FACTORS INFLUENCING THE LEVEL OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN

PROJECTS. A CASE OF CDF PROJECTS IN EMBAKASI CONSTITUENCY

I

ABSTRACT

Projects can be started for commercial purposes or to generate revenues, for sustenance

of livelihoods, for eradication of poverty, for humanitarian purposes amongst others.

Projects are important for individuals, organizations and economies. This study was

necessitated by the fact that the level of community participation in CDF projects at the

constituency level was low. The purpose of this study is to investigate the factors

influencing the level of community participation in projects with the case of CDF

Projects in Embakasi Constituency. The CDF was established under the CDF Act 2003.

Its purpose was to take development to the citizens at the local levels or the grassroots

within the shortest time to alleviate poverty. The levels of community participation, the

utilization and management of the fund remain a major concern.

The review of related literature will include historical perspective of CDF, models of

development, decentralization, citizen priorities and local participation, political economy

of CDF, Monitoring and Evaluation, project management cycle, project identification and

preparation of the project and CDF implementation process. The study will use primary

and secondary data. Primary data will be collected using questionnaires. Secondary data

will be obtained from books and the internet.

The findings of this study will be used to highlight the factors influencing the level of

community participation in projects and therefore promote community awareness and

participation in the projects. This will enhance the community’s development agenda

from the grassroots and therefore promote project ownership.

II

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION..................................................................................................................IDEDICATION....................................................................................................................IIACKNOWLEDGEMENT.................................................................................................IIIABBREVIATIONS...........................................................................................................IVDEFINITION OF TERMS.................................................................................................VABSTRACT.....................................................................................................................VIICHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION..................................................................................1

1.0 Introduction................................................................................................................11.1 Background of the Study...........................................................................................31.2 Statement of the problem...........................................................................................41.3 Objectives of the Study..............................................................................................61.4 Research Questions....................................................................................................61.5 Significance...............................................................................................................71.6 Scope of the Study.....................................................................................................71.7 Assumptions of the Study..........................................................................................81.8 Limitations.................................................................................................................8

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW......................................................................92.0 Introduction................................................................................................................92.1 Community Participation: An Overview...................................................................92.2 Monitoring and Evaluation......................................................................................132.3 Project Management Cycle......................................................................................142.4 Project Identification...............................................................................................142.5 Preparation of the Project........................................................................................152.6 Participation as Contribution or as Empowerment..................................................17

2.6.1 Levels of Participation..............................................................................................182.6.2 Gender and Participation..........................................................................................20

2.7 Conceptual Framework............................................................................................22CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY..........................................................................23

3.0 Introduction..............................................................................................................233.1 Research Design......................................................................................................233.2 The Target Population.............................................................................................233.3 Sampling Design and the Sample............................................................................243.4 Data Collection Instruments and Techniques..........................................................253.5 Data Analysis Techniques.......................................................................................25

REFERENCES..................................................................................................................27APPENDICES......................................................................................................................i

APPENDIX 1: LETTER OF INTRODUCTION.............................................................iAPPENDIX 3: TABLES...............................................................................................viiTable 1.2........................................................................................................................viiAPPENDIX 4: RESEARCH BUDGET- PROPOSAL................................................viiiAPPENDIX 5: RESEARCH BUDGET- FINAL PROJECT.......................................viiiAPPENDIX 6: RESEARCH WORK PLAN..................................................................ix

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

1.0 Introduction

The concept of people’s participation is not a new phenomenon as far as rural

development is concerned; it has been talked and written about since the 1950s or even

before (Guijt and Shah, 1998; Nelson and Wright, 1995). Many authors and development

agencies argue that genuine people’s participation can increase the efficiency,

effectiveness, self-reliance, coverage and sustainability of development projects and

programmes (Kumar, 2002; Oakley, 1991), there is a wide spectrum of views on the

concept of participation and the ways of achieving it. One example is given by Ngujiri

(1998, p.470) who comments that, “despite the increase in the number of NGOs,

participatory methodologies, and after many years of poverty alleviation, poverty

continues to be rife and communities continue to languish in it”.

There is now a growing recognition that if participation in one form or another is an

objective of development projects and programmes, it must be evaluated (DFID, 1995;

FAO, 1997; Karl, 2000). Karl (2000) has identified three main aspects of participation in

rural development projects and programmes that need to be evaluated namely, the extent

and quality of participation, costs and benefits of participation to the different

stakeholders, and the impact of participation on outcomes, performance and

sustainability. DFID (1995) suggests that, in evaluating participation, it is important to

consider the quantitative, qualitative and time dimensions of participation. This is

because participation is a qualitative process that cannot be measured using only

quantifiable indicators. While quantification in relation to project outputs may be

sufficient, the qualitative dimensions of participation should also be evaluated because

project success depends on empowering participants to take on greater responsibility and

control.

i

Despite the aims of participatory rural development to involve people in development

that affects them directly, quite often, the reality of participation differs from the rhetoric,

on many counts (Chambers, 1997; Nelson and Wright, 1995). According to Pretty (1995),

the dilemma for many development agencies is that they both need and fear people’s

participation. They need people’s agreements and support, but they also fear that this

wider involvement is less controllable, less precise and so likely to slow down planning

and implementation process.

Shepherd (1998) argues that, participation is usually asserted, not demonstrated, as few

development organisations have time to examine the indicators or follow the process of

how participation happens, and what its effects are on participants and in the wider

society. The major question in many development programmes and projects as Bunch

(1995) postulates is therefore not whether to increase participation but how to achieve

effective participation. Cohen and Uphoff (1997) believe that participation is a means of

developing aims, ideologies, and a behavior resembling equity and democracy. They

believe that people must have the opportunity of participation in all developmental

processes, whatever they may be, planning, implementation and or evaluation. It is the

people themselves who decide about the direction, change in, and trend of developmental

programs and projects.

Community involvement can take many forms: community members can be informants

in formative and evaluative research relevant to the delivery of services; they can design

or shape interventions or projects; they can deliver services; they can be advocates; and

so forth. Community participation is both a process toward an end and an outcome in

itself. This is particularly true when it comes to marginalized and underprivileged groups,

who often do not have any voice in matters that affect their lives. The process of

involving the community often facilitates community mobilization toward a given end

(UNAIDS 1997). Community members are often willing to invest their own resources—

including money, labor, time, and materials—in activities they see as benefiting

themselves and their community. Evidence based on case studies in Australia, Canada,

Thailand and Uganda (UNAIDS 1998b) clearly shows that communities are prepared to

ii

take leadership roles, take responsibility and devise ways of sustaining the activities they

initiate and that they are able to work in partnership with national governments.

1.1 Background of the Study

Embakasi Constituency is an electoral constituency in Kenya. It is one of eight

constituencies of Nairobi Province. It consists of eastern and southeastern suburbs of

Nairobi. According to the IIEC, with 292,643 registered voters, it is the most populous

constituency in Kenya. Embakasi constituency has common boundaries with Embakasi

Division. The entire constituency is located within Nairobi City Council area. The

constituency has an area of 208 km². It has nine locations and eleven wards.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embakasi_Constituency)

Since the inception of the CDF Act, there are a number of projects that have been started

in this Constituency. CDF allocations to the constituency have grown steadily, in line

with CDF allocations country-wide. Given its large population, Embakasi received the

greater than average CDF allocations over the past 3 years. According to KIPPRA

(2007), less than half of the projects started in Embakasi were completed as at the end

of 2006/07 financial year. Field visits revealed that the situation was actually worse:

several projects reported as complete remain incomplete, while other projects had

collapsed due to poor construction or lack of maintenance.

Since Kenya gained its independence in 1963, the development of the country and indeed

of the economy has been formulated, financed and implemented by the central

government. This has not worked well since it has been characterized by beauracracy,

command and control from the centralized managerial authority (Mapesa and Kibua,

2006). This resulted in serious development inequalities. To tackle the problem, the

government introduced new policies, for example, majimboism in 1963. The next

initiative was the Sessional Paper No. 10 of 1965 on African Socialism and its

Application to Planning in Kenya. This recommended that planning was to be spread to

the respective provinces, districts and municipalities. The National Development Plan

iii

(1966-1970) recommended that various committees be established to ensure co-

ordination and people’s participation in their development. The Ndegwa Report of 1971

indicated that to spur growth and development in the rural areas, the process of planning

and implementation had to be moved to the district and consequently division levels.

In 1982, the Working Party on Government Expenditure (Republic of Kenya),

recommended that the districts should be the central point for the management and

implementation of rural development by the central government. The District Focus for

Rural Development (DFRD) (1983) was a government policy document designed by

provincial heads of department and it required the DDC to be responsible for co-

ordination of rural development.

Since the government launched the CDF initiative in 2003, lots of funds have been

allocated to constituencies equitably based on the poverty index. The CDF initiative was

designed to take development to the people at the grassroots level. It was meant to be the

community’s way to own the development of projects in their areas and therefore were

required to participate in it fully.

Since the inception of the CDF, numerous criticisms have been given over the way the

fund is being managed and utilized. One of the key areas of policy concern that has

emerged is the question as to whether there is local participation in the project cycle in

accordance with the pressing needs identification, project identification, project planning,

project management and implementation and participation in operation and maintenance.

(Mapesa and Kibua: 2006)

This study therefore seeks to investigate the factors influencing the level of community

participation in projects with a case of CDF projects in Embakasi Constituency.

iv

1.2 Statement of the problem

The broad aim of participation in development is to actively involve people and

communities in identifying problems, formulating plans and implementing decisions over

their own lives (DFID, 2002; Guijt and Shah, 1998).

Shepherd (1998) argues that participation is usually asserted, not demonstrated, as few

development organizations have time to examine the indicators or follow the process of

how participation happens and what its effects are on participants and in the wider

society. The major question in many development programmes and projects as Bunch

(1995) postulates is therefore not whether to increase participation but how to achieve

effective participation. Some of the factors that influence the level of community

participation in projects are community awareness, availability of the constituents to take

part in the development initiatives, the level of education and accessibility to the

constituency and project leaders.

With regard to the CDF, project committees are the ones recognized under the CDF Act

2007 as the bodies responsible for implementing projects. These bodies have not been

representing the community interests and are not transparent or accountable. (Gikonyo,

W 2008) Popular participation in decision making and democratic accountability are key

factors in moving towards sustainable development. According to Paul Freire (1972),

people will only act on those issues which they themselves have strong feelings.

In CDF, community members should be involved in participation in decision making.

CDF guidelines also provide for local participation, in reality though, this has been a

major area of concern. MPs have been accused of converting CDF funds into campaign

tools. Other accusations are non-inclusiveness of community in the operations of the

fund. According to the Taskforce on CDF Amendment Act of June 23rd 2009, since its

inception in 2003, the implementation of CDF has encountered a number of operational

and policy challenges amongst which include poor community participation and

v

contribution to projects. From these worrying trends and issues of participation, this study

seeks to investigate the factors contributing to the levels of participation when it comes to

community participation in projects.

1.3 Objectives of the Study

1.3.1 General Objective of the Study

The general objective of the study is to establish the factors influencing the level of

community participation in projects with specific reference of CDF projects in Embakasi

Constituency.

1.3.2 Specific Objectives of the Study

The specific objectives of the study are:

i. To establish how community awareness influences the level of participation of the

community in the CDF projects in Embakasi Constituency.

ii. To investigate how availability of the constituents in attending locational meetings

affects the level of community participation in the projects implemented in the

constituency.

iii. To determine the relationship between the level of education of the constituents and the

level of community participation in the CDF projects.

iv. To examine how accessibility to the CDF (offices, etc) affects the level of community

participation in the CDF projects in Embakasi constituency.

vi

1.4 Research Questions

i. How does community awareness influence the level of participation of the community

in the CDF projects in Embakasi Constituency?

ii. How does availability of the constituents in locational meetings affect the level of

community participation in the projects implemented in the constituency?

iii. What is the relationship between the level of education of the constituents and the level

of community participation in the CDF projects?

iv. How does accessibility to the CDF (offices, etc) affect the level of community

participation in the CDF projects in Embakasi constituency?

1.5 Significance

The study will inform government policy with regard to designing changes to streamline

the CDF management to enhance more participation from the community.

The study will help the CDF project managers in policy formulation for development

projects.

The findings will also help the community find ways to own the CDF projects by

enhancing more participation.

The non governmental organizations (NGOs) and international agencies who engage in

projects will find this study useful with regard to the importance and involvement of the

community or stakeholders to ensure the success of the projects.

vii

The study will also form a basis on which academic researchers can do further studies on

community participation and CDF.

1.6 Scope of the Study

The scope will be limited to one constituency. The study will focus on the CDF projects

within Embakasi constituency in Nairobi Province. The CDF projects are in the following

sectors: education, agriculture, street lights, health, roads or bridges and water.

Embakasi was chosen since it is the most populous constituency in Kenya with 292,643

registered voters (http://www.iiec.or.ke) and with many ongoing or projects that have

stalled. In the 2008/09 financial year, 28 projects were on going, 22 that had been

proposed had not started bringing the total to 50.

1.7 Assumptions of the Study

The following are the assumptions of the study:

i. The community is likely to participate in development if they are certain of the

perceived benefits.

ii. The community must reach a stage in development where it is their belief that unless

they themselves take initiative in community development the situation is likely to

remain the same.

1.8 Limitations

A study of this magnitude cannot be possible without limitations. The major limitation

will be lack of time and resources in terms of finances. This is likely to affect the sample

size.

viii

ix

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.0 Introduction

A project is an interrelated set of activities that has a definite starting and ending

point and results in the accomplishment of a unique often major outcome. (Harveu

Maylor, 2003) With regard to CDF, a project means an eligible development project as

described in the Act (The Constituencies Development Fund (Amendment) Act, 2007)

UNAIDS defines a community as: “a group of people with something in common,

whether they live together, come from the same area (village or town), gender, or ethnic

background. Communities are also people who work together . . . or share common

behaviour. . . .” Within these groupings, “there are common interests and understanding

that bring people together and unite them around a common purpose” (UNAIDS 1996).

Community participation has been defined as ‘a process in which people take part in

decision making in the institutions, programmes and environments that affect them

(Heller, 1984). Community participation is usually conceptualised as a process by which

members of the communities individually or collectively assume increased responsibility

for assessment of their own needs, and once these are agreed upon, identify potential

situations to problems, and plan strategies by which these solutions may be realised

(Bermejo & Bekui, 1993).

2.1 Community Participation: An Overview

According to a study done by Kinyoda J. Elizabeth (2008) there is a low level of

community participation in CDF projects. She cited a case of Makadara Constituency in

Nairobi City. Because of low participation in CDF operations, there is a high level of

dissatisfaction in the projects. There is also poor project ownership by the constituents.

x

Her study found out that constituents have not been completely involved in decision

making, identification, selection and prioritization of the projects. Most of the CDF

projects are regarded to be belonging to the area MPs. There has been little awareness

about the CDF projects being implemented. For example, in Makadara Constituency in

Nairobi City, 73% of the respondents under the study indicated not being aware of the

CDF projects and operations in the area. The level of participation was also low where

27% only attended meetings and the majority 87% were not involved in project

prioritization and identification. 80% of the respondents were not satisfied with the

operations of the CDF and the way the CDF officials managed the CDF projects.

Oakley (1991) cites an analysis of a Danish funded rural water supply project in

Tanzania, where he observes that participation had ranged from non-participation and

manipulation over information and consultation to some degree of partnership and

delegation of power. In another study of Malawi Social Action Fund (MASAF) projects,

Dulani (2003, p.12) concluded that the level of community participation was limited to

being informed what had already been decided by other key players which implied

“passive participation by consultation”.

2.1.1 Historical Perspective

The CDF is an innovation of the GOK. Unlike other devolved funds that go through

much red tape of bureaucracy, the CDF fund goes directly to the grassroots level of

implementation, that is, at the constituency level. (Kimenyi, 2005)

The Constituency Development Fund (CDF) was established in 2003 through the CDF

Act in The Kenya Gazette Supplement No. 107 (Act No. 11) of 9th January 2004. The

fund aims to control imbalances in regional development brought about by partisan

politics. It targets all constituency-level development projects, particularly those aiming

to combat poverty at the grassroots. The fund comprises an annual budgetary allocation

equivalent to 2.5% of the government's ordinary revenue. A motion seeking to increase

this allocation to 7.5% of government’s revenue was recently passed in parliament. 75%

xi

of the fund is allocated equally amongst all 210 constituencies. The remaining 25% is

allocated as per constituency poverty levels. A maximum 10% of each constituency’s

annual allocation may be used for an education bursary scheme. CDF is managed through

4 committees 2 of which are at the national level and 2 at the grassroots level.

(http://www.kippra.org/Constituency.asp)

2.1.2 Decentralization

We have noted that CDF is a form of decentralization. However, unlike in pure fiscal

decentralization which is characterized by both revenues and expenditures, CDF is a one

sided fiscal decentralization scheme since expenditure are not linked to the local revenue

sources or fiscal effort. Such partial decentralization can associate with fiscal illusion

which minimizes the extent to which beneficiaries monitor use of funds. (Kimenyi, 2005)

2.1.3 Citizen Priorities and importance of Local Participation

Constituencies vary widely in various aspects that may impact on the efficiency of CDF.

Some of these aspects include size of the jurisdictions, population size, density and

diversity, scope of economic activities, degree of urbanization, levels of education,

poverty, etc. These dimensions are expected to impact on the project choices and the

extent to which local communities are involved in decision making and in monitoring

expenditures. In essence, constituencies provide a natural laboratory to test functional

theories of community driven development and decentralization. Simply, we should

expect to observe systematic differences in the utilization of CDF across constituencies

depending on factors influencing citizen demand and characteristics of the constituencies.

(Kimenyi S.M and Meagher P 2004)

There are, however, wide variations in the constituency characteristics that

may impact on the choice of the projects and mode of delivery and which may

enhance or impede on the efficiency of utilization of CDF. Efficiency is primarily

xii

determined by the degree of involvement by local communities and also the capacity for

the beneficiaries to hold politicians and those in charge of implementation accountable.

Constituency characteristics that hinder participation of the beneficiaries or weaken their

capacity to monitor the utilization of funds can be expected to lead to more inefficient

outcomes. (Kimenyi, 2005)

2.1.4 Challenges in Participation

Social-economic characteristics of a constituency have a bearing on community

participation. A key factor is those factors that impact on social capital. The average level

of education in a constituency is expected to influence the involvement of the community

and also the extent to which they are able to monitor the utilization of funds. We expect

that CDF projects will be more in line with priorities in areas where the average level of

education is higher. Likewise, religion may also influence the choice of projects and

cohesiveness of a community. (Kimenyi, 2005)

According to a research done by KIPPRA 2007, respondents were asked to rate their

participation in relation to different kinds of involvement in the management of

decentralised funds. The survey found that, generally, participation is very low in the

various funds, particularly in decision-making processes. Respondents indicated that

while 32.8% of them were involved to the extent of receiving information or listening at

barazas, less than 10% attended meetings to discuss specific issues and less than 5% felt

that they were involved in decision-making. Over 90% of respondents indicated that they

were not involved in the setting of the development agendas for their areas. This

underlines the appropriateness of efforts aimed at increasing public participation.

(http://www.kippra.org/Participation.asp)

2.1.5 Political Economy of CDF

There are some political dimensions that arise from the nature and management of CDF.

The beneficiaries consider the funds as ”free” and thus are not motivated to monitor

xiii

utilization of funds since they do not take into account the costs of the projects. It is

therefore important to investigate the monitoring aspects associated with CDF and the

degree to which constituency characteristics may influence fiscal illusion and therefore

inefficiencies. However, presence of elite groups could capture the program so that

project serves much narrower interests. (Kimenyi, 2005) CDF also has some direct

political implications. Political leaders may view CDF as an investment in their political

careers with returns spread over the electoral cycles. Simply, a politician would prefer

projects that maximize political returns while voters would prefer projects that maximize

welfare. These two objectives may be in concert but there are many cases where the

constituency characteristics might result in divergence such that political maximization is

not equivalent to welfare maximization. To the extent that members of Parliament have a

key role in the identification and implementation of the projects, we do expect choices to

be influenced by political maximization. (Kimenyi, 2005)

There is a possibility that CDF could suppress local fiscal effort which has hitherto been

through voluntary contributions for community development. Such displacement effect

could be counterproductive and may actually weaken participation. Ideally, CDF should

not discourage local mobilization of development resources but should instead be

complementary. In evaluating the efficiency and efficacy of CDF, it is necessary to

investigate the extent to which the funds are complementing or substituting local resource

mobilization. (Kimenyi, 2005) CDF is an issue that is increasingly raising concern in the

country. While it is a welcome move, there are serious policies as well as political

concerns that ought to be addressed. (Mapesa and Kibua: 2006)

2.2 Monitoring and Evaluation

There is a lack of professional supervision hence poor project quality. There is a low

level community participation in monitoring and evaluation due to the inadequacy of data

and the general information about the funds. Poor monitoring and evaluation has led to

abuse of funds. (KIPPRA 2007)

xiv

2.3 Project Management Cycle

In management of the CDF projects, the basic project cycle should be used to provide a

good basis for project success. (http://www.cdf.go.ke)

Figure 2.1

Identification

Evaluation

Preparation

Implementation

Appraisal

Adapted from Project planning and Analysis for Development by David Potts (2005:13)

2.4 Project Identification

Project Identification requires that there is a demand (or more generally) for the outputs

and the availability of resources to produce them (Potts: 2005:23) In CDF projects, the

projects are supposed to be identified by the chief or the District Officer of the local area.

Incorrect perception of needs by the people with inadequate knowledge of the project

area can have serious implications for the sustainability and acceptance of a project

(Potts: 2005:24)

xv

2.5 Preparation of the Project

CDF committees must base their actions on the existing policies and use them while

discharging their duties. (http://www.cdf.go.ke)

2.5.1 CDF Implementation Process

The steps involved in the CDF implementation process are:

i. Community meetings are called by the chief to identify the projects. The chief or DO

calls the meetings to identify priority projects to be implemented. The chief is a

member of the location or ward (division) committee.

ii. Recording of identified projects is done by the ward committee. Projects are prioritized

and list given to the CDC.

iii. The CDC categorizes projects into sectors, water projects, education projects, etc. All

projects proposals are collected and grouped into the various sectors.

iv. The CDF distributes funds with assistance of assistance of the District Development

Officer.

v. The ward committee monitors the projects in their ward with the assistance of the CDC.

vi. Procurement and contracting process involves tendering, opening the tenders, awarding

and commencement of the projects. This is done as per the CDF Act.

xvi

2.5.2 Diagrammatic illustration of the CDF Project Cycle

Figure 2.2

Source: CDF Guidelines 2003

xvii

2. CDC meets to prioritize projects.

8. Projects committees implements projects.

9. CDC/NMC designate committee conducts M & E.

3. DPC Harmonizes and ensures that no project duplication before forwarding to clerk of the NA.

7. NMC releases funds.

6. Minister includes project in printed estimates.

1. Locational meetings. Identification of community needs and projects to address them.

5. CFC scrutinizes and forwards to minister for finance.

4. Clerk to the NA table to CFC.

Key

CDC: Constituency Development Committee

CFC: Constituency Fund Committee

NMC: National Management Committee

M&E: Monitoring and Evaluation

NA: National Assembly

DPC: District Projects Committee

2.6 Participation as Contribution or as Empowerment

Drawing on Oakley (1991) and Dale (2004), perspectives on participation in development

work may also be captured by juxtaposing two notions, participation as contribution and

as empowerment. Participation as contribution may be enlisted primarily in the

implementation of programmes and projects or in the operation and maintenance of

created facilities. The contribution may be entirely voluntary, induced to various extents

or even enforced. It may be provided in the form of ideas, judgements, money, materials,

or unpaid or lowly paid labour (Dale, 2004). Indeed, this notion may also be seen as

‘participation as means’ to get things done.

According to Bretty (2003, p.5), participation is an empowering process in which

“people, in partnership with each other and those able to assist them, identify problems

and needs, mobilise resources, and assume responsibility to plan, manage, control and

assess the individual and collective actions that they themselves decide upon”. As a

process of empowerment, participation is concerned with “development of skills and

abilities to enable the rural people to manage better, have a say in or negotiate with

existing development systems” (Oakley, 1991, p.9). As Eade and Rowlands (2003) argue,

powerlessness is a central element of poverty, and any focus on poverty, inequality,

injustice, or exclusion involves analysis of and/or challenging/changing power and power

relations. Participation as empowerment can therefore help to amplify unacknowledged

xviii

voices by enabling the rural people to decide upon and take the actions which they

believe are essential to their development (Oakley, 1991; Slocum et al., 1995). According

to some FAO (1997) studies, small informal groups consisting of members from similar

socio-economic backgrounds are better vehicles for participation in decision making and

collective learning than heterogeneous, large scale and more formal organisations.

2.6.1 Levels of Participation

Development agencies and authors distinguish different dimensions, spaces, degrees and

levels of participation. The typology of participation (see table 2.1), which positions

participation on a seven step ladder is useful in analysing these degrees (Bretty, 2003;

Kumar, 2002; Pretty et al., 1995; Wilcox, 1994). Comparing these levels with the

‘participation as means and ends’ analysis shown in table 2.1, the first four levels on the

ladder can be interpreted as ‘participation as means’ while the last three levels fall under

‘participation as an end’. Some suggest that the ‘manipulation’ which is often central to

types one to four implies that they should be seen as types of ‘non participation’ (Pretty,

1995).

Bretty (2003, p.5) conceptualises these levels in terms of ‘weak and strong participation’.

According to his views, weak participation involves “informing and consulting” while

strong participation means “partnership and control”. He argues that, in practice agencies

managing complex projects find it hard to move from the ‘weak end’ of the continuum

and tend to assume that, intended beneficiaries will be consulted during the project design

to take into account their felt needs and aspirations. Wilcox (1994) cautions that,

information giving and consultation are often presented as participation leading to

disillusionment among community interests.

However, the problem with levels of participation is that they imply coherence, when

most development organisations operate simultaneously in a wide range of participatory

modes (Mosse, 1996). One level on the continuum is not necessarily better than any other

as different levels are appropriate at different times and contexts to meet the expectations

and interests of different stakeholders (Wilcox, 1994).

xix

Table 2.1: Typology of Participation

Level Characteristics of each type

1. Passive Participation People participate by being told what is going to happen or has

already happened. It is a unilateral announcement by leaders or

project management without listening to people’s responses or even

asking their opinion.

2. Participation in

Information Giving

People participate by answering questions posed by extractive

researchers using questionnaire surveys or similar approaches.

People do not have opportunity to influence proceedings, as the

findings of the research are neither shared nor checked for accuracy.

3. Participation by

Consultation

People participate by being consulted, and external people listen to

views. These external professionals define both problems and

solutions, and may modify these in light of people’s responses. Such

a consultative process does not concede any share in decision-

making, and professionals are under no obligation to take on board

people’s views.

4. Participation for

Material Incentives

People participate by providing resources, for example labour, in

return for food, cash or other material incentives. It is very common

to see this called participation, yet people have no stake in

prolonging activities when the incentives end.

5. Functional Participation People participate by forming groups to meet predetermined

objectives related to the project, which can involve the development

or promotion of externally initiated social organisation. Such

involvement does not tend to occur at the early stages of project

cycles or planning, but rather after major decisions have been made.

These institutions tend to be dependent on external initiators and

facilitators, but may become self-dependent.

6. Interactive Participation People participate in joint analysis, which leads to action plans and

the formation of new local institutions or the strengthening of

existing ones. It tends to involve interdisciplinary methodologies

that seek multiple perspectives and make use of systematic and

xx

structured learning processes. These groups take control over local

decisions, and so people have a stake in maintaining structures or

practices.

7. Self-Mobilisation People participate by taking initiatives independent of external

institutions to change systems. They develop contacts with external

institutions for resources and technical advice they need, but retain

control over how resources are used. Such self-initiated mobilisation

and collective action may or may challenge existing inequitable

distributions of wealth and power.

Source: Adapted from Pretty (1995, p.1252) and Kumar (2002, pp.24-25).

From the foregoing discussion, it is clear that there is a myriad of aspects of participation.

This means that great care must be taken when using and interpreting the term. It should

always be qualified by reference to the type of participation. In addition, observers seem

to agree that the application of participatory approaches further calls for an appreciation

of the social dynamics and diversities such as gender, age, social status, ethnicity,

disability and power amongst others.

2.6.2 Gender and Participation

Gender relations define amongst other things, how both men and women have access to

control of resources in the community. According to Shepherd (1998, pp.150-151),

gender analysis comprises: “information to access and control over resources for men and

women; division of labour within the household and community; and the participation of

men and women in public decision making and organisations”. Despite the importance

placed upon people’s participation in development programmes, many agencies still

experience poor participation of women (Guijt and Shah, 1998; World Bank, 1996).

According to Slocum et al., (1995), many participatory approaches such as participatory

rural appraisal (PRA) do not explicitly address issues of social relations including gender.

Rarely do these methodologies take into account gender analysis, gender based

differences in labour allocation, and gender differences in access to and control over

xxi

resources and their benefits. Gender is usually hidden in seemingly inclusive terms, ‘the

people’, or ‘the community’ while in most cases what is referred to as ‘the community’

actually means ‘male community’ (Guijt and Shah, 1998). Oakley’s (1991) analysis of

the rural water supply project in Tanzania for example, showed that despite efforts to

mobilise women to take an active part in all project activities, this was only successful

with respect to self-help labour contributions as most women in the village water

committees kept a low profile.

According to World Bank (1996), gender biases in participatory development projects

may exist in the form of customs, beliefs, and attitudes that confine women mostly to the

domestic sphere; women’s economic and domestic workloads that impose severe time

burdens on them; and laws and customs that impede women’s access to credit, productive

inputs, employment, education, information, or medical care. Since women comprise the

majority of rural inhabitants, and they are the major contributors in agricultural

production in Tanzania, there arises an urgent need to encourage their involvement in

development activities. Burkey (1993) recommends that participatory development

projects should seek to improve gender inequalities through providing a means by which

women can take part in decision making processes. As Guijt and Shah (1998) argue,

greater involvement of women and attention to gender-differentiated needs holds the

promise of more effective and equitable processes of participatory development.

xxii

2.7 Conceptual Framework

Independent variables Dependent variable

Source: Author (2010)

xxiii

Community Awareness

Availability of constituents to attend meetings

Level of education of the constituents

Accessibility of the CDC

Level of participation

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY

3.0 Introduction

This chapter focuses on the research design to be used, the target population of the study,

the Sampling Design and the Sample, the Data collection Instruments and Techniques

and the Data Analysis Techniques.

3.1 Research Design

In order to clearly examine the topic of research, descriptive method of research will be

used. This method of research was preferred because a researcher is able to collect data to

answer questions concerning the current status of the subject of study. Descriptive

research determines and reports the way things are and also helps a researcher to describe

a phenomenon in terms of attitude, values and characteristics (Mugenda and Mugenda,

1999). According to Orodho (2003), descriptive survey is a method of collecting

information by interviewing or administering a questionnaire to a sample of individuals.

The study seeks to administer questionnaires to a sample of individuals.

The study will also incorporate exploratory research design. This will be used because

according to Kothari, C.R (2009), the main purpose of exploratory research is to

formulate a problem for more precise investigation. The focus of the study is to

investigate the factors that influence the level of community participation in projects.

3.2 The Target Population

These are the individuals to be studied (Mugenda and Mugenda, 1999)

In this study, the population of Embakasi constituency will be considered through the

representatives to the different projects or committee members.

xxiv

3.3 Sampling Design and the Sample

The sampling design to be used will be Stratified Random sampling which according to

Kombo, D.K and Tromp, D.L.A (2006) involves dividing the population into

homogeneous subgroups and then taking a simple random sample in each subgroup.

During the 2008/09 financial year, there are a total of 50 projects that are either on going

or have not been started. The projects are categorized into sectors as shown in the table

below.

Table 1.1

2008/09

SECTOR COMPLETED ON GOING NOT STARTED TOTAL

EDUCATION 0 14 3 17

HEALTH 0 2 0 2

WATER 0 0 3 3

STREET LIGHTS 0 8 12 20

ROADS 0 0 0 0

OTHERS 0 4 4 8

TOTAL 0 28 22 50

Source: http://www.cdf.go.ke

The researcher will provide 50 questionnaires to represent each of the projects that are

either on going or not started. These questionnaires will be issued to a local

representative or a committee member for each of the projects. This is meant to get

enough information since the researcher will assume that the representative knows the

reasons or factors that influence the community’s level of participation. The researcher

will get the respondents through the local CDF offices.

xxv

3.4 Data Collection Instruments and Techniques

3.4.1 Primary Data

Primary data will be collected using questionnaires which will be administered by the

researcher with the help of a research assistant. The questionnaires will comprise

questions which will seek to answer questions related to the objectives of this study. The

questions will be both closed to enhance uniformity and open ended to ensure maximum

data is obtained.

3.4.2 Secondary Data

Secondary data will be obtained from books, internet and journals as indicated in the

literature review.

3.4.3 Pilot study

A pilot study will be done to assess the capability of the research instruments to collect

required data for the research. The questionnaire will first be administered to five

respondents in the constituency as part of the pilot study. The pilot test is meant to

establish whether all the questions from the questionnaire can be fully understood by the

targeted respondents and hence rectification if need be. The pilot study will take place

before the actual research is.

3.5 Data Analysis Techniques

The results of the research will be both qualitative and quantitative. The data collected

will be keyed in and analyzed using SPSS. The Quantitative Data generated will be

subjected to the Descriptive Statistics feature in SPSS to generate information which will

be presented using tables, charts, frequencies and percentages.

xxvi

The Qualitative Analysis will use the Analytic Technique and specifically Quick

Impressionist Summary which according to Kombo, D.K and Tromp, D.L.A (2006)

involves summarizing the key findings, explaining and interpreting the findings.

xxvii

REFERENCES

Bermejo, A. & Bekui, A. (1993). Community participation in disease control. Social

Science and Medicine 36, 1145-1150.

Bretty, E.A. (2003). Participation and Accountability in Development Management. The

Journal of Development Studies, 40 (2), pp. 1-29.

Chambers, R. (1997) Whose Reality Counts? Putting the first last. London: Intermediate

Technology Publications.

Cohen, J. M., and Uphoff, N., (1997). Rural Development Participation: Concepts

Measures for Project Design Implementation and Evaluation. Inthado, New York,

Cornell University.

Constituency Development Fund Act. Government Printer, Nairobi.

Dale, R. (2004). Development Planning: Concepts and Tools for Planners, Managers

and Facilitators. London: Zed Books.

DFID (1995). Stakeholder Participation and Analysis. London: Social Development

Division, DFID.

Dulani, B. (2003) How Participatory is Participation in Social Funds? An analysis of

three case studies from Malawi Social Action Fund (online). Available from

<http://www.sed.manchester.ac.uk/idpm/research/events/participation03/Dulani.doc>.

(Accessed on 12th May 2006).

Eade, D. and Rowlands, J. (eds) (2003). Development Methods and Approaches: Critical

Reflections. Oxford: Oxfam GB.

xxviii

FAO (1997). Participation in Practice: Lessons from the FAO People’s Participation

Programme (online). (Accessed on 25th June 2006). Available from

<http://www.fao.org/waicent/faoinfo/sustdev/PPdirect/PPre0043.htm>.

FAO (1997). Participation in Practice: Lessons from the FAO People’s Participation

Programme (online). (Accessed on 25th June 2006). Available from

<http://www.fao.org/waicent/faoinfo/sustdev/PPdirect/PPre0043.htm>.

Freire, Paul. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Penguin Books, England.

Guijt, I. and Shah, M.K. (eds) (1998). The Myth of Community: Gender issues in

participatory development. London: ITDG Publishing.

Heller, K. (1984). Psychology and Community Change: Challenges of the Future, 2nd edition.

Dorsey Press, Homewood, IL, USA.

Karl, M. (2000). Monitoring and Evaluating Stakeholder Participation in Agriculture

and Rural Development Projects: A literature review (online). Available from

<http://www.fao.org/sd/PPdirect/PPre0074.htm>. (Accessed on 4th June 2006).

Kenya, Republic of (2001). The 1999 Population and Housing Census: Counting our

People for Development. Vol 1 GOK Printer, Nairobi.

Kenya, Republic of (2005). Constituency Development Guideline. Government Printer,

Nairobi.

Kenya, Republic of (2007). The Constituencies Development Fund (Amendment) Act,

2007. Government Printer, Nairobi.

Kimenyi, S.(2005). Efficiency and Efficacy of Kenya’s Constituency Development Fund:

Theory and Evidence. Working Paper 45 University of Connecticurt, USA.

xxix

Kimenyi, S.M and Meagher, P. (2004). Devolution and Development. Ashgate

Publishers, UK.

Kinyoda, J. E (2008). Level of Participation in Project Identification and Selection by

Constituents: A Case of CDF in Makadara Constituency. University of Nairobi,

Unpublished.

Kombo, D.K and Tromp, D.L.A (2006). Proposal and Thesis Writing: An Introduction.

Paulines Publications Africa.

Kothari, C.R (2009). Research Methodology: Methods and Technique. New Age

International (P) Ltd Publishers.

Kumar, S. (2002) Methods for Community Participation: A complete guide for

practitioners. London: ITDG Publishing.

Kumar, S. (2002). Methods for Community Participation: A complete guide for

practitioners. London: ITDG Publishing.

Mapesa,M. and Kibua,N. (2006). An Assessment of the Management and Utilisation of

the Constituency Development Fund in Kenya. Jomo Kenyatta Foundation, Nairobi.

Maylor, H (2003). Project Management, Third Edition. Pearson Education Ltd.

Mosse, D. (1996). People’s Knowledge in Project Planning: The limits and social

conditions of participation in planning agricultural development. Research Issues in

Natural Resource Management. Swansea: Centre for Development Studies, University of

Wales Swansea.

Mugenda, O.M. and Mugenda, A.G. (1999). Research Methods, Quantitative and

Qualitative Approaches. Acts Press, Nairobi.

xxx

Nairobi East District (2009). Citizen’s Constituency Development Fund Report Card for

Embakasi Constituency. National Taxpayers Association.

Nelson, N. and Wright, S. (eds.) (1995). Power and Participatory Development: Theory

and Practice. London: ITDG Publishing.

Ngujiri, E. (1998). Participatory methodologies: double-edged swords. Development in

Practice, 8(4), pp. 466-470.

Oakley, P. (1991) Projects with people: The practice of participation in rural

development. Geneva: ILO.

Orodho (2003). Essentials of educational and Social Sciences Research Method. Nairobi.

Masola Publishers.

Orodho, A. J., & Kombo, D. K. (2002). Research methods. Nairobi: Kenyatta University,

Institute of Open Learning.

Potts, D (2005). Project planning and Analysis for Development. Lynn Reinner

Publishers Inc.

Pretty, J.N. (1995) Participatory Learning for Sustainable Agriculture. World

Development, 23(8), pp. 1247-1263.

Pretty, J.N. (1995). Participatory Learning for Sustainable Agriculture. World

Development, 23(8), pp. 1247-1263.

Pretty, J.N., Guijt, I., Thompson, J. and Scoones, L. (1995). Participatory Learning and

Action. London: International Institute for Environment and Development.

xxxi

Saunders, Lewis and Thorn Hill (2000). Research Methods for Business Students. (2nd

Ed.) Pearson Education Ltd, UK.

Slocum, R., Wichhart, L., Rocheleau, D. and Thomas-Slayter, B. (eds) (1995). Power,

Process and Participation. London: ITDG Publishing.

Taskforce on Constituency Development Fund (CDF) Amendment Act June 23rd 2009.

UNAIDS. 1996. Expanding the response, UNAIDS briefing paper. Geneva: UNAIDS.

UNAIDS. 1997. Community Mobilization and AIDS, UNAIDS best practice collection:

Technical update. Geneva: UNAIDS.

Wanjiru, Gikonyo (2008), The CDF Social Audit Guide: A Guide Handbook for

Communities. Open Society Initiative of E. Africa, Nairobi.

Wilcox, D. (1994). Community Participation and Empowerment: Putting theory into

practice. RRA Notes No. 21, pp. 78-82. London: IIED.

WEBSITES USED

http://www.cdf.go.ke

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embakasi_Constituency

http://www.iiec.or.ke

http://www.kippra.org/Participation.asp

xxxii