Towards Programs Sustainability: Assessment of Institutional Determinants for Effective Community Participation in Development Programs in Tanzania

Daniel Wandera Clief Naku; Jacob Kihila; Eluether Mwageni

doi:10.21625/essd.v6i2.838

Daniel Wandera Clief Naku , Jacob Kihila , Eluether Mwageni

https://doi.org/10.21625/essd.v6i2.838

Issue
Vol. 6 Issue 2 (2021): Urban & Rural Sustainability and Revitalization

Submitted
December 30, 2021

Published
December 30, 2021

Keywords:

Community, Participation, Development, Programs, Institutional Determinants

PDF XML

Abstract

This paper brings to the fore an assessment of institutional determinants for effective community participation in development programs for the case of Tanzania. It is highly acknowledged in various scholarly literature that there is a strong link between community participation and development programs. In fact, literature shows that community-based development programs that have allowed community members to be fully involved in various programs have been successful when compared to those where community members are seen as spectators.

However, in order for community members to take part in the programs, there are several determining factors, ranging from socio-economic, socio-cultural to institutional based factors.

This study therefore sought to assess institutional determinants with the aim of identifying the major institutional determinants capable of influencing effective community participation in development programs. The study used four programs that were categorized as Locally Funded, Government Funded, Donor Funded and Joint Funded development programs. A combined sample size of 316 participants from all the four programs was employed. Collected data were analyzed through the within-case analysis and the comparative analysis approaches.

Results of the study revealed that program benefits, objectives and leadership were the major institutional determinants for promoting effective community participation in development programs. when compared to methods used in the other three examined programs. Hence, the study concluded by emphasizing on the need to ensure these institutional based factors (program benefits, objectives and leadership) should always be given due attention in any development program.

Full text article

Generated from XML file

References

Akumu. M and Onono. P (2017): Community Participation and Sustainability of the Kenya Comprehensive School Health Program in Kajiado County, Kenya, Unpublished

Apsalone, M., & Šumilo, Ē. (2015). Socio-Cultural Factors and International Competitiveness. Business, Management and Education, 13(2), 276-291. DOI: 10.3846/bme.2015.302

Arnstein. S (1969): The Ladder of Citizen Participation. The Journal of the American Planning Association, 35, (4): 216-224

Asaduzzaman, M (2008): Governance in Practice: Decentralization and People’s Participation in Local Governance. Published PhD Thesis, University of Tampere Press

Bamber. J, Owens. S, Schonfeld. H, Ghate. D and Fulerton. D (2010): Effective Community Development Programs: A Review of International Evidence Base. Published by the Centre for Effective Services, Dublin, Iceland.

Beck. A & Crawley. C (2002): Education, ownership and solutions: the role of community involvement in achieving grass roots sustainability, Regional Institute Online Publishing, North South Wales, Australia.

Evan. W, Atieno. O.L and Mutui. F (2019): An analysis of the factors affecting public participation in environmental impact assessment: Case study of selected projects in Nairobi city county, Kenya. European Scientific Journal, Vol 15 (9).

Howard-Grabman, L., Miltenburg, A.S., Marston, C (2017): Factors affecting effective community participation in maternal and newborn health programme planning, implementation and quality of care interventions. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 17, 268 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-017-1443-0

Kumar. R (2011): Research Methodology: A Step-by-Step guide for beginners, 3rd Edition, SAGE Publishers, New Delhi, India.

Masanyiwa. Z.S and Kinyashi. G.F (2008): Analysis of Community Participation in Projects Managed by Non-Governmental Organizations, Institute of Development Studies, London, UK

Mubita. A, Mundia. L and Munalula. M (2017): The importance and limitations of participation in development projects and programs. The University of Zambia, European Scientific Journal February 2017 edition vol.13, No.5 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431. http://dx.doi.org/10.19044/esj.2017.v13n5p238

Nkonjera. A. (2008): Community participation in water development projects in Mbeya District, Tanzania. Morogoro. Unpublished

Odoyo. C (2013): Factors affecting implementation of community projects: Case of Kimira-Oluch smallholder farm improvement project in Homa Bay County, Kenya. Universal Journal of Management,1(2),111 - 118

Riggs. K (2012): Strategies for Sustainability of Grant-funded programs, Utah State University. Journal of Extension, 39(5), 1-6.

Sebastian. I.C, Eduard.G.C, Cristian, E.L and Luliana.L (2018): Community Based Programs Sustainability. A Multidimensional Analysis of Sustainability Factors

Wasilwa. C (2015): Effects of Community Participation on Sustainability of Community Based Development Projects in Kenya, Unpublished.

Yin, R (2003): Applications of Case Study Research (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, London. Katrina, A.K (2012): Conducting Educational Research: Step 5 on Identifying the Population.

Authors

Daniel Wandera Clief Naku

Geography Department, St John’s University of Tanzania, Dodoma, Tanzania

[email protected] (Primary Contact)

Jacob Kihila

Institute of Human Settlements Studies, Ardhi University, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

Eluether Mwageni

School of Spatial Planning and Social Sciences, Ardhi University, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

Naku, D. W. C., Kihila, J., & Mwageni, E. (2021). Towards Programs Sustainability: Assessment of Institutional Determinants for Effective Community Participation in Development Programs in Tanzania. Environmental Science & Sustainable Development, 6(2), 60–72. https://doi.org/10.21625/essd.v6i2.838

Download Citation

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

The Author shall grant to the Publisher and its agents the nonexclusive perpetual right and license to publish, archive, and make accessible the Work in whole or in part in all forms of media now or hereafter known under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License or its equivalent, which, for the avoidance of doubt, allows others to copy, distribute, and transmit the Work under the following conditions:

Attribution: other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;

With the understanding that the above condition can be waived with permission from the Author and that where the Work or any of its elements is in the public domain under applicable law, that status is in no way affected by the license.

The Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the nonexclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the Work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), as long as there is provided in the document an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post online a pre-publication manuscript (but not the Publisher's final formatted PDF version of the Work) in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (see The Effect of Open Access). Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work shall be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Publisher-assigned DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and a link to the online abstract for the final published Work in the Journal.
Upon Publisher's request, the Author agrees to furnish promptly to Publisher, at the Author's own expense, written evidence of the permissions, licenses, and consents for use of third-party material included within the Work, except as determined by Publisher to be covered by the principles of Fair Use.
The Author represents and warrants that:

The Work is the Author's original work;
The Author has not transferred, and will not transfer, exclusive rights in the Work to any third party;
The Work is not pending review or under consideration by another publisher;
The Work has not previously been published;
The Work contains no misrepresentation or infringement of the Work or property of other authors or third parties; and
The Work contains no libel, invasion of privacy, or other unlawful matter.

The Author agrees to indemnify and hold Publisher harmless from Author's breach of the representations and warranties contained in Paragraph 7 above, as well as any claim or proceeding relating to Publisher's use and publication of any content contained in the Work, including third-party content.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Most read articles by the same author(s)

Reginald Chetto, Makarius Mdemu, Jacob Kihila, Climate Change-Related Drivers of Migration in East Africa: An Integrative Review of the Literature , Environmental Science & Sustainable Development: Vol. 9 Issue 1: Special Issue (2024): Integrated Approaches to Sustainable Development and Environmental Management in Developing Regions

1. Introduction

The need for effective community participation as one of the means for enhancing program sustainability is increasingly becoming a pre-requisite for successful implementation of development programs in Tanzania and worldwide. Unfortunately, there is inadequate empirical research to generate information and knowledge on the determinants for effective community participation for enhancing program sustainability in Tanzania.

Although scholars such as [(W et al., 2019); (Apsalone & Šumilo, 2015); (Z.S & G.F, 2008)] have, from a theoretical point of view, indicated that some of the key determinants to effective community participation could be categorized as institutional, socio-economic and socio-cultural determinants, the inadequacy in information and knowledge on these determinants creates a knowledge gap that needs to be addressed. Hence, this study seeks to explore this knowledge gap with emphasis on institutional determinants.

In this study, the concept of program sustainability is conceptualized to largely refer to the continuation of a program's goals, principles, and efforts to achieve desired outcomes as stressed by (K, 2012). Simply put, it involves making sure that the goals of the Program continue to be met through activities that are consistent with the current conditions and resources that are available (op.cit). Hence, as revealed by (I.C et al., 2018), program sustainability contributes to the attainment of sustainable development at the community level through influencing the social, human, economic and environmental aspects of the community. This paper therefore, adopts the concept of sustainability in development programs from a general perspective as reflected in the concept of sustainable development.

Similarly, according to (J et al., 2010), development programs at the community level are normally designed and implemented with the intentions of achieving the desired objective of enhancing community development and that they remain sustainable. (I.C et al., 2018) further stress that when a program is not sustainable; its impacts decrease leading to unmet expectations and thus affecting development efforts of the community as a whole. However, in order to achieve this, (C, 2015) suggests that active participation which is open and allows community members to actively take part in all stages of the program is essential for the sustainability of a program. According to Wasilwa (op.cit), it leads to capacity building, which enables the community to be more effective and efficient in the process of identifying, monitoring and evaluating the program and thus contributing to its sustainability.

In addition, (M & P, 2017) also echo that community participation allows beneficiaries to influence the direction and execution of development programs rather than merely receiving a share of the program. Similarly, according to UNDP, (2013), in order to walk in the human development pathway, people should engage fully in activities that reform lives and they should be able to participate in policy making process and results.

(C, 2013), further argues that effective community participation in development projects and programs need to be fully embraced if sustainable development is to be attained in communities. The author emphasizes that, in order to achieve effective community participation in development programs, there is a need to pay close attention to key factors that serve as determinants for effective community participation in development programs and thus ensure that such factors are supportive to the process of community participation in development projects and programs.

In support of this view, (Z.S & G.F, 2008) among other scholars point out that these key factors or determinants to effective community participation could be categorized as institutional determinants which include aspects of rules, leadership, program policies, program objectives, program instruments as well as program benefits and their distribution. It includes as well socio-economic determinants which focus on issues such as resource availability, literacy level and economic Structure (ethnicity, income, Class). Another category of determinants is the socio-cultural determinants relating to aspects of attitudes, values, skills/Capacity, beliefs, awareness and gender. This study therefore sought to assess institutional determinants for effective community participation in development programs. Specifically, the study focused on the case of Tanzania.

2. Background of the study

As pointed out by (A & C, 2002), Community participation is fundamental to achieving sustainable community development in any community. However, in order to achieve this, (C, 2013) suggests that there is a need to pay close attention to key factors that serve as determinants for effective community participation in development programs and thus ensure that such factors are supportive to the process of community participation in development projects and programs.

In the context of this study, such factors are seen as determinants for effective community participation and may be grouped as socio-economic, socio-cultural and institutional determinants (Z.S & G.F, 2008). These are pre-requisite determinants for effective community participation to occur in development initiative such as programs and project may be contextual and specific to particular locations.

The focus of this study is on institutional determinants and according to (Z.S & G.F, 2008), these determinants are institutional related. They originate from the institution implementing the program and the regulations that have been put in place for the smooth implementation of the program. Hence, these factors may among others include; rules governing how people participate, leadership, program policies, program objectives, program instruments and program benefits including how such benefits are distributed.

An empirical study by (Asaduzzaman, 2008) revealed that some invisible but serious institutional issues affected the extent of people's participation in development programs and projects. For instance, the lack of effective institutional mechanism which gives the poor and marginalized people to take part in the development project planning, supervision and or implementation.

Similarly, (A, 2008) did a study on community participation in development projects that had interest in water supply in Mbeya District, Tanzania. The study used descriptive statistic with a sample size population of 120 and revealed that the level of participation in development projects was still low despite of the government's commitment to promote community participation in development projects and programs. This situation was largely attributed some institutional factors such as leadership of the projects.

Hence, as noted from literature, the above explained factors that include rules, policies, program objectives, program benefits and how they are distributed as well as program leadership are key institutional determinants for effective community participation. These factors must be well spelt out to people so that they can effectively participate in the program.

3. Methods

The study employed a cross – sectional research design and a case study research strategy. The cross-sectional research design was used because it is best suited for studies that aim at finding out the prevalence of a phenomenon, situation, problem, attitude or issue, by taking a cross-section of the population. In addition,

The study employed a cross-sectional research design and a case study research strategy. The cross-sectional research design was used because it is best suited for studies that aim at finding out the prevalence of a phenomenon, situation, problem, attitude or issue, by taking a cross-section of the population. In addition, (R, 2011) stress that cross sectional designs are useful in obtaining an overall 'picture' as it stands at the time of the study and designed to study some phenomenon by taking a cross-section of it at one time. As such, this design was chosen in line with the above stated views whereby the researcher was interested in examining institutional determinants for effective community participation in development programs. On the other hand, the case study research strategy was used because it is open to use of other approaches of analysis including both qualitative and quantitative approaches that the study intended to use. (Yin, 2003) observed that case study research strategy can accommodate both qualitative and quantitative approaches, thus allowing the researcher to get a rich mix of data for the study.

Sampling procedures included purposive sampling for key informants and random sampling for program beneficiaries. Using a 95% confidence level and Yamane 1967 formula for sample size determination, a sample of 316 program beneficiaries. This sample size was drawn from four examined program categories that included the locally fully funded program, government fully funded program, and donor fully funded program as well as the joint fully funded program.

All the 316 program beneficiaries (Study Subjects) participated in the study through Focus Group Discussions and Key Informant Interviews. Both primary and secondary data were collected and employed in the study. Primary data was collected through Focus Group Discussions and Interviews with Key Informants. Data collection tools involved Semi-Structured Questionnaire, Key Informant Questionnaire and Audio Recorder. Secondary data was collected by making reference to relevant text books, past studies and reports both in hard and soft copy.

All collected data were analyzed based on two analysis approaches that included the within case analysis and comparative case analysis. In the context of this study, the within case analysis was used as an analytical approach in which each single case in the study was examined independently and in detail while the comparative case analysis was an analytical approach used to compare findings from different single analyzed cases. Three study areas that included Arusha, Morogoro and Iringa within Tanzania were involved in the study as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1.Geographical Locations of Study Areas

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Institutional Determinants in Locally Fully Funded Development Programs

Institutional factors as pointed out by (Z.S & G.F, 2008) are equally influential in determining the participation of people in development programs. According to the authors, these factors may, among other factors, include rules governing how people participate in programs, leadership from the implementers, program policies, program objectives and program benefits. As such both institutional determinants were examined in the context of the examined locally fully funded development program.

Results of the analysis showed that five institutional factors were pointed out by study respondents as being influential in their participation in the program. These factors included rules, leadership, program policies, program objectives and program benefits. In the context of this study, rules referred to guidelines put in place by program implementers that one had to follow in order to participate in the program. Program policies were looked at as principles put in place by program implementers to implement the program. Program objectives referred to what the program intended to achieve while program benefits referred to what the program sought to offer to the program participants.

Hence, based on the individual face to face interviews, it was revealed that institutional factors such as program objectives, leadership and program policies were seen to be more influential in determining the participation of youths in the program than rules and program benefits. In fact, results showed that thirty-five-point five percent (35.5%) of the respondents attested to program objectives, twenty-seven-point seven percent (27.7%) pointed out leadership while twenty-point seven percent (20.7%) stated program policies.

These results concur with findings of (Howard-Grabman et al., 2017) who in their study on factors affecting effective community participation in maternal and newborn health program planning, implementation and quality of care interventions also found that factors relating to program objectives, policies and leadership were crucial in influencing peoples’ participation in the programs. The implication is that, from the institutional point of view, factors such as program objectives, program policies and program leadership are of paramount importance in ensuring people participate in locally fully funded development programs.

From the study, in line with the program objectives, the interviewed study respondents stated that the objectives of the program were very clear to them and for that matter it was easy for them to know what the program was about. For instance, among the pointed-out objective of the program was in the program slogan ‘Protect Your Dream’. Through this objective, youths were given education on how to protect their dreams and this encouraged most of them to stay involved in the program. One of the interviewed respondents stated that:

‘For me as a youth, it is important to protect my dream and so when I heard about the coming of a program with this kind of focus, I was motivated to join the program. I do not regret joining the program because I have been exposed to so much that I did not know.’

This view was further echoed by the Program Coordinator who revealed that as a voluntary program, they had to think a lot so as to come up with a program selling slogan that would attract youths to be part of the program. The program coordinated stated that:

‘Youths are very difficult groups to deal with and especially getting them involved in a program or project that has nothing in form of tangible asset or money to give them. So, before we rolled out the program, we had to think a lot for a slogan which when used, it would attract them to join the program. That is when we came up with the slogan – ‘Protect yourself.’

A similar perception was expressed during the Focus Group Discussions where participants revealed that their desire to protect their dreams as advocated for by the program was very crucial in encouraging them to join the program. On the side of the female participants, the issue was avoiding to become a mother or having to add more children to the already they have while on the part of the male, it was about avoiding to become a father at an unexpected period which would affect one's dreams.

In terms of leadership, the interviewed respondents also felt that leadership provided by Kinara Organization as implementers was very important in encouraging people to join and also stay in the program. For instance, participants revealed that the leadership system is very open, transparent and very supportive to the youths. Importantly, respondents acknowledged the close follow up to every individual participant by the program implementers. This action as revealed by participants makes them feel a sense of belonging to the program. This was also supported by the views of the Program Coordinator who stated:

‘As a Program Coordinator, I work with my group leaders to see to it that we are in close contact with every participant. If after a week we have not heard from the participant, we visit him or her although at times we simply call him or her on phone. This has been very helpful in keeping the youths interested in the program.’

With regards to program policies, program participants pointed out that policies guiding their involvement in the program were friendly enough to allow anybody interested in the program to join. To them, this was another influencing factor that saw many youths join the program. For instance, as revealed by the interviewed respondents, joining the program only required one to complete a commitment form to confirm his or her interest in the program. Once the form was completed, the participant was then allowed to join colleagues in undertaking various program related activities. This implied that absence of bureaucratic and complex procedures in policies guiding the joining of an individual in the program made it easy for those interested in joining the program to do so. To substantiate this view, one of the interviewed youths narrated that:

‘The whole process of joining this program was made simple by the program implementers. Because they wanted committed people, I just had to fill in a commitment form and I was allowed into the program.’

This view was also seconded by respondents during Focus Group Discussions and later by the Program Coordinator as key informant. According to the respondents during Focus Group Discussions, most youths normally get turned off from programs of this nature if policies guiding their joining of the programs are either demanding or restrictive.

For the case of this particular program, this was never the case and therefore any youth would find it easy to join.

Generally, as advocated for by (Z.S & G.F, 2008), as well as from scholars such as (Howard-Grabman et al., 2017), program policies, program objectives and leadership in place are very critical in determining participation of people in development programs. Figure 2 presents a summary of these findings.

Figure 2.Institutional Determinants in Locally Fully Funded Development Programs

Generally, although there are several institutional determinants to effective community participation in development programs, in the context of the examined locally fully funded development program, institutional factors such as program objectives stood out as key in determining the participation of program beneficiaries in this kind of program.

However, it should be noted that while the other factors were not found to be key in this particular program on the basis of the program focus, they could be key in other locally fully funded development programs with different program focus.

4.2. Institutional Determinants in Government Fully Funded Development Programs

In terms of institutional determinants, findings from the study revealed that in the case of the examined government fully funded development program, eighty-five-point seven percent (85.7%) pointed to program benefits as a determining factor for people's participation in programs of this nature. According to respondents, to a great extent people tend to participate in government programs because of the benefits they expect in return.

This finding aligns with the views of (A et al., 2017) who in their study on the importance and limitations of participation in development projects and programs in Zambia stressed that people need to see participation beneficial to them especially in terms of empowering them so as to effectively participate in development projects and programs. This implies that in the context of this study, people’s participation in the examined program much depended on how beneficial the participation process was to them as well as the program itself. In view of this perception, one of the interviewed respondents stated that:

‘People normally expect something from a government project, so their participation is largely attached to what they expect in return. This situation arises from the fact that government programs are not designed by the people themselves to get a sense of ownership and join the program not because he or she expects something from the program. On the contrary, because government programs are not designed by the people themselves and therefore come straight from the government, an individual is forced to first look at how he or she benefits.

This view was however not largely shared by the Secondary Education Officer as a key informant in the examined program. According to the key informant, not all people put benefits first in deciding to participate in government fully funded development programs of this nature. To some, it is always about other factors such as patriotism regardless of what they expect to get in return. The key informant stated that:

‘…of course, some people are interested in what the program will offer to them but we cannot conclude that all people have such mind set. Some people participate in programs of this nature because of patriotism. Wanting to serve their communities and country’

In addition to the factor of program benefits as revealed by respondents and patriotism as indicated by the Secondary Education Officer, fourteen-point three percent (14.3%) of the respondents also revealed that other factors such as someone’s position within an institution may automatically require such an individual to participate in the program of this nature without any objection. For instance, in the case of the examined government fully funded development programs, head teachers in schools where the program was being implemented had no option to reject participating in the program. An interviewed respondent in support of this view stressed that:

‘When you are in a position that makes you the contact person for the government, you cannot avoid participating in any government project however much you think the program is not okay. So, your position when working in a government institution will automatically get you to participate in a program of this nature. It does not matter what you know or think but getting the program being implemented is more important’.

On account of the findings on the institutional determinants of effective community participation in government fully funded development programs, this study found that the views expressed by (Z.S & G.F, 2008) on the subject matter were prevalent in the examined program but specially on the aspect of people being influenced in such program on the basis of what they expect in return as benefits. Consequently, the study also revealed that, besides the benefit issues, there are other institutional factors such as patriotism of an individual and the position held by an individual in a government institution that could propel such individual to participate in the program. Findings of this analysis are as presented in Figure 3.

Figure 3.Example caption for this image

Findings of this analysis are as presented in Figure 3. Overall, the findings on institutional determinants of effective community participation in development programs of this nature also show that, even with institutional factors in such programs, a combination of factors does prevail. As such, it may not be sufficient enough to conclude that a single institutional factor can on its own be a defining determinant for effective community participation in a program of this nature.

4.3. Institutional Determinants in Donor Fully Funded Development Programs

With regard to institutional determinants for effective community participation in donor fully funded programs, results from the examined program showed that factors such as program objectives, leadership, program benefits as well as program policies were the most influential in determining participation of community members in the program. Of the four factors, respondents pointed out that the most influencing factor was about program objectives which forty-five-point seven percent (45.7%) of the respondents attested to this finding. This finding concurs with the views of (Howard-Grabman et al., 2017) who found that program objectives are very critical in determining the participation of people in development programs. This implies that from the institutional point of view, donor fully funded programs need to have clear objectives that can encourage people to participate in such programs so that they can contribute to the sustainability of the program.

According to the participants, the objectives of the program played a vital role in attracting people into the program. For instance, among the objectives of the program was the desire to raise net incomes of smallholder tree farms which would then translate into increased household income. Based on such reasoning as revealed by the respondents, many saw the program as an investment opportunity. One of the interviewed respondents explained that:

'We were all attracted into this program for different reasons but for me when I heard that the program was going to help me grow trees that I would later sell and get good income, I developed interest in the program and joined it.'

Another respondent also explained that:

'This program came to help us get out of poverty. Most of the tree planters are very rich people with vast acres of land but through this program, a man like me am able to also grow quality trees that I will sell and get money'

These views were equally substantiated by members in the Focus Group Discussions who also revealed that the focus of the program in addressing income issues among the poor was very important and this contributed to people joining the program. On the other hand, the Program Coordinator also revealed that:

‘We wanted to have a program that people would like to be a part of. As such, our emphasis was on ensuring that the program objectives are inclined towards realizing this expectation.’

The other most influencing institutional factor as revealed by the respondents was leadership. In this aspect, thirty three percent (33%) of the respondents attested to this finding and according to them, the leadership from FDT was very supportive to every participant. This encouraged people to remain and continue participating in the program. One of the interviewed respondents stated that:

‘It is very easy for someone to give up on this program because right from the preparation of the farm to taking care of the trees one has to do so many activities. However, through the dedicated leadership of FDT, people have stayed positive about the program including myself’

Similarly, nineteen-point two percent (19.2%) of the respondents indicated that program benefits were among the factors that were influential to people's participation in the examined donor fully funded development program. This finding is similar to the findings of (Howard-Grabman et al., 2017) as well as (Z.S & G.F, 2008). Hence, this implies that ensuring that expected program benefits are clearly explained to the intended program participants is key to influencing peoples' participation in programs of this nature.

According to the respondents, people had to assess how beneficial the program was to them before deciding to join especially after knowing that program benefits were not in the short run but rather in the long run. From the Focus Group Discussions, members commented that:

‘…Knowing how we will benefit as individuals was also important in convincing us to join the program. We were very inquisitive when we first heard of the program and so when we met the implementers, they were able to sensitize us.

Besides, the three discussed factors, 2.1% of the respondents also indicated that the implemented program policies such as allowing people to join their small pieces of land to meet the 2 acres’ requirement was equally useful in encouraging people to join the program. According the respondents, if such friendly policies had not been implemented, some people would have failed to join the program regardless of their interest in the program. Figure 4 presents the analysis of these findings.

Figure 4.Institutional Determinants in Donor Fully Funded Development Programs

Overall findings on institutional determinants for effective community participation from the examined donor fully funded development program showed in programs of this nature, factors relating to program objectives, leadership, benefits and their distribution as well as policies are very critical in influencing people to join the program from an institutional point of view.

Precisely, the findings concur with the views of (Z.S & G.F, 2008) as well as the views of (Howard-Grabman et al., 2017) who pointed out that, factors of this nature are very important in determining the extent of people's participation in a program because they mainly affect the governance and operational mechanisms for implementing the program. In addition, the findings further demonstrated that, although some of the factors may be more influential than others in influencing people's participation, it will still be a combination of various factors and not just a single institutional factor to influence effective community participation in programs of this nature.

4.4. Institutional Determinants in Joint Funded Development Programs

Findings on the institutional determinants for effective community participation in the case of the examined joint funded development program revealed that factors of the program benefits, leadership as well as program objectives were the most influential institutional factors that influenced people's participation in the program. These findings concur with the findings of (Howard-Grabman et al., 2017) as well as (Z.S & G.F, 2008) who equally found that program benefits, leadership and objectives were indeed influential to peoples' participation in development programs. According to the authors, these factors lead to increased participation which consequently contribute to sustainability of the program.

For the case of program benefits and distribution, findings showed that fifty-two-point eight percent (52.8%) of the respondents cited this factor as the most influencing factor. According to the respondents, people were eager to know how beneficial the program would be before deciding to join it. In fact, one of the respondents narrated that:

‘When the people from PFP came to explain to us this program, I was very interested in hearing how the program was going to benefit me. When they explained that after supporting me to grow my trees I would then sell at a very good price, that is when I decided that I should also join.’

Another respondent commented that:

‘My wife attended the meeting because I was away and when I returned, she explained to me how the people from PFP had told them the program would benefit us, I eagerly waited for the next meeting where I was given more information on top of what my wife had told me’

This feeling was equally shared by members from the Focus Group Discussions whereby members narrated that if it had not been for the program implementers to spend more time explaining to people about the program and how they would benefit in the long run, most people would have been hesistant to join the program. One of the members from the Focus Group Discussion explained that:

‘It was a very nice approach for PFP to spend more time telling us about the program and how we were going to benefit. Many people in this community have been part of many programs but after wasting time in the program, one comes to realize that the program was not of help’

These views generally revealed how influential the aspect of program benefits was in influencing people to join a program of this nature.

Another crucial institutional factor in influencing participation of people in the joint development program as revealed by the respondents was the factor of leadership. According to the findings, thirty-point three percent (30.3%) of the respondents cited this factor as being among the most influencing factors in joining the program. In addition, the respondents revealed that leadership displayed by PFP right from introducing the program to the time when this study was carried out was exceptional in the sense that implementers were very supportive and reaching out to the farmers at all times. This view was amplified by one of the interviewed respondents: 'I have been part of so many programs in this community but I can tell you, I have never seen a program where the implementers stay this close to the people. PFP staff members are always ready to hear from you, check on you and advise you whenever you have problems'

‘I have been part of so many programs in this community but I can tell you, I have never seen a program where the implementers stay this close to the people. PFP staff members are always ready to hear from you, check on you and advise you whenever you have problems’

The members of the Focus Group Discussion also explained that:

'Surely we are in this program together. PFP has been with us in every step right from preparing the tree nurseries and made sure that farms are well maintained'

To triangulate these views, discussion with the Program Director also revealed that in terms of leadership, PFP had adopted a grass-root field-based approach where field officers within the program communities had been identified, trained and empowered to lead the process from the grass root. The Program Director explained that:

‘If there is anything we have desired to do to perfection, is ensuring that our leadership is felt among our program participants. We don’t want to see them get disappointed because we failed to play our part. We want them to be proud of us and to count on our support at any time. We have trained and empowered forest field officers in every community we work in and for that matter, our support in these villages is on a daily basis.’

From these views, an affirmation was again drawn that indeed, the aspect of leadership in the case of the examined joint funded development program was of necessity in influencing the participation of people in the program. Lastly, study respondents also revealed that to some extent the factor of program objectives also played a role in influencing them to join the program. According to the findings, sixteen-point nine percent (16.9%) of the respondents attested to this view and according to them, it was important to understand the objective of the program.

As it was revealed by the Program Director, the overall objective of the program was to increase income in the Southern Highlands of Tanzania by supporting private plantation forestry and strengthening wood-based industries. To program participants, knowing and understanding this objective was very important to them because according to the interviewed residents, it showed them what they should expect by joining the program. One of the proponents of this view explained that,

‘PFP staff did a good job to tell us what the program was about because through that we know the objective of the program and how relevant it was to us.’

Again, from such kind of explanation, this study confirms that the issue of program objectives though not strongly advocated for by many of the respondents appeared to be one of the influencing institutional factors in determining the joining of people in the examined joint funded development program. Figure 5 shows the findings of this analysis.

Figure 5.Institutional Determinants in Joint Funded Development Programs

In general, the findings on institutional determinants for effective community participation in joint funded development programs as per the examined program showed that, aspects of program benefits and distribution, leadership as well as program objectives were indeed influencing factors to the participation of the people in a program of this nature. This further confirms the views put forward by (Z.S & G.F, 2008) on the relevance of these factors in determining people’s participation in development initiatives.

4.5. Case Comparison and Discussion on Institutional Determinants for Effective Community Participation from the Examined Development Programs

The comparative analysis for the institutional determinants for effective community participation in development programs from the four examined development programs showed that there were several institutional determinants that need to be taken care of. These determinants were cited by the respondents as being influential in their participation in the various four examined development programs. Such determinants include rules, leadership, program policies, program objectives as well as program benefits and their distribution. However, across all the four examined programs, three institutional factors were considered as the most influencing factors and they include leadership, program objectives and program benefits.

In terms of the leadership factor, twenty-seven-point seven percent (27.7%) of the respondents found it influential in the locally fully funded program, thirty three percent (33%) in the donor fully funded program, and thirty-point three percent (30.3%) in the joint funded program. This factor was not found to be influential in the government fully funded program.

For the program objectives factor, thirty-five-point five percent (35.5%) of the respondents found it influential in the locally fully funded program, forty-five-point seven percent (45.7%) in donor fully funded and ten-point nine percent (10.9%) in the joint funded development program.

In the case of the program benefits and distribution factor, eight-point five percent (8.5%) of the respondents found it influential in the locally fully funded program, eight five-point seven percent (85.7%) in the government fully funded program, nineteen-point two percent (19.2%) in donor fully funded program while fifty-two-point eight percent (52.8%) in the joint funded development program.

On account of the fact that the three institutional factors were found to be very influential across the four examined development programs, the study confirms that the factor of program benefits and their distribution whose average influence was forty-one-point six percent (41.6%) stood out as the most influencing institutional determinant for the effective community participation in development programs (see Table 1). This therefore meant that from the institutional perspective, the factor of program benefits and their distribution must always be addressed regardless of the nature of the program for effective community participation is to be achieved.

Table 1.Average score for Key Cited Institutional Determinants
Institutional Determinants	Percentage (%)				Average Percentage (%)	Rungs
Institutional Determinants	Locally Funded Program	Government Funded Program	Donor Funded Program	Joint Funded Program	Average Percentage (%)	Rungs
Program Benefits	8.5	85.7	19.2	52.8	41.6	1st
Program Objectives	35.5	0.0	45.7	10.9	23.0	2nd
Leadership	27.7	0.0	33.0	30.3	22.8	3rd

Generally, the findings on institutional determinants for effective community participation in development programs revealed that the factor of program benefits and their distribution was a very important factor which attests to the views put forward by (Z.S & G.F, 2008). However, in relation to institutional determinants as per findings of this study, it is also very possible that multiple institutional factors may influence a single program at the same time though the difference will be in the level of intensity.

Based on such observations, this study advocates for the view that all institutional factors that may be anticipated to influence the program need to be taken care of so as to avoid the risk of having some people left out of the program. In so doing, this will promote meaningful participation in the program as advocated for by authors such as Shutte (2016), (C, 2015), (A & C, 2002) as well as (S, 1969).

5. Conclusion

This study sought to assess institutional determinants for effective community participation in development programs so as to enhance program sustainability in Tanzania. Based on the findings, the study showed from an empirical point of view that indeed, there are several institutional factors that can influence the extent of people's participation in a development program. However, and most importantly, findings showed that there are three key factors that need not to be ignored at any one time in the implementation of any development program regardless of the nature of the program. Such factors include, program benefits and their distribution, program objectives and program leadership. Based on such findings, the study recommends that program implementers and funders should always pay attention to the above three mentioned factors if effective community participation is to be achieved in any program.

References

M Akumu, P Onono. Community Participation and Sustainability of the Kenya Comprehensive School Health Program in Kajiado County. 2017.
Apsalone M., Šumilo Ē.. Socio-Cultural Factors and International Competitiveness. Business, Management and Education. 2015; 13(2):276-291. DOI
S Arnstein. The Ladder of Citizen Participation. The Journal of the American Planning Association. 1969; 35, (4:216-224.
Asaduzzaman M.. Governance in Practice: Decentralization and People’s Participation in Local Governance. 2008.
J Bamber, S Owens, H Schonfeld, D Ghate, D Fulerton. Effective Community Development Programs: A Review of International Evidence Base. Published by the Centre for Effective Services. 2010.
A Beck, C Crawley. Regional Institute Online Publishing, North South Wales: Australia; 2002.
W Evan, O.L Atieno, F Mutui. An analysis of the factors affecting public participation in environmental impact assessment: Case study of selected projects in Nairobi city county, Kenya. European Scientific Journal. 2019; 15(9)
Howard-Grabman L., Miltenburg A.S., Marston C.. Factors affecting effective community participation in maternal and newborn health programme planning, implementation and quality of care interventions. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017; 17DOI
R Kumar. SAGE Publishers: New Delhi, India; 2011.
Z.S Masanyiwa, G.F Kinyashi. Institute of Development Studies: London, UK; 2008.
A Mubita, L Mundia, M Munalula. The importance and limitations of participation in development projects and programs. The University of Zambia. European Scientific Journal February. 2017. DOI
A Nkonjera. Community participation in water development projects in Mbeya District, Tanzania. 2008.
C Odoyo. Factors affecting implementation of community projects: Case of Kimira-Oluch smallholder farm improvement project in Homa Bay County, Kenya. Universal Journal of. 2013; Management,1(2),111
K Riggs. Strategies for Sustainability of Grant-funded programs, Utah State University. Journal of Extension. 2012; 39(5):1-6.
I.C Sebastian, Eduard.G.C Cristian, E.L., LulianaL. Community Based Programs Sustainability. A Multidimensional Analysis of Sustainability Factors. 2018.
C Wasilwa. Effects of Community Participation on Sustainability of Community Based Development Projects in Kenya. 2015.
Yin R.. Applications of Case Study Research. 2003.

Plum Analytics

Read Counter : 1452 Download : 644

Share Now

[BIBR-1] M Akumu, P Onono. Community Participation and Sustainability of the Kenya Comprehensive School Health Program in Kajiado County. 2017.

[BIBR-2] Apsalone M., Šumilo Ē.. Socio-Cultural Factors and International Competitiveness. Business, Management and Education. 2015; 13(2):276-291. DOI

[BIBR-3] S Arnstein. The Ladder of Citizen Participation. The Journal of the American Planning Association. 1969; 35, (4:216-224.

[BIBR-4] Asaduzzaman M.. Governance in Practice: Decentralization and People’s Participation in Local Governance. 2008.

[BIBR-5] J Bamber, S Owens, H Schonfeld, D Ghate, D Fulerton. Effective Community Development Programs: A Review of International Evidence Base. Published by the Centre for Effective Services. 2010.

[BIBR-6] A Beck, C Crawley. Regional Institute Online Publishing, North South Wales: Australia; 2002.

[BIBR-7] W Evan, O.L Atieno, F Mutui. An analysis of the factors affecting public participation in environmental impact assessment: Case study of selected projects in Nairobi city county, Kenya. European Scientific Journal. 2019; 15(9)

[BIBR-8] Howard-Grabman L., Miltenburg A.S., Marston C.. Factors affecting effective community participation in maternal and newborn health programme planning, implementation and quality of care interventions. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017; 17DOI

[BIBR-9] R Kumar. SAGE Publishers: New Delhi, India; 2011.

[BIBR-10] Z.S Masanyiwa, G.F Kinyashi. Institute of Development Studies: London, UK; 2008.

[BIBR-11] A Mubita, L Mundia, M Munalula. The importance and limitations of participation in development projects and programs. The University of Zambia. European Scientific Journal February. 2017. DOI

[BIBR-12] A Nkonjera. Community participation in water development projects in Mbeya District, Tanzania. 2008.

[BIBR-13] C Odoyo. Factors affecting implementation of community projects: Case of Kimira-Oluch smallholder farm improvement project in Homa Bay County, Kenya. Universal Journal of. 2013; Management,1(2),111

[BIBR-14] K Riggs. Strategies for Sustainability of Grant-funded programs, Utah State University. Journal of Extension. 2012; 39(5):1-6.

[BIBR-15] I.C Sebastian, Eduard.G.C Cristian, E.L., LulianaL. Community Based Programs Sustainability. A Multidimensional Analysis of Sustainability Factors. 2018.

[BIBR-16] C Wasilwa. Effects of Community Participation on Sustainability of Community Based Development Projects in Kenya. 2015.

[BIBR-17] Yin R.. Applications of Case Study Research. 2003.

Towards Programs Sustainability: Assessment of Institutional Determinants for Effective Community Participation in Development Programs in Tanzania

Abstract

Full text article

References

Authors

Most read articles by the same author(s)

Similar Articles

Address

Social Media

Article Sidebar

Abstract

Full text article

References

Authors

Article Details

Most read articles by the same author(s)

Similar Articles