Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
BENEFICIARIES’ PARTICIPATION IN THE DESIGN AND
PERFORMANCE OF PROJECT
A CASE STUDY OF SURVIVORS INTEGRATION PROJECT OF
AVEGA AGAHOZO IN GASABO DISTRICT
RABAN HAVUGIMANA
MBA/3777/13
A Research Project submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for
the award of Masters Degree in Business Administration (Project
Management Option) of Mount Kenya University
JUNE 2015
ii
iii
DEDICATION
To my beloved parents, brothers, sisters, friends, relatives and colleagues from Survivors
Fund
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The success of hard work, which is tiresome like this one, is a result of combination of
effort from different directions. For this reason I appreciate the entire assistance provided
to me during the course of my academic life. Hence many deserve my sincere thanks.
First, I'm so grateful for my family, my beloved farther, all my brothers and sisters, my
friends, my former classmates for their moral and materials support, advices they
rendered and cooperation we shared. Most importantly I would like to recognize the
contribution made by Survivors Fund and the Team in General without you I couldn't go
further. I would like to extend my heartfelt thanks to my supervisor, DrBazimya for his
intellectual guidance and research skills that enable me to finish my research paper.
I wish to a specially thank all Mount Kenya Management and staff for your smart
organization of work that is so professional and high academic standards. I sincerely
appreciate Mount Kenya exemplary professionalism. My sincere gratitude to all different
members, your support is deeply recognizes and appreciated.
“Thank you all”
v
ABSTRACT
The main objective of the study was to examine the beneficiaries participation in the
design and performance of project and this led to other specific objectives like to establish
the benefits of beneficiaries participation in the design of project, to find out if SIP
beneficiaries in AVEGA participate in design and if so, the ways in which they
participated and to analyze the impact of Beneficiaries' participation in project design.
The significance of the study was that it will contribute to the empowerment of Mount
Kenya University students especially those who are doing project management, it will
also help the institution to encourage its beneficiaries to engage and participate in the
design of the projects and act as useful document for higher learning institutions,
contributed to know the challenges faced by the beneficiaries in performing or doing their
business.The methodology applied by the researcher to carry out his research was the
descriptive survey design and, cluster sampling technique and sample selection. The
chosen sample comprised of 91beneficiaries and 3 staff, the total was 94 respondents
selected from Survivors Integration Project in GasaboDistrict. The primary data was
collected by means of questionnaires and interviews to the entrepreneurs whereas the
secondary data was obtained from the documentation about the project. Self-administered
questionnaire, interviews, observation and focus group discussions was used in collecting
data from respondents. After data processing, data from 94 beneficiaries of Survivors
Integration Project were analyzed using Microsoft office excel package and presented in
the form of table or figures then summarized into simple frequency counts and percentage
distribution for analysis. From the findings it was found that there is no role of
beneficiaries played in the design of projects, it is concluded that the Beneficiaries still
face the challenges in doing their business however they had expanded. The study
recommended that AVEGA AGAHOZOmust give a chance to the communities, in order
to participate in design of projects and making it perform well while they are
implementing. Therefore, the entities in regard with beneficiaries’ participation in project
design and poverty reduction was recommended to assist all beneficiaries and vulnerable
people to be more participative in the design of the project and provide the means of
escaping poverty by increasing number of people who are able to participate in the project
design.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENT
DECLARATION.................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
DEDICATION...................................................................................................................iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ................................................................................................ iv
ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................ v
TABLE OF CONTENT .................................................................................................... vi
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. x
LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... xi
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABREVIATIONS .......................................................... xii
DEFINITION OF KEY TERMS ...................................................................................xiii
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION .............................................................................. 1
1.0. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1
1.1. Background of the Study .............................................................................................. 1
1.2. Problem Statement ........................................................................................................ 3
1.3Objectivesof Study .......................................................................................................... 4
1.3.1General Objective ........................................................................................................ 4
1.3.2. Specific Objective ...................................................................................................... 4
1.3.2. Specific Objective ...................................................................................................... 4
1.4. Research Questions ....................................................................................................... 4
1.5 Significance of the study ................................................................................................ 5
1.6 Limitations of the study ................................................................................................. 5
1.7 Scope of the study .......................................................................................................... 6
1.8 Organization of the Study .............................................................................................. 6
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ...................................... 7
2.0. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 7
vii
2.1. Theoretical Literature .................................................................................................... 7
2.1.1. Why Participation ...................................................................................................... 7
2.1.2. Who Participate? ........................................................................................................ 9
2.1.3. Participation in theory ................................................................................................ 9
2.1.4. Levels of Participation ............................................................................................. 12
2.1.5. The reason for project success or failure ................................................................. 12
2.2 Empirical Literature ..................................................................................................... 14
2.2.1 Benefits of Participation in the program implementation to its Beneficiaries .......... 14
2.2.2 Impact of Participation or non-Participation by Beneficiaries on the Performance of
the Projects ......................................................................................................................... 16
2.2.3 The benefits and cost of Participation ....................................................................... 19
2.2.4 Organizational Role .................................................................................................. 20
2.2.5. Involvement of stakeholders in project design process ........................................... 21
2.3. Critical Review and Research Gap Identification ....................................................... 22
2.4 Theoretical Framework ................................................................................................ 25
2.4.1 What is Participation? ............................................................................................... 25
2.4.2. Concept of Participation .......................................................................................... 26
2.5. Conceptual Framework ............................................................................................... 27
2.6. Summary ..................................................................................................................... 29
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .............................................. 30
3.0. Introduction ................................................................................................................. 30
3.1. Research Design.......................................................................................................... 30
3.2. Target Population ........................................................................................................ 31
3.3. Sample Design ............................................................................................................ 31
3.3.1 Sample size ............................................................................................................... 31
viii
3.3.2 Sampling Technique ................................................................................................. 32
3.4 Data collection Methods .............................................................................................. 33
3.4.1. Data collection instruments...................................................................................... 33
3.4.2 Administration of data Collection Instruments ......................................................... 34
3.4.3. Validity and Reliability ............................................................................................ 35
3.5. Data Analysis Procedure ............................................................................................. 35
3.5.1 Editing Process.......................................................................................................... 36
3.5.2 Coding ....................................................................................................................... 36
3.5.3 Tabulation ................................................................................................................. 37
3.6. Ethical Consideration .................................................................................................. 37
CHAPTER FOUR: RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS ......................... 38
4.0. Introduction ................................................................................................................. 38
4.1. Demographic characteristics of Respondents ............................................................. 38
4.2. Presentation of the findings ........................................................................................ 40
4.2.1 Staffs ‘views on the performance of the project is a result of Beneficiaries'
Participation. ...................................................................................................................... 52
4.2.2 Staffs’ views on who is responsible for SIP Monitoring and Evaluation in your
Project. ............................................................................................................................... 52
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION ..... 53
5.0. Introduction ................................................................................................................. 53
5.1. Summary of findings................................................................................................... 53
5.1.1 The benefits of Beneficiaries’ participation in the design of project. ....................... 53
5.1.2 SIP beneficiaries in AVEGA participation in design or the ways in which they
participated. ........................................................................................................................ 54
5.1.3 The impact of Beneficiaries' participation in project design. ................................... 55
ix
5.2 Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 55
5.3 Recommendation ......................................................................................................... 58
5.4 Suggestions for further research .................................................................................. 59
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 60
APPENDICES .................................................................................................................. 65
AUTHORIZATION LETTER ....................................................................................... 66
BLANK QUESTIONNAIRE .......................................................................................... 69
x
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1: Categories of respondents ................................................................................. 33
Table 4.1: Age distribution of the respondents .................................................................. 38
Table 4.2: Ways in which community became beneficiaries ............................................ 40
Table 4.3: The initial main occupation before joining project........................................... 42
Table 4.4: The kind of training received through the Project ............................................ 43
Table 4.5: Beneficiaries’ satisfaction with the Project intervention .................................. 45
Table 4.6: How they benefited from the Project ................................................................ 46
Table 4.7: The challenges are facing in their business (n=91) .......................................... 48
Table 4.8: The main factors for the Project success .......................................................... 50
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1: Conceptual framework .................................................................................... 27
Figure 4.1: The level of education of respondents ............................................................. 39
Figure 4.2: Beneficiaries’ participation in the project design ............................................ 41
Figure 4.3: Assistance received by beneficiaries through the project ............................... 43
Figure 4.4 :The reasons that pushed participants to join the project ................................. 44
Figure 4.5: The importance of the project to the beneficiaries .......................................... 45
Figure 4.6: The period of operating the business ............................................................... 47
Figure 4.7: The long plan for their business ...................................................................... 49
Figure 4.8: The beneficiaries’ ability to participate in the design of the project ............... 51
xii
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABREVIATIONS
ANR: Avega Northern Region
ASR: Avega Southern Region
AVEGA: Association of Genocide Widows
AWR: Avega Western Region
CDW: Community Development Worker
CTP: Care and Treatment Project
DFID: Department for International Development
IGA: Income Generating Activities
IGAO: Income Generation Activity Officer
GoR: Government of Rwanda
LDC: Less Developed Country
MKU: Mount Kenya University
NGO: Non-Government Organization.
PM: Program Manager
PO: Project Officer
SIP: Survivors Integration Project
UK: United Kingdom
WB: World Bank
xiii
DEFINITION OF KEY TERMS
Beneficiary
It is defined as a person who gains or benefits in some way from something. In another
word beneficiary is an organization or a person for whom a trust is created and who
thereby receive the benefits of the trust, one inherits under a will.
Participation
This means the act of taking part or sharing something, participation is a process through
which beneficiaries influence and share control over development initiatives, decisions
and resources that affect their lives
A Project
It is defined as temporary rather than permanent social systems or work systems that are
constituted by teams within or across organizations to accomplish particular tasks under
time constraints.
Design
It is defined as the way in which something planned and made, is the creation of a plan or
convention for the construction of an object or a system.
1
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.0. Introduction
This chapter highlights the following: The background of the study, problem statement,
objectives of the study, Significance of the study, the scope and limitations of the study.
1.1. Background of the Study
The term ‘Participation’ entails maximization of people’s involvement in the spheres or
stages of development(Mukandara, 2005). Involvement has to go beyond implementation
or donation of ‘free’ labor and cash contributions and extends to policy decisions. People
need to enjoy basic freedoms so as to be able to freely express themselves and to develop
their full potential in areas of their own choice.
World Bank (1994) looks at participation from development perspective as a process
through which beneficiaries influence and share control over development initiatives,
decisions and resources that affect their lives. Also notes that recognition and support for
greater involvement of local people’s perspectives, knowledge, priorities and skills
presents an alternative to donor-driven and outsider-led development(Long, 2001).
According to African Charter (1990), Community participation is in essence, people’s
effective involvement in creating structures and designing policies and programs that
serve their interests. For Community participation to be realized, people have to be fully
involved, committed and seize the initiative. It is essential that they establish independent
people’s organizations at various levels that are genuinely grass root, voluntary,
democratically administered and self-reliant and that are rooted in tradition and culture of
society.
2
Generally, the concept of participation refers to involvement of people in affairs that
affect them especially in decision making process. In most of the literature, there is
agreement that participation connotes a process by which community members take part
in all stages of a program right from inception, through planning and design,
implementation, monitoring and evaluation, to sharing of benefits (Paul, 1987);
World Bank (1994); proposes a framework for analyzing community participation in
terms of three dimensions, namely its objectives, its intensity, and the instruments used to
foster it. Paul states that the objectives of community participation as an active process
are (a) empowerment, (b) building beneficiary capacity, (c) increasing project
effectiveness, (d) improving project efficiency, and (e) cost sharing.
According toHickey (2001) point out that participation in development theory and
practice has taken different dimensions and approaches over time. From 1940s to 50s, the
colonial approach was community development and participation was regarded as an
obligation of citizenship; citizenship formed in homogenous communities. The locus or
level of engagement was a community. From 1960s to 1970s, the post-colonial era
approach was community development, political participation and emancipator
participation and participation in form of voting, and campaigning. Political party
membership was regarded as a right and obligation of the citizen. Participatory
citizenship was also regarded as a means of challenging subordination and
marginalization. For this period, the locus or level of engagement were political systems
and constituent parts, economic and civic spheres, communities and citizens.The period
beginning in the 1980s, participatory approach was populist/participation in development
and its focus was in projects rather than in broader political communities. The most actors
have been the development professionals, participation learning groups, Non-
governmental organizations (NGOs), World Bank, and United Nations agencies. It has
3
been realized that due to the ineffectiveness of externally imposed and expert-oriented
forms of project planning, management and implementation coupled with top-bottom
approach, major donors and development organizations embarked on participatory
approaches purposely to empower local people, capture indigenous people’s knowledge,
and ensure sustainability and efficiency of interventions (Hickey & Mohan, 2004).
1.2. Problem Statement
The big issues in project management are low absorption capacity; release of money for
the project, the absence of impact on poverty, lack of sustainability, and inadequate
community ownership. One of the major causes of poor project performance may be due
to lack of involvement of the community as a result of inadequate policy for the project
management, especially in the design stage. All too often, donors and projects designers
do not involve the beneficiary community in the identification of needs and related
project design consideration, resulting in poor project success.
World Bank (2013) in most developing countries, many past efforts in development
projects have had limited success because of lack of sufficient participation by
beneficiaries in the development process. The core constraint to fostering participation
especially among the rural people has been over-centralization of decision-making
powers and resources thereby creating a communication gap between the
beneficiaries/stakeholders and the development workers. It is because of this, that today,
many programs and projects have been introduced and developed with participatory
approaches so as to bring the disparate voices of the people into the development process
(Brett, 2002).
This topic of Beneficiaries Participation in design and project performance has been
largely neglected both in society in general and in the social sciences. Basing on
4
researches made by different researchers, there are still challenges and achievements that
need to be investigated. This research, therefore, intended systematically to investigate
whether AVEGA in GasaboDistrict has enhanced participation and in what ways it has
done so, in order to evaluate the relationships,the study looked at the participation of
Beneficiaries of projects in their design.
1.3Objectivesof Study
1.3.1General Objective
To assess the degree of beneficiaries’ participation in the project design and performance
of the project
1.3.2. Specific Objective
1.3.2. Specific Objective
i) To establish the benefits of beneficiaries participation in the design of project
ii) To Analyze if survivors integration project beneficiaries in AVEGA participate in
design and if so, the ways in which they participated.
iii) To analyze the impact of beneficiaries' participation in project design.
1.4. Research Questions
i) What were the benefits for beneficiaries to participate in the design of project?
ii) DidSurvivors Integration Project beneficiaries participate in the design? if yes
how do they participated?
iii) What are the impacts of beneficiaries to participate in the design of project?
5
1.5 Significance of the study
The analysis of different views about beneficiaries participation could help in the
achievement of permanent and lasting solution in the following ways; firstly, the policy
makers could put in place a clear guidelines which involves the beneficiary in project
management, secondly the policy makers could obtain the researched facts which could
help to take appropriate decision to bring the level of development to the community, and
thirdly it could help to identify fundamental problems facing the beneficiary in
participation in project management which can cause a negative impact at national level.
This study is the source of information to other researchers who may wish to carry out a
study in the same field.
The study provides additional knowledge and insights to service delivery agencies
especially the non-government organizations. The study contributed additional
knowledge on community participation in the design of the project and improves on the
perception of communities on participatory development approaches; the challenges and
consequences of not involving communities in design of community program.Finally, this
research enabled the researcher to fulfill the requirement for the award of Master’s
Degree of Business Administration (MBA) at Mount Kenya University, for academic
year 2015.
1.6 Limitations of the study
Language proficiency constitutes great challenges for the researcher since most of the
target population comprise of semi-literature respondents. This was present challenges to
the researcher since translations of the research instruments wherenecessary. The
researcher overcame this challenge by translating the research instrument in advance.
6
Another limitation is that most of projects managers do not want to reveal their
information to the researcher. To overcome this researcher convinced them that the
information given will be confidential and will only be used for academic purpose.
There is also a limitation of respondents not giving their true opinion of the situation. To
address these short comings, the researcher assured participants about the anonymity of
their responses and fact that they would not in any way be penalized merely because of
their participation in the study.
1.7Scope of the study
Beneficiary’s participation in the design and performance of the project, the research was
carried out in Survivors Integration Project of AVEGA AGAHOZO in Gasabo District.
The period ofstudy was 2011-2013 because this project started in 2011;there are some
challenges that beneficiaries meet in project design, in the study we find out some of them
and their solutions. This study was conducted in Kigali City,Gasabo District.
1.8 Organization of the Study
This Research has five chapters. The first chapter is Introduction of the Study, the second
chapter is Review of Related Literature, the third chapter is Research and Methodology,
the fourth chapter is Research Findings and Discussions and the fifth chapter is summary,
conclusion and recommendations.
7
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
2.0. Introduction
This chapter provides the existing literature that was reviewed by the researcher, and the
subject of participation in development programs. The literature related to project
management is very extensive but there is like a gap on the emphasize on community
participation. The researcher used books, reports, publications related to project
management, to the role of AVEGA and partners and regulations on community
participation. The key elements or factors which help us to form the base of this research
will be the availability of policies or guidelines, community participation itself, the
impact (positive or negative) of community participation and the willing of management
to involve the community in project management.
2.1. Theoretical Literature
This section takes examples from different theories where different writers had said about
the importance of community involvement in general.
2.1.1. Why Participation
According to Brett (2008), beneficiaries are likely to participate when their benefits
outweigh their costs, just as agencies are likely to foster beneficiary participation when
the benefits of doing so outstrip the costs to the agency. However, knowledge about the
costs and benefits of participation remains limited; little guidance about budget
allocations appropriate to induce participation is available to those planning large-scale
projects. Nevertheless, from an agency perspective people's participation can participate
to the achievement of the following objectives: effectiveness; efficiency; empowerment
and capacity building.Project must always involve people, and getting people to work
together to accomplish defined goals is always complex. The technique and discipline of
8
project management just make it easier to coordinate things and help to secure more
predictable results. Participation and ownership are fundamental to ensuring relevance,
effectiveness and sustainability and gives some objectives of participatory approaches
which are the following: Empowerment: empowerment is often a key objective of
participation i.e bringing about a more equitable sharing of power, increasing the political
awareness of disadvantaged groups, and supporting them in taking actions that will allow
them to take more of their own futures. Capacity building: people learn best by doing
things for themselves. If people are assisted to plan and manage their own affairs the
outcomes are more likely to meet their real needs. Building capacity within local agencies
and groups is thus an important objective of participatory approaches. Capacity building
is also important because it is precondition for the sustainability of development
initiatives.
Effectiveness:Project effectiveness is the degree to which stated project objectives are
achieved. Participation can be a vehicle for increasing the effectiveness of development
project or programs. If people have genuine stake in a development activities are actively
involved in decision making, they are likely to give a greater degree of commitment, and
shared objectives are more likely to be met(Doyle, 1990).
Efficiency:Project efficiency measures the relationship between a given output and its
cost and inputs. Because anticipatory decision making allows more timely beneficiary
inputs, as well as synchronization of agency and client inputs, it may well lead to greater
efficiency. Discussion, consultation, and information sharing often produce greater
consensus about goals and means and more clarity about roles, authority, and ownership
than would otherwise be possible. Consensus and clarity in turn reduce conflict
anddelays, resulting in smoother implementation and lower overall costs. In my opinion,
9
this must be the model for all the donors because more people involved at any one of
project activities, the greater the importance of good facilitation and planning. This
involvement also helps to manage conflicts by encouraging people to listen to and
understand each other’s perspectives.
2.1.2. Who Participate?
Participation occurs at global, national, sub national, community, and household levels.
The primary focus of this study is on the participation of beneficiaries, those who are
meant to benefit from the change brought about by projects. Hence, the characteristics of
these users (individuals and groups) are important because they influence the type of
participation that occurs.The most important characteristic that brings people together to
take action is commonality of interest. This is the glue that binds people who may
otherwise not have much in common in terms of geography, wealth,power, and
leadership, degree of organization, social cohesion, ethnicity, income, gender, or
education. Commonality of interest may supersede other distinctions, including the entity
of "community" (or village or other administrative label of convenience).
2.1.3. Participation in theory
According to Brett (2003), presents the role of participatory theory in managing
development projects and programs in poor countries. he notes that participation has
emerged in response to global demands for greater individual and social control over the
activities of state and private agencies, and especially to the manifest failures of
traditional 'top-down' management systems in Least Developed Countries (LDCs). He
points out that participation can succeed for specific kinds of projects and programs in
favorable circumstances, but is unsuitable for many others. It commonly fails in contexts
where local conditions make cooperative and collective action very difficult, or where it
10
is manipulated by implementing agencies to justify their own actions or poor
performance. According to Midgley ( 1986) points out that the rationale for community
participation has been thought to include being a means of enhancing empowerment,
enhancing responsiveness to people’s real needs, instilling a sense of ownership of
programs by the local people, promoting sustainability, and making program cheaper by
allowing mobilization of local resources. Participation is also believed to promote more
equitable distribution of the benefits that accrue from development activities.
In line with the above, Chambers (1997) argues that participation has the effect of
empowering the citizens so that they can continue to direct future changes and put
pressure on outside forces to support these changes. The location of participatory work is
thus focused on the local level and depends upon local interests and capacity to engage in
action for change.
According to Brett (2002) puts much emphasis on the issue of participatory groups and
rural development. He calls for a more people-centered development practice that
emphasizes the need to strengthen institutional and social capacity supportive of greater
local control, accountability and self- reliance. He notes that a high priority is placed on a
process of democratization; people are encouraged to mobilize and manage their own
local resources, with government playing an enabling role.
According to Korten (2007) notes that where such decentralizing self-organizing
approaches to the management of development resources are taken seriously, they
generally result in more efficient and productive resource management, a reduction in
dependence on external resources, increased equity, increased local initiative and
accountability, and a strengthening of economic discipline. He points out that
participation is very instrumental for it strengthens managerial competence, motivation
11
and performance of workers, social and political solidarity and the relative position of
poor and marginal groups in society. he argues that participation empowers poor people
by taking them out of exploitative economic relationships and giving them control over
their own organizations; it strengthens local organizational capabilities by building on
traditional commitments to collective, as opposed to individualistic forms of economic
and social organizations. He also notes that participation guarantees that collective
organizations serve local needs, are based upon local skills and compatible with local
cultures and thus help to eliminate foreign domination and dependency from the
development process. He claims that Local officials through cooperation increase
people’s productivity and access to capital, and give them better access to administrative
staff. Putnam et al, (1992) present the virtues of a civic community and note that
citizenship in a civic community is marked, first of all, by active participation in public
affairs. Drawing from MichaalWalzer, they point out that “interest in public issues and
devotion to public causes are the key signs of civic virtue” (Putnam et al, (1992). They
further note that citizens in the civic community are not required to be altruists. However,
citizens pursue what Tocqueville termed ‘self-interest properly understood” that is, self-
interest defined in the context of broader public needs, self-interest that is “enlightened”
rather than “myopic,” self-interest that is alive to the interests of others.
According to Almond (1980) stress that the civic culture model from a democratic
perspective requires that citizens be involved and active in politics, and that their
participation be informed, analytic and rational. They further point put that this
rationality-activist model of democratic citizenship is one of the major components of a
civic culture.
12
2.1.4. Levels of Participation
Participation is a multidimensional, dynamic process, which takes varying forms and
changes during the project cycle and over time, based on interest and need usefully
distinguishes among levels of participation, all four of which may coexist in a project.
The first two categories present ways to exercise influence; the other two offer ways to
exercise control. The levels comprise information sharing, consultation, decision making,
and initiating action (Paul, 1995)
2.1.5. The reason for project success or failure
According to Burkey (2012) highlights that reason which can affect the project viable or
fall this reason is unclear project expectation and disagreement among stakeholders. In
my opinion, this depends on how the community is involved in project design process, so
before the community involvement, it is of great importance to educate and sensitize
them. The same author says that without a good involvement of community, a
disagreement disappears among stakeholders regarding the expectation for the project and
leads to dissatisfaction with the end results. The manner the community is involved in
project process leads to its viability or failure. Participation requires effective
empowerment of stake holders in the planning and implementation of development
activities, thus the failure is due to stakeholders who do not participate in activities
planned by project designers and managers. There are many causes of project failure and
every failed project will have its own set of issues. Sometimes it is a single trigger event
that leads to failure, but more often than not, it is a complex entwined set of problems that
combine and cumulatively result in failure. Generally these issues fall into two categories.
Things the team did do (but did poorly) or things the team failed to do. They are 5 factors
identified as success characteristics are: the involvement of the beneficiary, the support of
13
the executive manager, clear understanding of the requirements, an appropriate planning,
and realistic expectations. But these elements cannot ensure alone the success of a
project. But if they are fulfilled in good conditions, a project, according to the statements
of the Standish group, has a higher probability for success. The other factors which prove
the success due to community involvement in project management are the following:
To build the best team, a willing, skilled, appropriately organized project team is the key
of success. To remember that people count, project success depends on people not reports
or charts or even computers. It is important to accommodate community’s needs and
priorities. To gain the formal and ongoing support of management and stakeholders. This
is obvious that an approval from stakeholders and community before initiating the
project. This almost the power of community participation. To keep people informed
what is doing. Communicate; all relevant stakeholders must be informed of progress,
problems and changes. Much has been written and said about the effect of participatory
development for beneficiaries. The often accompanying belief is that local leaders should
be bypassed because they either resist broad-based decision making or capture a
disproportionate share of resources. On the other hand, when local leaders get involved
they can be effective in mobilizing communities and accessing resources. Although the
process may enable community groups to become more powerful, it can also allow
leaders to emerge with more power and respect.
There are two ways of making projects responsive to beneficiary demand: beneficiaries
can be involved indirectly or directly. This measure captures only direct involvement,
although indirect involvement, as evaluated by other techniques, is considered in the
study's overall findings. Indirect involvement includes market surveys, beneficiary
assessment, contingent valuation methods to assess willingness to pay, sociological and
anthropological studies, and other consultation techniques which produce information on
14
the needs, preferences, capacity, and social and political organization of beneficiaries and
intermediary organizations. Indirect information can also be drawn from lessons learned
from other projects attempting to provide services to the poor, and then fed into the
design process. Indirect involvement of beneficiaries in design will be rated in
participation in the study; the majority of projects did not involve beneficiaries in design
at all. Direct beneficiary participation means beneficiaries work together with project
authorities in evolving the design of the project. This kind of involvement is rare, except
through the involvement of NGOs and through pilot implementation activities during the
process of project formulation; again, lessons from these experiences are fed into the
design of the project.
2.2 Empirical Literature
2.2.1 Benefits of Participation in the program implementation to its Beneficiaries
World Bank Report (2000) points out that poverty has remained stubbornly high in Africa
for decades due to inappropriate approaches used to alleviate it. It notes that top-down
plans, donor-driven investment program have been less than successful. What is
contained in the new vision of the Bank is therefore a vision of prosperity through the
empowerment of local communities. The Bank’s new vision sought to put local
governments and rural and urban communities in the ‘driver’s seat’, and give them a new
set of powers, rights and obligations. These include among others the right to be treated
as people with capabilities, not objects of pity, the power to plan, implement and maintain
projects to serve their felt needs, the obligation to be accountable to local people, not just
central governments or donors, and the obligation to enable stakeholders and beneficiaries
most especially the women, ethnic minorities, the poorest, and other long excluded
groups to participate fully in the economic development activities. Brett (2002) also
15
points out that participation is very instrumental for it strengthens managerial
competence, motivation and performance of workers, social and political solidarity and
the relative position of poor and marginal groups in society. He argues that participation
empowers poor people by taking them out of exploitative economic relationships and thus
gives them control over their own organizations. Participation also strengthens local
organizational capabilities by building on traditional commitments to collective, as
opposed to individualistic forms of economic and social organizations. He also notes that
participation guarantees that collective organizations serve local needs, are based upon
local skills and compatible with local cultures and thus help to eliminate foreign
domination and dependency from the development process. He claims that Local officials
through cooperation increase people’s productivity and access to capital, and give them
better access to administrative staff.
According to Bill Cooke (2001), also present cases for participation as tyranny as put
forward by a number of contributing writers. The writers collectively confirm that
tyranny is both a real and a potential consequence of participatory approaches to
development, counter intuitive, and contrary to its rhetoric of empowerment though this
may be. Three particular sets of tyrannies are identified- the tyranny of decision- making
and control (Participatory facilitators override legitimate decision-making processes); the
tyranny of the group (Group dynamics lead to participatory decisions that reinforce the
interests of the already powerful); and tyranny of method (Participatory methods /
techniques drive out others which have advantages participation cannot provide).
Using project-based illustrations while referring to the experience of the Kribhcho Indo-
British Farming Project, a donor-funded program of a large public sector organization in
India, Moses notes that ‘local knowledge’, far from determining planning processes and
outcomes, is often structured by them. He for example pointed out that what in one case
16
was expressed as a local need is actually shaped by local perceptions of what the agency
in question would legitimately and realistically be expected to deliver. Moses argues that
‘participatory planning’ may more accurately be viewed as the acquisition and
manipulation of a new ‘planning knowledge’ rather than the incorporation of ‘people’s
knowledge’ by projects. Moses further notes that there is a tendency to regard outsider
agendas as ‘local knowledge’. He argues that project actors are not passive facilitators of
local knowledge production and planning; they shape and direct these processes. People’s
needs are significantly shaped by perceptions of what the agency is able to deliver (Bill
Cooke & Kothari, 2001).
According to Donnelly-Roark (1987)point out that there is a tendency of local collusion
in the planning consensus where needs are clearly socially constructed and local
knowledge is shaped both by locally dominant groups and by project interests.
Moses finally notes that there is always manipulation of ‘people’s planning’ where rural
people’s knowledge (including for example analysis of problems, needs and plans) is
collaboratively produced in the context of planning. More generally, program action is
shaped by the project’s engagement in wider coalitions contending for influence within
national and international policy arenas (Bill Cooke and Kothari, 2001).
2.2.2 Impact of Participation or non-Participation by Beneficiaries on the
Performance of the Projects
According to Robert (1997)points out that participation is assumed to have the effect of
empowering the citizens so that they can continue to give direction in public policies or
programs and also direct future changes and put pressure on outside forces to support
these changes. He argues that the location of participatory work is thus focused on the
17
local level and depends upon local interests and capacity to engage in action for change
for the success of the public policy or programs.
Analyses the impact of participatory approach in the community self-help movement in
Tanzania in 1960s. He presents a transitional process from self-help Kujitolea to Nation-
building (KujengaTaifa) in Tanzania from 1961- 1971. He notes thata serious self-help
program was officially launched in 1962. The main objective of the program, as the Prime
Minister Rashid Kawawa outlined it in March 1962, was to enable the local people to
participate in projects which could be carried out without government finance. It was a
presidential (Nyerere) initiative whose task was to mobilize the people for self-help
projects. Various measures were taken to enhance the effectiveness of, and raise
participation in the government’s programs in rural areas, as well as improve its
communications with the people. These included among others subdividing of the
provinces into smaller units, setting legal frame work for the self-help movement, and
creation of development committee system at different administrative levels. The
committee system was created to provide the necessary avenues for participation and to
enable the local leadership to translate the people’s enthusiasm into solid achievement.
Development committees were set up from the village to the regional level in order to
spearhead and co-ordinate local development activities, as well as to create avenues for
local participation in decision making(Mukandala, 2005)
The project management institutes (2000) argues that “ the work of project must typically
involve stakeholders and address their needs and expectation”, again the author continues
to insist that project management is a vehicle for doing good deeds and solving social
problems, community participation and involvement of several stakeholders must be
factors for success and performance required for projects.
18
However the views of community participation are different depending on authors, for
example based on the book written by Gray and Larson(2006) mention of the role of
community participation in project management.
Meanwhile the European commission (2004) highlights that “ a project must have clearly
identified the profit actors, the problems to be solved, the methods of monitoring and
evaluation, the sustainable results and expected costs”, however the role played by those
actors is not clarified.
According to Baker (1998) talk about project Management as the process of combining
systems, techniques, and people to complete a project within established goals of time,
budget and quality. Again, the role of the said people is not clear. In my opinion and
based on the theories mentioned, authors do not have the same understanding of the role
of community involvement in project Management.
Traditionally a "community" has been defined as a group of interacting people living in a
common location. The word is often used to refer to a group that is organized around
common values and is attributed with social cohesion within a shared geographical
location, generally in social units larger than a household. The word can also refer to the
national community or international community.Community participation is the
sociological process by which residents organize themselves and become involved at the
level of a living area or a neighborhood, to improve the conditions of daily life (water,
sanitation, health, education). It comprises various degrees of individual or collective
involvement (financial and/or physical contributions, social and/or political commitment)
at different stages of a project. Since, it implies that residents set up management
committees in charge of equipment, (Moinngka, 2013) adds that community participation
can be seen as a process in which community members are involved at different stages
19
and degrees of intensity in the project cycle with the objective to build the capacity of the
community to maintain services created during the project after the facilitating
organizations have left. Community participation throughout the whole project, thus from
project design and implementation to evaluation, ensures the reflection of community
priorities and needs in the activities of the project and motivates communities into
maintaining and operating project activities after the project is completed.
2.2.3 The benefits and cost of Participation
There are many logical arguments for beneficiary participation in development projects.
First are the economic justifications. Public participation will mobilize greater resources
and accomplish more with the same project budget. It is also economically efficient in
that it uses generally under-utilized labor and, to a lesser extent, can build upon
indigenous knowledge which also tends to be underutilized. Thus more services are
provided at less cost. Another benefit of participation is better project design.
Participation ensures that felt needs are served. Presumably beneficiaries will shape the
project to their specific needs in ways that outside planners cannot. A sense of immediate
responsibility and ownership by beneficiaries puts pressure on a project to be truly
worthwhile. Then there are the spinoff arguments. Participation can become a catalyst for
mobilizing further local development efforts. There tends to be greater spread effects as
villagers communicate with kin and associates in other villages. Another form of spinoff
are the benefits from participation itself. It creates local-level awareness, competence, and
capacity where it did not exist before. Participation is not a totally unmixed blessing,
however. Using existing patterns of local power and organization can reinforce existing
inequities rather than stimulate desired system change. It favors’ villages better able to
produce plans, local elites, those already better off, and so forth. It takes additional time
and resources to mobilize less developed communities. One has continuously to consult
20
with far more people than if the project were executed without their involvement.
Participation in projects can slowdown or run out of energy. Fragile projects may become
overburdened and collapse due to organizational complexity or the frustration of those
involved. A strong case can be made for providing much-needed assistance as simply and
quickly as possible and not jeopardizing projects with the difficulties and Beneficiary
participation and Project Effectiveness complexities of participation. Delivering aid
efficiently is the overriding priority for donor agencies, especially multilateral and
bilateral organizations.
2.2.4 Organizational Role
According to Mutebi (2001) put the emphasis on the importance of collective, inclusive,
and participatory planning and action at community level. They add that the purpose is to
enable local people to participate in planning and monitoring service delivery to have
better control of service provision at the point of delivery, develop their own sustainable
economic planning and management capacities; and enhance effectiveness of service
delivery through a more efficient system of social communication between the top and
bottom. The overall objective is to ensure, economic, social, management and the
technical empowerment of local population to fight against poverty by participating in
planning and management of their development process.
Criticism of development projects is widespread, and blame for disappointing results is
cast in many directions. One line of criticism which has become quite strong in the recent
development literature is that development projects are too top-down and need to be more
bottom-up projects should involve more participation by beneficiaries.
21
In fact, some would argue that real development, by definition, must involve beneficiaries
in their own improvement. Without participation the people may benefit but not develop
from a project. Thus participation has intrinsic value.
The proponents of the grassroots citizen movement (Stokes, 1981; Boyte, 1980) and
community development have advocated beneficiary participation because power
gravitates to those who solve problems. Thus, if people take a more active role in solving
their own problems and meeting their own needs, they will acquire the power that was
previously retained by Project Management by default. They value participation because
it redistributes power more democratically. This means participation is the democratic
values, and believes participation will produce many additional positive results.
2.2.5. Involvement of stakeholders in project design process
Community participation processes include an identification of stakeholders, establishing
systems that allow for engagement with stakeholders by public officials, and development
of a wide range of participatory mechanisms, Stakeholders are individuals who belong to
various identified ‘communities’ and whose lives are affected by specific policies and
programs, and/or those who have basic rights as citizens to express their views on public
issues and actions. Chambers (2002), highlights the value of engagement with
stakeholders in terms of greater local ownership of public actions or development
projects. Project without good stakeholders consultation are setting up for the failure.
Participatory process creates the opportunity for primary stakeholders to adjust part of the
strategy to make it appropriate to their situation and thus more likely to meet their real
needs and increase their chances of success. I agree with the statement because the first
step in project design is to conduct an initial stakeholder analysis and involve them. This
require listing potential stakeholders (individuals, social, groups and organizations),
22
prioritizing who must be involved and agreeing with them on how they can best be
involved. This is a basis for being able to understand their needs.
The importance of involving stakeholders is to: Inspire them to identify, manage and
control their own development aspirations and so empower themselves. Greater
stakeholder input improves the quality of decisions and Controversial issues and
difficulties can be identified before making a decision. By bringing together different
stakeholders with different opinions, an agreement can be reached together. This Prevents
opposition emerging later, which can slow down the decision-making process?
Stakeholder involvement prevents delays and reduces costs in the implementation phase.
Stakeholders gain a better understanding of the objectives of decisions and the issues
surrounding them. Stakeholder consultation creates a sense of ownership of decisions and
measures, and improves their acceptance. The decision-making process becomes more
democratic, giving citizens and local communities the power to influence Decisions, and
thus a greater sense of responsibility. Stakeholder consultation can help build local
capacity. Public confidence in decision makers is enhanced. Stakeholders and decision
makers learn from each other by exchanging information and experiences.
2.3. Critical Review and ResearchGap Identification
Over the past 50 years, experiences have highlighted critical issues for planners and
professionals, who promote participation in development programs. These issues emerge
from trying to seek a universal definition of community participation and shifting views
from participation as a product (either an outcome of an intervention, or a means by
which to implement an intervention), to viewing participation as a process. Given below,
are some most important issues.
The first is the lack of a universally accepted conceptual framework. Although it is
argued that participation has strong methodological roots, this view has been challenged.
23
In a recent publication entitled ‘Participation: the new tyranny?(2001),it is argued that it
is not possible to develop such a methodology, because participation comes about as a
result of practice in specific situations. To view participation without the grounded
experience would not be possible. People, especially those involved in the projects, view
specific projects in a variety of ways. Consensus about what works and why, is not
possible and is in fact, mutually exclusive from a single view about the process. This lack
of a framework makes those living in a technological world, feel uneasy and view
participation as a ‘soft’ science. That, participation cannot be measured, quantified and
replicated, is a concern to those who are trying to see universal solutions to the wide-
ranging problems of the modern world (Cooke & Kothari, 2001).
A second critical issue for program planners/professionals concerns the assumptions
about participation as a panacea to development. It is assumed that participation will lead
to sustainability of programmes, to equity and to empowerment. However, the evidence
of a direct causal relationship is very scarce. Anecdotal data provides support of a
linkage, but not a direct knock-on effect. While it may be fair to say participation is
necessary for all these outcomes, this in itself is not sufficient. More research needs to be
undertaken to examine the relationships. However, we must recognize that these
relationships are most likely to be situation specific. The third and most critical issue is
the way in which planners/professionals deal with power and control. By involving local
people, professionals and planners are giving up complete power and control over the
design and management of the program. Many see this step as threatening and dangerous,
because professionals can no longer be sure that the programs are making good use of the
resources given to them. They are afraid that they will be challenged about the power
given to local people, if things go wrong. Past experiences, attitudes, beliefs and usually
behaviors, re-enforce the power, high status and often the salaries of professionals. They
24
do not want to share power with local people, if this might damage their chances of
continuing to receive these rewards.
The main obstacle to participation, however, is the difficulty of implementing it in
practice. It takes additional time and resources to mobilize less developed communities.
One has continuously to consult with far more people than if the project were executed
without their involvement. Participatory projects can slow down or run out of energy.
Fragile projects may become overburdened and collapse due to organizational complexity
or the frustration of those involved. A strong case can be made for providing much-
needed assistance as simply and quickly as possible and not jeopardizing projects with the
difficulties and Beneficiary Participation and complexities of participation. Delivering aid
efficiently is the overriding priority for donor agencies, especially multilateral and
bilateral organizations such as the World Bank and AID. Participation is secondary and
often not congruent with the political and organizational imperatives of conventionally
managed projects(Lindeman (1921). However, found that in Nigeria many projects and
legislation have been implemented to improve life for beneficiaries but have not yields
results. This happens because of not involving Beneficiaries in the design of those
projects. This researcher believes that the dispersion of facilities should rather be done
through community- based groups rather than political affiliations. Effective monitoring
mechanisms should also be put into place to ensure that project delivery is put into proper
use and to prevent misapplication of funds.
Shelton (2006) advised that in order to improve the survival and performance of
Beneficiaries owned project, programs should be implemented to assist beneficiaries
selecting appropriate work strategies. From the above researchers we can see that many
were very interested in finding out the participation of beneficiaries support projects in
the other countries, even though this research have been carried out there is still gaps to
25
be filled in Rwanda where you find that no many research has been carried out about
these participation of beneficiaries in design and performance of project, this research
will find out this participation that seems to be ignored.
2.4 Theoretical Framework
2.4.1 What is Participation?
There is no agreement to among planners and professionals about the contribution of
community participation to improving the lives of people particularly the poor and
disadvantaged. Some completely dismiss its value together, while others believe that it is
the magic bullets that will ensure improvement especially in the context of poverty
alleviation. Despite this lack of agreement, community participation has continued to be
promoted as a key to development. Although advocacy for participation waxes and
wanes, today it is once again seen by many Government, the United Nations agencies and
Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), as critical to program planning and poverty
alleviation (World Bank, 1996)
Although many people agree that community participation is critical in development
programs, very few agree on its definition. The various definitions are the following:
For the purposes of this study, participation defined as a voluntary process by which
people, including the disadvantaged (in income, gender, ethnicity, or education),
influence or control the decisions that affect them. The essence of participation is
exercising voice and choice. This conception does not assume that there is an ideal level
of participation to be achieved. The most effective form of participation varies, but over
the long run sustainability will depend on minimizing transaction costs in horizontal and
vertical interactions. Participation is viewed as a means to defined ends, not as an end in
26
itself; the goal therefore is to optimize participation to achieve the desired project goals,
not simply to maximize participation (Mayo, 1994).
2.4.2. Concept of Participation
The concept of participation in development activities is certainly not a new one.
According to Caroline Moser and Caroline (1987), in rural development, community
participation has been recognized as an essential component at least since the early 1950s.
The importance of participation in urban development activities has lagged behind. One
reason may be that rural projects are mainly production oriented, and it is quite evident
that the beneficiaries-as producers-must be involved in the development of production
systems. In urban projects, beneficiaries have been seen primarily as consumers of
services, and their role in developing supply systems has therefore been accorded less
importance. Benefits derive not only from cost reduction and resource mobilization, but
also from better targeting of project measures to peoples' real needs through their
involvement in the planning phase. User participation is an integral aspect of demand-
oriented housing and urban development. Furthermore, participation enhances the
"ownership" of the facilities by the user community
27
2.5. Conceptual Framework
Figure 2.1: Conceptual framework
Independent Variable Dependent Variable
Source: Researcher's own compilation
According to the World Bank Report (1987), the definition of "participation" is a matter
on which there is considerable disagreement among development scholars and
practitioners. Some use the term to mean active participation in political decision making.
For certain activist groups, participation has no meaning unless the people involved have
significant control over the decisions concerning the organization to which they belong.
Development economists tend to define participation by the poor in terms of the equitable
sharing of the benefits of projects. Yet others view participation as an instrument to
enhance the efficiency of projects or as the co-production of services. Some would regard
participation as an end in itself, whereas others see it as a means to achieve other goals.
These diverse perspectives truly reflect the differences in the objectives for which
participation might be advocated by different groups.
Community
Participation
- Identification of
concern
- Decision Making
- Resource
mobilization
- Information
sharing
Project Performance
- Project Team
satisfaction
- User satisfaction
- Budget utilization
- Timeliness
Intervening variables
- Skills
- Government Policies
- Ownership
28
The independent variables for this study were the Level of Beneficiaries Participation in
projects while Dependent variables were project performance. The level of Beneficiaries
Participation in Projects includes Education, culture, sensitization and innovation while
Project performance includes Participation beneficiary’s welfare, change on welfare and
contribution to the household income. The interrelated variable includes Political, Funds
and culture environment. Therefore the research developed by the above model which
guided in carrying out the research basing on independent Variables and dependent
variables. For purposes of this review, we propose to define community participation as
an active process by which beneficiary client groups influence the direction and execution
of a development project with a view to enhancing their wellbeing in terms of income,
personal growth, self-reliance or other values they cherish.
The focus is on the participation of beneficiaries, and not that of government personnel or
of donor staff. People (beneficiaries) are the object of development and it is their
involvement in the direction and execution of projects which is of concern here. The joint
or collaborative involvement of beneficiaries in groups is a hallmark of Beneficiaries
Participation. In the context of a development project, beneficiaries, as individuals, can be
made to participate in many ways. The Framework includes the identification of
components for each specific project (inputs), its planning processes and products, and
those processes that, although not directly involved, can be affected by the development
of the project. Monitoring and evaluation processes must be incorporated as an integral
part of the process itself. The revision of key information before (baseline), during the
process (monitoring) and at the end of the project (final evaluation), are fundamental in
the proposed Framework.
29
2.6. Summary
In this literature review, the researcher reviewed different types of journal articles, books
and report. Community participation in project is a multidimensional phenomenon which
involves many partners. These partners must have a common understanding of the
problem context in Rwanda’s environment. The research shows that anyone among
donor, government and the community have its role to be played. The lack of community
involvement leads to the absence of sustainability, responsibility and ownership of actions
and the impact is not sure. The good understanding of importance of the participation and
hence feeling ownership of project depends on how beneficiaries are educated in order to
emphasize their awareness, otherwise they never understood that the action of projects
belong to them. The success or failure of the project is due to the fact that at the
beginning, one hand the community baseline survey has not done and on the other hand
the authorities and the community will not have a consensus as for sharing
responsibilities each other.
Many projects embarked on to support beneficiaries and they are making a significant of
contribution to the welfare of the beneficiaries which need to be investigated more on as
some of the scholars have found out that beneficiaries contribute a lot to the welfare of
the society. As most of the AVEGA beneficiaries are women, and looking at the
statistical picture of gender and participation in projects design in Rwanda we can
conclude that there is a gap in the level of participation in the design of project. AVEGA
members entrepreneurs support projects in the whole country have done a lot to develop
capacity building of its beneficiaries though training in business management and
cooperative formation and providing them for the funds hence creativity and innovation
to the beneficiaries. These was investigated well and found out the extent welfare of
beneficiaries in Rwanda especially for the AVEGA members.
30
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.0. Introduction
This chapter highlights the appropriate Methodology that was undertaken in the research
situation. This chapter explains the methodology that was used to study Beneficiaries’
Participation in the design and performance of project. It specifically described the
research design adopted for this study, the target population used and area, and the sample
design, method of data collection, presentation, and analysis.
3.1. Research Design
To answer the interrogation mentioned above the analysis of design method played
fundamental role in the realization. To this end the basic concepts examined with
knowing quality, relevance, effectiveness and efficiency.
Manheim and Rich (1995) define study design as a plan of the study that organizes
observation in such way as to establish a sound logical basis for casual influence. They
also added that it is a plan of action adopted by the researcher in carrying out.(Grinnell
and William, 1990). Since the research involves both output and the outcome assessment
hence the research design will be both qualitative and quantitative in nature. The study
aimed at finding out the beneficiaries participation in the design and performance of
project, the research design of this study will be descriptive one. As far as quantitative
design will be concerned, the research will be able to provide the response that will be
percentage or quantities. And therefore tables and Figures were used to summarize the
responses related to the quantity.
The research was both descriptive and analytical in its design. It describes the current
practice of projects design and implementation. The study also analyzes the relevance,
quality, effectiveness, efficiency and the adequacy of the participation in terms of
31
community participation satisfaction. The researcher used qualitative and quantitative
tools.
3.2. Target Population
Grinnell and Williams, (1990) also define population as totality of persons or objects,
which the study is concerned. A population is a group of individuals or items from which
are taken for the measurements. The term population simply means possible people from
whom information can be obtained.
According to the end of the Project Report from AVEGA (2013), Beneficiaries who
benefited from SIP project in the District of Gasabo were 1000. For this research the
population was 1000 from survivors Integration Project's Beneficiaries in Gasabo District
and 3 staffs working at AVEGA.
3.3. Sample Design
Sampling is the process which involves taking a part of the population, making
observation on these representative groups and then generalizing the findings to the
bigger population.
3.3.1 Sample size
They are many ways to determine the sample size. Israel as cited in Theeraphong (2004)
suggested using a census for a small population, imitating a sample size of similar studies,
applying formulas to calculate a sample size, and using published tables. Given the fact
that 1000 Beneficiaries benefited from Survivors Integration Project in Gasabo District, to
determine the ideal sample design for a population, Slovene’s formula have been used
which is
32
2%)10(1 N
Nn
Where:
n= Sample size
N= Total population
e= Margin error
e= Margine error of 10%. According to Cochran (1977) confidence interval is more
reliable.
For my study, the population is 1000 for Survivors Integration Project for Gasabo
District. The researcher expected the marginal error of 10 % would have been occurred.
9.90)1.0(10001
10002
n
The scientific formula shows that sample of 91 of project beneficiaries and 3 staffs of
AVEGA.
3.3.2 Sampling Technique
Stratified sampling technique was used in this study. To get the sample population,
stratification based on Beneficiaries status, then the researcher proceed with simple
random sampling technique to make sure that every stratum is presented. Nassiuma
(2000), argues that stratification facilitates the division of a heterogeneous population into
groups of similar characteristics in order to obtain proportionate samples thus making the
sample of the study. Simple random sampling was used to ensure equal chance of
selection. This technique minimizes bias and simplifies the analysis of results. According
33
to Ochieng (2009), sampling ought to be done in such way that the sample be
representative of the target population in characteristics if findings are to be generalized
to the rest of the population.
Table 3.1: Categories of respondents
Participants Number of
Population
Number of
respondent
(sample size)
Project Beneficiaries 1000 91
Avega 5 3
Total 1005 94
Source: AVEGA report 2012
3.4Data collection Methods
For the purpose of conducting a good research and obtain reliable results. Each objective
of the study was critically analyzed. In order to achieve stated objectives of the study, the
researcher used the primary data as well as secondary data. The primary data collection
involves the use of designed questionnaires that were distributed to different respondents,
eachrespondents was given a questionnaire to fill after being selected and turned back
automatically the completed questionnaire to administrators of the questionnaires. The
visiting project implementers were done at the field many times during this research.
Secondary data were obtained through the existing documents in the related field,
publications, magazines, internet, reports, and literature of the other researchers.
3.4.1. Data collection instruments
3.4.1.1 Questionnaires
This is an important method of data collection. Judd (1991) said that a questionnaire is
justifiable in data collection mainly because; it enables the researcher to collect large
34
amount of data within a short time period, it also provides opportunity for respondents to
give frank, anonymous answers. One set of questionnaire was designed for the business
entrepreneurs; it included both open and closed ended set of questions that answered. The
questionnaire was written in a simple and clear language for the respondent to feel free
while answering. In addition to that the use of questionnaire is considered vital to the
research since it provided accurate information regarding the study.
3.4.1.2 An interview
This method was used in this study to collect information; this involved conversations
between the researcher and the interviewee (respondents). Both key informant and
normative interviews were carried out to get information from the selected target
respondents. This method was used because it provides for firsthand information and the
researcher got broader explanations on various key issues in the study from the
respondents. Such information may not be obtained from the self-administered
questionnaire.
3.4.1.3 Observation
During the time of questionnaire distribution and conducting the interview the researcher
also used the time to make the direct observation of beneficiaries of survivor’s integration
project achievement.
3.4.2 Administration of data Collection Instruments
The questionnaire and interview was preferential because of the following reasons: all
respondents in this research can read and write. In addition, they are convenient and time
saving to both the researcher and respondents since they can answer at their own place.
The administration was conducted as follows: for thebeneficiaries researcher joined them
and the distributed questionnaires and requires completing them after giving and
35
explaining the instructions related to the questions involved and later staffs were
interviewed. The interview guide was administered by meeting the staffs in their offices.
3.4.3. Validity and Reliability
Validity refers to whether the questionnaire or survey measures what it intends to
measure (Rossi et al. 2004). Maxwell (1999.Defines validity as the correctness or
credibility of a description, explanation, interpretation, account or conclusion. While Ott
and Larson(2000) state that validity refers to whether the variables measure what they are
intended to measure. To ensure the findings are valid, the questionnaires and interview
schedules were given to the external people for proofreading them and tell the researcher
which question is ambiguous the modification could be done.
The reliability of a measure is the extent to which the measure to produce the same results
use repeatedly to measure the same thing (Rossi et al 2004). The more reliable results a
measure is the greater its statistical power and the more credible its findings. If a
measuring instrument is reliable, it may dilute and obscure the real effects of a program,
and the program appeared to be less effective than it was actually, hence it is important to
ensure the evaluation is as reliable as possible. The collected data were analyzed with the
purpose of getting the best results. After analysis I was able to know the Beneficiaries
Participation in design and performance of project.
3.5. Data Analysis Procedure
According to Nachiamas (1976), data processing is a link between data collection and
data analysis. It involved the transformation of the observations gathered from the field
into the system of categories and transformation of these categories into codes amenable
to analysis. The researcher proposed data by transforming it into meaningful text; the
researcher did this by correcting errors and mistakes made during data collection, by
36
editing and categorizing information through coding. Once data is edited and coded, it
was put together in Tables and Figures.
During data processing, relevant data to the objectives of the study was considered and
transformed into meaning information for easy interpretation and understanding. This was
done through tabulation. Tabulation was considered and involved in putting data into
statistical tables to show the number of results to particular questionnaires. According to
Bailey (1978), not all data can be presented in entirety.
The content of the Tables and Figures was in percentages and frequencies. This reducted
data gathered to same torn suitable for analysis and was done by the help of data
processing that was used tabulation. Quantitative and qualitative data were analyzed using
Microsoft office excel package to generate frequency tables.
3.5.1 Editing Process
According to Roth (1989), editing is a process of revaluation and collectiveness of data
either in fact or judgment. It involved correction of spellings, punctuation and
capitalization. This helped to make data suitable for tabulation ensuring completeness,
consistency and reliability. It also helped to check all questions so as to detect errors and
eliminate unnecessary information.
3.5.2 Coding
According to Williamson (1982), Editing is a process where errors in a completed
interview schedule and questionnaire are identified and eliminated whenever possible.
Coding was used in the study to summarize data by classifying the different answers
given into categories for easy manipulation.
37
3.5.3 Tabulation
According to William (1991), tabulation is putting the data into same land of statistical
tables as percentages, number of respondents, ranking and frequency occurrence of
responses to particular questions. The tabulation facilitated the researcher in that; the
edited data was tabulated for easy presentation and analysis such as percentages, number
of respondents, ranking and frequency occurrence of responses to particular questions.
3.6. Ethical Consideration
The information provided from respondents was very helpful in the research which is a
part of the academic requirements. The information provided from you has been very
helpful in the research which is a part of the academic requirements for the Award of a
Degree in Master of Business Administration (Project Management Option) of Mount
Kenya University. It was treated in confidence for the research purposes. The decision to
take part in a survey remained the choice of the respondent and respondent was given the
option to withdraw from the study at any time, in addition no respondent was coerced into
providing information. Before investigation the researcher get permission from the
schools then the respondents have the right to refuse to participate without penalty if they
wish.
38
CHAPTER FOUR: RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS
4.0. Introduction
This chapter is to present research findings and discussions, analyze and interpret the data
that were collected from the field. The main focus of this study was to assess the
beneficiaries’ Participation in the design and performance of project: a case study of
Survivors IntegrationProject of AVEGA AGAHOZO in GasaboDistrict. The
presentations done were based and guided by the research objectives.
Basing on the objectives mentioned above the research findings from the field was
described.
4.1. Demographic characteristics of Respondents
For the purpose of knowing the characteristics of respondents, it has been better to show
the distribution of them by Age and Education level
Table 4.1: Age distribution of the respondents
Categories ( Age) Frequency Percentage
20-30 8 9
31-40 27 30
41-50 34 37
51 and above 22 24
Total 91 100
Source: Primarydata, 2015
The findings from Table 4.1, indicate that the majority of the respondents were between
41-50 with 37%, followed by 31-40 covering 27%, followed by 51 and above with 22%
and between 20-30 with 8%. So results stated that the majority of the respondents were
39
the age in between (41-50) and this implies that the majority of SIP members are in the
old category. They still have some potential to grow their businesses and keep supporting
themselves and their families, though they are Genocide survivors they still have some
potential of doing businesses. The study examined the age of the sample members to
know the age group that most participate in Survivors Integration Project and outcome of
the survey are presented in Table 4.1.
Figure 4.1: The level of education of respondents
Source: Primarydata, 2015
The findings from the Figure 4.1, the study wanted to examine the level of education
attained by community in the design of project. The big percentage of the respondents
indicated 66% studied primary and 30% studied secondary are able to read and write
however 4% it’s not easy to read and write. This implied that the majority community
members who participated in SIP project are able to read and write. This is expected to
improve on participation and success of Survivors Integration Project.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Frequency Percentage (%)
4 4
6066
27 30
91100
None
Primary
Secondary
Total
40
4.2. Presentation of the findings
The purpose of this section is to present information obtained from questionnaire and
interview as guided by the objectives of the study.
Table 4.2: Ways in which community became beneficiaries
Categories Frequency Percentage (%)
Through AVEGA staff 58 64
Through Meetings 18 20
Through Local leaders 3 3
From neighbors 12 13
Total 91 100
Source: Primary data, 2015
In the Table 4.2,the results implies that 64% were sensitized by AVEGA staffs who are
working with them in their daily activities, where 20% were informed by the project
through Meetings in the community while 13% were informed about the project through
their neighbors and 3% became beneficiaries through local leaders. This implies that to a
greater extent beneficiaries became beneficiaries through AVEGA staff meaning that
staffs are performing well there duties, Through Meetings also is another way in which
beneficiaries join project and also communication from neighbors is also good and this
means that they are interested and to small extent beneficiaries join or become members
of the project through local leaders and implies that these local leaders are not performing
their duties.
41
Figure 4.2: Beneficiaries’ participation in the project design
Source: Primarydata, 2015
The findings from Figure 4.2 show that Participation plays a major role in people's
management of their own projects. Information sharing has a profound impact on
participation in development projects and control of resources. Thus respondents were
required to elaborate on whether community participates in SIP Project by way of sharing
information. Show the biggest number of respondents 95% have not participated in the
design of the project. The findings revealed that, projects are designed to encourage
beneficiary communities to participate in the implementation of that project. SIP
obviously had strengthened their capacity for doing businesses and give them the
confidence and skills in implementing businesses. This research revealed that the
recipients of the project are not motivated to have active participation.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Frequency Percentage (%)
5 5
86
9591
100
Yes
No
Total
42
Table 2.3: The initial main occupation before joining project
Category Frequency Percentage (%)
None 81 89
Farming 10 11
Artisan 0 0
Trading 0 0
Total 91 100
Source: Primary data, 2015
From the Table 4.3, the highest number of respondents 89% confirmed that before joining
project they have no any other business, where 11% are were farmers before joining the
project. Communities can exert their collective voice (which occurs in the relationships
between community and government) to influence development, strategies and
expenditure priorities at different levels of development (national and local) according to
their wishes and preferences. Thus respondents were inquired about participation has
increased on SIP Project.
43
Figure 2.3: Assistance received by beneficiaries through the project
Source: Primarydata, 2015
From the Figure 4.3, According to the findings in the Table above, results show the
majority of respondents 73% received training on entrepreneurship to help them for
starting their income generating activities, where as 27% have received the assistance of
getting loan from bank. This implies that the assistance received from project satisfies its
beneficiaries as indicated by the in the table above however there are still some
challenges to overcome like combining family and business, lack of market and high
taxes to be reduced.
Table 4.4: The kind of training received through the Project
Category Frequency Percentage (%)
Trading 12 13
Entrepreneurship 61 67
Agriculture techniques 4 5
Saving and credit 14 15
Total 91 100
Source: Primary data, 2015
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Frequency Percentage (%)
6673
25 27
91
100
Training
Received loan
Disputes resolved
Total
44
The above Table 4.4 shows the kind of training that is received through the project. The
majority of respondents 67% strongly agreed that it is Entrepreneurship,
while15%responded that it is saving and credit, 13% said it is on trading and 4% said it is
on Agriculture techniques. So, this implies that the most kind of training that the project
gives is on Entrepreneurship because the beneficiaries are trained to make their own
business so as to develop their standards of living and satisfaction of family needs.
Figure 4.4 :The reasons that pushed participants to join the project
Source: Primarydata, 2015
The above Figure 4.4, indicates that, the reasons that pushed the community to join the
project and it was found that unemployment was the major reason that pushed them to
join the project with 78% and 19% was due to insufficient income however 3% of the
respondents cormfirmed that it was due to want to become own boss so meaning that
these beneficiaries were unemployed this led for them to be employed, have income to
start business some to become own boss.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Frequency Percentage (%)
7178
17 19
91
100
Unemployment
Insufficient income
Want to become own boss
Total
45
Table 4.5: Beneficiaries’ satisfaction with the Project intervention
Category Frequency Percentage
Strongly satisfied 48 53
Satisfied 34 37
Dissatisfied 9 10
Strongly dissatisfied 0 0
Total 91 100
Source: Primary data, 2015
From the Table 4.5, the respondents confirmed that the beneficiaries are satisfied with the
project intervention with 53% and 37%. This implies that the beneficiaries intervene in
the project to a high level however 10% of the respondents are not satisfied (dissatisfied)
due to inadequate of capital to invest in the business and in project design and the
performance but to higher extent they are satisfied with the project intervention.
Figure 4.5: The importance of the project to the beneficiaries
Source: Primarydata, 2015
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Frequency Percentage (%)
17 19
5864
16 17
91
100
Become financially independent
Skills through training
Household development
Total
46
The results from the respondents on Figure 4.5showed that 64% of women have benefited
from project where they got skills through training, followed by becoming financially
independent with 19% and 17% of the respondents benefited from household
development; this implies that this project has benefited its beneficiaries however some
beneficiaries still require some support from the project.
Table 4.6: How they benefited from the Project
Category Frequency Percentage
Improved nutrition 10 11
New business creation 44 48
Improved health
standards
32 35
Peace and harmony 5 5
Total 91 100
Source: Primary data, 2015
In Table 4.6above shows the respondents view on how they benefited from the project
whereby 48% of the respondents said new business creation is the first benefit, the second
benefit is that improved health standards with 35% and only 11% of the respondents
benefited from improved nutrition however only 5% of the respondents said that they
benefited from peace and harmony. This implies that the beneficiaries of the project has
benefited to a great extent and it has changed their lives or to better living standards
compared to past however there is need some improvements in some areas of life or
support to the beneficiaries.
47
Figure 4.6: The period of operating the business
Source: Primarydata, 2015
In Figure 4.6indicates the beneficiaries’ period they had been working with or operating
their business with collaboration of AVEGA AGAHOZO and it showed that most of the
beneficiaries is 70% and 23% over 3years, however 2% and 5% to year 1 and 2 years
respectively. This implies that most of the beneficiaries had been working with the project
and they had benefited from the project. Based on the results above the researcher agreed
that communities have been working or operating with the project however this does not
mean that the beneficiaries don’t participate in the design and the performance of the
project.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Frequency Percentage (%)
2 24 5
6470
21 23
91
100
1
2
3
4 and above
Total
48
Table 4.7: The challenges are facing in their business (n=91)
Category Frequency Percentage (%)
Lack of market 24 26
High tax 6 7
Combining family and
business
61 67
Lack of training 0 0
Total 91 100
Source: Primary data, 2015
In Table 4.7, above shows the respondents view on challenges the beneficiaries face in
their business whereby it was found that 67% of the respondents indicated that combining
family and business was the major challenge and only 26% of the respondents indicated
that it is lack of market due to many business people that are doing the same business
however 7% of the respondents indicated that high tax is also a another challenge and 0%
of the respondents don’t lack training and this means that these beneficiaries get full
trainings on entrepreneurship. This means that these beneficiaries of the project face
challenges however in any business there must be some challenges but these challenges
are not based on project because the project give full training however the project can
also support their beneficiaries in finding markets.
49
Figure 4.7: The long plan for their business
Source: Primarydata, 2015
From the Figure 4.7, the respondents confirmed that the beneficiaries will continue or
expand their businesses with 59% and 21% of the respondents confirmed that they with
pass the business to their families and 13% confirmed to change their business however
7% said to sell the business. This implies that to a greater extent beneficiaries will
continue to expand their business because the business is performing well and is profiting
and with 21% will pass the business to their families because also the business is
performing well, they can even pass it to other family members and 13% of the
respondents say they can change the business because may be the business is not going
well due to lack of market and combining family and business and 7% said they can sell
the business this means that to sell the business is due to combining family and business,
lack of market and high tax that is paid so due stress and challenges faced they can sell
the business.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Frequency Percentage(%)
5459
12 1319 21
6 7
91
100
Continue/ Expandbusiness
Change my business
Pass the business tomy family
Sell the business
Total
50
Table 4.8: The main factors for the Project success
Category Strongly
Agree
Satisfied Dissatisfie
d
Strongly
Dissatisfied
Involving Beneficiary in the design 38
Explain the project before its start 36
Good partnership between
beneficiary and facilitators
12
Communication 5
Source: Primary data, 2015
From the Table 4.8, the respondents confirmed that the beneficiaries are not involved in
the design with 38% (strongly dissatisfied) and with 36% strongly dissatisfied that the
beneficiaries are not explained the project before its start, and 12% of the respondents
strongly satisfied that there is good partnership between beneficiary and facilitators and
only 5% Satisfied by the respondents. This implies that to greater extent beneficiaries are
strongly dissatisfied because they are not involved in the design and not explained project
before its start whereby they find the projects are designed remaining for implementation
only and this is not good because they are not involved and not explained about the
project before its start which may be better for beneficiaries hence being a problem for
the project success and about good partnership between beneficiary and facilitators and
communication, the beneficiaries are satisfied meaning that there is good partnership and
communication and this leads to the project success because there is good collaboration.
51
Questions for Staffs
Figure 4.8: The beneficiaries’ ability to participate in the design of the project
Source: Primarydata, 2015
In Figure 4.8indicates the Staffs view on whether communities have the ability to
participate in the design of the project and performance of project or not. The Staffs were
given options of “yes” or “No” to express their opinion. 67% of them responded No, 33%
of them answered yes. Based on the results from the staffs above the researcher agreed
that communities or beneficiaries do not participate in the design of the project and
performance of project this means the beneficiaries are not explained the project before
its start and no involvements in the design because the projects for the beneficiaries are
designed before so meaning that everything is done by the staffs or managers of the
projects in the design of the project.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Frequency Percentage (%)
1
33
2
67
3
100
Yes
No
Total
52
4.2.1 Staffs ‘viewson the performance of the project is a result of Beneficiaries'
Participation.
The answer from the staffs or managers of the project was that yes beneficiaries’
participation in the performance of the project however the beneficiaries are not involved
in the design of the project. The researcher observed that initiating and starting the
project, the three staffs questioned said that the project is stated and initiated by the
Survivors Integration Project (SIP). The researcher not that the responsibility of all
achievements left by the project is belonging to SIP and not belonging to the beneficiaries
or communities, the staffs said the beneficiaries are not involved at all.
4.2.2 Staffs’ views on who is responsible for SIP Monitoring and Evaluation in your
Project.
On the interview given by the staffs, it was found that the one who is responsible for SIP
Monitoring and Evaluation in the project is Income Generation Officer whereby all
activities of SIP are monitored and evaluated then reports to the program officer. So this
implies that although the beneficiaries are not involved in the design and performance of
project but there is away how the project is monitored and evaluated however there is
need for the beneficiaries to participate in the design because it can lead for better
performance of the project whereby the beneficiaries can know before in project
identification, formulation and not given a project when they didn’t give any idea.
53
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND
RECOMMENDATION
5.0. Introduction
This chapter presents the summary of major research findings derived from the study. The
researcher also makes some conclusions and recommendations in relation to the nature of
the problem, research objectives and the conceptual framework stated in this research.
Finally, suggestions for further researches are presented.
5.1. Summary of findings
From the beginning up to the findings, this research aimed at assessing the degree of
Beneficiaries’ participation in the design and the performance of the project. Below,
findings from the data analysis show how each objective has been achieved.
5.1.1 The benefits of Beneficiaries’ participation in the design of project.
As we have seen in the literature review that the involment of stakeholders as well as
community and population is a key element of good practice in project design. According
to the results of the research, we observed that most respondents said that the
beneficiaries’ involment was very low; For example, 95% of the respondents didn’t
inform about project design and preparation. So the researcher found the consequence of
lack of involment is that the sustainability, responsibility and ownership of actions and its
impact is not sure because the achievement of project were belonged to AVEGA
AGAHOZO Project authorities rather than to the beneficiaries.
About beneficiaries’ good understanding of the importance of the participation and hence
feeling ownership of project, the research found that the beneficiaries never understood
that the actions of the projects belong to them because it is the project which initiated
54
them and which manage them through the coordinators that is made responsible for the
activities of the projects.This is why they didn’t not understand the importance of their
participation in the design of the projects. The good understanding of the important of the
participation and hence feeling ownership of projects depends on how beneficiaries are
educated in order to emphasize their awareness, otherwise they never understood that the
actions of the projects belong to them.
5.1.2 SIP beneficiaries in AVEGA participation in design or the ways in which they
participated.
The researcher found in the design of the project, the recipients are not motivated to have
an active participation in the activities of the project; beneficiaries participate in the
activities financed by the project which bring the direct benefits to them and not in the
internal activities of the project. In project definition, research revealed that needs
clarification, project selection, and project formulation is a task of donor and authorities
and technical staff in line ministries meaning that beneficiaries are not involved in those
stages. For some beneficiaries who can participate in project design, the research revealed
that the recipients of project are not motivated to have active participation. The research
found that the beneficiaries are not prepared and its needs are not identified. Normally
this awareness of beneficiaries is shown in the baseline survey which is done before the
beginning of the project. The findings revealed that monitoring and evaluation system is
set by the donor; project’s staff meets sometimes with beneficiaries in order to evaluate
activities system setting.
55
5.1.3 The impact of Beneficiaries' participation in project design.
People in Rwanda have historically had little role in the policy formulation and
implementation process. It ties into the planning and expenditure processes at central and
local levels of administration. It also lays the foundation for assisting communities
themselves to mobilize their own resources to overcome the problems they face and to
support the delivery of public goods which are valued by the community. However, as
seen this role does not been recognized during the preparation of the projects but, in a
way not very consistent, the leaders of the projects held the meetings with different
beneficiaries within the framework in monitoring and evaluation. The lack of
beneficiaries’ involment leads to the absence of sustainability, responsibility and
ownership of actions and the impact is not true. This is why the beneficiaries say that
achievements of the project are belonged to project authorities rather than to the
beneficiaries. The analysis revealed that the success or the failure of the project is due to
the fact that at the beginning, one hand of beneficiaries’ baseline survey has not done and
on the other hand the authorities and beneficiaries did not have a consensus as for the
sharing responsibilities each other.
5.2 Conclusion
The project study has its core in designing phase; this is why the beneficiary community
is intended to be involved. However authorities and donors decide themselves on
development projects without consulting the community. The problem is that the poor
performance and unsuccessful of public investment are due to lack of involment of
community in investment management, especially in designing. This can be the reason
why several projects don’t succeed, the low absorption capacity; the community’s
ownership is not clearly defined. There is no impact on poverty and sustainability is not
clearly defined.
56
The analysis revealed that the success or the failure of the project is due to the fact that at
the beginning the authorities and the community did not have a consensus as for the
sharing responsibilities each other. On the one hand success or failure can come from the
authorities when those did not involve the community in the process of management of
the project and on the other hand when beneficiary community, even implied does not
recognize its responsibility in the appropriation and maintenance of the actions which
their belong as beneficiaries. The research found that in the design of the project, the
recipients are not motivated to have an active participation in the activities of the project;
beneficiaries in the activities financed by the project which bring the direct benefits to
them and not in the internal activities of the project. The findings revealed that there is no
community involment in monitoring and evaluation system setting, this system is set by
the project. The research found that the beneficiaries are not prepared and its needs are
not identified. Normally this awareness of community is shown in the baseline survey
which is done before the beginning of the project. About the project definition, the
research shown that needs clarification, project selection, and project formulation is a task
of the project, the beneficiaries are not involved in those stages.
AVEGA AGAHOZO has been supporting widows of the genocide for almost twenty one
years, by attempting to reintegrate them into Rwandan society. The SIP programme
represents its most ambitious project to date, with the aim of helping widows to become
self-reliant. Cultivating the economic wherewithal of widows is seen as crucial for
allowing them to reclaim their dignity and self-worth, while also increasing their
children’s chances for a better future. The foregoing research, though limited, has
highlighted a significant number of positive effects that AVEGA’s IGA training has had
on its beneficiaries. Widows are now capable of generating the income necessary to
afford food, clothes and decent accommodation, as well as the various costs associated
57
with children’s education. The fact of their involment in the economic activities also
represents a major source of bolstered identity and self-worth, and this has radically
changed the way in which they are perceived by the rest of their communities.
The findings of the study also illustrate that after completion of their training, widows are
confident and skilled enough to not only succeed in their economic ventures, but also to
expand them, thus extending the benefits of their efforts to society as a whole. Widows
have gained the capacity to independently apply for further loans, as they have earned the
trust of banks, and have sufficient knowledge of the loan process. They also employ other
community members to cultivate their land and transport their goods, as well as to look
after their children when they are away. Hence, widows promote positive change not only
for themselves as individuals, but also for the wider community. Remarkably, the
enhancement in their status within the community was also seen to lead to an
improvement in their relationship with génocidaires and their families, providing hope for
a more peaceful future.
The group structure of the AVEGA initiative appears to be the catalyst for promoting
positive change in widow’s lives, as well as in those of their families and communities.
Within the group, widows learn how to commence and develop their economic activities;
from its members, they receive the support they need when dealing with the hardships of
being businesswomen, household breadwinners and careers, all at the same time.
Furthermore, it is the group setting that facilitates confidence-building, by allowing
widows to learn within a protected environment, and helping them to overcome the
isolation that they have experienced since the genocide. It is uncertain whether AVEGA
and its partners will have the means to continue to implement SIP, and as such, doubts
remain regarding the long-term sustainability of the program. Considering the relative
youth of the programme, there will be a critical need for AVEGA and its partners to
58
continue monitoring the experiences of beneficiaries, and conducting regular evaluations
of the programmer’soutcomes, in order to strengthen it. For the present moment and this
is what the research here aimed to establish when it was conceived, there is evidence that
AVEGA’s IGA training has been successful in expanding widows’capabilities and
empowering them.The research indicated that; there is no beneficiaries’ participation in
the design of project.
5.3 Recommendation
Based on the results of the study; the researcher makes the following recommendations:
In the process of project identification and formulation, AVEGA AGAHOZO may
use participation working techniques and respect of local knowledge and skills;
ensure local shareholders take a lead role in the identification and formulation
stages.
Survivors integration project (SIP) must give a chance to the communities, in
order to participate in planning and decision making process while they are
implementing in project design.
In project management arrangement, the project may ensure that local
beneficiaries have a lead role in decision making, including as part of
management/ coordination committee structure, and local committee around the
actions done by the project.
Beneficiaries must take themselves to initiate new actions. To do so indicates a
significant level of self-confidence and empowerment and the establishment of
organization and management capacity.
To promote ownership, beneficiaries’ practical ways to promote ownership of
projects by individual might include.
59
5.4 Suggestions for further research
Surveys and further research should be carried out to cover uncovered areas in this
research due to the lack of time and financial support to cover all. Thus, given time, the
study would be meaningful; hence some areas for further research were suggested;
1. The challenges faced by projects that support women entrepreneurs in Rwanda
and their contribution to the beneficiaries.
2. The theories on the participation in the design and performance of project.
3. The impact of community participation in the socio-economic development of
Rwanda.
60
REFERENCES
al, M. e. (1986). Community Participation. London : Earthscan.
Bank, W. (1994). The Politics of local Government . London: New town square.
Brett. (2003). he role of participatory theory in Managing development projects.
Newyork: Holt, Renehard.
Charter, A. (1990). Popular Participation in the Development and Transformation.
Arusha: Tanzanie.
Doyle. (1990). Community Participation towards self reliance. School of London:
London.
Hickey, R. &. (2004). Community Participation in the design of project. Project
Management Journal, 34-40.
Hickey, R. &. (2004). Involving community in the Project. Newyork: United Nations
Development.
Hickey, R. M. (2001). Involving community in the design of Project. Washington : D.C.
Korten, Z. (2007). The roles of NGO in community empowerment . Adis abeba: Ethiopia.
Long, C. (2001). Participation of the poor in development initiatives; taking the rightful
places. London: Earthscan.
Midgley, R. (1986). Community Participation. London: Earthscan.
Moinngka, L. (2013). Project leader to bring the fun factor into sustainability and CSR.
Netherlands: Asterdam.
Mukandara, C. (2005). Effective Project management. Chicago: Thomson Publishing Inc.
Paul, S. (1995). Contribution of People's Participation. D.C: Washington.
al, M. e. (1986). Community Participation. London : Earthscan.
Bank, W. (1994). The Politics of local Government . London: New town square.
Brett. (2003). he role of participatory theory in Managing development projects.
Newyork: Holt, Renehard.
Charter, A. (1990). Popular Participation in the Development and Transformation.
Arusha: Tanzanie.
Doyle. (1990). Community Participation towards self reliance. School of London:
London.
61
Hickey, R. &. (2004). Community Participation in the design of project. Project
Management Journal, 34-40.
Hickey, R. &. (2004). Involving community in the Project. Newyork: United Nations
Development.
Hickey, R. M. (2001). Involving community in the design of Project. Washington : D.C.
Korten, Z. (2007). The roles of NGO in community empowerment . Adis abeba: Ethiopia.
Long, C. (2001). Participation of the poor in development initiatives; taking the rightful
places. London: Earthscan.
Midgley, R. (1986). Community Participation. London: Earthscan.
Moinngka, L. (2013). Project leader to bring the fun factor into sustainability and CSR.
Netherlands: Asterdam.
Mukandara, C. (2005). Effective Project management. Chicago: Thomson Publishing Inc.
Paul, S. (1995). Contribution of People's Participation. D.C: Washington.
al, M. e. (1986). Community Participation. London : Earthscan.
Bank, W. (1994). The Politics of local Government . London: New town square.
Brett. (2003). he role of participatory theory in Managing development projects.
Newyork: Holt, Renehard.
Charter, A. (1990). Popular Participation in the Development and Transformation.
Arusha: Tanzanie.
Doyle. (1990). Community Participation towards self reliance. School of London:
London.
Hickey, R. &. (2004). Community Participation in the design of project. Project
Management Journal, 34-40.
Hickey, R. &. (2004). Involving community in the Project. Newyork: United Nations
Development.
Hickey, R. M. (2001). Involving community in the design of Project. Washington : D.C.
Korten, Z. (2007). The roles of NGO in community empowerment . Adis abeba: Ethiopia.
Long, C. (2001). Participation of the poor in development initiatives; taking the rightful
places. London: Earthscan.
Midgley, R. (1986). Community Participation. London: Earthscan.
62
Moinngka, L. (2013). Project leader to bring the fun factor into sustainability and CSR.
Netherlands: Asterdam.
Mukandara, C. (2005). Effective Project management. Chicago: Thomson Publishing Inc.
Paul, S. (1995). Contribution of People's Participation. D.C: Washington.
Brett, E.A (2012). Participation and accountability in Development Management. Journal
of development studies, vol 40 no.2.
World al, M. e. (1986).Community Participation. London : Earthscan.
Bank, W. (1994). The Politics of local Government . London: New town square.
Brett. (2003). he role of participatory theory in Managing development projects.
Newyork: Holt, Renehard.
Charter, A. (1990). Popular Participation in the Development and Transformation.
Arusha: Tanzanie.
Doyle. (1990). Community Participation towards self reliance. School of London:
London.
Hickey, R. &. (2004). Community Participation in the design of project. Project
Management Journal, 34-40.
Hickey, R. &. (2004). Involving community in the Project. Newyork: United Nations
Development.
Hickey, R. M. (2001). Involving community in the design of Project. Washington : D.C.
Korten, Z. (2007). The roles of NGO in community empowerment . Adis abeba: Ethiopia.
Long, C. (2001). Participation of the poor in development initiatives; taking the rightful
places. London: Earthscan.
Midgley, R. (1986). Community Participation. London: Earthscan.
Moinngka, L. (2013). Project leader to bring the fun factor into sustainability and CSR.
Netherlands: Asterdam.
Mukandara, C. (2005). Effective Project management. Chicago: Thomson Publishing Inc.
Paul, S. (1995). Contribution of People's Participation. D.C: Washington.
Association of Genocide widows, (2013), End of Project evaluation report. Kigali.
Rwanda
63
Bank, W. (1994). The Politics of local Government . London: New town square.
Brett. (2003). he role of participatory theory in Managing development projects.
Newyork: Holt, Renehard.
Charter, A. (1990). Popular Participation in the Development and Transformation.
Arusha: Tanzanie.
Doyle. (1990). Community Participation towards self reliance. School of London:
London.
Hickey, R. &. (2004). Community Participation in the design of project. Project
Management Journal, 34-40.
Hickey, R. &. (2004). Involving community in the Project. Newyork: United Nations
Development.
Hickey, R. M. (2001). Involving community in the design of Project. Washington : D.C.
Korten, Z. (2007). The roles of NGO in community empowerment . Adis abeba: Ethiopia.
Long, C. (2001). Participation of the poor in development initiatives; taking the rightful
places. London: Earthscan.
Midgley, R. (1986). Community Participation. London: Earthscan.
Moinngka, L. (2013). Project leader to bring the fun factor into sustainability and CSR.
Netherlands: Asterdam.
Mukandara, C. (2005). Effective Project management. Chicago: Thomson Publishing Inc.
Paul, S. (1995). Contribution of People's Participation. D.C: Washington.
Donnelly-Roark, (1987).New Participatory Frame-works for the Design and
Management of Sustainable Project. Washington: D.C.
Burkey, S. (1993).A guide to self-reliant, participatory rural development, London:
Earthscan.
Lindeman, E. (1921). The Community. An introduction to the study of community
leadership and organization, New York: Association Press.
Mayo, M. (1994).Communities and Caring. The mixed economy of welfare, London:
Macmillan
64
White, S. A. (ed.) (1999). The Art of Facilitating Participation: Releasing the Power of
Grassroots Communication, New York
Khan, AkhterHameed, (2007).Community Participation in social and economic
Development. Pakistan
William, Z. G. (1991). Business research methods, the Dryden press, New York.
Mukandala, C (2005). The impact of participatory approach in the community.Arusha:
Tanzanie
65
APPENDICES
66
AUTHORIZATION LETTER
67
68
Cover letter
Dear Respondent,
I am a postgraduate student at the School of Business Management of Mount Kenya
University. I am conducting research on beneficiaries’ participation in the design and
performance of project: A case study of Survivors integration project of AVEGA
AGAHOZO,GasaboDistrict. I kindly request you to respond honestly to each statement
by ticking in the tables/boxes or writing in the spaces provided where appropriate. The
success of this research depends on the collection of a wide range of views that will make
the findings representative. Your views are very important.
This survey will ensure anonymity and confidentiality. You do not have to indicate your
name on this questionnaire. No individual will be identifiable at any stage of this research.
Please answer as honestly as you can.
Thank you
HAVUGIMANA Raban
69
BLANK QUESTIONNAIRE
Questionnaire for Beneficiaries
1. Age of respondent
20-30 years
31-40 years
41-50 years
51and above
2. What is your Education level?
None Primary
Secondary
3. How have you become a beneficiary?
Through AVEGA staff
Trough Meetings
Through Local leaders
From neighbors
4. Have you participated in the design of the project?
Yes
No
70
5. What was your initial main occupation/ business before the beginning of project?
None
Farming
Artisan
Trading
6. Which assistant have you received through this project?
Training
Received loan
Disputes resolved
7. What kind of training have you received through the project?
Trading
Entrepreneurship
Agriculture techniques
Saving and credit
8. What are the reasons that pushed you to join this project?
Unemployment
Insufficient income
Want to become own boss
9. Have you satisfied with the project intervention?
Strongly Satisfied
Satisfied
Dissatisfied
Strongly Dissatisfied
71
10. What is the importance of the project for you?
Become financially independent
Skills through training
Household development
11. How have you benefited from the project?
Improved nutrition
New business creation
Improved health standards
Peace and harmony
12. How long have you been operating your Business?
1 year
2 years
3 years
4 and above years
13. What challenges are you facing in your business?
Lack of market
High tax
Combining family and business
Lack of training
14.What is your long plan for your Business?
Continue/ Expand business
Change my business
Pass the business to my family
Sell the business
72
15. What do you think is the main factors for the project success?
Involving Beneficiary in the design
Explain the project before its start
Good Partnership between Beneficiary and Facilitators
Communication
Questions for Staffs
16. Do your Beneficiaries have ability to participate in the design of the project?
................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................................................
17. Do you think the performance of the project is a result of Beneficiaries'
Participation? Or other factors?If no, explain those factors.
................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................
18. Who is responsible for SIP Monitoring and Evaluation in your organization?
Project officer
Program Manager
Community Development worker
Income Generation Officer
Thank you for your cooperation
