the assumption that the governance investment would add value to the health program outcomes.

            Neema worked in seven regions to promote a community-based approach to increasing access and use of quality health services (Figure 1). Activities included investing in health facilities and the health workforce and engaging Health Local Committees (comités de développement sanitaires; CDS) in facility monitoring and accountability. The CDS, made up of community members, elected officials, and facility staff, educates community members, promotes citizen participation, and monitors service quality and management.

            Activity regions for Neema + GoLD and Neema only

            GoLD collaborated with Neema in four regions (Figure 1) using an integrated approach to improve the capacity of local governments to provide priority services by strengthening skills and processes for planning, budgeting, community involvement, and resource mobilization (Figure 2). In line with the recognized need for a multilevel approach to improving service delivery,21–23 GoLD supports Municipal Councils and their technical working groups, such as Health Technical Commissions (HTC* In French, HTCs are commissions techniques de santé; to reduce confusion over similar acronyms, we use the English-based acronym HTC for health technical commissions and French-based CDS for health local committees.), charged with defining and monitoring local health policy, as well as CDS. The regions in which Neema is active without GoLD form the control group for our study of the integrated governance treatment (Neema + GoLD).

            Figure 2 shows the specific Neema-only (control) and Neema and GoLD (treatment) interventions at mayor and municipal council, HTC, CDS, and facility levels. The smaller, shaded boxes show interventions that Neema implemented in all communes. The larger horizontal bars show interventions that Neema and GoLD coordinate to implement in treatment communes. Thus, the horizontal bars, including boxes, represent the entirety of integrated interventions in treatment communes; the boxes represent health-sector activities occurring in control communes. Figure 2 underscores the substantial additional integrated activities at the municipal and HTC levels in treatment communes.

            Summary of Neema (health-only/control) and Neema + GoLD (integrated/treatment) interventions

            Source: Adapted from NordNordWest—Own work, using United States National Imagery and Mapping Agency data, World Data Base II data, Agence Nationale de la Statistique et de la Démographie Sénégal. Creative Commons BY-SA 3.0

            Research Design

            This research seeks to determine what value the integrated governance approach adds, compared with the health interventions alone, operationalized as three research questions focused on health service readiness and delivery:

            1. Does an integrated governance approach improve the level and/or sources of funding available for commune-level health services?

            2. Does an integrated governance approach improve commune-level health governance functions?

            3. Does an integrated governance approach improve health service delivery?

            We took a quasi-experimental approach to assess the effect of integrated governance treatment in the 50 communes where Neema and GoLD worked together—compared with 60 statistically matched control communes within the same regions that received the health program alone (Neema only)—on health service delivery.

            First, to select our study communes, we calculated propensity scores for all available communes (50 treatment and 98 possible control communes within the four regions) based on 13 covariates,† The covariates considered in the propensity score model were population density; number of live births a year; child mortality; exclusive breast-feeding rate, HIV prevalence, under-five diarrhea prevalence, DPT vaccination rate, education attainment for males and females, electricity use (as measured by “night lights” data); agricultural density (land use); vegetation index (land use); and distance from major city (travel time measure). then matched treatment and control communes based on overlapping propensity scores and data collected in the selected 110 communes. Second, after data collection, we applied a 1:1 Mahalanobis optimal matching procedure, which balances covariates exactly, to ensure similar baseline values among matched communes, increasing precision and power. This two-step matching allowed us to isolate the added value of integrated programming within the parameters of ongoing implementation by removing bias and comparing as similar locations as possible among treatment and control communes.

            Working with a Senegalese field research team, we surveyed 659 respondents (110 municipal councilors, 110 HTC councilors, 229 CDS members, 83 health hut staff, 101 health post staff, 26 health center staff) in 110 selected communes in the Kédougou, Kolda, Tambacounda, and Sédhiou regions. The surveys, primarily made up of closed-ended questions, were conducted in March 2020.

            The survey collected data on health service readiness and delivery dimensions:

            • Health resources: reports of health service funding levels, sources, and changes. No secondary financial data were available for triangulation.

            • Functionality of health governance bodies: whether HTCs and CDSs were established, performing expected functions, identifying service delivery issues, and addressing identified issues. Questions were developed based on the GoLD program approach and European Centre for Development Policy Management Capability Framework.24

            • Health service delivery: short-term service delivery dimensions for availability, access, use, and quality at health facilities (note that this research does not gauge patient outcomes such as mortality and morbidity). Drawing on health service frameworks from the World Health Organization and the US Department of Health and Human Services, and input from health experts, we define service delivery dimensions as follows (Table 1). Availability gauges provision of health services and staff. Access relates to patients’ ability to take advantage of available health facility resources. Use indicates patients’ actual utilization of services. Quality is measured by staff competencies, compliance with professional norms, and available infrastructure.25, 26 Survey questions corresponding to each dimension were drawn from the 2017 Senegal Demographic Health Survey.27

            Health service readiness and delivery dimensions and subtopics covered in survey
            Dimensions Subtopics
            Availability
            • Number of employees

            • Services provided

            Access
            • Weekly hours of operation and employee hours

            • Services offered in last month

            • Stockout of relevant medications

            • Number of health insurance patients

            • Referrals made to another facility

            Use
            • Total patients seen in one month

            • Patients seen for specific services in one month

            • Perceived and actual year-over-year change in patients seen

            • Perceived year-over-year change in number of medically assisted births

            Quality
            • Specific technical personnel

            • Infrastructure and personnel investment over last year

            • Availability of patient registers

            • Proper disposing of human waste and sharps

            • Availability and functionality of electricity, running water, and toilets

            The reported results reflect multivariate statistical analysis of our survey data with separate logistic regressions for different health facility levels (health huts and health posts; regressions do not include health center data due to the small number surveyed) and different health governance bodies (HTCs and CDS).‡ We considered pooling analysis across health facilities to increase sample size but opted to separate regressions by facility for two reasons. First, service offerings vary by facility type; survey responses could thus not be considered comparable (and aggregable) across huts, posts, and centers. Second, because our unit of analysis is the commune, there were methodological complications to both aggregating responses—when there was more than one health hut or post in a commune—and appropriately weighting health centers that spanned more than one commune. For brevity and clarity, we represent statistically significant results as predicted probabilities, calculated from regression coefficients. Predicted probabilities express the likelihood of a certain outcome occurring. Across these analyses, we only report statistically significant findings.§ Regressions included treatment variable and standard control variables (agricultural land density, female education, HIV prevalence, under-five diarrheal prevalence, population), using logistic regression and least squares regression to fit general linear models. Control variables were statistically significant in some models but are not reported here as they do not affect interpretation of the main variables of interest. Results available upon request.

            Does Integrated Governance Enhance Health Service Readiness and Delivery?

            Our analysis shows that integrated governance is associated with improvements in some health service readiness and delivery dimensions in Senegal. Specifically, we found statistically significant evidence of improvements in some aspects of access and quality at health facilities in treatment communes compared with control communes in the areas below. There were statistically significant differences in only a subset of variables gauged in the survey. However, taken together, they indicate a higher level of general service readiness in treatment communes.26

            Access

            Health huts in treatment communes are more likely to be open (accessible) than health huts in control communes. On average, the predicted probability (likelihood) of a health hut in treatment communes being open 7 days a week is 82 percent, compared with 53 percent for control communes (see Figure 3).

            Quality

            Compared with control communes, health huts in treatment communes have more community health officers on staff (an average of 1.2 community health officers vs. 1 in control commune health huts; regression coefficient significant at p < .1 level.). This means that treatment health huts more frequently had more trained, qualified staff members. Treatment commune huts are also more likely to dispose of waste correctly (64 percent predicted probability compared with 22 percent for control, Figure 3). Health posts in treatment communes are more likely to have higher quality infrastructure (tap water and flush toilets) than those in control communes. Treatment health posts have an 86 percent predicted probability of having higher quality tap water source and a 44 percent predicted probability of having the higher quality flush toilets (Figure 3).

            Predicted probabilities for health service delivery variables by treatment/control communes (using average values for standard controls)

            Notes: HH = health huts; HP = health posts. Asterisks indicate levels of statistical significance for treatment variable coefficient in regressions using dependent variables on x-axis.

            * p < 0.1

            ** p < 0.05

            *** p < 0.001

            The study did not find statistically significant differences in availability or use of Health Hut or Health Post services in treatment and control communes, nor in access to Health Post services.

            How Does Integrated Governance Add Value to Health Service Delivery?

            The study also suggested some possible mechanisms for how integrated governance might contribute to better health service delivery.

            Treatment communes have better functioning HTCs that are more actively addressing health service problems. HTCs in treatment communes more often self-report providing advice to the Municipal Council (predicted probability 71 percent for HTCs in treatment communes, compared with 54 percent for controls; Figure 4) and addressing health service delivery issues in their commune** HTC councilors were asked if they had identified a health service issue in the community, made a plan, and made progress in addressing the issue. The issues most frequently reported in treatment communes were service availability, access, and resources. (predicted probability 85 percent in treatment communes, compared with 65 percent for controls). These results suggest that HTCs exposed to integrated governance interventions are more actively working to improve health service delivery by engaging municipal decisionmakers and taking direct action to resolve problems. Furthermore, HTCs in treatment communes are less likely to report funding constraints (predicted probability 11 percent in treatment communes, compared with 31 percent for controls).

            Predicted probabilities for HTC and CDS functionality by treatment/control communes (using average values for standard controls)

            Note: Asterisks indicate levels of statistical significance for treatment variable coefficient in regressions using dependent variables on x-axis.

            * p < 0.1

            ** p < 0.05

            *** p < 0.001

            There was only one statistically significant difference in CDS performance between treatment and control communes. A higher percentage of control commune CDSs report conducting an awareness campaign in the last year (predicted probability 74 percent in treatment communes, 86 percent in control).

            Implications for Health Care in Senegal, Program Design, and Achieving the SDGs

            The study findings demonstrate that an integrated governance approach—combining health sector expertise with support for governance structures at community, facility, and municipal levels—has a positive association with some indicators important in health service readiness and delivery. Statistically significant evidence of improvements in several measures of access and quality dimensions at health facilities in treatment communes indicate a higher level of service readiness.†† World Health Organization defines readiness as “the cumulative ability of components required to provide services. It comprises tracer items for the following major domains: infrastructure/amenities, basic supplies/equipment…, standard precautions, laboratory tests, medicines and commodities.”4, p. 11 These measures—showing that health facilities are open more, with higher quality infrastructure and staff more likely to follow correct procedures after integrated governance treatment—could illuminate one link in the causal chain for delivering high quality health services. While separate health programs and governance programs can independently achieve results, these findings imply that integration amplifies sectoral outcomes. Although the study did not test governance interventions alone, prior research suggests it is unlikely a stand-alone governance program would have delivered similar results.28

            Stronger Health Governance Structures and Social Accountability

            The findings regarding stronger HTCs in treatment communes demonstrate that strengthening local government capacity and supporting social accountability are particularly important elements of an integrated governance approach. We posit that these two elements could explain the added value of integrating governance and health programming.

            An integrated approach to these interventions may overcome a critical bottleneck between citizens and local government. Social accountability efforts to improve service delivery often fail due to lack of response from higher level decisionmakers.23, 29 For example, a series of seminal studies have focused on the effects of community monitoring on service delivery in Uganda.21, 30, 31 The most recent research, analyzing effects of years-long support to community advocates, shows that such efforts in Uganda led to notable changes in accountability relations. However, in only eight of 18 districts did officials fulfill or exceed stated commitments to improve health services.21

            Notably, HTCs in Senegal were significantly more likely not only to have identified health service delivery issues but also to report using municipal resources to improve services in the integrated governance treatment communes in our study. These results suggest that, by complementing social accountability at the facility level with capacity-building and resource mobilization for commune-level governance bodies, the integrated governance approach increased local government responsiveness to deliver concrete improvements in health services. Further research might explore whether and how these health facility readiness improvements were spurred by new or enhanced collaborative processes, perceived value by citizens or government in taking direct action to address identified problems, and/or clarified roles and enhanced capacity for health service planning, delivery, and monitoring that could signal a persistent shift in systemic, collaborative accountability efforts.22

            Despite these encouraging results, it is important to emphasize that—like many others32, 33—the study links integrated governance interventions with improvements in services and facility-level processes and readiness. More research is needed to make the link between governance interventions and actual patient outcomes, such as mortality and morbidity.

            Implications for Health Services in Senegal

            The findings suggest that achieving quality, universal health care is not only a health-sector issue but requires a more integrated approach. Specifically, the findings suggest that strengthening the capacity and involvement of municipal administration and health governance bodies adds value to more technocratic support to health facilities. In Senegal, national, regional, and local government agencies responsible for health service delivery could benefit from taking an integrated approach to improving health service delivery that attends to health facilities, health governance, and the wider governance system. Further research will deepen our understanding of the effects of integrated programming.

            Implications for International Development Program Design

            If integrated programming can add value, then program designers and funders need to pay attention to cofunding, colocation, and concurrent timelines. Support for collaborative work planning, activity design, implementation, and shared learning would support integrated programming. In congruent locations and time frames, sector-specific programs and governance strengthening program can bring their tools and expertise. When collaboration is intentional, well-resourced, and encouraged by stakeholders at multiple levels, enhanced multisector outcomes could be realized if intersectoral barriers, including siloed funding and pressures for sectoral indicator performance, could be addressed. Additional research in different contexts, including replicating a similar research design in other sectors, would further illuminate the patterns reported here.

            For the global community to continue and accelerate progress to its collective SDGs, this research underscores the value of investments in integrated governance and encouraging coordinated programmatic investment. Simultaneously strengthening both direct service delivery and the wider governance system can achieve greater advancements in sustainable development than either alone.

            Acknowledgments

            While the results and interpretation presented here are entirely our own, we could not have conducted this study without input, support, and feedback from many others. We are grateful to Governance for Local Development (GoLD) colleagues—particularly Jean-Michel Dufils, Fatoumata Sane, Mamadou Amadou Diako, Mamadou Lamarana Barry, Devang Pandya, Kara Reeve, and Moussa Faye—who supported this research throughout, while also allowing us to carry it out independently. USAID/Senegal funded the study, and Danny Dedeyan, Laura Campbell, Samba Ba and Samba Barry helped with the research design. Awa Taye Sarr expertly organized and led the survey data collection and, with Moustaphe Niang, made sure the data were presented and interpreted accurately. We also appreciated the engagement of IntraHealth colleagues Melanie Joiner, Sujata Bijou, El Hadji Yankhoba Dial, and Babacar Gueye, particularly with helping us understand the Neema project implementation and facilitating data collection. MSI staff Souleymane Barry, Lisa Slifer-Mbacke, and Sadio Coulibaly shared their own research with us. David Dow from Duke University’s DevLab provided helpful review and comments on the research design. We are grateful to Derick Brinkerhoff, Lisa McGregor, and Alyson Lipsky for comments on an earlier draft and appreciate helpful comments from the anonymous reviewers. Finally, we want to especially acknowledge Stirling Cummings, assisted by Grant Swigart, whose statistical expertise enabled the quasi-experimental design and ensured the rigor of the results. This research was made possible with the generous support of the American people through the US Agency for International Development, in partnership with the RTI-implemented GoLD Program. The research team conducted the study independently and views represented are the authors’ own.

            Cover photo: KOLDA - SENEGAL: Souboune Mballo, 45 and mother of 5 poses for a group photo with her family at Diouta Dara village on February 10, 2019. Photo by Xaume Olleros for RTI International. www.flickr.com

            RTI Press Associate Editor: Rebecca Flueckiger

            References

            1United States Agency for International Development (USAID). US foreign aid explorer. Washington (DC): USAID; 2021 [cited 2021 March 24]. Available from: https://explorer.usaid.gov/aid-trends.html
            2World Bank. World development report 2017: governance and the law. Washington (DC): World Bank; 2017. 10.1596/978-1-4648-0950-7
            3USAID. USAID strategy on democracy human rights and governance; 2013. https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1866/USAID-DRG_fina-_6-24-31.pdf
            4Kaufmann D, Kraay A, Mastruzzi M. Governance matters VIII: aggregate and individual governance indicators, 1996–2008 World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 4978. Washington (DC): World Bank; 2009 Jun 29.10.1596/1813-9450-4978
            5Brinkerhoff DW. Democratic governance and sectoral policy reform: tracing linkages and exploring synergies. World Dev 2000;28(4):601–15. 10.1016/S0305-750X(99)00147-3
            6Acemoglu D, Naidu S, Restrepo P, Robinson JA. Democracy does cause growth. Cambridge (MA): National Bureau of Economic Research; 2014. 10.3386/w20004
            7Dahlum S, Knutsen CH. Do democracies provide better education? Revisiting the democracy–human capital link. World Dev 2017;94:186–99. Available from: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.01.001
            8Wang Yt, Mechkova V, Andersson F. Does democracy or good governance enhance health? New empirical evidence 1900–2012. Polit Res Q 2018;72(3):554-59. 10.1177/1065912918798506
            9Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Sustainable development goals and public governance. Paris: OECD; n.d. [cited 2021 Jul 13]; Available from: https://www.oecd.org/gov/sustainable-development-goals-and-public-governance.htm
            10Brinkerhoff DW, Wetterberg A. Governance and sector outcomes: making the connections. RTI Press Publication PB-0019-1809. RTI Press; 2018. 10.3768/rtipress.2018.pb.0019.1809
            11Falisse JB, Ntakarutimana L. When information is not power: community-elected health facility committees and health facility performance indicators. Soc Sci Med 2020;265:113331. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.11333132905968
            12Francetic I, Fink G, Tediosi F. Impact of social accountability monitoring on health facility performance: evidence from Tanzania. Health Econ 2021;30(4):766–85. 10.1002/hec.421933458910
            13Hodel L, Dasgupta B. Malawi CDCS integrated development impact evaluation endline report. Washington (DC): USAID; 2019. Available from: https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00TNP3.pdf
            14Comacho L, Dionne K, Rojas-Arellano I. Impact evaluation of USAID/DRC integrated governance activity midline report. Washington (DC): USAID; 2020. Available from: https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00WQSW.pdf
            15USAID. Strengthening civil society: Guinea. Citizens' involvement in health governance. Washington (DC): USAID; 2020. Available from: https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00X3CT.pdf
            16Ministère de la Santé et de l’Action Sociale. Stratégie Nationale de Santé Digitale 2018-2023. Republique du Sénégal; 2018. Available from: http://www.sante.gouv.sn/sites/default/files/plsantedigitale.pdf
            17Sustainable Development Solutions Network. Sustainable development report 2019: appendix 1. Country profiles. Sustainable Development Solutions Network; 2019. Available from: https://sdsna.github.io/2019AfricaIndex/2019_africa_index_country_profiles.pdf
            18The Primary Health Care Performance Initiative. Senegal. 2019. Available from: https://improvingphc.org/senegal
            19Devlin K, Pandit-Rajani T, Egan KF. Senegal’s community-based health system model: structures, strategies, and learning. Arlington (VA): Advancing Partners & Communities; 2019.
            20Gilbert G, Taugourdeau E. The local government financing system in Senegal. In: Dafflon B, Madies T, editors. The political economy of decentralization in Sub-Saharan Africa. Washington (DC): Agence Française de Développement and World Bank; 2013. pp. 207–64.
            21Bailey A, Mujune V. Bottom-up accountability in Uganda: learning from people-centered, multi-level health advocacy campaigns. Working Paper. Accountability Research Center; 2021 Feb. Available from: https://accountabilityresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/ARC-Working-paper-8-Uganda-health-advocacyWEB-02-22-2021.pdf
            22Halloran B. Accountability ecosystems: The evolution of a keyword. Accountability Research Center; 2021 Mar 29 [cited 2021 Jul 10]. Available from: https://accountabilityresearch.org/accountability-ecosystems-the-evolution-of-a-keyword/
            23Wetterberg A, Brinkerhoff DW, Hertz JC, editors. Governance and service delivery: practical applications of social accountability across sectors. RTI Press Publication BK-0019-1609. Research Triangle Park (NC): RTI Press; 2016. 10.3768/rtipress.2016.bk.0019.1609
            24Keijzer N, Spierings E, Phlix G, Fowler A. Bringing the invisible into perspective: reference paper for using the 5Cs framework to plan, monitor and evaluate capacity and results of capacity development processes. Maastrich: ECDPM; 2011. Available from: https://ecdpm.org/publications/5cs-framework-plan-monitor-evaluate-capacity-development-processes/
            25US Department of Health and Human Services. 2015 national healthcare quality and disparities report and 5th anniversary update on the national quality strategy. AHRQ Publication 16-0015. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Quality and Research; 2016. Available from: https://archive.ahrq.gov/research/findings/nhqrdr/nhqdr15/index.html
            26World Health Organization (WHO). Monitoring the building blocks of health systems: a handbook of indicators and their measurement strategies. Geneva: WHO; 2010.
            27Agence National de la Statistique et de la Demographie. Senegal: Enquete Continue sur la Prestation des Services de Soins de Sante (ECPss). 2018. Available from: https://www.dhsprogram.com/pubs/pdf/SPA27/SPA27.pdf
            28Ciccone DK, Vian T, Maurer L, Bradley EH. Linking governance mechanisms to health outcomes: a review of the literature in low- and middle-income countries. Soc Sci Med 2014;117:86–95. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.07.01025054281
            29Arkedis J, Creighton J, Dixit A, Fung A, Kosack S, Levy D et al. Can transparency and accountability programs improve health? Experimental evidence from Indonesia and Tanzania. World Dev 2021;142:105369. 10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.10536934083862
            30Björkman M, Svensson J. Power to the people: evidence from a randomized field experiment on community-based monitoring in Uganda. Q J Econ 2009;124(2):735–69. 10.1162/qjec.2009.124.2.735
            31Bjorkman Nyqvist M, De Walque D, Svensson J. Information is power: experimental evidence on the long-run impact of community based monitoring. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 7015. Washington (DC): World Bank; 2014. Available from: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/20364
            32Mant J. Process versus outcome indicators in the assessment of quality of health care. Int J Qual Health Care 2001;13(6):475–80. 10.1093/intqhc/13.6.47511769750
            33Dunsch FA, Evans DK, Eze-Ajoku E, Macis M. Management, supervision, and health care: a field experiment. Cambridge (MA): National Bureau of Economic Research; 2017. Available from: 10.3386/w23749

            Click cover to download publication

            Keep Exploring

            • icon-externallink-blue Created with Sketch.

              HTML version [Scholastica]

            Sustainable Development Goals

            • Goal 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions
            • Goal 3: Good Health and Well Being

            Contact

            To contact an author or seek permission to use copyrighted content, contact our editorial team

            • +1 919 541 6490
            • rtipress@rti.org

            Meet the Experts

            View All Experts
            Sarah Frazer

            Sarah Miller Frazer

            Anna Wetterberg

            Anna Wetterberg

            Eric M. Johnson

            Eric M. Johnson

            Related Publications

            View All Press
            OCCASIONAL PAPER

            Bringing an equity-centered framework to research

            OCCASIONAL PAPER

            The Preschool Entitlement

            OCCASIONAL PAPER

            Culturally informed community engagement

            RESEARCH REPORT

            Substance misuse prevention program attendance

            RESEARCH BRIEF

            COVID-19’s impact on clinical research

            OCCASIONAL PAPER

            Differentiated instruction in multigrade preprimary classrooms in Kenya

            OCCASIONAL PAPER

            The potential for solar-powered groundwater irrigation in Sub-Saharan Africa

            OCCASIONAL PAPER

            Social determinants of health

            Recent Publications

            View All Press
            OCCASIONAL PAPER

            Bringing an equity-centered framework to research

            OCCASIONAL PAPER

            The Preschool Entitlement

            OCCASIONAL PAPER

            Culturally informed community engagement

            RESEARCH REPORT

            Substance misuse prevention program attendance

            RTI Logo
            Partner With Us
            • US Government
            • Commercial
            • Foundations & Associations
            • Multilateral Donors
            • Universities
            • Suppliers
            Site
            • Privacy Policy
            • Security Policy
            • Site Map
            • Terms of Use
            • Accessibility
            • Contact Us
            Contact Us
            Facebook Icon Twitter Icon Instagram Icon YouTube Icon Linkedin Icon
            delivering the promise of science
            for global good
            RTI Health Solutions RTI Innovation Advisors RTI Health Advance

            © 2023 RTI International. RTI International is a trade name of Research Triangle Institute. RTI and the RTI logo are U.S. registered trademarks of Research Triangle Institute.