As well as invisibility, another problem faced by small scale integrated development projects is that they serve immediate community needs - so that they address all kinds of inter-connected issues. But often funding organisations want and expect them to focus on one narrow area of 'service provision'; "You should be about Education" or "You should be about health".

But communities are about families, and families don't 'only do health' or 'only do education', or 'only do food', or 'water', or 'sanitation', or 'livelihood', or 'burying the dead', or 'childcare' ... the list is endless. Everything is, in a real life, interconnected.

So funding bids say; "When does this start?", "When does this end?" "How many people?", "What's the budget?", "How will you measure impact?".

The people who are doing things have already started, because things needed to be done; they are doing it with whatever people are available, and with whatever money they can scrape together, and they will keep on doing it, until they are exhausted, or it no longer needs doing.

This problem is all about the mismatch between how funders work and how people actually deliver services.

People who are working locally don't require huge bundles of money - people who are providing small-scale services are not trusted to be given a lot of money, because they don't have the backing in place. And large organisations only fund large organisations - because it seems to them to be more cost effective, because the admin costs are lower. So they only fund huge projects.

People who start these 'on-the-ground' projects spend their own money; because they invest their own money and time, they don't waste it.

So when they are given money, they don't waste that that either. But they do change their mind about priorities - because they are responding to the practicalities - to what is really happening.

If you are hearing their stories, then it makes sense - but there is a huge trust issue here. 

The point is, that now that tech has enabled much better communications, you can follow the stories, see the results, see the needs, see the problems, see what's happening with the money. 

What DadaMac has seen as one benefit of telling John Dada and Fantsuam's stories is that it has helped his funding applications - the stories on the DadaMac site give the back story and context which build credibility. There is simply there is no space on a funding application form this stuff - and yet it builds trust and gives evidence of impact and efficiency - the things funders care about.