Paying for What Actually Changes: Why Africa’s Development Finance Model Is Shifting, and Why CODE Is Ready
Communications
10 August 2026
by Chinedu Emmanuel Oda
A dispatch from the African Social Impact Summit 2026
I want to be honest about something: when I landed in Lagos for the African Social Impact Summit (ASIS) 2026, I was not expecting to be unsettled. I have sat through my share of post-development conferences, and they usually confirm what I already know, just with better slide decks. ASIS 2026 was different. The numbers on the screen described the exact world I work in every day, and the picture they painted was uncomfortable.
Here is the dive. Global Overseas Development Assistance, the grant funding that has sustained civil society work across Africa for decades, has contracted by 23.1% over the preceding cycle. At the same time, the annual gap to fund the Sustainable Development Goals in Africa alone stands at $2.5 trillion. Yet over $300 trillion sits in private capital markets, largely untouched by development finance. The problem is not that the money doesn’t exist. It’s that no one has yet built the bridge between that capital and the communities that need it most.
CODE has been building that bridge for over fourteen years. We just haven’t been calling it that. For most of CODE’s history, our funding has operated on what the Summit called “activity financing.” A donor asks us to run community monitoring workshops; we run them, count attendance, submit reports, and the grant closes. That model is ending, not because our work is poor, but because the institutions controlling development capital are now asking a fundamentally different question. Not “what did you do?” but “what actually changed, can you prove it, and can you improve it?”
Under the emerging impact-financing model, donors and private investors only release payment after an Independent Verification Agent (IVA) confirms that promised outcomes actually occurred on the ground. No verified outcome, no payment. The IVA is not a supporting role in this structure; it is the mechanism the entire system depends on.
Here is what struck me sitting in that conference hall: CODE has been doing IVA work for years. We have simply never packaged it as such. Take our Girls’ Education Project in Bauchi, one of Nigeria’s most educationally disadvantaged states, where over a million girls are out of school. We don’t just run girls’ mentorship programmes. We track education budgets through the State Education Accounts model, monitor school infrastructure through community champions across four LGAs, and independently verify whether money allocated for classrooms actually produced classrooms. That is outcome verification. That is IVA work.
Consider also our role on AGILE (Adolescent Girls Initiative for Learning and Empowerment), which operates across multiple states. We serve as Third-Party Monitor: our dedicated monitors, including civil engineers, independently assess the construction quality of school buildings, audit Conditional Cash Transfers, and verify that life-skills delivery happened as promised. Again, IVA work, simply not labelled as such.
Then there is Follow The Money. Since 2012, our iFTM platform has tracked more than $500 million in public funds across all 36 Nigerian states, and 12 African countries, with over 9,000 active community monitors documenting what they find in real time. In Kaduna alone, FTM monitoring directly contributed to the delivery of $1.5 million in education infrastructure that had been budgeted but never built. Follow The Money is an IVA methodology. We have simply never priced it as one.
One session that didn’t get enough attention outside the room was the presentation on the Public Sector Performance Index (PSPI) and its state governance rankings. The core argument was pointed: governance performance is not about what a state has, but about how well it uses what it has. A state with a modest budget that deploys it transparently outranks a resource-rich state that does not.
PSPI ranks Nigeria’s 36 states and the FCT across five criteria: citizen satisfaction, revenue self-reliance, debt sustainability, revenue mobilisation, and transparency. One finding landed hardest in the room: as of the 2026 report, only 14 of Nigeria’s 36 states had publicly released their 2025 audited accounts. Among the non-compliant states is the FCT, the seat of the Federal Government, alongside Rivers State, one of the country’s wealthiest. If those two cannot meet this basic standard, the picture elsewhere is considerably worse.
For our Follow The Money work, this matters immediately. PSPI’s rankings tell us which states have the widest gap between resources and delivery, while FTM tells us what is actually happening on the ground in those same communities. Together, the two close an accountability loop that neither can close alone.
On my flight back, I kept thinking about the girls in Bauchi whose school roof we helped get fixed because a community monitor noticed the contractor hadn’t returned after the first payment. That is not an abstract development outcome. Those are children who now go to school when it rains.
The question ASIS 2026 forced me to confront is this: five years from now, will the financial structures that fund this kind of work still exist in the form we know? Or will we have been bold enough to build the ones that replace them?
CODE has the networks, the credibility, and the methodology. What the shift to impact financing asks of us now is the courage to name what we already do, and charge for it.
