FACTORS INFLUENCING THE LEVEL OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN

PROJECTS. A CASE OF CDF PROJECTS IN EMBAKASI CONSTITUENCY

I
 ABSTRACT

Projects can be started for commercial purposes or to generate revenues, for sustenance
of livelihoods, for eradication of poverty, for humanitarian purposes amongst others.
Projects are important for individuals, organizations and economies. This study was
necessitated by the fact that the level of community participation in CDF projects at the
constituency level was low. The purpose of this study is to investigate the factors
influencing the level of community participation in projects with the case of CDF
Projects in Embakasi Constituency. The CDF was established under the CDF Act 2003.
Its purpose was to take development to the citizens at the local levels or the grassroots
within the shortest time to alleviate poverty. The levels of community participation, the
utilization and management of the fund remain a major concern.

The review of related literature will include historical perspective of CDF, models of
development, decentralization, citizen priorities and local participation, political economy
of CDF, Monitoring and Evaluation, project management cycle, project identification and
preparation of the project and CDF implementation process. The study will use primary
and secondary data. Primary data will be collected using questionnaires. Secondary data
will be obtained from books and the internet.

The findings of this study will be used to highlight the factors influencing the level of
community participation in projects and therefore promote community awareness and
participation in the projects. This will enhance the community’s development agenda
from the grassroots and therefore promote project ownership.

II
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT........................................................................................................................II
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION...................................................................................i
1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................i
1.1 Background of the Study .........................................................................................iii
Embakasi Constituency is an electoral constituency in Kenya. It is one of eight
constituencies of Nairobi Province. It consists of eastern and southeastern suburbs of
Nairobi. According to the IIEC, with 292,643 registered voters, it is the most populous
constituency in Kenya. Embakasi constituency has common boundaries with Embakasi
Division. The entire constituency is located within Nairobi City Council area. The
constituency has an area of 208 km². It has nine locations and eleven wards.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embakasi_Constituency).....................................................iii
1.2 Statement of the problem ..........................................................................................v
1.3 Objectives of the Study ............................................................................................vi
1.4 Research Questions .................................................................................................vii
1.5 Significance ............................................................................................................vii
1.6 Scope of the Study .................................................................................................viii
1.7 Assumptions of the Study ......................................................................................viii
1.8 Limitations..............................................................................................................viii
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW......................................................................x
2.0 Introduction ...............................................................................................................x
2.1 Community Participation: An Overview...................................................................x
2.2 Monitoring and Evaluation.....................................................................................xiv
2.3 Project Management Cycle......................................................................................xv
2.4 Project Identification................................................................................................xv
2.5 Preparation of the Project.......................................................................................xvi
2.6 Participation as Contribution or as Empowerment...............................................xviii
2.6.1 Levels of Participation.............................................................................................xix
2.6.2 Gender and Participation ........................................................................................xxi
2.7 Conceptual Framework.........................................................................................xxiii
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY.......................................................................xxiv
3.0 Introduction ..........................................................................................................xxiv
3.1 Research Design...................................................................................................xxiv
3.2 The Target Population..........................................................................................xxiv
3.3 Sampling Design and the Sample..........................................................................xxv
3.4 Data Collection Instruments and Techniques........................................................xxv
3.5 Data Analysis Techniques....................................................................................xxvi
REFERENCES .............................................................................................................xxvii
 CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

1.0 Introduction

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

development is concerned; it has been talked and written about since the 1950s or even
before (Guijt and Shah, 1998; Nelson and Wright, 1995). Many authors and development
agencies argue that genuine people’s participation can increase the efficiency,
effectiveness, self-reliance, coverage and sustainability of development projects and
programmes (Kumar, 2002; Oakley, 1991), there is a wide spectrum of views on the
concept of participation and the ways of achieving it. One example is given by Ngujiri
(1998, p.470) who comments that, “despite the increase in the number of NGOs,
participatory methodologies, and after many years of poverty alleviation, poverty
continues to be rife and communities continue to languish in it”.

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

objective of development projects and programmes, it must be evaluated (DFID, 1995;
FAO, 1997; Karl, 2000). Karl (2000) has identified three main aspects of participation in
rural development projects and programmes that need to be evaluated namely, the extent
and quality of participation, costs and benefits of participation to the different
stakeholders, and the impact of participation on outcomes, performance and
sustainability. DFID (1995) suggests that, in evaluating participation, it is important to
consider the quantitative, qualitative and time dimensions of participation. This is
because participation is a qualitative process that cannot be measured using only
quantifiable indicators. While quantification in relation to project outputs may be
sufficient, the qualitative dimensions of participation should also be evaluated because
project success depends on empowering participants to take on greater responsibility and
control.

i
Despite the aims of participatory rural development to involve people in development
that affects them directly, quite often, the reality of participation differs from the rhetoric,
on many counts (Chambers, 1997; Nelson and Wright, 1995). According to Pretty (1995),
the dilemma for many development agencies is that they both need and fear people’s
participation. They need people’s agreements and support, but they also fear that this
wider involvement is less controllable, less precise and so likely to slow down planning
and implementation process.

Shepherd (1998) argues that, participation is usually asserted, not demonstrated, as few
development organisations have time to examine the indicators or follow the process of
how participation happens, and what its effects are on participants and in the wider
society. The major question in many development programmes and projects as Bunch
(1995) postulates is therefore not whether to increase participation but how to achieve
effective participation. Cohen and Uphoff (1997) believe that participation is a means of
developing aims, ideologies, and a behavior resembling equity and democracy. They
believe that people must have the opportunity of participation in all developmental
processes, whatever they may be, planning, implementation and or evaluation. It is the
people themselves who decide about the direction, change in, and trend of developmental
programs and projects.

Community involvement can take many forms: community members can be informants
in formative and evaluative research relevant to the delivery of services; they can design
or shape interventions or projects; they can deliver services; they can be advocates; and
so forth. Community participation is both a process toward an end and an outcome in
itself. This is particularly true when it comes to marginalized and underprivileged groups,
who often do not have any voice in matters that affect their lives. The process of
involving the community often facilitates community mobilization toward a given end
(UNAIDS 1997). Community members are often willing to invest their own resources—
including money, labor, time, and materials—in activities they see as benefiting
themselves and their community. Evidence based on case studies in Australia, Canada,
Thailand and Uganda (UNAIDS 1998b) clearly shows that communities are prepared to
ii
take leadership roles, take responsibility and devise ways of sustaining the activities they
initiate and that they are able to work in partnership with national governments.

1.1 Background of the Study

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

constituencies of Nairobi Province. It consists of eastern and southeastern suburbs of
Nairobi. According to the IIEC, with 292,643 registered voters, it is the most
populous constituency in Kenya. Embakasi constituency has common boundaries
with Embakasi Division. The entire constituency is located within Nairobi City
Council area. The constituency has an area of 208 km². It has nine locations and
eleven wards. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embakasi_Constituency)

Since the inception of the CDF Act, there are a number of projects that have been started
in this Constituency. CDF allocations to the constituency have grown steadily, in line
with CDF allocations country-wide. Given its large population, Embakasi received the
greater than average CDF allocations over the past 3 years. According to KIPPRA
(2007), less than half of the projects started in Embakasi were completed as at the end
of 2006/07 financial year. Field visits revealed that the situation was actually worse:
several projects reported as complete remain incomplete, while other projects had
collapsed due to poor construction or lack of maintenance.

Since Kenya gained its independence in 1963, the development of the country and indeed
of the economy has been formulated, financed and implemented by the central
government. This has not worked well since it has been characterized by beauracracy,
command and control from the centralized managerial authority (Mapesa and Kibua,
2006). This resulted in serious development inequalities. To tackle the problem, the
government introduced new policies, for example, majimboism in 1963. The next
initiative was the Sessional Paper No. 10 of 1965 on African Socialism and its
Application to Planning in Kenya. This recommended that planning was to be spread to
the respective provinces, districts and municipalities. The National Development Plan

iii
(1966-1970) recommended that various committees be established to ensure co-
ordination and people’s participation in their development. The Ndegwa Report of 1971
indicated that to spur growth and development in the rural areas, the process of planning
and implementation had to be moved to the district and consequently division levels.

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

recommended that the districts should be the central point for the management and
implementation of rural development by the central government. The District Focus for
Rural Development (DFRD) (1983) was a government policy document designed by
provincial heads of department and it required the DDC to be responsible for co-
ordination of rural development.

Since the government launched the CDF initiative in 2003, lots of funds have been
allocated to constituencies equitably based on the poverty index. The CDF initiative was
designed to take development to the people at the grassroots level. It was meant to be the
community’s way to own the development of projects in their areas and therefore were
required to participate in it fully.

Since the inception of the CDF, numerous criticisms have been given over the way the
fund is being managed and utilized. One of the key areas of policy concern that has
emerged is the question as to whether there is local participation in the project cycle in
accordance with the pressing needs identification, project identification, project planning,
project management and implementation and participation in operation and maintenance.
(Mapesa and Kibua: 2006)

This study therefore seeks to investigate the factors influencing the level of community
participation in projects with a case of CDF projects in Embakasi Constituency.

iv
1.2 Statement of the problem

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

communities in identifying problems, formulating plans and implementing decisions over
their own lives (DFID, 2002; Guijt and Shah, 1998).
Shepherd (1998) argues that participation is usually asserted, not demonstrated, as few
development organizations have time to examine the indicators or follow the process of
how participation happens and what its effects are on participants and in the wider
society. The major question in many development programmes and projects as Bunch
(1995) postulates is therefore not whether to increase participation but how to achieve
effective participation. Some of the factors that influence the level of community
participation in projects are community awareness, availability of the constituents to take
part in the development initiatives, the level of education and accessibility to the
constituency and project leaders.

With regard to the CDF, project committees are the ones recognized under the CDF Act
2007 as the bodies responsible for implementing projects. These bodies have not been
representing the community interests and are not transparent or accountable. (Gikonyo,
W 2008) Popular participation in decision making and democratic accountability are key
factors in moving towards sustainable development. According to Paul Freire (1972),
people will only act on those issues which they themselves have strong feelings.

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

CDF guidelines also provide for local participation, in reality though, this has been a
major area of concern. MPs have been accused of converting CDF funds into campaign
tools. Other accusations are non-inclusiveness of community in the operations of the
fund. According to the Taskforce on CDF Amendment Act of June 23rd 2009, since its
inception in 2003, the implementation of CDF has encountered a number of operational
and policy challenges amongst which include poor community participation and

v
 contribution to projects. From these worrying trends and issues of participation, this study
seeks to investigate the factors contributing to the levels of participation when it comes to
community participation in projects.

1.3 Objectives of the Study

1.3.1 General Objective of the Study

The general objective of the study is to establish the factors influencing the level of
community participation in projects with specific reference of CDF projects in Embakasi
Constituency.

1.3.2 Specific Objectives of the Study

The specific objectives of the study are:

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

community in the CDF projects in Embakasi Constituency.

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

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

iii. To determine the relationship between the level of education of the constituents and the
level of community participation in the CDF projects.

iv. To examine how accessibility to the CDF (offices, etc) affects the level of community
participation in the CDF projects in Embakasi constituency.

vi
 1.4 Research Questions

i. How does community awareness influence the level of participation of the community
in the CDF projects in Embakasi Constituency?

ii. How does availability of the constituents in locational meetings affect the level of
community participation in the projects implemented in the constituency?

iii. What is the relationship between the level of education of the constituents and the level
of community participation in the CDF projects?

iv. How does accessibility to the CDF (offices, etc) affect the level of community
participation in the CDF projects in Embakasi constituency?

1.5 Significance

The study will inform government policy with regard to designing changes to streamline
the CDF management to enhance more participation from the community.

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

The findings will also help the community find ways to own the CDF projects by
enhancing more participation.

The non governmental organizations (NGOs) and international agencies who engage in
projects will find this study useful with regard to the importance and involvement of the
community or stakeholders to ensure the success of the projects.

vii
 The study will also form a basis on which academic researchers can do further studies on
community participation and CDF.

1.6 Scope of the Study

The scope will be limited to one constituency. The study will focus on the CDF projects
within Embakasi constituency in Nairobi Province. The CDF projects are in the following
sectors: education, agriculture, street lights, health, roads or bridges and water.

Embakasi was chosen since it is the most populous constituency in Kenya with 292,643
registered voters (http://www.iiec.or.ke) and with many ongoing or projects that have
stalled. In the 2008/09 financial year, 28 projects were on going, 22 that had been
proposed had not started bringing the total to 50.

1.7 Assumptions of the Study

The following are the assumptions of the study:

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

perceived benefits.

ii. The community must reach a stage in development where it is their belief that unless
they themselves take initiative in community development the situation is likely to
remain the same.

1.8 Limitations
A study of this magnitude cannot be possible without limitations. The major limitation
will be lack of time and resources in terms of finances. This is likely to affect the sample
size.
viii
ix
 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.0 Introduction

A project is an interrelated set of activities that has a definite starting and ending
point and results in the accomplishment of a unique often major outcome. (Harveu
Maylor, 2003) With regard to CDF, a project means an eligible development project as
described in the Act (The Constituencies Development Fund (Amendment) Act, 2007)

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

whether they live together, come from the same area (village or town), gender, or ethnic
background. Communities are also people who work together . . . or share common
behaviour. . . .” Within these groupings, “there are common interests and understanding
that bring people together and unite them around a common purpose” (UNAIDS 1996).

Community participation has been defined as ‘a process in which people take part in
decision making in the institutions, programmes and environments that affect them
(Heller, 1984). Community participation is usually conceptualised as a process by which
members of the communities individually or collectively assume increased responsibility
for assessment of their own needs, and once these are agreed upon, identify potential
situations to problems, and plan strategies by which these solutions may be realised
(Bermejo & Bekui, 1993).

2.1 Community Participation: An Overview

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

community participation in CDF projects. She cited a case of Makadara Constituency in
Nairobi City. Because of low participation in CDF operations, there is a high level of
dissatisfaction in the projects. There is also poor project ownership by the constituents.

x
Her study found out that constituents have not been completely involved in decision
making, identification, selection and prioritization of the projects. Most of the CDF
projects are regarded to be belonging to the area MPs. There has been little awareness
about the CDF projects being implemented. For example, in Makadara Constituency in
Nairobi City, 73% of the respondents under the study indicated not being aware of the
CDF projects and operations in the area. The level of participation was also low where
27% only attended meetings and the majority 87% were not involved in project
prioritization and identification. 80% of the respondents were not satisfied with the
operations of the CDF and the way the CDF officials managed the CDF projects.

Oakley (1991) cites an analysis of a Danish funded rural water supply project in
Tanzania, where he observes that participation had ranged from non-participation and
manipulation over information and consultation to some degree of partnership and
delegation of power. In another study of Malawi Social Action Fund (MASAF) projects,
Dulani (2003, p.12) concluded that the level of community participation was limited to
being informed what had already been decided by other key players which implied
“passive participation by consultation”.

2.1.1 Historical Perspective

The CDF is an innovation of the GOK. Unlike other devolved funds that go through
much red tape of bureaucracy, the CDF fund goes directly to the grassroots level of
implementation, that is, at the constituency level. (Kimenyi, 2005)

The Constituency Development Fund (CDF) was established in 2003 through the CDF
Act in The Kenya Gazette Supplement No. 107 (Act No. 11) of 9th January 2004. The
fund aims to control imbalances in regional development brought about by partisan
politics. It targets all constituency-level development projects, particularly those aiming
to combat poverty at the grassroots. The fund comprises an annual budgetary allocation
equivalent to 2.5% of the government's ordinary revenue. A motion seeking to increase
this allocation to 7.5% of government’s revenue was recently passed in parliament. 75%
xi
of the fund is allocated equally amongst all 210 constituencies. The remaining 25% is
allocated as per constituency poverty levels. A maximum 10% of each constituency’s
annual allocation may be used for an education bursary scheme. CDF is managed through
4 committees 2 of which are at the national level and 2 at the grassroots level.
(http://www.kippra.org/Constituency.asp)

2.1.2 Decentralization

We have noted that CDF is a form of decentralization. However, unlike in pure fiscal
decentralization which is characterized by both revenues and expenditures, CDF is a one
sided fiscal decentralization scheme since expenditure are not linked to the local revenue
sources or fiscal effort. Such partial decentralization can associate with fiscal illusion
which minimizes the extent to which beneficiaries monitor use of funds. (Kimenyi, 2005)

2.1.3 Citizen Priorities and importance of Local Participation

Constituencies vary widely in various aspects that may impact on the efficiency of CDF.
Some of these aspects include size of the jurisdictions, population size, density and
diversity, scope of economic activities, degree of urbanization, levels of education,
poverty, etc. These dimensions are expected to impact on the project choices and the
extent to which local communities are involved in decision making and in monitoring
expenditures. In essence, constituencies provide a natural laboratory to test functional
theories of community driven development and decentralization. Simply, we should
expect to observe systematic differences in the utilization of CDF across constituencies
depending on factors influencing citizen demand and characteristics of the constituencies.
(Kimenyi S.M and Meagher P 2004)

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

may impact on the choice of the projects and mode of delivery and which may
enhance or impede on the efficiency of utilization of CDF. Efficiency is primarily

xii
determined by the degree of involvement by local communities and also the capacity for
the beneficiaries to hold politicians and those in charge of implementation accountable.
Constituency characteristics that hinder participation of the beneficiaries or weaken their
capacity to monitor the utilization of funds can be expected to lead to more inefficient
outcomes. (Kimenyi, 2005)

2.1.4 Challenges in Participation

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

participation. A key factor is those factors that impact on social capital. The average level
of education in a constituency is expected to influence the involvement of the community
and also the extent to which they are able to monitor the utilization of funds. We expect
that CDF projects will be more in line with priorities in areas where the average level of
education is higher. Likewise, religion may also influence the choice of projects and
cohesiveness of a community. (Kimenyi, 2005)

According to a research done by KIPPRA 2007, respondents were asked to rate their
participation in relation to different kinds of involvement in the management of
decentralised funds. The survey found that, generally, participation is very low in the
various funds, particularly in decision-making processes. Respondents indicated that
while 32.8% of them were involved to the extent of receiving information or listening at
barazas, less than 10% attended meetings to discuss specific issues and less than 5% felt
that they were involved in decision-making. Over 90% of respondents indicated that they
were not involved in the setting of the development agendas for their areas. This
underlines the appropriateness of efforts aimed at increasing public participation.
(http://www.kippra.org/Participation.asp)

2.1.5 Political Economy of CDF

There are some political dimensions that arise from the nature and management of CDF.
The beneficiaries consider the funds as ”free” and thus are not motivated to monitor
xiii
utilization of funds since they do not take into account the costs of the projects. It is
therefore important to investigate the monitoring aspects associated with CDF and the
degree to which constituency characteristics may influence fiscal illusion and therefore
inefficiencies. However, presence of elite groups could capture the program so that
project serves much narrower interests. (Kimenyi, 2005) CDF also has some direct
political implications. Political leaders may view CDF as an investment in their political
careers with returns spread over the electoral cycles. Simply, a politician would prefer
projects that maximize political returns while voters would prefer projects that maximize
welfare. These two objectives may be in concert but there are many cases where the
constituency characteristics might result in divergence such that political maximization is
not equivalent to welfare maximization. To the extent that members of Parliament have a
key role in the identification and implementation of the projects, we do expect choices to
be influenced by political maximization. (Kimenyi, 2005)

There is a possibility that CDF could suppress local fiscal effort which has hitherto been
through voluntary contributions for community development. Such displacement effect
could be counterproductive and may actually weaken participation. Ideally, CDF should
not discourage local mobilization of development resources but should instead be
complementary. In evaluating the efficiency and efficacy of CDF, it is necessary to
investigate the extent to which the funds are complementing or substituting local resource
mobilization. (Kimenyi, 2005) CDF is an issue that is increasingly raising concern in the
country. While it is a welcome move, there are serious policies as well as political
concerns that ought to be addressed. (Mapesa and Kibua: 2006)

2.2 Monitoring and Evaluation

There is a lack of professional supervision hence poor project quality. There is a low
level community participation in monitoring and evaluation due to the inadequacy of data
and the general information about the funds. Poor monitoring and evaluation has led to
abuse of funds. (KIPPRA 2007)

xiv
2.3 Project Management Cycle

In management of the CDF projects, the basic project cycle should be used to provide a
good basis for project success. (http://www.cdf.go.ke)

Figure 2.1

Identification

Evaluation

Preparation

Implementation

Appraisal

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

2.4 Project Identification

Project Identification requires that there is a demand (or more generally) for the outputs
and the availability of resources to produce them (Potts: 2005:23) In CDF projects, the
projects are supposed to be identified by the chief or the District Officer of the local area.
Incorrect perception of needs by the people with inadequate knowledge of the project
area can have serious implications for the sustainability and acceptance of a project
(Potts: 2005:24)

xv
 2.5 Preparation of the Project

CDF committees must base their actions on the existing policies and use them while
discharging their duties. (http://www.cdf.go.ke)

2.5.1 CDF Implementation Process

The steps involved in the CDF implementation process are:

i. Community meetings are called by the chief to identify the projects. The chief or DO
calls the meetings to identify priority projects to be implemented. The chief is a
member of the location or ward (division) committee.
ii. Recording of identified projects is done by the ward committee. Projects are prioritized
and list given to the CDC.
iii. The CDC categorizes projects into sectors, water projects, education projects, etc. All
projects proposals are collected and grouped into the various sectors.
iv. The CDF distributes funds with assistance of assistance of the District Development
Officer.
v. The ward committee monitors the projects in their ward with the assistance of the CDC.
vi. Procurement and contracting process involves tendering, opening the tenders, awarding
and commencement of the projects. This is done as per the CDF Act.

xvi
 2.5.2 Diagrammatic illustration of the CDF Project Cycle

Figure 2.2

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

9. CDC/NMC designate 2. CDC meets to prioritize

committee conducts M & E. projects.

3. DPC Harmonizes and

8. Projects committees ensures that no project
implements projects. duplication before forwarding
to clerk of the NA.

7. NMC releases funds.

4. Clerk to the NA table to
CFC.

6. Minister includes project 5. CFC scrutinizes and forwards to

in printed estimates. minister for finance.

Source: CDF Guidelines 2003

xvii
Key

CDC: Constituency Development Committee

CFC: Constituency Fund Committee
NMC: National Management Committee
M&E: Monitoring and Evaluation
NA: National Assembly
DPC: District Projects Committee

2.6 Participation as Contribution or as Empowerment

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

work may also be captured by juxtaposing two notions, participation as contribution and
as empowerment. Participation as contribution may be enlisted primarily in the
implementation of programmes and projects or in the operation and maintenance of
created facilities. The contribution may be entirely voluntary, induced to various extents
or even enforced. It may be provided in the form of ideas, judgements, money, materials,
or unpaid or lowly paid labour (Dale, 2004). Indeed, this notion may also be seen as
‘participation as means’ to get things done.

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

“people, in partnership with each other and those able to assist them, identify problems
and needs, mobilise resources, and assume responsibility to plan, manage, control and
assess the individual and collective actions that they themselves decide upon”. As a
process of empowerment, participation is concerned with “development of skills and
abilities to enable the rural people to manage better, have a say in or negotiate with
existing development systems” (Oakley, 1991, p.9). As Eade and Rowlands (2003) argue,
powerlessness is a central element of poverty, and any focus on poverty, inequality,
injustice, or exclusion involves analysis of and/or challenging/changing power and power
relations. Participation as empowerment can therefore help to amplify unacknowledged

xviii
voices by enabling the rural people to decide upon and take the actions which they
believe are essential to their development (Oakley, 1991; Slocum et al., 1995). According
to some FAO (1997) studies, small informal groups consisting of members from similar
socio-economic backgrounds are better vehicles for participation in decision making and
collective learning than heterogeneous, large scale and more formal organisations.

2.6.1 Levels of Participation

Development agencies and authors distinguish different dimensions, spaces, degrees and
levels of participation. The typology of participation (see table 2.1), which positions
participation on a seven step ladder is useful in analysing these degrees (Bretty, 2003;
Kumar, 2002; Pretty et al., 1995; Wilcox, 1994). Comparing these levels with the
‘participation as means and ends’ analysis shown in table 2.1, the first four levels on the
ladder can be interpreted as ‘participation as means’ while the last three levels fall under
‘participation as an end’. Some suggest that the ‘manipulation’ which is often central to
types one to four implies that they should be seen as types of ‘non participation’ (Pretty,
1995).

Bretty (2003, p.5) conceptualises these levels in terms of ‘weak and strong participation’.
According to his views, weak participation involves “informing and consulting” while
strong participation means “partnership and control”. He argues that, in practice agencies
managing complex projects find it hard to move from the ‘weak end’ of the continuum
and tend to assume that, intended beneficiaries will be consulted during the project design
to take into account their felt needs and aspirations. Wilcox (1994) cautions that,
information giving and consultation are often presented as participation leading to
disillusionment among community interests.

However, the problem with levels of participation is that they imply coherence, when
most development organisations operate simultaneously in a wide range of participatory
modes (Mosse, 1996). One level on the continuum is not necessarily better than any other
as different levels are appropriate at different times and contexts to meet the expectations
and interests of different stakeholders (Wilcox, 1994).
xix
Table 2.1: Typology of Participation
Level
1. Passive Participation
2. Participation in
Information Giving
3. Participation by
Consultation
4. Participation for
Material Incentives
5. Functional Participation
6. Interactive Participation
Characteristics of each type
People participate by being told what is going to happen or has
already happened. It is a unilateral announcement by leaders or
project management without listening to people’s responses or even
asking their opinion.
People participate by answering questions posed by extractive
researchers using questionnaire surveys or similar approaches.
People do not have opportunity to influence proceedings, as the
findings of the research are neither shared nor checked for accuracy.
People participate by being consulted, and external people listen to
views. These external professionals define both problems and
solutions, and may modify these in light of people’s responses. Such
a consultative process does not concede any share in decision-
making, and professionals are under no obligation to take on board
people’s views.
People participate by providing resources, for example labour, in
return for food, cash or other material incentives. It is very common
to see this called participation, yet people have no stake in
prolonging activities when the incentives end.
People participate by forming groups to meet predetermined
objectives related to the project, which can involve the development
or promotion of externally initiated social organisation. Such
involvement does not tend to occur at the early stages of project
cycles or planning, but rather after major decisions have been made.
These institutions tend to be dependent on external initiators and
facilitators, but may become self-dependent.
People participate in joint analysis, which leads to action plans and
the formation of new local institutions or the strengthening of
existing ones. It tends to involve interdisciplinary methodologies
that seek multiple perspectives and make use of systematic and
structured learning processes. These groups take control over local
decisions, and so people have a stake in maintaining structures or
xx
 practices.

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

institutions to change systems. They develop contacts with external
institutions for resources and technical advice they need, but retain
control over how resources are used. Such self-initiated mobilisation
and collective action may or may challenge existing inequitable
distributions of wealth and power.

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

From the foregoing discussion, it is clear that there is a myriad of aspects of participation.
This means that great care must be taken when using and interpreting the term. It should
always be qualified by reference to the type of participation. In addition, observers seem
to agree that the application of participatory approaches further calls for an appreciation
of the social dynamics and diversities such as gender, age, social status, ethnicity,
disability and power amongst others.

2.6.2 Gender and Participation

Gender relations define amongst other things, how both men and women have access to
control of resources in the community. According to Shepherd (1998, pp.150-151),
gender analysis comprises: “information to access and control over resources for men and
women; division of labour within the household and community; and the participation of
men and women in public decision making and organisations”. Despite the importance
placed upon people’s participation in development programmes, many agencies still
experience poor participation of women (Guijt and Shah, 1998; World Bank, 1996).
According to Slocum et al., (1995), many participatory approaches such as participatory
rural appraisal (PRA) do not explicitly address issues of social relations including gender.
Rarely do these methodologies take into account gender analysis, gender based
differences in labour allocation, and gender differences in access to and control over

xxi
resources and their benefits. Gender is usually hidden in seemingly inclusive terms, ‘the
people’, or ‘the community’ while in most cases what is referred to as ‘the community’
actually means ‘male community’ (Guijt and Shah, 1998). Oakley’s (1991) analysis of
the rural water supply project in Tanzania for example, showed that despite efforts to
mobilise women to take an active part in all project activities, this was only successful
with respect to self-help labour contributions as most women in the village water
committees kept a low profile.

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

may exist in the form of customs, beliefs, and attitudes that confine women mostly to the
domestic sphere; women’s economic and domestic workloads that impose severe time
burdens on them; and laws and customs that impede women’s access to credit, productive
inputs, employment, education, information, or medical care. Since women comprise the
majority of rural inhabitants, and they are the major contributors in agricultural
production in Tanzania, there arises an urgent need to encourage their involvement in
development activities. Burkey (1993) recommends that participatory development
projects should seek to improve gender inequalities through providing a means by which
women can take part in decision making processes. As Guijt and Shah (1998) argue,
greater involvement of women and attention to gender-differentiated needs holds the
promise of more effective and equitable processes of participatory development.

xxii
 2.7 Conceptual Framework

Independent variables Dependent variable

Community Awareness

Availability of constituents
to attend meetings
Level of participation

Level of education of the constituents

Accessibility of the CDC

Source: Author (2010)

xxiii
 CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY

3.0 Introduction

This chapter focuses on the research design to be used, the target population of the study,
the Sampling Design and the Sample, the Data collection Instruments and Techniques
and the Data Analysis Techniques.

3.1 Research Design

In order to clearly examine the topic of research, descriptive method of research will be
used. This method of research was preferred because a researcher is able to collect data to
answer questions concerning the current status of the subject of study. Descriptive
research determines and reports the way things are and also helps a researcher to describe
a phenomenon in terms of attitude, values and characteristics (Mugenda and Mugenda,
1999). According to Orodho (2003), descriptive survey is a method of collecting
information by interviewing or administering a questionnaire to a sample of individuals.
The study seeks to administer questionnaires to a sample of individuals.

The study will also incorporate exploratory research design. This will be used because
according to Kothari, C.R (2009), the main purpose of exploratory research is to
formulate a problem for more precise investigation. The focus of the study is to
investigate the factors that influence the level of community participation in projects.

3.2 The Target Population

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

In this study, the population of Embakasi constituency will be considered through the
representatives to the different projects or committee members.
xxiv
3.3 Sampling Design and the Sample

The sampling design to be used will be Stratified Random sampling which according to
Kombo, D.K and Tromp, D.L.A (2006) involves dividing the population into
homogeneous subgroups and then taking a simple random sample in each subgroup.

During the 2008/09 financial year, there are a total of 50 projects that are either on going
or have not been started. The projects are categorized into sectors as shown in the table
below.
Table 1.1
2008/09
SECTOR COMPLETED ON GOING NOT STARTED TOTAL
EDUCATION 0 14 3 17
HEALTH 0 2 0 2
WATER 0 0 3 3
STREET LIGHTS 0 8 12 20
ROADS 0 0 0 0
OTHERS 0 4 4 8
TOTAL 0 28 22 50

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

The researcher will provide 50 questionnaires to represent each of the projects that are
either on going or not started. These questionnaires will be issued to a local
representative or a committee member for each of the projects. This is meant to get
enough information since the researcher will assume that the representative knows the
reasons or factors that influence the community’s level of participation. The researcher
will get the respondents through the local CDF offices.

3.4 Data Collection Instruments and Techniques

3.4.1 Primary Data

xxv
Primary data will be collected using questionnaires which will be administered by the
researcher with the help of a research assistant. The questionnaires will comprise
questions which will seek to answer questions related to the objectives of this study. The
questions will be both closed to enhance uniformity and open ended to ensure maximum
data is obtained.

3.4.2 Secondary Data

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

3.4.3 Pilot study

A pilot study will be done to assess the capability of the research instruments to collect
required data for the research. The questionnaire will first be administered to five
respondents in the constituency as part of the pilot study. The pilot test is meant to
establish whether all the questions from the questionnaire can be fully understood by the
targeted respondents and hence rectification if need be. The pilot study will take place
before the actual research is.

3.5 Data Analysis Techniques

The results of the research will be both qualitative and quantitative. The data collected
will be keyed in and analyzed using SPSS. The Quantitative Data generated will be
subjected to the Descriptive Statistics feature in SPSS to generate information which will
be presented using tables, charts, frequencies and percentages.

The Qualitative Analysis will use the Analytic Technique and specifically Quick
Impressionist Summary which according to Kombo, D.K and Tromp, D.L.A (2006)
involves summarizing the key findings, explaining and interpreting the findings.

xxvi
REFERENCES

xxvii
Bermejo, A. & Bekui, A. (1993). Community participation in disease control. Social
Science and Medicine 36, 1145-1150.

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

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

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

Cohen, J. M., and Uphoff, N., (1997). Rural Development Participation: Concepts
Measures for Project Design Implementation and Evaluation. Inthado, New York,
Cornell University.

Constituency Development Fund Act. Government Printer, Nairobi.

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

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

Division, DFID.

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

three case studies from Malawi Social Action Fund (online). Available from
<http://www.sed.manchester.ac.uk/idpm/research/events/participation03/Dulani.doc>.
(Accessed on 12th May 2006).

Eade, D. and Rowlands, J. (eds) (2003). Development Methods and Approaches: Critical
Reflections. Oxford: Oxfam GB.
FAO (1997). Participation in Practice: Lessons from the FAO People’s Participation
Programme (online). (Accessed on 25th June 2006). Available from
<http://www.fao.org/waicent/faoinfo/sustdev/PPdirect/PPre0043.htm>.
xxviii
FAO (1997). Participation in Practice: Lessons from the FAO People’s Participation
Programme (online). (Accessed on 25th June 2006). Available from
<http://www.fao.org/waicent/faoinfo/sustdev/PPdirect/PPre0043.htm>.

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

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

Heller, K. (1984). Psychology and Community Change: Challenges of the Future, 2nd edition.
Dorsey Press, Homewood, IL, USA.

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

and Rural Development Projects: A literature review (online). Available from
<http://www.fao.org/sd/PPdirect/PPre0074.htm>. (Accessed on 4th June 2006).

Kenya, Republic of (2001). The 1999 Population and Housing Census: Counting our
People for Development. Vol 1 GOK Printer, Nairobi.

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

Nairobi.

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

2007. Government Printer, Nairobi.

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

Theory and Evidence. Working Paper 45 University of Connecticurt, USA.
Kimenyi, S.M and Meagher, P. (2004). Devolution and Development. Ashgate
Publishers, UK.

xxix
Kinyoda, J. E (2008). Level of Participation in Project Identification and Selection by
Constituents: A Case of CDF in Makadara Constituency. University of Nairobi,
Unpublished.

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

Kothari, C.R (2009). Research Methodology: Methods and Technique. New Age
International (P) Ltd Publishers.
Kumar, S. (2002) Methods for Community Participation: A complete guide for
practitioners. London: ITDG Publishing.

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

practitioners. London: ITDG Publishing.

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

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

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

Mosse, D. (1996). People’s Knowledge in Project Planning: The limits and social
conditions of participation in planning agricultural development. Research Issues in
Natural Resource Management. Swansea: Centre for Development Studies, University of
Wales Swansea.

Mugenda, O.M. and Mugenda, A.G. (1999). Research Methods, Quantitative and
Qualitative Approaches. Acts Press, Nairobi.

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

xxx
Nelson, N. and Wright, S. (eds.) (1995). Power and Participatory Development: Theory
and Practice. London: ITDG Publishing.

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

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

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

development. Geneva: ILO.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pretty, J.N., Guijt, I., Thompson, J. and Scoones, L. (1995). Participatory Learning and
Action. London: International Institute for Environment and Development.

Saunders, Lewis and Thorn Hill (2000). Research Methods for Business Students. (2nd
Ed.) Pearson Education Ltd, UK.

xxxi
Slocum, R., Wichhart, L., Rocheleau, D. and Thomas-Slayter, B. (eds) (1995). Power,
Process and Participation. London: ITDG Publishing.

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

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

UNAIDS. 1997. Community Mobilization and AIDS, UNAIDS best practice collection:
Technical update. Geneva: UNAIDS.
Wanjiru, Gikonyo (2008), The CDF Social Audit Guide: A Guide Handbook for
Communities. Open Society Initiative of E. Africa, Nairobi.
Wilcox, D. (1994). Community Participation and Empowerment: Putting theory into
practice. RRA Notes No. 21, pp. 78-82. London: IIED.
WEBSITES USED
http://www.cdf.go.ke
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embakasi_Constituency
http://www.iiec.or.ke
http://www.kippra.org/Participation.asp

xxxii