FACTORS AFFECTING SUSTAINABILITY OF COMMUNITY-BASED

PROJECTS IN LUNGALUNGA SUB COUNTY: A CASE OF NEEMA WATER

PROJECT; KENYA CHURCH OF CHRIST

KIMANZI MBALA AUGUSTUS

KIM/49074/18

A RESEARCH PROJECT REPORT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT

OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE AWARD OF THE DIPLOMA IN PROJECT
MANAGEMENT TO THE KENYA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT.

SEPTEMBER 2020
 DECLARATION

Declaration by the Student

This research study is my original work and has not been presented to any other
examination body. No part of this report should be reproduced without the author’s
consent or that of the Kenya Institute of Management.
Name: Augustus M. Kimanzi Sign……………………….. Date……...………………
KIM/49074/18

Declaration by the Supervisor

This research has been submitted for defense with my approval as The Kenya Institute of
Management supervisor.
Name: Mr. Abraham M. Kiruga Sign……………….… Date……...………………….
Lecturer Supervising

For and on behalf of the Kenya Institute of Management

Name: Zipporah Ndung’u Sign……………………Date………...…………………
Branch Manager - Mombasa Branch

ii
 DEDICATION

I dedicate this research study to my parents Mr. Titus Kimanzi, the late and my mother
Mrs. Beatrice M. Kimanzi and to my lovely wife Munanye for their continued support,
encouragement, passion for my education and their courage in me. To my three boys John,
Ben and Gift, brothers and sisters, special thanks for your inspiration and support
throughout my life. Finally, to all my friends, you are my best. God bless you all.

iii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Without GOD nothing is possible and all the Glory goes back to Him for giving me the
strength to do and complete this research study. It is with great pleasure that I extend my
gratitude and appreciation to my supervisor, Mr. Kiruga for the guidance and intellectual
advice. I acknowledge colleagues and classmates whom I consulted in the course of
preparing this report. I thank Lungalunga community and programme officers from
Healing Hands International for the support and information they provided for this study.
Finally, I express my appreciation to the administration and management of the Kenya
Institute of Management for giving me the opportunity to pursue my diploma course at
this prestigious institution of learning.

iv
 THE ABSTRACT
This study sought to determine factors affecting sustainability of community-based
projects. Neema water project by Kenya Church of Christ in Lungalunga Sub County in
Kwale County, Kenya was chosen for the study. Relevant literature was reviewed on the
topics of project sustainability and community participation, particularly community
participation in need analysis, project planning, project implementation and project
monitoring & evaluation, monitoring and evaluation and how they affect sustainability of
community-based projects. The study employed descriptive survey research design. A
population of 2,404 respondents constituting of 2,400 Lungalunga sub county residents
and 4 programme officers from Healing Hands International, the main NGO sponsoring
Neema water borehole project was targeted for the study. A sample of 335 respondents
was selected from the target population. The sample constituted 331 Lungalunga sub
county residents and the 4 programme officers from Healing Hands International. The
331 Lungalunga residents were selected using systematic random sampling technique
while the entire population of programme officers from Healing Hands International was
included in the study. Questionnaires were used to collect quantitative and qualitative
data from the respondents. Results of the study were interpreted using descriptive
statistics: frequency distribution, mean, and percentages. The various aspects of
community participation affect sustainability of community-based projects with different
magnitudes. The study concluded that community participation in community-based
projects has a significant influence on sustainability of the projects; sustainability is
negatively influenced when community participation is zero and improves with greater
community participation. The study recommends that: Development interventions
targeting a community ought to ensure that the community participates in need analysis,
if the interventions are to be sustained. The community be trained on technical aspects of
project planning to build their capacity, thereby improving project sustainability; Local
resources, skills and knowledge should be used to implement local projects to keep the
project relevant to the community and improve sustainability; The community should be
involved in earlier stages of the project cycle leading up to monitoring and evaluation,
otherwise their participation in monitoring and evaluation will have less meaning as well
as financial management practices.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

v
DECLARATION..........................................................................................................................ii
DEDICATION.............................................................................................................................iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT...........................................................................................................iv
THE ABSTRACT.........................................................................................................................v
OPERATIONAL DEFINITION OF TERMS..........................................................................viii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS/ACRONYMS.............................................................................ix
CHAPTER ONE...........................................................................................................................1
INTRODUCTION OF THE STUDY..........................................................................................1
1.1 Introduction............................................................................................................................1
1.2 Background of the Study........................................................................................................1
1.2.1 Project sustainability..........................................................................................................3
1.2.2 Effectiveness of development interventions.......................................................................4
1.3 Statement of the Problem.......................................................................................................5
1.4 Objectives of the study...........................................................................................................6
1.4.1 General objective of the study...........................................................................................6
1.4.2 Specific objectives of the study..........................................................................................6
1.4.3 Research Questions............................................................................................................7
1.5 Significance of the Study........................................................................................................7
1.5.1 To the Project Sponsor.......................................................................................................7
1.5.2 To the Policy Makers.........................................................................................................7
1.5.3 To the Researcher..............................................................................................................7
1.5.4 To the Kenya Institute of Management..............................................................................8
1.6 Scope of the Study...................................................................................................................8
1.7 Limitation of the Study...........................................................................................................8
1.7.1 Unwillingness by Some Respondents to Reveal Information.............................................8
1.7.2 Distance of A Vast Terrain................................................................................................8
1.7.3 Bribe..................................................................................................................................9
1.7.4 Delay in response...............................................................................................................9
CHAPTER TWO........................................................................................................................10
LITERATURE REVIEW..........................................................................................................10
2.1 Introduction..........................................................................................................................10
2.2 Review of Theoretical Literature.........................................................................................10
2.2.1 Participatory Theory........................................................................................................10
2.2.2 Theory of change.............................................................................................................12
2.2.3 Financial Literacy Theory................................................................................................13
vi
2.3 Review of Critical Literature...............................................................................................14
2.3.1 Community Participation.................................................................................................14
2.3.2 Financial Management.....................................................................................................22
2.3.3 Monitoring and Evaluation..............................................................................................25
2.4 Summary and Gaps to be Filled..........................................................................................38
2.5 Conceptual Framework........................................................................................................39
CHAPTER THREE....................................................................................................................42
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY..............................................................................................42
3.1 Introduction..........................................................................................................................42
3.2 The Study Design..................................................................................................................42
3.3 Target Population.................................................................................................................42
3.4 Sampling Design...................................................................................................................43
3.5 Data Collection Methods and Instruments.........................................................................44
3.5.1 Reliability........................................................................................................................44
3.5.2 Validity of the instruments...............................................................................................45
3.6 Data Analysis Methods and Procedures..............................................................................45
CHAPTER FOUR......................................................................................................................46
DATA ANALYSIS PRESENTATION AND INTERPRETATION OF FINDINGS.............46
4.1 Introduction..........................................................................................................................46
4.2 Presentation of Findings.......................................................................................................46
4.2.1 Distribution of respondents by gender.............................................................................46
4.2.2 Distribution of respondents by age...................................................................................47
4.2.3 Education Level of the Respondents................................................................................50
4.2.4 Number of Years as Residents of Lungalunga Sub county..............................................51
4.3 Presentation of Research Variables.....................................................................................54
4.3.1.0 To examine the role of community participation in the sustainability of Community
Based Projects in Lungalunga Sub-county: a case of Neema borehole water project; Kenya
Church of Christ.......................................................................................................................54
4.3.1.1 To examine the role of community participation in the sustainability of Community-
based projects in Lungalunga Subcounty: a case of Neema borehole water project; Kenya
Church of Christ.......................................................................................................................56
4.3.2.0 To assess how financial management practices affects sustainability of community-
based projects in Lungalunga Subcounty: a case of Neema borehole water project; Kenya
Church of Christ.......................................................................................................................59
4.3.2.1 To assess how financial management practices affects sustainability of community-
based projects in Lungalunga Sub-county: a case of Neema borehole water project; Kenya
Church of Christ.......................................................................................................................61

vii
 4.3.3.0 To assess how monitoring and evaluation affects sustainability of Community Based
Projects in Lungalunga Sub-county–Neema borehole water project; Kenya Church of Christ. 63
4.3.3.1 To assess how monitoring and evaluation affects sustainability of Community Based
Projects–Neema borehole water project, Lungalunga Subcounty; Kenya Church of Christ.....64
4.4 Summary of Data Analysis...................................................................................................67
CHAPTER FIVE........................................................................................................................68
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, DISCUSSIONS, CONCLUSION AND
RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................................68
5.1 Introduction..........................................................................................................................68
5.2 Summary of major Findings................................................................................................68
5.2.1 How does community participation affect the sustainability of Community Based Projects
in Lungalunga Sub-county: a case of Neema water project; Kenya Church of Christ?.............69
5.2.2 How does financial management practices affect the sustainability of Community Based
Projects in Lungalunga Sub county: a case of Neema water project; Kenya Church of Christ?70
5.2.3 How does monitoring and evaluation affect the sustainability of Community Based
Projects in Lungalunga Sub-county: a case of Neema water project; Kenya Church of Christ?
..................................................................................................................................................70
5.3 Discussion Key of Findings..................................................................................................71
5.3.1 Effects of Community Participation on Sustainability of Community Based projects.....71
5.3.4 Effects of Project Monitoring and Evaluation on Sustainably of Community Based
Projects.....................................................................................................................................73
5.4 Conclusion.............................................................................................................................73
5.5 Recommendations.................................................................................................................74
5.6 Suggestions for Further Studies...........................................................................................74
REFFERENCES.........................................................................................................................75
APPENDICES.............................................................................................................................91
APPENDIX 1: Authorization Letter.........................................................................................91
APPENDIX 2: QUESTIONNAIRE ADMINISTERED TO LUNGALUNGA SUB-COUNTY
COMMUNITY............................................................................................................................92
APPENDIX 3: OTHER SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS - WORK PLAN.............................98
BUDGET.....................................................................................................................................98

OPERATIONAL DEFINITION OF TERMS

Project - A Project is a temporary, unique and progressive attempt or endeavor made to
produce some kind of a tangible or intangible result.

viii
Sustainability – Sustainability is the ability to exist constantly.
Participation – A process in which two or more parties influence each other in the
making of decisions.
Community – A community is a social unit (a group of living things) with commonality
such as norms, religion, values, customs, or identity. 
Monitoring – Monitoring is the systematic process of collecting, analyzing and
using information to track a programme’s progress toward reaching its objectives
and to guide management decisions.
Evaluation – Evaluation is a systematic determination of a subject's merit, worth and
significance, using criteria governed by a set of standards.
Financial sustainability – Financial sustainability is how the financial support required
for the project or the organization will continue after the grant has ended.
Theoretical Framework – The theoretical framework is the structure that can hold or
support a theory of a research study . 
Conceptual Framework – A conceptual framework is an analytical tool with several
variations and contexts.
Variables – Variables represents the measurable traits that can change over the course
of a scientific experiment.  
Project management life-cycle – A project management life cycle is a framework
comprising a set of distinct high-level stages required to transform an idea of concept into
reality in an orderly and efficient manner.
Need – A motivating force that compels action for its satisfaction.
Planning – Planning is the fundamental management function, which involves deciding
beforehand, what is to be done, when is it to be done, how it is to be done and who is
going to do it.
Project Management – Project management is the application of knowledge, skills,
tools, and techniques to project activities to meet the project requirements.
Sample size – Sample size is the number of completed responses your survey receives.
Population – A population is the entire pool from which a statistical sample is drawn. 
Respondent – A respondent is a person who is called upon to issue a response to a
communication made by another. 
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS/ACRONYMS
CBPs - Community Based Projects
UNHCR - United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
IPLAR - International Project Leadership Academy Report
ix
EEPCO – Environmental Engineering and Pollution Control Organization
M&E - Monitoring and Evaluation
KNP - Kenya National Profile
WB – World Bank
DFID – Department for International Development
USAID - United States Agency for International Development. United States Agency for
NPA - Non-Performing Assets
TDN - Tanzania Daily News
DPM - Diploma in Project Management

KIMSOM - Kenya Institute of Management- School of Management

IFAD - International Fund for Agricultural Development

UN - United Nations

AKRSP - Agha Khan Rural Support Programme

IIED - International Institute for Environment and Development

RPRD - Regional Partnership for Resource Development

ALNAP - Active Learning Network for Accountability and Performance in Humanitarian

Action

ADB - African Development Bank

CBPs - Center for Business Practices

GF - Global Fund

UNDP - United Nations Development Programme

AIDS - Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome

MES - Monitoring-Evaluation Systems

NGO - Non-Governmental Organization

DCM - Digitalizing Construction Monitoring

MPP - Micro-Projects Programme

x
VRCWSP - Volta Region Community Water Supply Programme

CDF - Constituency Development Fund

CDFC - Constituency Development Fund Committee

PMC - Project Management Committee

DDO - District Development Officer

IFRC - International Federation of Red Cross

RCS - Red Crescent Societies

HHI - Healing Hands International

KCoC - Kenya Church of Christ

xi
 CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION OF THE STUDY

1.1 Introduction
This chapter covers the background of the research problem, statement of the problem,
objectives of the study, research questions, and significance of the study and limitation of
the study.

1.2 Background of the Study

The Community Based Projects (CBPs) are core initiatives for intervention of common
problems while enhancing development in most communities. With this in mind,
different projects are formulated and carried every year with different purposes such as
ensuring clean water supply, improving community health, reducing poverty, promoting
human rights and peace, managing natural resources, climate change adaptation and
many more. These projects work to provide solutions and hope to communities in need
such as rural areas where majority of population in developing countries dwells (Oino,
2015). Most of the community-based projects are meant to be sustainable, with
implication of delivering positive impacts beyond the funding support. However, the
sustainability of these projects has been a major issue. According to UNHCR, 2016
report, most of Community Based Projects in developed countries have long life cycle
because they have well developed systems of monitoring project implementation. About
40 percent of many new projects fall short of life after first few years since the
termination of initial fund (Fabietti & Giovannoni, 2014). Most of projects fail to sustain
in rural areas (Persoon, 2016). Failure of projects to sustain is associated with different
factors. Among of them including; political regime transition (Adam (2015); lack of
community participation Tifow, (2013); Community not owning projects (Harvey and
Reed, 2007) and; low community technical capacity, projects technical and innovation
capacities and community technological competencies (Jones & Brandis, 2008; Persoon,
2016).

In Tanzania, only 46 percent of existing rural water points are functional and a quarter of
the newly installed systems fail after only two years of operation. Lack of sustainability is

1
associated with lack of finance especially for operation and maintenance, lack of
technical personnel at the project level, lack of spare parts and lack of community
participation. Some of the community-based projects which has not sustain includes;
Wells and boreholes conducted in Matumbatu village, Dodoma which was financed by
International donor Agencies. The question of its sustainability was due to poor
technology choice, poor supervision and lack of expertise and experience (International
Project Leadership Academy Report (IPLAR), 2016).The other project which was not
sustainable is Bagamoyo Sanitation Park which was implemented in Bagamoyo
Township by EEPCO in July 2005 to February 2008.The project was based on sanitation
promotion and training in order to improve health issues in Bagamoyo communities.

The sustainability of community-based projects is determined by many factors, among of

them are community participation, Financial support, Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E),
Leadership Capacity of Community Leaders and Community awareness about different
projects (Harvey and Reed, 2007; Lachapelle, 2008; Nwankwoala, 2011; and Nkongo,
2009). Taking into account the important of sustainability of community-based projects,
this study assess the extent the factors mentioned by different studies affect the
sustainability of project in rural areas in Bagamoyo district.

In Kenya, an estimated two million people are being positively impacted by community-
based projects efforts. The focus of community-based projects has included interventions
in education, water, sanitation, health care, agriculture, spiritual nurture, community
capacity building as well as microenterprise development (Kenya National Profile, 2001).
Community based development projects are planned for a certain period of time called
gestation period or life-span after which they come to an end and the community is
expected to continue running the project and make them self-sustaining. Government
organs and donors in partnership with communities do establish community-based
development projects. However, the project activities collapse following the phase-out of
funder’s support. A World Vision (2009) evaluation report analysis show that, most
community development projects have failed to sustain themselves, become self-reliant
and the communities have failed to continue running them after funding organizations
withdraw their support. Some factors which should have been worked out, in order to
stop this trend of projects collapsing are not done despite support being meant for a
2
specified period with the objective of making the projects self-reliant. The sustainability
of community-based projects is determined by many factors, among of them are
community participation, Financial support, Monitoring and Evaluation, Leadership
Capacity of Community Leaders and Community awareness about different projects
Harvey and Reed, (2007); Lachapelle, (2008); Nwankwoala, (2011) and Nkongo, (2009).

1.2.1 Project sustainability

From a sociological and anthropological standpoint, projects are primarily social
interventions within a given social system, arousing social processes which change at
least to some extent the social structures and institutions of this system and the social
behavior of its members (Meyer, 2002). Therefore, development practitioners should
ensure that the social systems adapt to the changing social trends in the community-based
projects to enhance project sustainability. According to (Ingle 2005), for a project to
achieve sustainability, it needs to be implemented through a strategic approach. The
strategic approach incorporates four main elements, future orientation: assuming
things will change, and planning to maximize benefits which can be derived during and
from that change; external emphasis: recognizing the diversity of the project environment
and the many dimensions which impact on project outcomes, including technology,
politics, society, and economics; environmental fit: planning for a continual fit
between the project and its environment, including mission, objectives, strategies,
structures, resources and process orientation; planning and management priorities evolve
in an iterative cycle of conscious and deliberate learning from experience as the reality
changes. Project sustainability is a major challenge not only in Kenya, but also in many
developing countries. Most projects implemented at huge amounts often tend to
experience difficulties with sustainability. Donors such as the World Bank, DFID,
USAID and other bilateral aid agencies have been expressing concerns on project
sustainability, while the trend with implementation of projects is showing significant
improvement, post-implementation sustainability is rather disappointing with very few
projects being sustained. Despite huge amounts of money spent on implementation of
projects in Kenya, poor sustainability is depriving them from the returns expected of
these investments. Several factors are responsible for poor project sustainability. Some
factors are simple and others are quite complex. Some are within the control of the

3
project management, while others come as external threats. This paper articulates the
dilemma of project sustainability from different perspectives in the subsequent chapters.

1.2.2 Effectiveness of development interventions

For a long time, development agencies have had a long-standing history of implementing
projects, which fail shortly after these agencies have withdrawn. Most of the
interventions implemented are not effective in achieving set goals and objectives. Non-
Performing Assets NPA (2002) defines effectiveness as the extent to which an
intervention is successful in achieving its objectives. Participatory theory states that
stakeholder participation is one of the ways of enhancing effectiveness of development
projects. However, this has not been the case, the communities where projects are being
implemented have long been viewed as a hurdle to implementing projects and historically
have been engaged as little as possible. According to Greenall and Revere (1999),
implementing agencies both local and international expressed several difficulties when
engaging community right from the design stages to withdrawal, citing slow
implementation, but Karl (2000) was of the view that development interventions will
achieve their objectives if the people who are most affected are actively involved.
Participation is an effective mechanism for poverty reduction capable of achieving
immediate and lasting results at the grassroots level for the reason that it assures better
targeting of benefits to the poor, increases the impact and ensures that the development
gains are equitably distributed (Chavangi, 1995).

Chambers (1983) and Oakley (1991) aver that participation in projects ensures that the
development activities are based upon indigenous knowledge and are more relevant to
locals. Karl, (2000) asserts that local people understand their problems better and can
therefore use their skills and resources to find flexible solutions that are tailored to suit
their unique needs. Oakley (1998) opines that in order for the development efforts to have
sustainable changes in the poor people’s lives, they must take into account local values.
Generally, from the authors view, stakeholder analysis should be done to ensure all
parties/actors are actively involved in all stages of project management cycle. This is in
concurrence with (Rudqvist and Woodford-Berger, 1996) that the community will help to
detect problems during implementation at early stages before they escalate into major
sources of conflict and wastefulness. As Karl (2000) puts it, local people’s judgments of
4
what constitutes success, give a more pragmatic view about what works and what does
not work. Consequently, interventions will be successful and sustainable when people
have a voice in determining their objectives, to support their implementation, to evaluate
their outcomes, and to make indigenous knowledge available. However, it is
disappointing to note that in Kenya, most donor funded projects do not give much
consideration to community participation and involvement, hence becoming
unsustainable. The authors argue that the determinant factors for the sustainability of any
community-based project are pre- and post-implementation factors.

According to Aras and Crowther (2008), there are four aspects of sustainability, which
are needed to be recognized and analyzed, and include societal influence, which measures
the impact a society makes upon the corporation in terms of the social contract and
stakeholder influence; environmental impact, which is the effect of the actions of the
corporation upon its geophysics environment; organizational culture, which is the
relationship between the corporation and its internal stakeholders and finances, an
adequate return for the level of risk undertaken in pursuit of sustainable development and
financial sustainability.

1.3 Statement of the Problem

The Community Based Projects are meant to be sustainable with implication of
delivering positive impacts beyond the funding support. Worldwide, community-based
projects (CBPs) have seen the development and industrialization of many countries like
China and Japan. The community-based projects are planned for a certain period of time
after which they come to an end while the community is expected to continue running the
project and make them self-sustaining. While this is expected to be vivid, in Kenya
sustainability of community-based projects is referred as a major issue for many
implementing agencies and beneficiaries. Also, the full potential of the community-based
projects has yet to be tapped due to the existence of a number of constraints such as lack
of ownership, lack of planning, improper financing and poor management (Longenecker,
et al., 2006). Poor governance has also been identified as one of the most serious
constraints facing the sustainability of community-based projects and hence hindering
their profitability (Oketch, 2000). Most of community based projects in Kenya fails to
sustain themselves, become self-reliant and the communities have failed to continue
5
running them after funding organizations withdraw their support (World Vision,
2009).On top of that, the sustainability of community based projects in Kenya has raised
debate among donors, for example, the Lake Turkana fish processing plant, Kenya which
was funded by the Norwegian government at a cost of $22 million failed. The project was
designed in 1971 to provide jobs to the Turkana people through fishing and fish
processing for export. However, the Turkana are nomads with no history of fishing or
eating fish. The plant was completed and operated for a few days, but was quickly shut
down. The cost to operate the freezers and the demand for clean water in the desert were
too high. It remains a "white elephant" in Kenya's arid northwest. (Associated Press,
2007). Also, in Tanzania an irrigation project which was done in Msoga village proved
failure due to misuse of project fund (Tanzania Daily News, 2016). Therefore, this
research looks on factors affecting sustainability of community-based projects.

1.4 Objectives of the study

1.4.1 General objective of the study

The general objective of the study was to determine factors affecting sustainability of
community-based projects in Lungalunga Sub county: a case of Neema water project;
Kenya Church of Christ.

1.4.2 Specific objectives of the study

( i) To determine the role of community participation in the sustainability of Community
Based Projects in Lungalunga Subcounty: a case of Neema water project; Kenya Church
of Christ.

(ii) To assess how financial management practices affects sustainability of Community

Based Projects in Lungalunga Subcounty: a case of Neema water project; Kenya Church
of Christ.

(iii) To assess how monitoring and evaluation affects sustainability of Community Based
Projects in Lungalunga Subcounty: a case of Neema water project; Kenya Church of
Christ.

6
1.4.3 Research Questions
This research study sought to answer the following questions;

(i) How does community participation affect the sustainability of Community Based
Projects in Lungalunga Subcounty: a case of Neema water project; Kenya Church of
Christ?

(ii) How does financial management practices affect the sustainability of Community
Based Projects in Lungalunga Subcounty: a case of Neema water project; Kenya Church
of Christ?

(iii) How does monitoring and evaluation affect the sustainability of Community Based
Projects in Lungalunga Subcounty: a case of Neema water project; Kenya Church of
Christ?

1.5 Significance of the Study

1.5.1 To the Project Sponsor

The findings of this study might be of importance to the sustainability of projects after
the donor support is withdrawn as it would add to the pool of knowledge on long
sustainability of project results after project transfer to the beneficiaries and their relation
to project outcome.

1.5.2 To the Policy Makers

To the policy makers the study might be useful in the formulation of policies and
guidelines that consider project sustainability as critical for the purpose of increasing
project success and long-term impact.

1.5.3 To the Researcher

The findings would be important to other academicians as it may form a basis for further
research and also help researcher to gain knowledge and understanding in attainment of
the partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of a Diploma in Project
Management (DPM).

7
1.5.4 To the Kenya Institute of Management
In general, the study would provide the background information to research organizations
and scholars in Kenya Institute of Management who may want to carry out further
research in this area as well as contribute more to the library of knowledge in Kenya
Institute of Management- School of Management (KIMSOM) especially by updating
already available information since the study includes current statistics which are
unavailable in other studies.

1.6 Scope of the Study

The study will be bound to factors affecting sustainability of community-based projects,
other projects which are privately or government owned were not included in the study.
The study was also bound within the boundaries of Lungalunga Subcounty and projects
outside the Subcounty were not included in this study.

1.7 Limitation of the Study

The researcher envisages a number of limitations as explained below.

1.7.1 Unwillingness by Some Respondents to Reveal Information

The researcher encountered unwillingness by some respondents to reveal information as
it is on the ground as they considered it sensitive. To counteract this, the researcher
assured respondents of confidentiality for any information given. The researcher further
assured the respondents that the study was purely an academic endeavor and therefore the
information given was not to be revealed to any other authority but used to meet an
academic requirement.

1.7.2 Distance of A Vast Terrain

The researcher also faced other various draw backs while conducting the study.
Considering the fact that the study adopted a survey design, collecting data from the vast
number of respondents was very cumbersome due to distance of a vast terrain. To counter
this, the researcher was obliged to seek the help of research assistants to aid in data
collection. Again, securing appointment from the selected respondents also proved
troublesome. To solve this problem, the researcher booked appointments early enough
and made a follow up.

8
1.7.3 Bribe
The researcher encountered several respondents in Lungalunga subcounty who asked for
money before giving information. To overcome this challenge, the researcher presented
the introduction letter from the Kenya Institute of Management – School of Management
as well as appealed to respondents for their understanding, explaining how the study
could be of benefit to their community.

1.7.4 Delay in response

 Some respondents might take a lot of time filling the questionnaires. The researcher will
move around checking on the respondents.

9
 CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction
This chapter reviews relevant literature related to community participation, monitoring
and evaluation, financial management and their effects on sustainability of community-
based projects. The chapter also discusses the concept of project sustainability as well as
that of community participation, financial support and monitoring and evaluation with
focus on community participation in need analysis, project planning, project
implementation, financial support and project monitoring and evaluation and how they
affect sustainability of community-based projects and concludes by identifying key
knowledge gaps.

2.2 Review of Theoretical Literature

The theoretical framework is the structure that can hold or support a theory of a research
study. The theoretical framework introduces and describes the theory which explains why
the research problem under study exists. A theoretical framework consists of concepts,
together with their definitions, and existing theory/theories that are used for the particular
study (Torraco, 2011). This study is grounded on the participatory theory, theory of
change and financial distress theory.

2.2.1 Participatory Theory

Participation theory has a lot to tell about community-based projects, the theory provides
that effective participation of important stakeholders of the related project can enhance
enduring project impact. Jennings (2000) defined participation, as the total involvement
by a local population and at times, addition stakeholders in the creation, content and
conduct a project or policy designed to change their lives, built on the belief that, citizens
can be trusted to shape their own future. Therefore, participatory theory encourages
mutual involvement of all stakeholders, especially the use of local communities’
decision-making capabilities and capacities to guide and define the nature of an
intervention. Participation of community is not about sharing of benefits accrued from the
project instead it is the involvement of the vulnerable groups to be able to play a key role

10
in decisions that affect development. Paul, (1987) proposed five community participation
objectives as increasing project effectiveness and efficiency, project cost sharing,
building beneficiary capacity and empowerment. All these objectives lead to project
sustainability. The ability of a development initiative to continue to benefit the locals by
government taking over the programs after the donor fizzles financial support is referred
to as sustainability, Joaquin, (1998) and Lyson, Stephens & Smuts (2001). Community
participation is evidenced by two global projects the Orangi Pilot Project and the
Grameen Bank in South Asia Uphoff, (1997). In order to ensure that there are
development initiatives that are sustainable, the locals have to participate in all stages of
project development and implementation. This reduces cases where locals are
marginalized as they are assumed to lack knowledge on how a project should be handled.
Therefore, guidelines must be set that will ensure active participation by the locals for the
process to be effective. Ofori, (2008) in his study came out with five stages of local
participation as initial, planning & design, execution and monitoring. Relevant
stakeholders should add value to each stage so that the project will achieve the targets set
successfully. Mikkelsen (2005) identified three main forms of local involvement in
projects as coerced induced and spontaneous participation. These forms of involvement
engage the communities at different extents therefore determining whether a project will
be sustainable or not sustainable. These forms of participation are described as follows;

Induced participation whereby decisions are made for the beneficiaries but people are
consulted or involved as though their views are of relevance. It is the initial development
strategy of DFRD whereby important decisions were made from ‘above’ and locals were
only involved during implementation stages. However, this contributed to failure of this
strategy in terms of ensuring sustainability of projects. The technocrats after designing
plans, they handed them over to stakeholders without any opportunity for their input in
the plan preparation process. Another form of participation is coerced participation which
forces beneficiary groups to participate in decision making process and implementation
of such decisions whereby there is normally a sanction for non-participation. People who
are compelled into decision making and implementation in most cases do not feel part of
decision making and implementation process hence there is lack of ownership and
sustainability of such projects. Spontaneous participation is also another form of

11
participation which arises as a result of common interest which may or may not be
threatened. In this form of community involvement, locals share ideas, think critically
about views hence there is clear understanding by the community and this makes such
decisions sustainable. Locals feel part of the project therefore their ownership and
sustainability are evident.

2.2.2 Theory of change

This section explains how and why you might use a theory of change when
commissioning and managing an evaluation. It explains options for how it will be
developed or revised, how it will be represented, and how it will be used. A theory of
change explains how the activities undertaken by an intervention (such as a project,
program or policy) contribute to a chain of results that lead to the intended or observed
impacts. A theory of change is often developed during the planning stage but can also be
useful for monitoring and evaluation. A good theory of change can help to: develop better
Key Evaluation Questions, identify key indicators for monitoring, identify gaps in
available data, prioritize additional data collection, and provide a structure for data
analysis and reporting. Depending on the timing, a theory of change can be used to
anticipate what will happen, and establish data collection processes to track changes
going forward, or used to make sense of what has happened and the data that have
already been collected.

A theory of change can provide a framework for a “performance story” – a coherent

narrative about how the intervention makes particular contributions. This can be useful
for communicating about the intervention to potential partners, participants and
policymakers, and for also providing a consistent point of reference for those involved in
implementing and managing it. A theory of change is not just a list of activities with
arrows to intended outcomes. It needs to explain how these changes are understood to
come about and the role the intervention will play in this – and the role of other factors,
including other interventions. It therefore identifies one or more causal mechanisms by
which change comes about for individuals, groups and/or communities while explaining
how interventions are constructed to activate their theory of change in terms of the

12
activities that will be undertaken and what level of success will be needed for each result
to produce the final intended impact.

2.2.3 Financial Literacy Theory

Financial literacy theory argues that the behavior of people with a high level of financial
literacy might depend on the prevalence of two thinking styles according to dual-process
theories: intuition and cognition. Dual-process theories embrace the idea that decisions
can be driven by both intuitive and cognitive process. Dual process theories have been
applied to several fields, including reasoning and social cognition (Evans 2008).
Financial literacy covers the combination of community understanding of financial
products and concepts and their ability and confidence to appreciate financial risks and
opportunities, to make informed choices, to know where to go for help, and to take other
effective actions to improve their financial wellbeing (Atkinson and Messy, 2005).
Financial literacy empowers community members by educating them to acquire relevant
knowledge and skills in financial management on projects for the realization of the
project sustainability. Financial knowledge helps to overcome most difficulties in
advanced projects. Financial literacy allows the donors and beneficiaries to encounter
difficult financial times, through strategies that mitigate risk such as accumulating
savings, diversifying assets, and purchasing insurance for the projects. More importantly,
financial literacy enhances decision making processes such as payment of bills on time,
proper debt management which improves the credit worthiness of potential borrowers to
support livelihoods, economic growth, sound financial systems, and poverty reduction.
Financial literacy leads to more effective use of financial products and services, greater
control of one's financial future and reduced vulnerability to overzealous retailers.
Financially literate investors and community are able to create competitive pressures on
financial institutions to offer more appropriately priced and transparent services, by
comparing options, asking the right questions, and negotiating more effectively. Investors
are able to evaluate and compare financial products, such as bank accounts, saving
products, credit and loan options, payment instruments, investments, insurance coverage,
so as to make optimal decisions (Miller et al 2009). Greenspan (2002) argues that
financial literacy helps to inculcate individuals with the financial knowledge necessary to
13
create household budgets, initiate savings plans, and make strategic investment decisions.
Proper application of that knowledge helps investors to meet their financial obligations
through wise planning, and resource allocation so as to derive maximum utility for the
projects. The theory relates to budgetary allocation on monitoring and evaluation on
performance of water projects on this study

2.3 Review of Critical Literature

2.3.1 Community Participation

There are many definitions of sustainability and even more interpretations of its meaning.
International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) Strategic Framework (2007)
defines project sustainability as the ability to ensure that the institutions supported
through projects and the benefits realized are maintained and continue after the end of the
project’s external funding. Sustainability has also been defined as the ability of a
development project to maintain or expand a flow of benefits at a specified level for a
long period after project inputs have ceased, (Hodgkin, 1994). A project is sustainable if
the community/beneficiaries are capable on their own without the assistance of outside
development partners, to continue producing results for their benefit for as long as their
problem still exists (Luvenga et al., 2015). Narayan (1993) describes project
sustainability as the capacity to maintain services and benefits both at the community and
institution levels without detrimental effects even after special assistance such as
financial, technical, managerial has been phased out. It is the probability that a project
shall continue long after the outside support is withdrawn.

It is critical to the success of community-based projects that various elements of

sustainability be considered throughout each stage of the project lifecycle. This is
particularly true where outside involvement is discontinued after project closure, as is the
case for many development projects, (Ostrom, 2010). A number of considerations have
been identified as critical to achieving sustainability in community-based projects.
Luvenga et al. (2015) identify community participation, project results and external
assistance as the most important elements. According to Aras and Crowther (2008), there
are four elements of sustainability which need to be recognized and analyzed. They
include: Community Influence, which measures the impact a community makes upon the

14
project in terms of the social contract and stakeholder influence; Environmental Impact,
which is the impact of the project on its geophysics environment; Organizational Culture,
which is the relationships between the project’s internal stakeholders; and Finances, an
adequate return for the level of risk undertaken in pursuit of sustainable development and
financial sustainability. United Nations (UN) designates three pillars of sustainability:
economic, social, and environmental (United Nations, 2002). McConville and Mihelcic
(2007) further subdivide the social pillar into three components: socio-cultural respect,
community participation, and political cohesion. This study focuses on community
participation, monitoring and evaluation as well as financial management.

Participation is a concept that has been popularized in community development programs

since the 1970s. The approach is as a result of recognition of failures of top-down
approach to community-based projects. The past several decades of development funding
has demonstrated the failures of the top-down approach, (Nici and Wright, 1997).
Khwaja (2004) attributes lack of community participation as a possible reason for these
failures. In an evaluation of a World Bank project in the Philippines, it was found out that
during a ten-year period, the National Irrigation Administration shifted from a top down
government approach to heavy reliance on the local farmers in the design, operation and
maintenance of local irrigation systems. It was discovered that the canals and structures
worked better, rice yields were 20% higher and the irrigated area was 35% greater than in
control groups without participation (World Bank, 1991). Easterly (2006) contends that
while a lot of money has been allocated to developing countries’ projects, there is
shockingly little growth to show for it. He argues that this occurs when bureaucratic
interventions by governments, foreign agencies, or transnational conglomerates impose
top-down solutions that fail to take into account both the needs and wishes of the bottom.

In an evaluation of community development projects funded by the Agha Khan Rural

Support Programme in Northern Pakistan, Khwaja (2003a) found that community
managed projects were better maintained than projects managed by the local government.
Khwaja’s (2003a) study suggests that since community managed projects are better
maintained, they are also more sustainable than those managed by local governments.
Narayan (1993) analyzed lessons from 121 rural water-supply projects funded by
different agencies in 49 developing countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America. He
15
found that participation was the most significant factor contributing to project
sustainability. Most of the projects referred to community participation or made it a
specific project component. It was when people were involved in decision-making during
all stages of the project, from design to maintenance that the best results occurred. If they
were just involved in information sharing and consultations, then results were much
poorer. According to Barasa and Jelagat (2013), unless people are central actors in
activities and programs that affect their lives, the impact of such interventions would
either be negative, irrelevant or insignificant as far as transforming people's lives is
concerned. When communities are involved in project initiation and implementation,
there is the assurance of sustainability subject to some conditions unlike when they have
no idea about the project or when it is imposed on them, (Musa, 2002). Analyzing the
performance of water systems in six countries (Benin, Bolivia, Honduras, Indonesia,
Pakistan, and Uganda), Katz and Sara (1997) found that community participation
significantly increased sustainability and established a strong linkage between
participation of the household members and sustainability of the projects.

Although participation is now widely endorsed as an essential component of achieving

project sustainability, there is less consensus about what it means and how to achieve it.
The way it is defined largely depends on the context and background in which
participation is applied. International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED)
examined over 200 purportedly "participatory" projects and found that, in practice,
participation meant anything from passive "listening" only (the Project does the planning,
the people do what the Project decides), through to communities defining their own
objectives and implementing and monitoring the project themselves. Bass et al. (1995)
define participation as a sharing in all the tasks ultimately affecting a group of people.
The tasks include the strategic tasks of information gathering, analysis, decision-making,
implementation, capacity-building, and monitoring and evaluation. Olukotun (2008)
describes participation as a sort of partnership which is built upon the basis of dialogue
among the various actors during which the agenda is jointly set and local views and
indigenous knowledge are deliberately sought and respected.

Barasa and Jelagat (2013) define participation as an active process by which beneficiaries
or groups influence the direction and execution of a development project with a view to
16
enhancing their well-being in terms of income, personal growth and self-reliance.
Community members must own and control the process by making decisions as to its
progress and design activities that will subsequently enable them achieve the desired
goal. What gives real meaning to popular participation is the collective effort by the
people concerned to pool their resources to attain their objectives. In this regard,
participation is viewed as an active process in which the participants take initiatives and
actions that are stimulated by their own thinking and by deliberations over which they
exert effective control, (Oakley, 1991). Participation occurs as a community organizes
itself and takes responsibility for managing its problems. Taking responsibility includes
identifying the problems, developing actions, putting them into place, and following
through (Cheetham, 2002).

Community participation in projects has several benefits. According to Musa (2002),

through participation, the community develops skills for collective action, maintenance
and sustainability. Barasa and Jelagat (2013) argue that community participation allows
people to build their capacities and identify and own the project, leading to efficiency and
sustainability. Okafor (2005) observes that when communities participate in their own
projects, the community becomes empowered, and there is greater efficiency,
transparency, accountability, enhanced service delivery and generally better project
outcomes. He further observes that community participation encourages donor
harmonization and can kick start local private contractors and service providers.
According to Mansuri and Rao (2004) community participation in projects leads to better
designed projects, better targeted benefits, more cost effective projects, more equitable
distribution of project benefits, less corruption, strengthens the capabilities of the
citizenry to undertake self-initiated development activities, improves the match between
what a community needs and what it obtains since the project will be more consistent
with the preference of the community.

Although community participation in projects has several benefits that promote

sustainability, it is important to recognize some of the challenges in the participatory
approach that may threaten sustainability of community-based projects. According to
Mulwa (2004), some communities have little or no organizational and managerial skills;
this is likely to lead to mismanagement and failure of the project. Participation does not
17
take place in a vacuum but in a socio-political context, social obstacles such as the
mentality of dependency, the culture of silence, domination of the local elite or gender
inequality reduce people’s participation in community projects therefore threatening
sustainability of the projects, (Kumar, 2002). Participation in community projects is
connected to power relations and politics within the community, thus, whenever a project
tries to promote participation, it has to be ready to confront the political context and its
consequences. As a result, the use of participation to drive community-based projects can
eventually give an opposite result, (Dudley, 1993).

Gender inequality in communities negatively influence participation of women in

community projects. Bergdall (1993) recognizes the fact that women form the bulk of
community labour force for community-based projects but are often marginalized when it
comes to access to information, decision making and access to opportunities for capacity
building, this may threaten sustainability of the projects. The need for a well-functioning
state apparatus does not disappear with active community participation in projects,
(Mansuri and Rao, 2004). Communities must lobby for continuing support for inputs and
training so that they can sustain such projects. Support from the government can be in
cash or in other kind, for instance, after the completion of a project like a school or health
center, a community would normally need teaching and non-teaching staff and also
health workers. The community may not be in a position to provide them except with
government support. Community participation in need analysis and sustainability of
community-based projects is the process of identifying and evaluating needs in a
community. A need is a gap between what is and what should be, (Witkin and Altschuld,
1995). A need has also been defined as a gap between real and ideal that is both
acknowledged by community values and potentially amendable to change (Reviere et al.,
1996). Need analysis focuses on the future, or what should be done, rather than on what
was done as is the focus of most program evaluations, (Titcomb, 2000). Need analysis
begins with identification of needs or the realization that there is a need. Stakeholders
identify and prioritize the core of the problems and their causes and effects (Regional
Partnership for Resource Development RPRD, 2009). Community participation in need
identification is important because once the community collectively conceives a problem
and prioritizes it, they then move it to the stage of appreciating its extent and legitimize

18
the process of solving it. If they do not participate in needs identification, even if the need
is identified with the assistance of the outside world, they will not legitimize it. This leads
to poor sustainability since there is a greater chance of stalling at the implementation
stage, (Barasa and Jelagat, 2013). There ought to be genuine demand by a community or
groups within it for all projects whether aided or non-aided by the government or any
development agency. This eliminates the tendency to abandon the projects when they are
half-way completed and sustains the interest of communities or groups within them in
maintenance and protection of those projects, (Musa, 2002). Community’s needs should
be the primary purpose for any development planning and intervention, other
developmental concerns should be secondary, (Barasa and Jelagat, 2013).

Once the problem has been identified, an evaluation or analysis of the problem is done.
Stakeholders discuss the problem exhaustively before a consensus is built. Such a
discussion is aimed at understanding the problem, how it affects the community and its
extent. This shared understanding provides a solid foundation for finding ways of solving
the problem. It also helps to clarify the scope of the problem at hand and the resource
available. The community is also able to set the objectives, goals and how the intended
development will proceed (Mulwa, 2008). If solutions to community issues are identified
and rectified by community developed remedies, ones that better understand the delicate
intricacies of local issues, success and sustainability of community-based projects are
much more likely, (Easterly, 2006). Need analysis can be both a process and a method.
As a process, it can build leadership, group unity, and a sense of local involvement in the
community project. Some needs analysis techniques, including surveys and focus groups,
provide participants an opportunity to express their opinions on community issues. As a
method, a needs analysis is a tool that helps to move the mission of the development
organization or government through decision making and implementing strategies. To be
successful, need analysis must be comprehensive and require active planning and
involvement from key players in the targeted community, (Titcomb, 2000).

After a consensus has been reached on the most appropriate interventions for a particular
community problem, stakeholders can proceed with planning the interventions. Hague et
al., (2003) defines participatory planning as a set of processes through which diverse
groups and interests engage together in reaching a consensus on a plan and its
19
implementation. Planning is a communication process where people with different views
and ideas share on how a desired situation should look like and how they are likely to get
there and how to express these ideas together and reach a consensus. Through
communication people can achieve the commitment necessary to sustain the decision
taken by them. Planning therefore implies control of the process, (Chikati, 2009). In the
planning stage of a project cycle, the problem is discussed further by focusing on project
design and costing of activities, the budget, resource mobilization, implementation plan
and schedule, expected completion date, and evaluation plan, (Barasa and Jelagat, 2013).
Planning involves clearly formulating objectives of each intervention, describing how
each intervention will meet the desired objectives, identifying the roles and
responsibilities of the participants in the project, estimating which resources are needed,
establishing a time frame and establish a monitoring and evaluation system, (Lefevre et
al., 2000). For effective and sustainable development to be realized, the community,
which is the major beneficiary of the project, must participate through project
implementation committees in, project planning and other aspects such as budgeting,
resource identification, procurement and allocation of resources (Mulwa, 2008). A
participatory planning process is one in which all the stakeholders are involved and is
often the most effective and inclusive way to plan a community intervention. Experts are
needed, but only as facilitators. Plans prepared by outside experts, irrespective of their
technical soundness, cannot inspire the people to participate in their implementation,
(Jain and Polman, 2003). A participatory process provides community ownership and
support of the intervention as well as information about the community’s history and
politics, (Rabinowitz, 2015).

According to Hague et al., (2003), participatory planning can be initiated by any of the
parties involved in the project and the forms it will take and the timetables are likely to be
negotiated and agreed amongst participants. The process is rooted in the recognition that
a community is pluralist and there are legitimate conflicts of interest that have to be
addressed by the application of consensus building methods. Participatory planning is
culturally aware and sensitive to differences in power, and seeks to ensure that these do
not pre-determine outcomes and threaten sustainability of community projects. The
different parties need to exchange information to explore areas of common ground and

20
compromise and to find ways of reducing the extent and intensity of disagreements; this
promotes sustainability of community projects. Using survey data of water systems in Sri
Lanka and India, Isham and Kahkonen (2002) found that involving household members
in the design process and in the final decision about the type of system to build greatly
improved sustainability of the projects as the projects were better maintained by the
community. Hague et al., (2003) identify four ways in which community participation in
planning influence project sustainability: That participatory planning carries with it
feelings of ownership, and builds a strong base for the intervention in the community. If
people are integral to the planning of a community intervention, then that intervention
will be theirs. They have a stake in it not only as its beneficiaries or staff or sponsors, but
as its originators hence do what they can to see their work succeed; Participatory
planning approach avoids pitfalls caused by ignorance of the realities of the community;
Participatory planning involves important players from the outset. If the intervention
needs the support of a particular individual, or that of a particular agency or group, and
they have been part of the planning from the beginning, their cooperation is assured;
Participatory planning ensures that the intervention will have more credibility in all
segments of the community because it was planned by a group representing all segments
of the community. Once the community participation in planning is finalized it paves way
for implementation participation.

Community participation in project implementation phase is the execution phase where

visions and plans become reality. During the implementation process, all activities
designed at the planning stage are actualized and implemented by the people, (Mulwa,
2008). The implementation phase involves putting the project plan into action. It is here
that project resources are coordinated to meet objectives of the project plan. Stakeholders,
project staff, the community, and other resources are engaged to achieve a successful
outcome, (Barron and Barron, 2013). Most aspects of participatory implementation
process are planned during the design phase, in particular, the roles and responsibilities of
each stakeholder, contributions of the various stakeholders, commitments made by the
various stakeholders as well as implementation procedures including the work plan
(ALNAP, 2009). Many participatory projects rest on the establishment of committees for
the implementation phase, such as steering committees for overall management, or water

21
committees, community health work teams, etc. The presence of the community or their
elected representatives on project steering committees or boards or other supervisory or
decision-making bodies empowers the community to play an active role in project
implementation, (African Development Bank, 2001). Technical training and assistance to
build the community’s capacity for organizational and technical responsibilities during
project implementation also contribute to community’s empowerment and improves
chances for project sustainability once the technical and managerial assistance is
withdrawn, (African Development Bank, ADB 2001). Newman et al. (2002) reviewed 18
rural water projects in two regions in Bolivia and found that community-level training
(for example, on cleaning water tanks, repairing water tubes, and managing user fees)
was critical for improving water quality, project maintenance and consequently project
sustainability. ALNAP (2009) cautions that during project implementation, care should
be taken not to impose forms of organization that are foreign to the local community as
this can lead to lack of ownership, hinder the integration of committees in the community
as well as threaten sustainability of the community project. Community participation in
project implementation influences sustainability in several ways: it helps keep the project
relevant and adapted to a changing situation; it makes use of a wider range of resources,
skills and expertise and acknowledges and supports local capacities and expertise. The
community is able to contribute labour and/or materials as well as financial resources for
the project, (ALNAP, 2009). Involvement of people in project implementation and the
utilization of local resources generate a sense of ownership over the development
interventions by the local people, (Kumar, 2002).

2.3.2 Financial Management

Financial planning is an essential tool, whether in paper or computerized form Atkinson
et al (2007). These worksheets enable project team members to identify all the major
activities required to complete the project, as well as identifying the specific person
responsible for ensuring that the activity is completed successfully, the estimated actual
work time (e.g. number of work hours/days) and elapse time (e.g. period of days over
which the work will take place since staff do not spend all their time on just one activity -
they work on several activities or projects concurrently), and the financial and material or
other resources required for that activity Bonner and Sprinkle (2002). Once all major

22
activities are identified in this manner, the detailed planning charts can be completed by
breaking down each major activity into its various tasks Burchell et al (2000). Note that
each activity and task has its unique number to prevent any confusion in project
discussions on the work to be performed. Also, this tool specifies the individual
accountable for each activity; thus, helping to eliminate the “free rider” problem
frequently reported in group work Young, (2000).
With planning complete, the project implementation or execution phase can begin Bevan
and Hood, (2006). The Gantt chart continues to be used to monitor progress on the
project and identify problems, especially activities falling behind schedule. The use of
“milestones” is essential in planning and controlling projects Bonner et al (2000).
Milestones are placed at critical points in a project where major decisions must be made.
For example, a milestone (open triangle) was placed after the pre-testing of survey
questionnaire because the team would know whether the questionnaire was working as
intended or whether there were serious problems with the questionnaire (e.g.
misinterpreted questions). If there were serious problems, then financial management
would have to decide whether to start over with the development of another
questionnaire, to salvage the current questionnaire, replace the project manager, or
another option (Bouwens, 2003). The ability to accurately forecast cost performance
allows organizations or project teams to confidently allocate capital, reducing financial
risk, possibly reducing the cost of capital Brignall and Modell (2000). Measuring cycle
times can also mean measuring the length of time to complete any of the processes that
comprise the project life-cycle. The shorter the cycle times, the faster the investment is
returned to the organization. Center for Business Practices, (2000); Phillips, (2002) also
supports that time frame is a measure of project performance since the project is always
set to be completed in certain timeline so as to be relevant and viable. The other reason
why time is a measure of project performance is that it is also defines the product reach to
the market. Phillips, (2002). Stratton, n.d. also suggests that time has direct relationship
with the cost of the project since as more time lapses the cost of the project also
increases. The shorter the combined cycle time of all projects, the more projects the
organization can complete. Time frame includes: Financial evaluation whereby output
measures assess the quantity and quality of the end product, and outcome measures assess
the degree to which the end product achieves the program or project objectives Burgess
23
and Ratto (2003),. Stratton, further supports that output is supported by quality and it is a
key measure of project performance in terms of rework, quality of workmanship and
defect removal rate as well Abernethy et al (2004). Meeting requirements is one of the
key success factors for project management. To measure this factor, you need to develop
measures of fit, which means the solution completely satisfies the requirement. A
requirements performance index can measure the degree to which project results meet
requirements. Types of requirements that might be measured include functional
requirements (something the product must do or an action it must take), non-functional
requirements (a quality the product must have, such as usability, performance). Fit
criteria are usually derived sometime after the requirement description is first written.
You derive the fit criterion by closely examining the requirement and determining what
quantification best expresses the user’s intention for the requirement. Another dimension
for output is productivity. Center for Business Practices, (2000) also supports that process
errors, reworks and defects are some of the components of output thus further agrees that
output is a unit of measure for project performance. Productivity is output produced per
unit of input. Productivity measures whether you’re getting your money’s worth from
your resources to the organization. Typically, the resources have to do with people, but
not in all instances. A straightforward way to normalize productivity measurement across
organizations is to use revenue per employee as the key metric. Dividing revenue per
employee by the average fully burdened salary per employee yields a ratio; productivity
ratio.

Another time frame is financial control such that organizations are required to use funds
wisely for the purpose intended and improve the living standards of the populations
meant to benefit Lent, (2004). Often, uses of funds are diverted to serve other interest of
the organization managers outside the scope and work plans of these projects Anthony
and Young (2003). This has resulted in surprise audits where misuses of funds are
suspected by financiers and in the extreme cases bank accounts have been frozen to
minimize the extent. Good financial management practices demand that obvious key
management concepts and principles such as sustainability, accountability and
transparency which are necessary for institutionalized formal procedures are put in place
administrative efficiency.

24
2.3.3 Monitoring and Evaluation
Project monitoring is stakeholders’ continuous process of tracking performance
indicators of project initiatives. This ensures that project implementation proceeds as
anticipated and modifications to designs and plans are effected on the basis of arising
need for change based on the external and internal policy environment. Evaluation and
control on the other hand involve systematic assessment of effectiveness and efficiency
on project achievement while determining the gaps for remedial policy formulations.
These processes assess the utilization of resources providing basis for improving the
existing strategy that enhances post implementation sustainability. End user’s active
involvement in demand specification for development initiatives is one of the drivers of
process innovation Hakkinen and Belloni, (2011). In management of projects, monitoring
can be used to improve the way governments and Private organizations achieve results
and ensure project sustainability. This can be ensured through investing in strengthening
a national monitoring and evaluation system; which is important as it saves resources that
may otherwise be spent in inefficient programs or overlapping activities supported by
different partners (Global Fund, 2004).

A mature and sustained monitoring and evaluation system has the potential to lead the
organization towards meeting its responsibilities and achieving its goals, even when faced
with socio-political crises that mar the development sector so often (IFAD, 2002).
Monitoring and evaluation systems are designed ―to inform project management of
whether implementation is going as planned or corrective action is needed. A well-
designed Monitoring and Evaluation system provides data on the progress of a project
and whether it is meeting objectives (World Bank, 2002).

Globally, Monitoring and evaluation systems have been in existence since the ancient
times Kusek (2004), however today, the requirements for Monitoring and Evaluation
systems as a management tool to show performance has grown with demand by
stakeholders for accountability and transparency through the application of the
monitoring and evaluation by the Non-Governmental Organizations and other institutions
including the government (Gorgens et al, 2010). Development banks and bilateral aid
agencies also regularly apply Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) to measure development
effectiveness as well as demonstrate transparency (Briceno, 2010). In the UK, the largest
25
NGOs are struggling with the complex issues associated with aggregating their
experience on large scale (Davies, 2000). In Yemen, Monitoring and Evaluation
functions of a project were carried out by the Monitoring and Evaluation department of a
government agency responsible for Monitoring and Evaluation in several projects using
national guidelines. This agency had much experience and was able to commence project
Monitoring and Evaluation activities at an early stage. However, the agency did not have
direct access to the project’s Monitoring and Evaluation resources and had limited funds.
Obtaining authorization for activities and resources was a lengthy procedure. This
affected Monitoring and Evaluation budgeting and adoption of Monitoring and
Evaluation systems recommended by the project. The government agency did not
prioritize Monitoring and Evaluation for this project and so the organizational structure
was hindering effective adoption of Monitoring and Evaluation systems (Furman, 2001).

A United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) report of 2012 reviewed the key
challenges to M&E systems in South Sudan as part of a broader review of UNDP
activities supported by the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
(UNDP, 2012). Based on additional interview-based reviews and analyses of Monitoring
and Evaluation activities, a list of adaptations to standardized Monitoring and Evaluation
procedures in response to post-conflict environmental challenges was developed. The
findings of the report were that development and implementation of Monitoring and
Evaluation systems in post-conflict environments required extensive adaptations to
conventional procedures. Flexible and adaptable as well as 'diplomatically sensitized'
Monitoring and Evaluation systems are considered to be essential to the successful
completion of Monitoring and Evaluation related activities, and may also contribute to
broader international relations, 'nation-building', and peace-keeping goals. The
Department for International Development (DFID) South Sudan works with partner
institutions to ensure that all new projects have a monitoring strategy, including metadata
for project monitoring, plans for data collection, reporting, project evaluation and risk
management. These will include partnerships with third parties with specialist expertise
in specific sectors (DFID, 2014). Accordingly, the implementing partners are responsible
for day to day project monitoring. For each new Project, DFID has the responsibility of
deciding whether an independent evaluation is required depending on its size, strategic

26
importance, and degree of novelty and the strength of pre-existing evidence. The
outcomes of the evaluations are shared with partners and stakeholders. DFID South
Sudan also identifies a staff member to be trained and accredited to the evaluation cadre
to provide advice and support to the office (DFID, 2014).

The Kenya social protection sector review (2012), that focused on main project in the
social protection sector in Kenya, conducted through literature review, landscape survey
and in-depth interviews with project implementers, states that not many project in Kenya
have a functional Monitoring and Evaluation systems, despite it being accredited for
promoting transparency and accountability. This was attributed to project not allocating
the required resources at the design stage of the Monitoring and Evaluation systems.
There was also an inconsistency in the choice of performance indicators among the
Kenyan projects which led to incoherent and incomprehensive Monitoring and
Evaluation systems. The review also established that although Monitoring and Evaluation
rarely influenced the decision-making process, its information was being used to inform
project designs as well as inform policies. The review also notes that the country relies
much on Monitoring and Evaluation international consultants and therefore recommends
capacity building of national and progressive wean program of civil servants (locals)
because they will stay in the sector over the long term. The study by Koffi-Tessio (2002),
on efficacy and efficiency of Monitoring-Evaluation Systems (MES) for Projects
financed by the Bank Group that was done in Burkina Faso, Mauritania, Kenya, Rwanda
and Mozambique, through desk review and interviews, for projects approved between
1987 and 2000. Monitoring-Evaluation systems are not meeting their obligatory
requirements as decision making tool; instead their activities are viewed as controlling by
a bureaucratic management. The poor acquisition of the appropriate Monitoring and
Evaluation systems by NGOs is also attributed to the organizations over emphasis on the
physical infrastructure (for instance computer equipment’s, working capital etc.) rather
than methodological and conceptual training.

Monitoring and evaluation have been in existence since the ancient times (Kusek and
Rist, 2004), however today, the requirements for Monitoring and Evaluation as a
management tool to show performance has grown with demand by stakeholders for
accountability and transparency through the application of the monitoring and evaluation
27
(Gorgens et al., 2010). Development banks and bilateral aid agencies also. Zubair, Muhd,
Majid and Mushairry (2006) carried out a study called a systematic approach for
monitoring and evaluating the project progress. The objective of this study was to
identify techniques that can be used in the construction industry for monitoring and
evaluating the physical progress, and also to establish how current computer technology
can be utilized for monitoring the actual physical progress at the construction site. They
discussed the results of questionnaire survey conducted within Malaysian Construction
Industry and suggests a prototype system, namely Digitalizing Construction Monitoring
(DCM). Using emerging technologies and information system the DCM re-engineer the
traditional practice for monitoring the project progress. The study revealed that the
system can automatically interpret drawings of buildings and extract data on its structural
components and store in database. It can also extract the engineering information from
digital images and when these two databases are simulated the percentage of progress can
be calculated and viewed in Microsoft Project automatically.

Tache (2011) carried out a study called developing an integrated Monitoring and
Evaluation flow for Sustainable Investment Projects in Romania. the objective of the
study was to develop a general integrated flow, encompassing both a project monitoring
system and also a project evaluation system for the investment projects involving
economic objectives, as well as cross-cutting social and environmental targets. The whole
approach was being presented as a flowchart, which highlights the intimate relationship
between the monitoring and evaluation processes, and provides a formal framework for
performing a logical monitoring and evaluation process, taking into account
simultaneously the economic, social and environmental perspectives, within an
investment project. The study used critical analysis and found that both the estimated
advantages and the disadvantages of such a managerial tool, opening new perspectives
for developing further improved models and systems. Where Monitoring and Evaluation
affect positively the sustainability of the projects in Romania. Paulinus and Iyenemi
(2014) carried out a study called Monitoring and Evaluation rural water supply projects
and sustainable development in Nigeria and Ghana. The study reviews the sustainability
issues that are associated with rural community water provision and some of the
challenges experienced in the Niger Delta region of Nigeria within the context of project

28
benefits sustenance. The sustainability of this approach to water provision was assessed
using a qualitative research methodology and undertaking a comparative review of
Micro-Projects Programme (MPP3) in Nigeria with that of Volta Region Community
Water Supply Programme (VRCWSP). The findings reveal the absence of sustainability
in the current approach and the paper recommends that if community-based hand pump
operated rural water supply projects are to be sustainable; the sustainability factors must
be given full consideration in its design and implementation.

Zvoushe and Gideon (2013) analyzed the utilization of Monitoring and Evaluation
Systems by Development Agencies, the Case of the UNDP in Zimbabwe. They examined
the utilization of Monitoring and Evaluation Systems (M&Es) by international
development agencies, using the UNDP in Zimbabwe as the case study. It does not have
a standalone monitoring and evaluation department. The study used documentary
analysis and found that, there is low note systematic use of evaluation findings from
previous programs while its evaluation approaches have a disturbing skew towards the
quantitative. Such overly quantitative approaches carry the risk of sidelining the impact
of contextual factors in development programs and projects. Karanja (2014) investigated
the influence of management practices on sustainability of projects in Kangema District
(Kenya). The objective of the study was to assess the influence of management practices
on sustainability of the projects in Kangema District, Murang’a County, Kenya. Project
monitoring is stakeholders’ continuous process of tracking performance indicators of
project initiatives. This ensures that project implementation proceeds as anticipated and
modifications to designs and plans are effected on the basis of arising need for change
based on the external and internal policy environment. Evaluation and control on the
other hand involve systematic assessment of effectiveness and efficiency on project
achievement while determining the gaps for remedial policy formulations. These
processes assess the utilization of resources providing basis for improving the existing
strategy that enhances post implementation sustainability. End user’s active involvement
in demand specification for development initiatives is one of the drivers of process
innovation Hakkinen and Belloni, (2011).

In management of projects, monitoring can be used to improve the way governments and
Private organizations achieve results and ensure project sustainability. This can be
29
ensured through investing in strengthening a national monitoring and evaluation system;
which is important as it saves resources that may otherwise be spent in inefficient
programs or overlapping activities supported by different partners (Global Fund, 2004).

A mature and sustained monitoring and evaluation system has the potential to lead the
organization towards meeting its responsibilities and achieving its goals, even when faced
with socio-political crises that mar the development sector so often (IFAD, 2002).
Monitoring and evaluation systems are designed ―to inform project management of
whether implementation is going as planned or corrective action is needed. A well-
designed Monitoring and Evaluation system provides data on the progress of a project
and whether it is meeting objectives (World Bank, 2002).

Globally, Monitoring and evaluation systems have been in existence since the ancient
times Kusek (2004), however today, the requirements for M&E systems as a management
tool to show performance has grown with demand by stakeholders for accountability and
transparency through the application of the monitoring and evaluation by the NGOs and
other institutions including the government (Gorgens et al, 2010). Development banks
and bilateral aid agencies also regularly apply Monitoring and Evaluation to measure
development effectiveness as well as demonstrate transparency (Briceno, 2010). In the
UK, the largest NGOs are struggling with the complex issues associated with aggregating
their experience on large scale (Davies, 2000). In Yemen, Monitoring and Evaluation
functions of a project were carried out by the Monitoring and Evaluation department of a
government agency responsible for Monitoring and Evaluation in several projects using
national guidelines. This agency had much experience and was able to commence project
Monitoring and Evaluation activities at an early stage. However, the agency did not have
direct access to the project’s Monitoring and Evaluation resources and had limited funds.
Obtaining authorization for activities and resources was a lengthy procedure. This
affected Monitoring and Evaluation budgeting and adoption of Monitoring and
Evaluation systems recommended by the project. The government agency did not
prioritize M&E for this project and so the organizational structure was hindering effective
adoption of M&E systems (Furman, 2001).

30
A United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) report of 2012 reviewed the key
challenges to Monitoring and Evaluation systems in South Sudan as part of a broader
review of UNDP activities supported by the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis
and Malaria (UNDP, 2012). Based on additional interview-based reviews and analyses of
Monitoring and Evaluation activities, a list of adaptations to standardized Monitoring and
Evaluation procedures in response to post-conflict environmental challenges was
developed. The findings of the report were that development and implementation of
Monitoring and Evaluation systems in post-conflict environments required extensive
adaptations to conventional procedures. Flexible and adaptable as well as 'diplomatically
sensitized' Monitoring and Evaluation systems are considered to be essential to the
successful completion of Monitoring and Evaluation related activities, and may also
contribute to broader international relations, 'nation-building', and peace-keeping goals.
The Department for International Development (DFID) South Sudan works with partner
institutions to ensure that all new projects have a monitoring strategy, including metadata
for project monitoring, plans for data collection, reporting, project evaluation and risk
management. These will include partnerships with third parties with specialist expertise
in specific sectors (DFID, 2014). Accordingly, the implementing partners are responsible
for day to day project monitoring. For each new Project, DFID has the responsibility of
deciding whether an independent evaluation is required depending on its size, strategic
importance, and degree of novelty and the strength of pre-existing evidence. The
outcomes of the evaluations are shared with partners and stakeholders. DFID South
Sudan also identifies a staff member to be trained and accredited to the evaluation cadre
to provide advice and support to the office (DFID, 2014).

The Kenya social protection sector review (2012), that focused on main project in the
social protection sector in Kenya, conducted through literature review, landscape survey
and in-depth interviews with project implementers, states that not many project in Kenya
have a functional Monitoring and Evaluation systems, despite it being accredited for
promoting transparency and accountability. This was attributed to project not allocating
the required resources at the design stage of the Monitoring and Evaluation systems.
There was also an inconsistency in the choice of performance indicators among the
Kenyan projects which led to incoherent and incomprehensive Monitoring and

31
Evaluation systems. The review also established that although Monitoring and Evaluation
rarely influenced the decision-making process, its information was being used to inform
project designs as well as inform policies. The review also notes that the country relies
much on Monitoring and Evaluation international consultants and therefore recommends
capacity building of national and progressive wean program of civil servants (locals)
because they will stay in the sector over the long term. The study by Koffi-Tessio (2002),
on Efficacy and Efficiency of Monitoring-Evaluation Systems (MES) for Projects
financed by the Bank Group that was done in Burkina Faso, Mauritania, Kenya, Rwanda
and Mozambique, through desk review and interviews, for projects approved between
1987 and 2000. Monitoring-Evaluation systems are not meeting their obligatory
requirements as decision making tool; instead their activities are viewed as controlling by
a bureaucratic management. The poor acquisition of the appropriate Monitoring and
Evaluation systems by NGOs is also attributed to the organizations over emphasis on the
physical infrastructure (for instance computer equipment’s, working capital etc.) rather
than methodological and conceptual training.

Kimweli (2013) analyzed the role of monitoring and evaluation practices to the success
of donor funded food security intervention projects in Kenya. The purpose of the study
was to find out the role of monitoring and evaluation practices to the success of donor
funded food security intervention projects. The study targeted residents of Kibwezi
district who have benefited from donor funded food security projects. The study utilized a
case study design because it was considered a robust research method particularly when a
holistic and in-depth investigation is required. A sample of 40 respondents was selected
from four Locations; Makindu, Nzambani, Masongaleni and Mtito Andei; from the larger
Kibwezi district through purposive sampling. Data was collected through a questionnaire
with 10 questions where respondents indicated responses on statements in a Likert scale.
Data from Semi structured interviews from key informants, focused discussion groups
and the government officers who had been involved in these projects were used for
triangulation. Quantitative data collected was analyzed using MS Excel 2010. The study
established that the community was not involved in any monitoring and evaluation of the
food security intervention projects. The findings of the study indicated that food security

32
project implementing agencies to recognize the role played by participatory monitoring
and evaluation (P M & E) practices in the success and sustainability of the projects.

Ochieng, Paul, Ruth and Kuto (2012) analyzed the effectiveness of monitoring and
evaluation of Constituency Development Fund (CDF) projects in Kenya. a case of
Ainamoi constituency. The objective of the study was to look at the effectiveness of
monitoring and evaluation process on CDF projects in Ainamoi constituency, Kenya. A
case study research design methodology is used where the target population comprises of
CDF members, selected constituents, Project Management Committee (PMC), and
District Development Officer (DDO). The results of the study showed that PMC, CDFC
and external assessors are involved in monitoring and evaluation of projects with minimal
participation of constituents.

Andove and Mike (2015) assessed how monitoring and evaluation affects the outcome of
constituency development fund projects in Kenya. The aim of the study was to establish
whether the project monitoring and control efforts of the contractors and project
supervisors contribute to an improved project outcome. A field survey was conducted
using a sample of 45 respondents who were selected by stratified random sampling. The
data were collected using structured questionnaires and analyzed using Statistical
Package for Social Sciences. The results of the study revealed that contractors and project
supervisors apply monitoring tools to a certain level in their project operations
consequently producing satisfactory levels of success. The findings further revealed that
most constituency development fund projects in Kenya were completed within the
stipulated time frame and budget and that majority of the respondents considered them a
success. Jackson, Joseph, and Ben (2015) analyzed factors affecting the effectiveness of
monitoring and evaluation of constituency development fund projects in Kenya. The
objective of the study was to establish the factors affecting monitoring and evaluation on
the projects with reference to technical capacity, political influence, stakeholders’
participation, and budgetary allocation of Constituency Development Fund (CDF)
projects in Kenya. Descriptive research design was used. The target population was all
the Project Management Committee (PMC) and Constituency Development Fund (CDF)
members. Stratified random sampling was used to get the sample.

33
Monitoring and evaluation have been in existence since the ancient times (Kusek and
Rist, 2004), however today, the requirements for M&E as a management tool to show
performance has grown with demand by stakeholders for accountability and transparency
through the application of the monitoring and evaluation (Gorgens et al., 2010).
Development banks and bilateral aid agencies also regularly apply M&E to measure
development effectiveness as well as demonstrate transparency (Briceno, 2010).
Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) are important management tools used to track
progress of a project and facilitate decision making, (Sera & Beaudry, 2007). United
Nations Development Programme (2002) defines monitoring as a continuing function
that aims primarily to provide the management and stakeholders of an ongoing
intervention with early indications of progress. Shapiro (2002) defines monitoring as the
systematic collection and analysis of information as a project progresses. Monitoring has
also been described by International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
(2011) as the routine collection and analysis of information to track progress against set
plans and check compliance to established standards. Evaluation on the other hand has
been defined as the systematic and objective assessment of an on-going or completed
project, program, or policy, and its design, implementation and results, with the aim of
determining the relevance and fulfillment of objectives, efficiency, effectiveness, impact
and performance, (International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies,
IFRC; RCS, 2011).A project that has evolved through participatory processes of
identification, planning and implementation should of necessity be appraised in the same
spirit with the key stakeholders maintaining a key role throughout the process, (Barasa &
Jelagat, 2013). Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation is a process through which
stakeholders at various levels engage in monitoring or evaluating a particular project,
program or policy, share control over the content, the process and the results of
Monitoring and Evaluation activity and engage in taking or identifying corrective actions,
(Philip et al., 2008). Conventionally, Monitoring and Evaluation has involved outside
experts coming in to measure performance against pre-set indicators, using standardized
procedures and tools. In contrast, participatory Monitoring and Evaluation focuses on the
active engagement of primary stakeholders, (World Bank,2010). Stakeholders and
community’s representatives therefore participate jointly in drawing up the terms of
reference for Monitoring and Evaluation. The process ensures local ownership and
34
commitment not only to the exercise and its outcome but more importantly, to the future
of the project evolution, (Barasa & Jelagat, 2013).

According to the World Bank (2010), Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) is critical in
project performance given that it offers new ways of assessing and learning from change
that are more inclusive and more responsive to the needs and aspirations of those most
directly affected; is geared towards not only measuring the effectiveness of a project, but
also towards building ownership, empowering beneficiaries, building accountability and
transparency and taking corrective actions to improve performance and outcomes.
Participation in Monitoring and Evaluation has much less meaning if population
members and local stakeholders have not been involved much earlier in the project cycle,
(ALNAP, 2009).In an evaluation of community development projects funded by the
Agha Khan Rural Support Programme (AKRSP) in Northern Pakistan, Khwaja (2003)
found that community managed projects were better maintained than projects managed
by the local government. Khawaja’s (2003) study suggests that since community
managed projects are better maintained, they are also more sustainable than those
managed by local governments. Narayan (1993) analyzed lessons from 121 rural water-
supply projects funded by different agencies in 49 developing countries in Africa, Asia
and Latin America. He found that participation was the most significant factor
contributing to project sustainability. Most of the projects referred to community
participation or made it a specific project component. It was when people were involved
in decision-making during all stages of the project, from design to maintenance that the
best results occurred. If they were just involved in information sharing and consultations,
then results were much poorer. Monitoring use separate tools and approaches, some of
which are either complementary or substitute to each other while others are either broad
or narrow (World Bank, 2008). Monitoring system tools include performance indicators,
logical framework approach, and theory-based monitoring, set surveys, rapid appraisal
methods, and participatory methods, public expenditure tracking surveys, impact
monitoring, cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analysis. The selection of these tools,
however, depend on the information needed, stakeholders and the cost involved (World
Bank, 2012). There are also two foremost methods of data collection which are regular
and less formal methods (Nabris, 2002). Regular methods although costly, they have a

35
high degree of reliability and validity and include surveys, participatory observations, and
direct measurements among others. Less regular methods which are as well rich in
information are subjective and intuitive, hence less precise in conclusion. They include,
among others, field visits, and unstructured interviews.

To increase the effectiveness of a Monitoring system, the monitoring plan and design
need to be prepared as a constituent part of the project (Nabris,2002). Evaluation is the
comparison of actual project impacts against the agreed strategic plans. It looks at what
was set out to be done, what was accomplished, and how it was accomplished and how
sustainable the project cam be. It can be formative; taking place during the life of a
project organization, with the intention of improving the strategy or way of functioning of
the project or organization. It can also be summative; drawing learning from a completed
project or an organization that is no longer functioning, (Shapiro, 2002). Monitoring and
evaluation (M&E) are essential components of results-based management (Rist, Boily &
Martin, 2011). Results-based management in community-based projects involves
deliberately gathering empirical evidence in order to know the extent to which intended
results are being achieved so that modifications to the design and delivery of activities
can be made to improve and account for performance in achieved intended outcome.
Furthermore, community-based projects successfully adopted. Results-based
management (RBM) will need to have appropriate systems and procedures in place that
collectively constitute an Results-based management regime (Mayne, 2007). There is a
constant demand for training in monitoring and evaluation for both project staff and
partners in projects (Gosling& Edwards, 2003). Monitoring and evaluation carried out by
untrained and inexperienced people is bound to be time consuming, costly and the results
generated could be impractical and irrelevant. Therefore, this will definitely impact the
projects (Nabris, 2002). Skills for numeracy, literacy, interviewing and monitoring in
qualitative and quantitative methods, for management information systems are necessary
for participatory monitoring and evaluation (Adan, 2012).Team members need to be
trained not only on collecting descriptive information about a project, but also on using
something called “values” to determine what information and to draw explicitly
evaluation inferences from the data, that is inferences that say something about the
quality, value or importance of something (Davidson, 2004).Players in the field of project

36
management like project and program managers as well as project beneficiaries,
monitoring and evaluation officers, project staff and external evaluators will require
specialized training not just in project management and monitoring and evaluation; but
specifically in areas like Participatory monitoring and evaluation and results based
monitoring and evaluation (Murunga, 2011).The increased level of emphasis given to
project outcomes as opposed to activities and output, has also brought some major
changes in the focus, approach and application of monitoring and evaluation systems
whereby as focus of management changes from activities to results, focus of monitoring
and evaluation also changes from the traditional monitoring and evaluation system, which
focuses on assessing inputs and implementation process (progress monitoring) to results-
based monitoring and evaluation system, which emphasizes assessment of the
contributions of interventions to development outcomes (Gebremedhin et al., 2010).
Building and sustaining a result-based monitoring and evaluation system is admittedly
not an easy task for it requires continuous commitment, champions, time, effort, and
resources. In addition, it may take several attempts before the system can be tailored to
suit a given governmental or organizational policy, program, or project; but it is doable
(Kusek, 2004). According to an IFAD (2008) annual report on project results
sustainability and impact, recurrent criticisms against monitoring and evaluation systems
include: limited scope, complexity, low data quality, inadequate resources, weak
institutional capacity, lack of baseline surveys and lack of use. Moreover, the most
frequent criticism of monitoring and evaluation systems in IFAD projects relates to the
type of information included in the system. Most of the IFAD projects collect and process
information on the project activities. However, the average IFAD project did not provide
information on results achieved at the purpose or impact level. A USAID (2000) report,
indicates that feedback during project implementation from local project staff and the
opportunity for beneficiaries to influence appropriate revisions to project activities
contributed to the quality of monitoring information in projects. Additionally, to improve
performance information good baseline data combined with ongoing consultation with
beneficiaries provides affirm basis upon which to make judgments about appropriate and
timely interventions, and later about the achievement of major development objectives.
Baseline data and needs assessments provide the information you need against which to
assess improvements caused by project implementation and sustainability over time thus
37
in order to evaluate the impact your project has on the lives of beneficiaries, you have to
be familiar with the situation of the beneficiaries before project implementation (Hunter,
2009). Monitoring and evaluation when carried out correctly and at the right time and
place are two of the most important aspects of ensuring the success of many projects.
Unfortunately, these two although known to many project developers tend to be given
little priority and as a result, they are done simply for the sake of fulfilling the
requirements of most funding agencies without the intention of using them as a
mechanism of ensuring the success of the projects and its sustainability.

2.4 Summary and Gaps to be Filled

This chapter presented a review of relevant literature on the concept of project
sustainability and that of community participation in projects, and how community
participation in need analysis, project planning, project implementation and project
monitoring and evaluation influence sustainability of community-based projects. On need
analysis, various authors contend that community participation in need analysis
legitimizes the process of solving community problems, provides a solid foundation for
finding ways of solving the problems and reduces the chance of projects stalling at the
implementation stage, (Barasa and Jelagat, 2013 and Mulwa, 2008). On planning, various
authors agree that community participation in project planning creates a sense of
ownership of the projects as well as commitment necessary to sustain decisions taken by
community. The authors additionally agree that participation is the most effective and
inclusive way to plan a community intervention that is sustainable, (Chikati, 2009; Hague
et al., 2013; and Mulwa, 2008). On implementation, various authors contend that
community participation in project implementation makes use of local resources, skills,
knowledge, expertise and supports local capacities. This helps keep projects relevant to
the community thereby promoting sustainability of the projects, (ALNAP, 2009; African
Development Bank, ADB, 2001; and Kumar, 2002). On monitoring and evaluation,
various authors suggest that community participation in monitoring and evaluation is
critical for project sustainability as it offers the community a way to assess projects, learn
and adopt changes that are more inclusive and responsive to needs and aspirations of the
community and ensures local ownership of project outcome, (World Bank, 2010b and
Barasa and Jelagat, 2013). Other authors on the other hand suggest that community
38
participation in projects may have negative influence on sustainability of projects. This
may be due to inadequate organizational and managerial skills by the community
(Mulwa, 2004), socio-political dynamics within the community (Kumar, 2002) and
gender inequality (Bergdall, 1993).

Different studies conducted by different authors have pointed out a mixture of factors,
which tend to affect sustainability of Community Based Projects in the world. There are
numerous case studies that make similar claims, but which are based or may be limited to
a singled out for attention seem to miss the point. In accordance to Norman (2012)
Kayaga (2015); state that lack of proper mechanism of Monitoring and evaluation is one
of the factors which tend to affect sustainability. Shayo (2013); found out that one of the
reasons for project failure is community participation. Also, Hyson (2006) and Nyakundi
(2014) both explained financial factor as the cause for failure of community project to
sustain but no hints on whether the financial support was sustainable or not. The reports
did not clearly state the capacities of the project to the community population involved it
should be accompanied by many factors, among others financial strength and
sustainability, community participation, monitoring and evaluation. Therefore, this study
put an emphasis on assessing to what extent community participation affect the
sustainability, how financial management and monitoring and evaluation affect the
sustainability of community-based projects in Kenya Church of Christ.

2.5 Conceptual Framework

The study makes review on the effect of both independent and dependent variables in
CBPs sustainability of community-based projects. This study conceptualized variables
(independent and Dependent) that affect the sustainability of community-based projects.
The sustainability of community-based projects is dependent variables under this study
determined by independent variables namely, community participation, Monitoring and
Evaluation, and Financial support.

Sustainability of community-based projects is a dependent variable which depends on the

independent variables such as community involvement, financial support and monitoring
and evaluation. Therefore, this conceptual provides the summary of the study by showing

39
which factors put into consideration in assessing factors affecting sustainability of
community-based projects in Lungalunga Sub County.

The independent variables can be defined as all factors that can be controlled, subjected
to change or test; independent variables affect dependent variable either positively or
negatively (Mosby, 2009). In this study independent variables include financial support,
project monitoring and evaluation, community participation and project implementers
and controllers to mention few. The dependent variables can be defined as factors that are
measured learn the effect of one or more independent variables (Mosby, 2009). In this
study titled factors affecting sustainability of community-based projects sustainability;
the dependent variable is sustainability of community-based projects sustainability which
can be measured to determine the effect of independent variables such as financial
support, project monitoring and evaluation and community participation.

40
 Independent Variables Dependent Variable

Figure 2.1 The conceptual framework

COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
i. Community participation in project
planning
ii. Community participation in project
implementation
iii. Community participation in need
SUSTAINABILITY OF
analysis COMMUNITY BASED
PROJECTS

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT (i). Continuous availability

PRACTICES and accessibility of clean
water and sanitation services
i. Grants sustainability
ii. Self-finance scheme/infrastructure (ii). Increase in number of
water kiosks and sanitation
iii. Financial management blocks
(iii). Increase in revenue
collected from the projects

MONITORING AND EVALUATION

i. Frequency of tracking the project
ii. Two-way communication/ feedback
iii. Monitoring &Evaluation Tools

Source: Researcher, (2020)

The Figure 2.1 above shows the conceptual framework of the proposed study.

41
2.6 Variables Explanation

2.6.1 Community Participation

Community participation involves both theory and practice related to the direct
involvement of citizens or  citizen action groups potentially affected by or interested in a
decision or action. Community is conceptualized as involving a social group of any size
whose members reside in a specific locality or sharing a common heritage or set of
values, for example with a common cultural identity or with political bonds - often
referred to as community of interest. Participation is the act of engaging in and
contributing to the activities, processes, and outcomes of a group. The general tenet of
community participation holds that those who are affected by a decision.

2.6.2 Financial Management Practices

The term “financial practices” refers to the set of common methods or standard operating
procedures you develop for carrying out accounting, financial reporting, budgeting and
other activities related to business finances. Each one serves to support business policies,
establish accountability and provide step-by-step instructions for completing a task or
activity. The objective is to establish consistency and transparency in financial reporting.

2.6.3 Monitoring

Monitoring is the systematic process of collecting, analyzing and using information to

track a programme’s progress toward reaching its objectives and to guide management
decisions. Monitoring usually focuses on processes, such as when and where activities
occur, who delivers them and how many people or entities they reach. Monitoring is
conducted after a programme has begun and continues throughout the programme
implementation period.

2.6.4 Evaluation

Evaluation is the systematic assessment of an activity, project, programme, strategy,

policy, topic, theme, sector, operational area or institution’s performance. Evaluation
focuses on expected and achieved accomplishments, examining the results chain (inputs,
activities, outputs, outcomes and impacts), processes, contextual factors and causality, in
order to understand achievements or the lack of achievements. Evaluation aims at
42
determining the relevance, impact, effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability of
interventions and the contributions of the intervention to the results achieved.

CHAPTER THREE

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction
This chapter outlines the way in which the research was undertaken and, among other
things, identifies the methods used. It describes the research design, the target population,
the sample size and sampling procedure, data collection instruments, validity and
reliability of data collection instruments as well as data analysis techniques that were
used to collect data that were used in answering the research questions.

3.2 The Study Design

Research design is a scheme, outline or plan used to generate answers to research
problems, (Orodho, 2003). It aims at visualizing how the research will be undertaken, the
type of data to be collected, how it will be collected and how much it will cost the
researcher, thereby enabling the researcher to obtain relevant data from which he/she is
able to draw conclusions, (Berg, 2001). This study adopted a descriptive survey design.
Descriptive research determines and reports things as they are, therefore establishing the
current status of the population under study (Mugenda & Mugenda, 2003). Information is
collected without changing the environment, that is, nothing is manipulated. By studying
a population sample, a descriptive design provides qualitative descriptions of trends,
perceptions and attitudes of the population. According to Bryman and Bell, (2003)
descriptive study is concerned with determining the relationship between variables.
Descriptive survey design was therefore appropriate for this study since the study sought
to determine the relationship between community participation in community based
projects and sustainability of the projects without changing or manipulating the
environment or variables, and, as per Zikmund (2003), survey provided a fast,
inexpensive, efficient and accurate way of investigating the population.

43
3.3 Target Population
A population is an entire group of individuals, objects or items from which samples are
taken for measurement (Kombo and Tromp, 2006). The study was conducted in
Lungalunga sub-county in Kwale County, the study employed both probability and non-
probability sampling techniques in selecting the sample size of 2400. The study also
targeted programme officers from Kenya Church of Christ’s Healing Hands International
(HHI) the main NGO supporting of Neema water project; Kenya Church of
Christ(KCoC). According to Healing Hands International (HHI) human resource records,
the organization has 4 programme officers. The study targeted three HHI water projects
that were completed in the past 5 years from the year of this study. The total target
population for this study is shown in table 3.1 This population was targeted due to
proximity to the researcher, time available for research and budgetary constraints. Since
the study involves multiple respondents, simple random sampling technique was used to
obtain study participants. This is a probability sampling whereby all members in the
population have equal chance of being selected to form a sample (Adam and Kamuzora
2008). The use of this method gives each participant an equal and independent chance of
being selected. The technique is good when the population is made up of members of
similar characteristics, as the size.

Table 3.1 below shows the total number of target population of the proposed study.

Table 3.1: Target Population

Category of Respondents Frequency

Lungalunga Sub-county community 2400
Programme Officers 4
Total 2404
Source: Researcher, (2020)

3.4 Sampling Design

Sampling is the process of selecting units from a population of interest (Trochim, 2005).
It is the process of selecting a number of individuals for a study in such a way that
individuals selected represent the lager group from which they are selected. The main
purpose is to secure a representative group which will enable the researcher to gain
44
information about their population, (Mugenda and Mugenda, 2003). Using the Krejcie
and Morgan (1970) table for determining sample size, a sample size of 331 Lungalunga
subcounty residents was drawn from the target population of 2,400 households. The
entire population of programme officers from Healing Hands International was included
in the study since the population was small. Table 3.2 shows the total sample size.

Table 3.2: Sample Size

Category Population Sample size Percentage

Beneficiaries 2400 331 98.8
Programme Officers 4 4 1.2
Total 2404 335 100
Source: Researcher, (2020)

The table 3.1 above shows the total number of respondents of the proposed study.

3.5 Data Collection Methods and Instruments

The overall aim of the study is to establish the factors affecting sustainability of
community-based projects in Lungalunga Sub-county: a case of Neema water project;
Kenya Church of Christ. The bulk of data collected will therefore be primary in nature.
The questionnaire will be the main instrument, alongside face to face interviews. The use
of questionnaires for primary data collection has been supported by many scholars among
them; Mugenda (1999), and Peil (1995). A questionnaire is easier to administer, less
costly, and ensures greater depth of response, according to Mugenda (1999). A
questionnaire also helps capture factual information effectively. For the purpose of this
study, the questionnaire will be used for the mainly economical, and appropriateness
reasons. A pilot study shall be conducted using questionnaires to be administered to
respondents from four UN organizations. Those questions that will not be clear or are
ambiguous will be revised so as to collect the desired information.

3.5.1 Reliability
Reliability is the degree of consistency and precision in which the measuring of the
instrument demonstrates under same circumstances. Same research respondents using the
45
same instrument should generate the same results under identical conditions (Amin,
2005). Responses from 33 respondents (10% of the sample) were used for the test i n
determining reliability of the instrument to the employees of the community-based
projects in the Sub County.

3.5.2 Validity of the instruments

Validity defines the accuracy and meaningfulness of inferences drawn from study
findings, (Mugenda and Mugenda, 2003). If the instrument is valid, the results obtained
from the research will actually represent the study variables. Two types of validity were
considered: content and construct validity. According to The College Board (2016),
content validity addresses the match between test questions and the content or subject
area they are intended to assess. Construct validity on the other hand measures the degree
to which a test or other measure assesses the underlying theoretical construct it is
supposed to measure, that is, is the test measuring what it is purported to measure?
According to Borg and Gall (1999), validity of an instrument is improved through expert
judgment; as such validity of the research instrument was determined with the help of the
supervisor.

3.6 Data Analysis Methods and Procedures

According to Mugenda and Mugenda (2003), data analysis is the processing of data to
obtain answers to research questions. The purpose of descriptive statistics is to allow for
meaningful description of a distribution of scores or measurements using a few indices or
statistics. The primary data was then analyzed and presented in form of tables and
figures.

46
 CHAPTER FOUR

DATA ANALYSIS PRESENTATION AND INTERPRETATION OF FINDINGS.

4.1 Introduction
This chapter presents results and discussions from the analysis of the responses received.
Data was analyzed and summarized in line with the research objectives. The analysis
begins with a description of the demographic profile of the respondents followed by
analysis of data relating to each of the three research objectives.

The study targeted 335 respondents; 331 Lungalunga residents and 4 programme officers
from Healing Hands International. Of the 335 questionnaires distributed, 239 were filled
and returned; 235 from Lungalunga residents and 4 from programme officers from
Healing Hands International. This represents a response rate of 71.34% which is above
the 50% statistical significance, according to Mugenda and Mugenda (2003).

4.2 Presentation of Findings

4.2.1 Distribution of respondents by gender

This section presents distribution of gender information of the respondents. The study
involved both male and female respondents. The results are shown in table 4.1.

Table 4.1: Gender of the Respondents

Gender Frequency Percentage

Male 179 74.89
Female 60 25.11
Total 239 100
Source: Researcher, (2020)

Table 4.1 above shows that majority of the respondents were male; 74.89% of the
respondents from Lungalunga sub-county community. Females on the other hand
constituted 25.11% of the respondents from Lungalunga sub-county community.

47
Figure 4.1 Pie chart Gender of respondents

Percentage of respondents' gender

Female
25%

Male
75%

Male Female

Source: Researcher, (2020)

Analysis

Figure 4.1 and table 4.1 above shows that majority of the respondents were male; 74.89%
of the respondents from Lungalunga sub county. Females on the other hand constituted
25.11% of the respondents from Lungalunga residents.

Findings

From the analysis in the table 4.1 and figure 4.1 it is clear that majority of the
Lungalunga community are male at 74.89%. This shows that the community studied on
average have a higher number of male residents.

4.2.2 Distribution of respondents by age

It was also important to find the age of respondents so that to provide insight in the area
of the study and the results are indicated in the table 4.2 and figure 4.2.

48
Table 4.2: Distribution of respondents by age

Age Bracket Frequency Percentage

Below 24 years 27 5.74

25-29 years 61 25.28
30-34 years 77 40.96
35-39 years 36 7.44
40-44 years 23 17.39
Over 44 years 15 3.19
Total 239 100
Source: Researcher, (2020)

Table 4.2 above shows that majority of the respondents of the Lungalunga community are
between the ages of 30-34 years. This represents 40.96% of the total respondents. These
findings show that local community-based projects employ workers who are relatively of
young age. Due to this relatively young age bracket the community-based projects have a
potential of ensuring that sustainability of community-based projects strategies practices
such as finance management practices, monitoring and evaluation as well as community
participation when adopted will enhance the sustainability of community-based projects.

49
Figure 4.2 Distribution of respondents by age

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

0
Below 24 Years 25-29 Years 30-34 Years 35-39 Years 40-44 Years Over 44 Years

Source: Researcher, (2020)

Analysis

The table 4.2 and figure 4.2 shows that 27 respondents are below 24 years of age and
represented by 5.74%, 61 are between 25-29 years who are represented by 25.28% of the
respondents whereby 40.96% represents 77 respondents who are between 30-34 years of
age. Again, 35-39 years of age are 36 respondents represented by 7.44% with 40-44 years
aged respondents are 23 in number represented by 17.39% and lastly 15 respondents are
over 44 years represented by 3.19%.

Findings

From the analysis gathered in table 4.2 and figure 4.2, it shows that majority of the
respondents with 40% are between 30-34 years. These findings show that local
community-based projects employ workers who are relatively of young age. Due to this
relatively young age bracket the community-based projects have a potential of ensuring
that sustainability of community-based projects strategies practices such as finance

50
management practices, monitoring and evaluation as well as community participation
when adopted will enhance the sustainability of community-based projects.

4.2.3 Education Level of the Respondents

The study sought to establish the education level of respondents. The findings are
presented in table 4.3

Table 4.3: Education Level of the Respondents

Education Frequency Percentage

Certificate 157 65.7
Diploma 60 25.1
Undergraduate 22 9.2
Post graduate 0 0
Other 0 0
Total 239 100
Source: Researcher, (2020)

Table 4.3 above shows that 65.7% of the respondents from Lungalunga subcounty have
Certificates as the highest level of their education. This is followed by Diploma holders at
25.1% and finally undergraduates at 9.2%.

51
Figure 4.3 Education Level of the Respondents

Level of the respondents educaton

9.21; 9%
Certificate
Diploma
Undergraduate
25.1; 25% Postgraduate
Other

65.69; 66%

Source: Researcher, (2020)

Figure 4.3 above shows that most of the respondents from Lungalunga Sub county have
Certificates as the highest level of their education. This educational background points to
the fact that most of the respondents are properly educated and thus easily understood
the issues raised in the questionnaire concerning the area of study. It also shows that the
respondents also clearly understood the ethics of research and thus were expected to give
honest and informative responses which would add to the credibility of the final research
findings and report.

4.2.4 Number of Years as Residents of Lungalunga Sub county

The study sought to establish the number of years respondents from the community
have lived in Lungalunga Sub county. These results are summarized and presented in
table 4.4 and figure 4.4.

52
Table 4.4: Number of Years lived in the Lungalunga sub county

Stay Duration Frequency Percent

Less than 4 Years 14 5.96
5-9 Years 53 22.55
10-14 Years 97 41.28
Over 14 Years 71 30.21
Total 235 100
Source: Researcher, (2020)

Table 4.4 above shows 5.96% of the respondents have lived in Lungalunga sub-county
for less than 4 years, 22.55% between 5-9 years, 41.28% between 10-14 years while
30.21% have lived in Lungalunga for over 14 years.

The study focused on projects that were completed in the past 5 years from the year of
the study and therefore respondents who have lived in the sub county for at least five
years are more knowledgeable about the projects, this constitutes 94.04% of the
respondents.

53
Figure 4.4 Number of years respondents stayed in Lungalunga sub county

Over 14 years
30.21

10-14 years
41.28

Percentage

5-9 years
22.55

Less than 4 years

5.96

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Source: Researcher, (2020)

Figure 4.4 above, shows that the 94.04% of the residences are knowledgeable about
projects completed in the past 5 years since they have lived in Lungalunga Sub county for
the past 5 years.

Analysis

From the table 4.4 above it shows that at the time of service of the study majority of the
respondents as shown by 41.28% indicated they had lived in Lungalunga sub county for
10-14 years, 30.21% indicated over 14 years with 22.55% indicating between 5-9 years
as residents of Lungalunga sub county and 5.96% have lived in the sub county for less
than 4 years.

Findings

54
 This indicates that majority of the respondents had lived in Lungalunga for more10 years
and so gave credible information. This indicates that the respondents had adequate
information in regard to other sustainability and had also witnessed the community-based
projects growth and their sustainability for several years they had existed.

4.3 Presentation of Research Variables

4.3.1.0 To examine the role of community participation in the sustainability of

Community Based Projects in Lungalunga Sub-county: a case of Neema borehole
water project; Kenya Church of Christ.
The researcher found it necessary to get information on what extent the respondents
agreed or disagreed that community participation can affect sustainability of community-
based projects at Kenya Church of Christ. The data was presented as indicated in the
table 4.5 below.

In your opinion, to what extent does Lungalunga community participation affect

sustainability of Community-based projects in Lungalunga Subcounty: a case of Neema
borehole water project; Kenya Church of Christ. Using a scale of 1-5, where 1= No
Extent 2=Little Extent 3=Moderate Extent 4=Great Extent 5=Very Great Extent, please
indicate the extent to which you agree.

Table 4.5 role of community participation and sustainability of Community Based

Projects

Response Frequency Percent

Very great extent 145 60.7
Great extent 51 21.3
Moderate extent 12 5
Little extent 21 8.8

No extent 10 4.2
Source: Researcher, (2020)

55
Figure 4.5 role of community participation and sustainability of Community Based
Projects

No extent
4% Little extent
9%
Moderate extent
5%

Great extent
Very Great extent 21%
61%

Source: Researcher, (2020)

Analysis

In the analyzation of the responses, 4% of the respondents strongly disagree with the role
of community participation on sustainability of community based projects, 9% responds
by disagreeing with the role of community participation on sustainability of community
based projects, 5% of the respondents were neutral with 21% agreeing the role of
community participation on sustainability of community based projects and 61% strongly
agreed.

Findings

According to the analysis most of the respondents strongly agreed with the role of
community participation on sustainability of community-based projects.

56
4.3.1.1 To examine the role of community participation in the sustainability of
Community-based projects in Lungalunga Subcounty: a case of Neema borehole
water project; Kenya Church of Christ.
Below are statements on community participation effects that influence the sustainability
of community-based projects in Lungalunga Sub county- a case of Neema borehole water
project by Kenya Church of Christ? Please indicate the degree to which you agree with
the statements using the scale: Strongly Agree (5); Agree (4); Neutral (3); Disagree (2)
and Strongly Disagree (1).

Table 4.6 role of community participation in the sustainability of Community Based

Projects in Lungalunga Sub-county

Statement 1 2 3 4 5

B1 Healing Hands International involved Lungalunga 20 35 90 75 19

community in discussions about problems facing
the community and how to solve the problems

B2 The community identified and prioritized their 30 45 100 39 25

needs.

B3 The community identified the need for water and 29 65 70 35 40

sanitation projects as their highest priority

B4 The community’s ideas and contributions were 25 40 45 39 90

considered and incorporated when determining
solutions to the water and sanitation needs

B5 The community participated in meetings for 100 45 64 20 10

planning Neema borehole water project

B6 The community’s ideas and contributions were 90 50 35 44 20

incorporated in the design of Neema borehole
water project

B7 The community agreed on the proposed location 30 55 105 39 10

of the various water kiosks and sanitation blocks
57
 within the Lungalunga area

B8 The community participated in coming up with 120 50 30 20 19

the cost and budget for the project

B9 The community mobilized resources (for example 99 68 51 12 9

money, materials, labour, land etc.) towards
realization of the project

B10 The community was involved in coming up with a 109 34 40 15 41

plan for implementing Neema borehole water
project

B11 The community participated in making decisions 59 50 64 36 30

about the project

B12 Resources from the community were used to put 45 53 27 40 74

up the water kiosks, sanitation blocks and stone
lined drains

B13 The community is involved in monitoring the use 120 15 30 44 30

of funds from the project

B14 The community has received training on how to 39 5 67 73 55

operate, manage and maintain the project

Mean 65.3 43.21 56.2 37.92 33.71

5 8
Source: Researcher, (2020)

58
Figure 4.6 community participation and sustainability of Community Based
Projects

33.71; 14%
65.35; 28%

37.92; 16% Strongly disagree

Disagree
Neutral
Agree
43.21; 18% Strongly agree
56.28; 24%

Source: Researcher, (2020)

Analysis

In the analyzation of the responses, 28% of the respondents strongly disagree with the
role of community participation on sustainability of community based projects, 18%
responds by disagreeing with the role of community participation on sustainability of
community based projects, 24% of the respondents were neutral with 16% agreeing the
role of community participation on sustainability of community based projects and 14%
strongly agreed.

Findings

According to the analysis most of the respondents strongly disagree with the role of
community participation on sustainability of community-based projects.

59
4.3.2.0 To assess how financial management practices affects sustainability of
community-based projects in Lungalunga Subcounty: a case of Neema borehole
water project; Kenya Church of Christ.
The researcher found it necessary to get information on whether the respondents agreed
or disagreed that financial management practices affects sustainability of community-
based projects at Kenya Church of Christ. The data was presented as indicated in table
4.7 below.

Below are statements on financial management effects that influence the sustainability of
community-based projects in Lungalunga Sub county- a case of Neema borehole water
project by Kenya Church of Christ? Please indicate the degree to which you agree with
the statements using the scale: Strongly Agree (5); Agree (4); Neutral (3); Disagree (2)
and Strongly Disagree (1).

Table 4.7 financial management practices and sustainability of community-based

projects

Statement 1 2 3 4 5
C1 Poor Community Participation 29 80 50 55 5
C2 Financial Constraints 60 79 40 30 30
C3 Poor Monitoring and Evaluation of projects funds 9 27 33 80 90
C4 Project Implementers and Controllers 33 26 70 50 60
C5 Poor Definition of Project Objectives in terms of funds 5 34 45 100 55
management
Mean 27.2 49. 47.6 63 48
2
Source: Researcher, (2020)

The study sought to establish the extent to which financial management practices affects
the financial sustainability of community-based projects. Figure 4.7 below shows the
findings.

60
Figure 4.7 role of financial management practices and sustainability of community-
based projects

12%
20%

21% Strongly disagree

Disagree
Neutral
27% Agree
Strongly agree
20%

Source: Researcher, (2020)

Analysis

12% of responds strongly disagreed with the role of financial management practices o the
sustainability of community-based projects, 21% responds in disagreement with the role
of financial management practices on the sustainability of community-based projects with
neutral respondents being represented by 20% whereas 27% agreed and lastly 20%
strongly agreed with the role of financial management practices on the sustainability of
community-based projects.

Findings

According to the analysis most of the respondents agreed with the role of financial
management practices on the sustainability of community-based projects.

61
4.3.2.1 To assess how financial management practices affects sustainability of
community-based projects in Lungalunga Sub-county: a case of Neema borehole
water project; Kenya Church of Christ.
The researcher found it necessary to get information on whether the respondents agreed
or disagreed to what extent that financial management practices affects sustainability of
community-based projects at Kenya Church of Christ. The data was presented as
indicated in table 4.7 below

Table 4.8 Financial management practices and sustainability of community-based

projects

Response Frequency Percent

No Extent 9 3.83
Little Extent 52 22.13
Moderate Extent 20 8.51

Great Extent 70 27.18

Very Great Extent 84 55.58

Source: Researcher, (2020)

62
Figure 4.8 Financial management practices and sustainability of community-based
projects

90
84
80
70
70

60 55.58
52
50

40

30 27.18
22.13
20
20

9 8.51
10
3.83
0
No great extent Little great extentr Moderate extent Great extent Very great extent

Source: Researcher, (2020)

Analysis

When asked about the extent in which financial management practices affects
sustainability of community-based projects, 55.58% respondents from Lungalunga Sub-
county agreed to a very great extent, 27.18% agreed to a great extent, 8.51% agreed to a
moderate extent, 22.13% agreed to a little extent while 3.83% agreed to no extent with
the role of financial management practices on the sustainability of community-based
projects as shown in figure 4.7

Findings

The findings showed community perceived fund management was the possible reason for
poor sustainability of CBPs that the community has 40 limited skills in planning projects
because the respondents from the community have Certificate as their highest level of
education and were able to give credible information.

63
4.3.3.0 To assess how monitoring and evaluation affects sustainability of Community
Based Projects in Lungalunga Sub-county–Neema borehole water project; Kenya
Church of Christ.
The study sought to establish the extent to which monitoring and evaluation affects the
financial sustainability of community-based projects. Table 4.7 presents the outcome.

In your opinion, to what extent does monitoring and evaluation of Lungalunga

Subcounty-Neema borehole water project; Kenya Church of Christ influence
sustainability of the project? Using a scale of 1-5, where 1= No Extent 2=Little Extent
3=Moderate Extent 4=Great Extent 5=Very Great Extent, please indicate the extent to
which you agree with the following statement on how monitoring and evaluation affects
the sustainability of Community Based Projects.

Table 4.9 Effects of Project Monitoring and Evaluation on Sustainably of

Community Based Projects.

Response Frequency Percentage

Very Great Extent 159 66.5

Great Extent 60 25.5

Moderate Extent 5 2.0

Little Extent 8 3.1

No Extent 7 2.9

Total 239 100

Source: Researcher, (2020)

When asked about the extent to which monitoring and evaluation influence sustainability
of Neema borehole water project, 66.5% of the respondents from Lungalunga community
agreed to a very great extent, 25.5% agreed to a great extent, 2% agreed to a moderate
extent, 3.1% agreed to a little extent while 2.9% agreed to no extent. as shown in figure
4.7.

64
Figure 4.9 Effects of Project Monitoring and Evaluation on Sustainably of
Community Based Projects.

Source: Researcher, (2020)

4.3.3.1 To assess how monitoring and evaluation affects sustainability of Community

Based Projects–Neema borehole water project, Lungalunga Subcounty; Kenya
Church of Christ.
The study sought to determine the extent to which respondents agree with the statements
below on the effects monitoring and evaluation and its influence on sustainability of
community-based projects a case of in Lungalunga Sub-county–Neema borehole water
project; Kenya Church of Christ. The responses were based on a scale of 1-5 where 1
indicates strongly disagree, 2 disagree, 3 neutral, 4 agree and 5 strongly agree. The results
are presented in table 4.7 and figure 4.7.

65
Table 4.10 Monitoring and evaluation and sustainability of Community Based
Projects

Statement 1 2 3 4 5

D1 Assessment and Feasibility Study was not Conducted 26 43 55 45 70

Prior to Project Implementation.

D2 All Participants were not provided with Right Information 12 62 27 58 80

D3 Facilities for Community Education were not Distributed 50 64 45 70 10

D4 Timely Project Meetings 90 65 34 17 33

D5 There is no Transparency in Project Financial Statement 22 57 56 44 60

D6 Enough Budget was not allocated in Monitoring and 71 61 7 49 51

Evaluation

D7 Monitoring and Evaluation was not Conducted on Time 43 36 23 57 80

D8 Field Visitation by Evaluation Team 90 70 34 25 20

Mean 50.5 57.25 34. 45.6 50.5

5
Source: Researcher, (2020)

66
Figure 4.10 Effects of Project Monitoring and Evaluation on Sustainably of
Community Based Projects.

Sales

50.5; 21% 50.5; 21%

Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
45.6; 19% Strongly disagree
57.25; 24%

34.5; 14%

Source: Researcher, (2020)

Analysis

Assessment showed that majority of the respondents were not aware of the monitoring
and evaluation practices. With 21% the respondents strongly disagreed that monitoring
and evaluation influence sustainability of community-based projects, whereas 24%
disagreed as 15% were neutral to the statements while 19% agreed with the statements
presented to them by the researcher and lastly 21% strongly agreed that monitoring and
evaluation influence sustainability of community-based projects.

Findings

The study findings showed ineffectiveness of monitoring and evaluation in terms of

performance and skills. Current findings and literature studies results implies there is an
existence of ineffective monitoring and evaluation process in CBPs

67
4.4 Summary of Data Analysis
From the respondents 74.89% were male and 25.11% were female. In terms of age group
27 respondents were below 24 years of age and represented by 5.74%, 61 were between
25-29 years who were represented by 25.28% of the respondents whereby 40.96%
represents 77 respondents who were between 30-34 years of age. Again, 35-39 years of
age were 36 respondents represented by 7.44% with 40-44 years aged respondents were
23 in number represented by 17.39% and lastly 15 respondents were over 44 years
represented by 3.19%. In terms of education, the respondents the researcher found the
that 65.7% of the respondents from Lungalunga subcounty have Certificates as the
highest level of their education. This is followed by Diploma holders at 25.1% and finally
undergraduates at 9.2%. the respondents’ stay in Lungalunga sub county was found by
the researcher that 5.96% of the respondents have lived in Lungalunga sub-county for
less than 4 years, 22.55% between 5-9 years, 41.28% between 10-14 years while 30.21%
have lived in Lungalunga for over 14 years. Concerning role of community participation
in the sustainability of Community-based projects in Lungalunga Subcounty, 9%
responds by disagreeing with the role of community participation on sustainability of
community-based projects, 5% of the respondents were neutral with 21% agreeing the
role of community participation on sustainability of community-based projects and 61%
strongly agreed. On the matters of role of financial management practices 12% of
responds strongly disagreed with the role of financial management practices of the
sustainability of community-based projects, 21% responds in disagreement with the role
of financial management practices on the sustainability of community-based projects with
neutral respondents being represented by 20% whereas 27% agreed and lastly 20%
strongly agreed with the role of financial management practices on the sustainability of
community-based projects. Concerning monitoring and evaluation influence
sustainability of community-based projects, 21% the respondents strongly disagreed that
monitoring and evaluation influence sustainability of community-based projects, whereas
24% disagreed as 15% were neutral to the statements while 19% agreed with the
statements presented to them by the researcher and lastly 21% strongly agreed that
monitoring and evaluation influence sustainability of community-based projects.
68
 CHAPTER FIVE

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, DISCUSSIONS, CONCLUSION AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Introduction
This chapter presents a summary of the researcher’s major findings according to the
objectives of the study, a conclusion of the study and draws recommendations for further
research.

5.2 Summary of major Findings

This section provides a summary of the findings based on the research questions of the
study. From the respondents 74.89% were male and 25.11% were female. In terms of age
group 27 respondents were below 24 years of age and represented by 5.74%, 61 were
between 25-29 years who were represented by 25.28% of the respondents whereby
40.96% represents 77 respondents who were between 30-34 years of age. Again, 35-39
years of age were 36 respondents represented by 7.44% with 40-44 years aged
respondents were 23 in number represented by 17.39% and lastly 15 respondents were
over 44 years represented by 3.19%. In terms of education, the respondents the researcher
found the that 65.7% of the respondents from Lungalunga subcounty have Certificates as
the highest level of their education. This is followed by Diploma holders at 25.1% and
finally undergraduates at 9.2%. the respondents’ stay in Lungalunga sub county was
found by the researcher that 5.96% of the respondents have lived in Lungalunga sub-
county for less than 4 years, 22.55% between 5-9 years, 41.28% between 10-14 years
while 30.21% have lived in Lungalunga for over 14 years. Concerning role of community
participation in the sustainability of Community-based projects in Lungalunga
Subcounty, 9% responds by disagreeing with the role of community participation on
sustainability of community-based projects, 5% of the respondents were neutral with 21%
agreeing the role of community participation on sustainability of community-based
projects and 61% strongly agreed. On the matters of role of financial management
practices 12% of responds strongly disagreed with the role of financial management

69
practices of the sustainability of community-based projects, 21% responds in
disagreement with the role of financial management practices on the sustainability of
community-based projects with neutral respondents being represented by 20% whereas
27% agreed and lastly 20% strongly agreed with the role of financial management
practices on the sustainability of community-based projects. Concerning monitoring and
evaluation influence sustainability of community-based projects, 21% the respondents
strongly disagreed that monitoring and evaluation influence sustainability of community-
based projects, whereas 24% disagreed as 15% were neutral to the statements while 19%
agreed with the statements presented to them by the researcher and lastly 21% strongly
agreed that monitoring and evaluation influence sustainability of community-based
projects.

5.2.1 Local Community participation and Sustainability of CBPs

The study established that Lungalunga community participated in need analysis.
Respondents from Healing Hands International indicated that the community was
mobilized and participated in need analysis through participatory urban appraisal
workshops. This was echoed by respondents from Lungalunga who agreed with a mean
of 4.19 that the community was involved and participated in discussions about problems
facing the community and how to solve the problems. Additionally, the community
agreed with a mean of 4.37 that the community identified and prioritized their needs.
Lungalunga residents also agreed with a mean of 4.43 that the community identified the
need for water and sanitation projects as their highest priority. As to whether the
community’s ideas and contributions were considered and incorporated when
determining solutions to their water needs, respondents from Lungalunga residents
agreed with a mean of 4.00. When asked about the extent to which they agree that the
community’s participation in need analysis influence sustainability of community based
Neema Borehole Water project, of the 239 respondents from Lungalunga sub-county
residents, 60.43% agreed to a very great extent, 21.28% agreed to a great extent, 5.11%
agreed to a moderate extent, 8.94% agreed to a little extent and 4.26% agreed to no
extent. The study also established that Lungalunga Sub-county community participation
in need analysis has a significant influence on sustainability of Neema Borehole Water
project. A unit change in community participation in need analysis results in increments

70
in sustainability of the project when all other independent variables are reduced to zero.
Sustainability of projects therefore improves when there is greater community
participation in need analysis.

5.2.2 Assessment of Financial Factor and Sustainability of CBPs

The second research question sought to establish the effects of financial Management
practices on sustainability of community-based projects in Lungalunga Sub-County. The
responses of 36.8% respondents from Lungalunga Sub-county agreed to a very great
extent, that financial management had an influence on projects sustainability while 3.7%
agreed to no extent and felt that financial management practices had no influence. When
asked to give reasons, out of the 239 respondents, 178 of them suggested that
transparency in accounting, maintaining of records and managing the limited budgets in
the organizations/projects could enable them survive during times of crisis. This
represented 74.5% of the total respondents. The remaining 61 respondents thought that
proper management of financial could attract more financing thus enabling the projects to
go on with their activities for long.

5.2.3 Assessment of Monitoring and Evaluation against Sustainability of CBPs

When asked about the extent to which they agree that the community’s participation in
project monitoring and evaluation influence sustainability of community based Neema
Borehole Water project, Of the 239 respondents from Lungalunga community, 66.5%
agreed to a very great extent, 25.5% agreed to great extent, 2% agreed to a moderate
extent, 3.1% agreed to a little extent and 2.9% agreed to no extent. The study also
established that Lungalunga community project monitoring and evaluation has a
significant effect on sustainability of Neema Borehole Water. A unit change in
community participation in project monitoring and evaluation results in increments in
sustainability of the project when all other independent variables are reduced to zero.
Sustainability of projects therefore improves when there is greater project monitoring and
evaluation. Additionally, a strong positive correlation exists between project monitoring
and evaluation and sustainability of projects.

71
5.3 Discussion Key of Findings
This section of the report discusses findings of the study and makes a comparison to the
literature reviewed in chapter two.

5.3.1 Effects of Community Participation on Sustainability of Community Based

projects
The study established that Lungalunga community participated in need analysis through
participatory urban appraisal workshops and came to a consensus that their most urgent
need was access to clean water and sanitation facilities. The study also established that
community participation in community-based projects has a significant effect on
sustainability; sustainability of community projects improves when there is greater
community participation. These findings affirm the findings of Musa (2002), Barasa and
Jelagat (2013) and Mulwa (2008) that community participation improves sustainability of
community-based projects. According to Musa (2002), there ought to be genuine demand
by a community for all projects as this eliminates the tendency to abandon the projects
when they are half-way completed and sustains the interest of communities or groups
within them in maintenance and protection of those projects. Barasa and Jelagat (2013)
argue that if the community does not participate in need identification, even if the need is
identified with the assistance of the outside world, they will not legitimize it leading to a
greater chance of the project stalling at the implementation stage. According to Mulwa
(2008), community participation in need evaluation provides a solid foundation for
finding ways of solving the problem, helps to clarify the scope of the problem at hand
and the resources available and enables the community to set the objectives, goals and
how the intended development will proceed.

The study also established that the community participated in planning Neema Borehole
Water project with the guidance of programme officers from Healing Hands
International. The study also established that the community had minimal planning skills
such as coming up with project cost and budget, implementation plan, monitoring and
evaluation plan and resource mobilization. These findings agree with observations by
Mulwa (2004) that some communities have little or no organizational and managerial
skills, likely leading to mismanagement and failure of the project. The study further
established that community participation in project planning has a significant influence
72
on sustainability; sustainability of community projects improves when there is greater
community participation in project planning. These findings therefore affirm findings by
Mulwa (2008), Jain 55 and Polman (2003), and Hague et al., (2003). Mulwa (2008)
contends that for effective and sustainable development to be realized, the community,
which is the major beneficiary of the project, must participate through project
implementation committees in, project planning and other aspects such as budgeting,
resource identification, procurement and allocation of resources. According to Jain and
Polman (2003), experts are needed, but only as facilitators. Plans prepared by outside
experts, irrespective of their technical soundness, cannot inspire the people to participate
in their implementation. According to Hague et al., (2003), if people are integral to the
planning of a community intervention, then that intervention will be theirs. They have a
stake in it not only as its beneficiaries, but as its originators hence do what they can to see
their work succeed.

Again, the study established that the community participated in making decisions about
the project throughout the implementation phase and that the community was involved in
the construction of the project. The study also established that the community received
training on how to manage and maintain the project and that the community’s
participation in project implementation has a significant influence on sustainability;
sustainability of community projects improves when there is greater community
participation in project implementation. These findings affirm findings by African
Development Bank (2001) and Kumar (2002). According to the African Development
Bank (2001), the presence of the community or their elected representatives on project
steering committees or boards or other supervisory or decision-making bodies empowers
the community to play an active role in project implementation. African Development
Bank (2001) additionally contend that technical training and assistance to build the
community’s capacity for organizational and technical responsibilities during project
implementation contribute to community’s empowerment and improves chances for
project sustainability once the technical and managerial assistance is withdrawn.
According to Kumar (2002), involvement of people in project implementation and the
utilization of local resources generate a sense of ownership over the development
interventions by the local people, thereby promoting sustainability of the project.

73
5.3.4 Effects of Project Monitoring and Evaluation on Sustainably of Community
Based Projects
The study established that Lungalunga community participated in project monitoring and
evaluation and that lesson from M&E have been implemented. The study additionally
established that community participation in project monitoring and evaluation has a
significant influence on sustainability; sustainability of community projects improves
when there is greater community participation in project monitoring and evaluation.
Findings of this study therefore affirm findings by World Bank (2010a). According to
World Bank (2010a), community participation in M&E is critical in project sustainability
since it offers new ways of assessing and learning from change that are more inclusive
and more responsive to the needs and aspirations of those most directly affected.

5.4 Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of community participation on
sustainability of community-based projects. Results of the study indicate that there is a
strong positive correlation between community participation and sustainability of
community-based projects; an increase in community participation leads to an increase in
sustainability of community-based projects. Similarly, a decrease in community
participation leads to a decrease in sustainability of community-based projects. The study
also established that there is a significant relationship between community participation
and sustainability of community-based projects; when community participation is zero,
sustainability of community-based projects is negatively influenced. The study also
established that the various aspects of community participation influence sustainability of
community-based projects with different magnitudes as shown by the regression analysis.
Community participation in need analysis has the greatest influence, followed by
community participation in project implementation and then by community participation
in monitoring and evaluation. Community participation in project planning has the least
influence on sustainability of community-based projects. Overall, sustainability of
community-based projects improves with greater community participation, financial
management practices and monitoring and evaluation throughout the project cycle.

74
5.5 Recommendations
The recommendations arising out of this study include looking at the value that the
community can bring into the sustainability of CBPs. Right from project design to control
and implementation, the community can play a bigger role. The community should be
aware that any commissioned project is like a debt that needs to be re- paid through
proper management to ensure attainment of stated objectives.

The community should be involved in the earlier stages of the project cycle leading up to
monitoring and evaluation, otherwise their participation in monitoring and evaluation will
have less meaning.

Local resources, skills, expertise and knowledge in project finance management should
be used to implement community-based projects as this keeps the project relevant to the
community and improves sustainability of the projects even after the funders have
withdrawn their support.

5.6 Suggestions for Further Studies

A similar study should be done in other rural areas in different counties and sub-counties
for comparison purposes and to allow for generalization of findings. A study should be
done in urban areas of the country to establish whether participation of the rural
communities affects sustainability of community-based projects differently from
participation of the rural communities.

75
 REFFERENCES
Abebe, T. (2013). Rural Water Supply Management and Sustainability. Journal of Water
Resource and Protection, 5(1), 208-221.

Adam, J., & Kamuzora, F. (2008). Research methods for business and social studies. Morogoro:
Mzumbe Book Project,

Antonakis, J., & Dietz, J. (2011). Looking for validity or testing it? The perils of stepwise
regression, extreme-score analysis, heteroscedasticity, and measurement error.
Personality and Individual Differences, 50(3), 409-415.

Aytaçoğlu,B., & Sazak, H. S. (2017).A comparative study on the estimators of skewness and
kurtosis. Ege university journal of the faculty of science, 41(1), 1-13.

Boru, A. J. (2012). Determinants of community ownership of water projects in Kenya A Case of

central division, Isiolo County (Unpublished) dissertation, Nairobi, Kenya.

Chambers, R. (1997). Responsible well-being—A personal agenda for development. World

development, 25(11), 1743-1754.

Emmanuel, T. A., & Muili, A. B. (2008). Constraints militating against effectiveness of

community development projects in Ilesa. Journal of Geography and Regional Planning,
1(8).

Fabietti, G., & Giovannoni, E. (2014). What is Sustainability? A Review of Concept and Its
Applications.

Foddy, W. (1994). Constructing Questions for Interviews and Questionnaires: Theory and
Practice in Social Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gine, R., & Perez-Foguet, A. (2008). Sustainability Assessment of National Rural Water Supply
Program in Tanzania. United Nations Sustainable Development Journal, 32(4), 327 -
342.

Githinji, C. M. (2009). Factors Affecting Sustainability of Community Based Projects. Motomo

District of Kitui.Kenya, Kenya, Kenyatta University.

76
Githinji, C. M. (2013). Factors affecting sustainability of community-based projects a case study
of Mutomo District of Kitui County. Kenya, Kenyatta University.

Grayson, D. (2004). 'How CSR Contribute to the Competitiveness of Europe in a More

Sustainable World', Report of the world Bank Institute and the CSR Resource Centre
(Netherlands),

Häkkinen, T., & Belloni, K. (2011). Barriers and drivers for sustainable building. Building
Research & Information, 39(3), 239-255.

Haroun, A. A. S. S. O., & Adam, M. (2015). Factors affecting project sustainability beyond
donor‘s support. The case of area development scheme (ads) in umkadada locality, North
Darfur state, western Sudan.

Harrey, M., & Bradley, M. (2009). Data Collection Methods: Semi-Structured Interviews and
Focus Groups. USA: RAND Corporation.

Hartley, J. (1994). Case studies in organizational research: Qualitative methods in

organizational research, a practical guide. (C. Catherine, & S. Gillian, Eds.) London:
Sage Publications.

Harvey, P. A., & Reed, R. A. (2006). Community-managed water supplies in Africa: sustainable
or dispensable?. Community Development Journal, 42(3), 365-378.

Hox, J., & Boeije, H. (2005). Data Collection, Primary Vs. Secondary. Encyclopedia of Social
Measurement, 3(1), 593-599.

Hyson, J. J. (2006). Amalgam: Its history and perils. Journal of the California Dental
Association, 34(3), 215-229.

International project leadership academy report (2016).

INSP, (2005). Theory of Change Tool Manual, (full Version). Retrieved on 10th March 2015
from: www.insp.efc.be/toc.

Jennings, P. (2000). Participatory Development as New Paradigm: The Transition of

Development Professionalism, Prepared for the ‗‘Community Based Reintegration and
Rehabilitation in Post-Conflict Settings ‘‘Conference Washington D.C, USA.

77
Jones, J., & Brandis, C. (2008). Social Housing Management. New York: Sage Publications Inc

Joppe, M. (2000). The Research Process. Retrieved August 14, 2017, from
http://www.htm.uoguelph.ca/MJResearch/ResearchProcess/Validity.htm.

Kamau, J. (2014) Social services on wheels: A sustainable model to improve access in unreached
communities. In IST-Africa Conference Proceedings, IEEE.

Kayaga, N. S. (2015). The Role of Monitoring and Evaluation in Improving Sustainability of

Water Projects. Mzumbe University: Morogoro.

Kayaga, N. S. (2015). The role of Monitoring and Evaluation in improving Sustainability of

water projects: A Case Study of Water Projects in Bagamoyo district, Pwani Region
(Doctoral dissertation, The Open University Of Tanzania).

Keith, T. (2006). Multiple regression and beyond. PEARSON Allyn & Bacon.

Khalily, M. B. (2000). Efficiency and sustainability of formal and quasi-formal microfinance

programmes—an analysis of Grameen Bank and ASA. The Bangladesh Development
Studies, 103-146.

Kiama, H. (2016). May, 5. Tanzania Daily News: Bagamoyo ; Msoga irrigation fail Bagamoyo,
Tanzania.

Kimberlin, C. L., & Winetrstein, A. G. (2008). Validity and reliability of measurement

instruments used in research. American Journal of Health System Pharmacy, 65(23).

Kothari, C. R. (2008). Research methodology. New Delhi: New Age International (P) Limited
Publishers.

Kumar, R. (2004). eChoupals: A study on the financial sustainability of village internet centers
in rural Madhya Pradesh. Information Technologies & International Development, 2(1),
45–54.

Lachapelle, S. (2008). Cancer Control: A Comparison for Progress. London: Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Lazarsfeld, P. (1994). The controversy over detailed interviews - an offer for negotiation. Public
Opinion Quarterly, 8(1), 38-60.

78
Longenecker, J. G. 2006). Small Business Management, an Entrepreneurial Emphasis. London:
Thomson South Western

Machira, W., & Nizam, R. (2015). Integrating social Accountability in Healthcare Delivery :
Lessons Drawn from Kenya. Washington D.C.: World Bank Group.

Mazibuko, J. (2007). Enhancing Project Sustainability Beyond Donor Support. An Analysis of

Grassroot Democratization as a Possible Alternative Development Studies. A paper from
the University of South Africa. Durban, South Africa.

Mdendemi, P. P. (2013). Community participation for sustainability of rural water schemes: a

case of chamavita water schemes in Lushoto district (Doctoral dissertation, Mzumbe
University), Morogoro, Tanzania.

Microsoft Corporation, (2008). Microsoft Encarta dictionary 1993 - 2007. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

Mkutu, A. (2011). The Role of Community Based Organizations in the Development of Rural: A
Case Study of Community Based Organizations in Kiogoro Division, Kisii County. St.
Paul's University, Nairobi, Kenya.

Mosby, B. (2009). Mosby's Medcal Dictionary. New York: Elsevier.

Mrema, I. G. (2016). Assessing the Role of Microfinance on Women Empowerment: A Case of

Pride (T) –Shinyanga. Dar es Salaam: Unpublished Dissertation Submitted to Open
University of Tanzania. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.

Muiga, M. J. (2015). Factors influencing the use of monitoring and evaluation systems of public
projects in Nakuru county (Unpublished) doctoral dissertation, school of continuing and
distance education, university of Nairobi.

MUTONGA, B. K. (2015). Factors Influencing Sustainability of Donor Funded Community

Water Projects: a Case of Kitui Central Constituency, Kitui County, Kenya
(Unpublished) thesis, Nairobi, Kenya.

Mwangangi, P. M., & Wanyoike (2016). A Report of D. M. Analysis of Factors Affecting

Sustainability of Community Borehole Water Projects in Kyuso, Kitui County, Kenya.
Mwangi, K. F., & Daniel, W. (2012). Assessment of Factors Affecting Sustainability of
79
 Rural Water Supply Schemes in Nyandarua County, Kenya: International Journal of
Science and Research, 3(8), 578-584.

National Building Specification (NBS), National BIM Report (2012). Report of National BIM,
Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.

Ngonyani, Z. A. (2013). Factors influencing sustainability of micro-projects under the district

agricultural development plans (DADPS): a case study of Songea District, Ruvuma
Region, Tanzania (Unpublished) Doctoral dissertation, Sokoine University of
Agriculture, Morogoro, Tanzania.

Ngonyani, Z. A. (2013). Factors influencing sustainability of micro-projects under the district

agricultural development plans (DADPS): a case study of Songea District, Ruvuma
Region, Tanzania (Doctoral dissertation, Sokoine University of Agriculture. Morogoro,
Tanzania

Nkongo, D., & Tanzania, W. (2009). Management and regulation for sustainable water supply
schemes in rural communities. A Report of WaterAid Tanzania,

Norman, N. D. (2012). The Reasons for Failure of Community; Folovhodwe, Limpopo; Pretoria:
University of South Africa.

Nwankwoala, H. O. (2011). Coastal aquifers of Nigeria: an overview of its management and

sustainability considerations. International technology in environmental sanitation 1(4),
1-3.

Nyakundi, A. A. (2014). ‘Factors influencing implementation of monitoring and evaluation

processes on donor funded projects; A case of Gruppo per Le Relazioni Transculturali-
GRT project in Nairobi, (Unpublished) thesis Nairobi, Kenya.

Nyamu, D. M. (2015). Factors influencing sustainability of community-based projects in Kitui

County, (Unpublished) dissertation Nairobi, Kenya.

Ochelle, O. G. (2012). Factors influencing sustainability of community water Projects in Kenya:

A case of water projects in Mulala Division, Makueni County. (Unpublished) thesis
University of Nairobi, Kenya.

80
Oino, P. (2015). The Dillema of Sustainability of Community Based Projects . Global Journal of
Advanced Research: 3(1), 32 – 41.

Oketch, M. A. (2006). The potential role of constructed wetlands in protection and sustainable
management of lake catchments in Kenya.

Onkoba, L. (2016). Determinants of Sustainability of Community Based Projects in Kenya; The

Case of Carolina of Kibera Projects. University of Nairobi. Kenya.

Opler, T. C. & Titman, S., (1994). Financial distress and corporate performance. The Journal of
Finance 49 (3), 1015–1040.

Osborne, J., & Waters, E. (2002). Four assumptions of multiple regression that researchers
should always test. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 8(2). 34 – 52.

Persoon, L. (2016). Factor Influencing Sustainability of Community Based Programs: Mixed

Method Study. Washington, DC: Sage Publications.

Random House Dictionary. (2016). Definitions: Study Area. Retrieved August 2016, from
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/area-study.

Reed, B. (2007). Shifting from sustainability to regeneration. Building Research & Information,
35(6), 674-680.

Rwegoshora, M. H. (2014). A Guide to Social Science Research. Dar es Salaam: Mkuki na Nyota
Publishers.

Samuel, R. (Ed.). (2016). People's History and Socialist Theory (Routledge Revivals). London:
Routledge.

Sedgwick, P. (2012). Pearson‘s correlation coefficient. New York: Sage Publications Inc.

Shaugh N. B. (2000). Physicians’ Desk Reference (PDR) for Herbal Medicine. New Jersey:
Medical Economics Company.

Shayo, D. (2013). Community Participation and Sustainability of National Water Projects. Dar
es Salaam: Dar es Salaam University Press.

Stevens, J. P. (2009). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (5th ed.). New York:
Routledge.
81
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (2014). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for
Developing Grounded Theory (4th ed.). Washington, DC: SAGE Publications Inc.

Tafara, A. (2013). Factors influencing sustainability of Rural Community Based Water Projects
in Mtito Andei, A report of Kibwezi Sub-County. Kabwezi, Kenya.

Tafara, A. C., (2013). Factors influencing Sustainability of Rural Community Based Water
Projects in Mtito Andei, A paper prepared by Kibwezi Sub-County, University of
Nairobi, Kenya.

Tewksbury, J. (2009). Natural History: The basis for ecological understanding and the global
sustainable society (Organized Oral Session at the Ecological Society of America Annual
Meeting). Ecological Society of America Annual Meeting (Organized Oral Session),
Lagos, Nigeria.

Tifow, A. (2013). Factors Influencing Sustainability of Rural Water Supplies in Kenya.

(Unpublished) dissertation, University of Nairobi, Kenya.

Umugwaneza, A. (2016). Role of monitoring and evaluation on project sustainability in Rwanda.

European journal of business and social sciences, 5(07), 159-177.

UN-HABITAT, (2009). Tanzania: Bagamoyo Urban Sector Profile. Nairobi: United nations
Human Settlements Programme.

UNHCR, (2016). Protection and Building Resilience & UNHCR's Executive Committee
Conclusion on Children at Risk. Retrieved April 19th, 2016, from UNHCR - The UN
Refugee Agency: http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49c3646c 1e8.html.

UNHCR, (2008). Building Resilience: a Human Rights Framework for World Food and
Nutrition Security. Retrieved on 16th September 2008 from: http://www.
unhcr.org/refworld/docid/48cf71dd2.html.

Wanjohi, A. M. (2012). Sampling Procedures. Retrieved June 14th, 2016, from KENPRO:
Kenya Projects Organizations: http://www.kenpro.org/.

WCED, (1987). Our Common Future. World Commission and Environment Development.

Webster, J. (1985). Introduction to research in England and Wales. Lonond: J Webster.

82
Wema, C. F. (2010). Women participation in project planning and implementation, A report of
Rufiji district – Rufiji, Tanzania.

Whitehead, S. (2002). Community Based Interventions and Types. Department of Anthropology:

(Unpublished) PhD thesis University of Maryland. USA.

Wikimeda Foundation. (2017, December 24th). Linear Regression. Retrieved January 15th,
2018, from Wikipedia: Free Encyclopedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Linear_regression#Interpretation.

World Bank, (1993), ―International trade and the environment, World Bank Policy Research
Bulletin, 4(1), l-6.

Yeasmin, S., & Rahman, K. (2012). Triangulation' Research Method as the Tool of Social
Science Research. BUP Journal, 1(1), 154 -163.

Asian Development Bank. (2010). Special evaluation study on post-completion sustainability of

Asian Development Bank assisted projects. Independent Evaluation Department.
Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/derec/adb/47186868.pdf on February 22, 2016

African Development Bank. (2001). Handbook on stakeholder Consultation and participation In

ADB operations.

ALNAP. (2009). Participation handbook for humanitarian field workers - Involving crisis
Affected people in a humanitarian response. Retrieved from
http://www.urd.org/Participation-Handbook on March 11, 2016

Aras, G., and Crowther, D., (2008). Governance and sustainability: An investigation into the
Relationship between corporate Governance and corporate sustainability, Management
Decision, 46 (3):433-448.

Bajpai, N. (2010). Business Statistics. Pearson Education India

Bamberger, M., and Cheema, S. (1990). Case studies of project sustainability: Implications for
Policy and Operations from Asian experience. Economic Development Institute (EDI)
seminar series, World Bank Institute (WBI). Retrieved from
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/1990/10/440682/case-studies
projectsustainability-implications-policy-operations-asian-experience on March 20, 2016
83
Barasa, F., and Jelagat, T. (2013). Community Participation in Project Planning, Management
and Implementation: Building the Foundation for Sustainable Development. International
Journal of Current Research Vol. 5, Issue, 02, pp.398-401.

Barron, A. and Barron, M. (2013). Project Management. Connexions, Rice University

Bass, S., Clayton, B.D., and Pretty, J. (1995). Participation in Strategies for Sustainable
Development. Environmental Planning Issues No. 7, International Institute for
Environment and Development.

Berg, B. L. (2001). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Boston: Allyn and
Bacon.

Bergdall, T. D (1993). Methods for Active Participation Experiences in Rural Development in

East and Central Africa.: Oxford University Press East Africa, Nairobi p. 7-8

Borg, W. and Gall, M. (1999). Educational Research: An Introduction. (4th ed.). New York;
Longman

Bryman, A. and Bell, E. (2003). Business research methods. Oxford University Press.

Casley, D.J., and Lury, D.A. (1982). Monitoring and Evaluation of Agriculture and Rural
Development Projects. Baltimore: World Bank – Johns Hopkins University Press.

Cheetham, N., (2002). Community participation: What is it? Transitions, 14(3): 4

Chikati, J. (2009). Participatory Project Identification and Planning, A Regional Partnership for
Resource Development publication, Signal Press Ltd, IFDM Gardens off Ngong Road
Nairobi

Cornell Empowerment Group. (1989). Empowerment and family support. Networking Bulletin.
1(2), 1-23.

Dudley, E. (1993). The critical villager: Beyond community participation. London & New York:
Routledge.

Easterly, W. (2006). The White Man's Burden: Why the West's Efforts to Aid the Rest Have Done
So Much Ill and So Little Good.

Gee, W. (1994). Social Science Research Method. Virginia: University Press

84
Hague, C., Kirk, K., Higgins, M., Prior, A., Jenkins, P., Smith, H., ... & Grimes, W. (2003).
Participatory planning for sustainable communities. Research report to the Office ofThe
Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM). ODPM, London. Retrieved from
http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm_planning/documents/page/odpm_plan_02
3784.Hcsp on March 22, 2016

Hodgkin, J. (1994). The Sustainability of Donor-Assisted Rural Water Supply Projects.

Washington, D.C. United States Agency for International Development. WASHTechnical
Report No. 94.

IFAD, (2007j). IFAD Strategic Framework 2007-2010. Rome. Sustainability of rural

Development projects

IIED, (1994): Whose Eden? An Overview of Community Approaches to Wildlife Management.

International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), London.

Ingle, B. (2005). Ensuring Sustained Beneficial Outcomes for Water and Sanitation Programmes
in the Developing World. IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre Occasional
Paper Series, Delft,

NL. International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. (2011).
Project/programme Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) guide. Retrieved from
http://www.ifrc.org/Global/Publications/monitoring/IFRC-ME-Guide-8-2011.pdf on
March 3, 2016.

Isham, J., and Kahkonen, S. (2002). Institutional determinants of impact of community-based

water services: Evidence from Sri Lanka and India. Middlebury College Economics
Discussion Paper No. 02–20. Middlebury, Vt.: Middlebury College, Department of
Economics.

Isham, J., and Kahkonen, S. (1999). What Determines the Effectiveness of Community-Based
Water Projects? Evidence from Central Java, Indonesia on Demand Responsiveness,
Service Rules, and Social Capital. Social Capital Initiative Working Paper No. 14, the
World Bank

85
Isham, J., Narayan, D., and Pritchett, L. (1996). “Does Participation Improve Performance?
Establishing Causality with Subjective Data.” World Bank Economic Review, 9, 175–
200

Jain, S.P., and Polman, W. (2003). A handbook for trainers on participatory local development

Kairu, E. (2011). Kiambiu Water and Sanitation (KIWESA) slum project, Nairobi, Kenya.
Nairobi: Maji na Ufanisi. Retrieved from
http://www.sswm.info/sites/default/files/reference_attachments/KAIRU%20ny%20Kiam
biu%20Water%20and%20Sanitation%20KIWESA%20Slum%20Project%20Nairobi%20
Kenya.pdf on February 20, 2016.

Katz, T., and Sara, J. (1997). Making rural water supply sustainable: Recommendations from a
global study. Retrieved from http://www.wsp.org/UserFiles/file/global_ruralstudy.pdf on
February 20, 2016

Khan, M.A. (2000). Planning for and monitoring of project sustainability: a guideline on
concepts, issues and tools. Retrieved from http//: www.sltnet.lk

Khwaja, A. I. (2004). Is increasing community Participation always a good Thing? Journal of the
European Economic Association April–May 2004 2(2–3):427– 436

Khwaja, A. I. (2003a). “Can Good Projects Succeed in Bad Communities? The Determinants of
Collective Success in Maintaining Local Public Goods.” KSG Working Paper RWP01-
043

Kombo, D.K. and Tromp, D.L.A. (2006). Proposal and thesis writing. Nairobi: Pauline
Publications Africa.

Kumar, S. (2002). Methods for Community Participation: A Complete Guide for Practitioners,
Vistar Publications, New Delhi India p. 23

Krejcie, R.V. and Morgan, D.W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities.
Educational and Psychological Measurements, 30, 607-610.

Lefevre, P., Kolsteren, P., De Wael, M., Byekwaso, F., and Beghin, I. (2000). Comprehensive
Participatory Planning and Evaluation

86
Luvega, C., Kirui, K., Oino, P., and Towett, G. (2015). The dilemma in sustainability of
Community based projects in Kenya. Global Journal of advanced research Vol-2, Issue-
4 PP. 757-768

Malhotra, N. K. (2004). Marketing Research: An applied orientation (4th edition). Upper Saddle
River: Prentice Hall

Mansuri, G., and Rao, V. (2003). “Evaluating Community-Based and Community-Driven

Development: A Critical Review of the Evidence.” Working paper, Development
Research Group, World Bank

Mausuri, G., and Rao, V. (2004). “Community based and Driven Development: A critical
Review.” The World Bank Research Observer, 19(1): 6, 31

McConville, J.R., and Mihelcic, J.R. (2007). Adapting life cycle thinking tools to evaluate
project sustainability in international water and sanitation development work.
Environmental Engineering Science, 24(7):937-948.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. A. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook
2nd edition. Beverley Hills, Sage

Mugenda, M., and Mugenda, G. A. (2003). Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative
Approach. Nairobi: Laba Graphics Services

Mulwa, F. (2008). Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation of Community projects, Paulines

Publications Africa, Nairobi, Kenya

Mulwa, F. (2004). Managing Community-Based Development: Unmasking the Mastery of

Participatory Development, PREMESE Olivex Publishers, Nairobi

Musa, S. (2002). Feeder Roads and Food Security in Balancing the Load: Women, Gender and
Transport. UK: Zed Books Ltd., Pp. 79-94

Narayan, D. (1995). The Contribution of People’s Participation: Evidence from 121 Rural Water
Supply Projects. ESD Occasional Paper Series 1. World Bank

Narayan, D. (1993). Focus on Participation: Evidence from 121 Rural Water Supply Projects.
UNDP-World Bank Water Supply and Sanitation Program, World Bank, Washington DC

87
Newman, J., Pradhan, M., Rawlings, L., Ridder, G., Coa, R. and Evia, J. (2002). An impact
Evaluation of Education, Health, and Water supply investment by the Bolivian Social
Investment Fund. The World Bank Economic Review 16(2): 241–274

Nici, N. and Susan, W. (1997). Power and Participatory Development: Theory and Practice,
Intermediate Technology Publications, 103/105 Southampton Row, London WCIB 4HH,
UK p. 2-5

Oakley, P. (1991a). Projects with people: The practice of participation in rural development.
Geneva: International Labour Organization

Okafor, C. (2005). Community Driven Development: Concepts and Procedure. Paper delivered
at the LEEMP workshop in Kainji National Park, New Bussa

Olukotun, G. (2008). Achieving Project Sustainability Through Community Participation

Orodho, A. (2003). Elements of Education and Social Sciences: Research Methods. Gaborone,
Botswana: Mozila Publications

Ostrom, T.K. (2010). Considering sustainability factors in the development Project lifecycle: A
framework for increasing successful adoption of improved Stoves

Owen, L. (2002). Introduction to Survey Research Design. SRL Fall 2002 Seminar Series.
Retrieved March 29, 2016, from http:// www. srl. uic. edu/ seminars/Intro

Perkins, D. D., & Zimmerman, M. A. (1995). Empowerment theory, research, and application.
American journal of community psychology, 23(5), 569-579.

Philip, R., Anton, B., Bonjean, M., Bromley, J., Cox, D., Smits, S., Sullivan, C. A., Niekerk, K.
V., Chonguica, E., Monggae, F., Nyagwambo, L., Pule, R., Berraondo, L.M. (2008).
Local Government and Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) Part III:
Engaging in IWRM – Practical Steps and Tools for Local Governments. Freiburg: ICLEI
European Secretariat GmbH

Rabinowitz, P. (2015). Participatory Approaches to Planning Community Interventions.

Retrieved from
http://ctb.ku.edu/en/table-of-contents/analyze/where-tostart/participatoryapproaches/main
on March 3, 2016
88
Rappaport, J. (1987). Terms of empowerment/exemplars of prevention: Toward a theory for
community psychology. American Journal of Community Psychology, 15, 121-148

Rappaport, J. (1984). Studies in empowerment: Introduction to the issue. Prevention in Human

Sen•ices, 3, 1-7

Rappaport, J. (1981). In praise of paradox: A social policy of empowerment over prevention.

American Journal of Community Psychology, 9, 1-25

Regional Partnership for Resource Development. (2009). People’s Participation in Development,

Signal Printers, Nairobi

Reviere, R., Berkowitz, S., Carter, C.C., and Gergusan, C.G. (1996). Needs Assessment: A
Creative and Practical Guide for Social Scientists. Taylor and Francis: Washington, DC.

Sera, Y., and Beaudry, S. (2007). Monitoring & Evaluation: Tips for strengthening.
Organizational Capacity. World Bank small grants program

Shapiro, J. (2002). CIVICUS Toolkit for Monitoring & Evaluation. Retrieved from
http://www.civicus.org/new/media/Monitoring%20and%20Evaluation.pdf on March 11,
2016

Slum Dwellers International (2011). An Inventory of the Slums in Nairobi. Retrieved from
http://sdinet.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Nairobi_slum_inventory_jan_09.pdf on
May 8, 2016

Swift, C., and Levin, G. (1987). Empowerment: An emerging Mental Health Technology.
Journal of Primary Prevention, 8, 71-94

TANGO International. (2009). Sustainability of rural development projects: Best practices and
lessons learned by IFAD in Asia. Asia: The International Fund for Agricultural
Development (IFAD)

TANGO International. (2008a). IFAD – Design framework and supporting programmes on

sustainability. Desk review. Tucson, AR

TANGO International. (2008b). North Eastern Region Community Resource Management

Project for Upland Areas (NERCORMP): India case study report. Tucson, AR

89
TANGO International. (2008c). Oudomxai Community Initiatives Support Project: Laos case
study report. Tucson, AR

TANGO International. (2008d). Northern Mindanao Community Initiatives and Resource

Management Project and Cordillera Highland Agricultural Resource Management
Project: Philippines case study report. Tucson, AR

The College Board. (2016). Validity Evidence. Retrieved from

http://research.collegeboard.org/services/aces/validity/handbook/evidence on May 2,
2016

Titcomb, A., L. (2000). ICYF Evaluation Concept Sheet. Retrieved March 5, 2016 from
https://extension.arizona.edu/evaluation/sites/extension.arizona.edu.evaluation/files/d
ocs/ needs.pdf

Titi, V., and Singh, N. (2001). Empowerment: Towards Sustainable Development. Fernwood
Publishing and Zed Books

Trochim, W.M.K., (2005). Research Methods: The Concise Knowledge Base. Atomic Dog
Publications

United Nations. (2002). Report of the World Summit on Sustainable Development, Johannesburg,
South Africa, 26 August-4 September 2002. New York, NY. United Nations. Retrieved
from <http://www.johannesburgsummit.org in 2016, Mach 1

United Nations Development Programme. (2002). Hand book on monitoring and Evaluating for
results. New York, NY 10017, USA

Witkin, B., R. and Altschuld, J., W. (1995). Planning and Conducting Needs Assessments:
APractical Guide. Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA

World Bank. (2010a). Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation, in Topics: Community Driven
Development. Washington D.C. Retrieved from
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTSOCIALDEVELOP
MENT/EXTPCENG/0,,contentMDK:20509352~menuPK:1278203~pagePK:148956 ~
piP K:2 16618~theSitePK:410306,00.html on March 11, 2016

90
World Bank. (2010b). Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation, in Topics: Community Driven
Development. Washington D.C. Retrieved from
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTSOCIALDEVELOP
MENT/EXTCDD/0,,contentMDK:20598943~menuPK:608227~pagePK:148956~ piP
K:216618~theSitePK:430161,00.html on March 11, 2016

World Bank. (1991) World Development Report. New York: Oxford University Press

Zikmund, W. G. (2003). Business Research Methods (7th ed.). Cincinnati, OHIO, U.S.A:
Thomson/South-Western

Zimmerman, M. A., Israel, B.A., Schulz, A., and Checkoway, B. (1992). Further explorations in
empowerment theory: An empirical analysis of psychological empowerment. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 20, 707-727.

91
 APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1: Authorization Letter

Augustus M. Kimanzi

Kenya Institute of Management

P.O. Box 43706, 00100

Nairobi, Kenya.

Dear respondent,

RE: FACTORS AFFECTING SUSTAINABILITY OF COMMUNITY-BASED

PROJECTS: A CASE OF NEEMA WATER PROJECT - KENYA CHURCH OF
CHRIST.

I am a Diploma student in the School of Business Management at Kenya Institute of

Management carrying out research on factors affecting sustainability of community-
based projects, with a case study of Neema Water Project by Kenya Church of Christ in
Lungalunga Sub-county, Kwale County. The purpose of this letter is therefore to kindly
request your voluntary participation in this study by filling the attached questionnaire.
The information gathered shall be treated confidentially and shall be used for this
research only.

Kindly sign this form if you agree to participate in this study.

Sign ………………..............................Date…………………………

Yours sincerely,

Augustus Kimanzi

KIM/49074/18

92
 APPENDIX 2: QUESTIONNAIRE ADMINISTERED TO LUNGALUNGA SUB-
COUNTY COMMUNITY
Instructions:

Please complete this questionnaire as honestly as possible. Tick your options in the
appropriate box. The responses you give will be treated with utmost confidentiality.

SECTION A: Respondents Profile

Questionnaire Number: ………………………… Date: …………………………

Name of Location: ………………………

1. Gender: (a) Male [ ] (b) Female [ ]

2. Age: (a) Below 24 Years [ ] (b) 25-29 Years [ ] (c) 30-34 Years [ ]

(d) 35-39 Years [ ] (e) 40-44 Years (f) Over 44 Years

3. What is your education level (state the highest level)?

(a) Certificate [ ] (b) Diploma [ ] (c) Undergraduate [ ] (d).

Postgraduate [ ] (e) Others (Specify)……………………………………………

4. How many years have you been a resident of Lungalunga Sub county?

(a) Less than 4 years [ ] (b) 5-9 years [ ] (c) 10-14 years [ ] (d) Over 14 years
[ ]

1.0 To examine the role of community participation in the sustainability of

Community-based projects in Lungalunga Subcounty: a case of Neema borehole
water project; Kenya Church of Christ.

Response Level of Agreement

Very great extent
Great extent
Moderate extent
Little extent
No extent

93
5. Below are statements on participation of your community in the effects that influence
the sustainability of community-based projects in Lungalunga Sub county- a case of
Neema borehole water project by Kenya Church of Christ? Please indicate the degree to
which you agree with the statements using the scale: Strongly Agree (5); Agree (4);
Neutral (3); Disagree (2) and Strongly Disagree (1).

Statement 1 2 3 4 5

B1 Healing Hands International involved Lungalunga

community in discussions about problems facing the
community and how to solve the problems

B2 The community identified and prioritized their needs.

B3 The community identified the need for water and sanitation

projects as their highest priority

B4 The community’s ideas and contributions were considered

and incorporated when determining solutions to the water
and sanitation needs

B5 The community participated in meetings for planning Neema

borehole water project

B6 The community’s ideas and contributions were incorporated

in the design of Neema borehole water project

B7 The community agreed on the proposed location of the

various water kiosks and sanitation blocks within the
Lungalunga area

B8 The community participated in coming up with the cost and

budget for the project

B9 The community mobilized resources (for example money,

materials, labour, land etc.) towards realization of the project

B10 The community was involved in coming up with a plan for

94
 implementing Neema borehole water project

B11 The community participated in making decisions about the

project

B12 Resources from the community were used to put up the

water kiosks, sanitation blocks and stone lined drains

B13 The community is involved in monitoring the use of funds

from the project

B14 The community has received training on how to operate,

manage and maintain the project

1.1 To examine the role of community participation in the sustainability of

Community-based projects in Lungalunga Subcounty: a case of Neema borehole
water project; Kenya Church of Christ.

6. In your opinion, to what extent does participation of Lungalunga community

participation in the sustainability of Community-based projects in Lungalunga
Subcounty: a case of Neema borehole water project; Kenya Church of Christ. Using a
scale of 1-5, where 1= No Extent 2=Little Extent 3=Moderate Extent 4=Great Extent
5=Very Great Extent, please indicate the extent to which you agree.

Response Level Of Agreement

Very great extent
Great extent
Moderate extent
Little extent
No extent

2.0 To assess how financial management practices affects sustainability of

community-based projects in Lungalunga Subcounty: a case of Neema borehole
water project; Kenya Church of Christ.
95
7. Below are statements on financial management effects that influence the sustainability
of community-based projects in Lungalunga Sub county- a case of Neema borehole water
project by Kenya Church of Christ? Please indicate the degree to which you agree with
the statements using the scale: Strongly Agree (5); Agree (4); Neutral (3); Disagree (2)
and Strongly Disagree (1).

Statement 1 2 3 4 5
C1 Poor Community Participation
C2 Financial Constraints
C3 Poor Monitoring and Evaluation of projects funds
C4 Project Implementers and Controllers
C5 Poor Definition of Project Objectives in terms of funds
management

2.1 To assess how financial management affects sustainability of community-based

projects in Lungalunga Subcounty: a case of Neema borehole water project; Kenya
Church of Christ.

8. In your opinion, to what extent does financial management affect the sustainability of
Community-based projects in Lungalunga Sub county: a case of Neema borehole water
project; Kenya Church of Christ. Using a scale of 1-5, where 1= No Extent 2=Little
Extent 3=Moderate Extent 4=Great Extent 5=Very Great Extent, please indicate the
extent to which you agree.

Response Level of Agreement

No Extent
Little Extent

96
Moderate Extent
Great Extent
Very Great Extent

3.0 To assess how monitoring and evaluation affects sustainability of Community

Based Projects in Lungalunga Subcounty–Neema borehole water project; Kenya
Church of Christ.

9. Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements about your
community’s participation in monitoring and evaluation of Community Based Projects in
Lungalunga Subcounty–Neema borehole water project; Kenya Church of Christ. Please
use the scale: Strongly Agree (5); Agree (4); Neutral (3); Disagree (2) and Strongly
Disagree (1)

Statement 1 2 3 4 5

D1 Assessment and Feasibility Study was not Conducted Prior to

Project Implementation.

D2 All Participants were not provided with Right Information

D3 Facilities for Community Education were not Distributed

D4 Timely Project Meetings

D5 There is no Transparency in Project Financial Statement

D6 Enough Budget was not allocated in Monitoring and Allocation

D7 Monitoring and Evaluation was not Conducted on Time

D8 Field Visitation by Evaluation Team

D9 I Don't Know

3.1 To assess how monitoring and evaluation affects sustainability of Community

Based Projects–Neema borehole water project, Lungalunga Subcounty; Kenya
Church of Christ.

97
10. In your opinion, to what extent does monitoring and evaluation of Lungalunga
Subcounty-Neema borehole water project; Kenya Church of Christ influence
sustainability of the project? Using a scale of 1-5, where 1= No Extent 2=Little Extent
3=Moderate Extent 4=Great Extent 5=Very Great Extent, please indicate the extent to
which you agree with the following statement on how monitoring and evaluation affects
the sustainability of Community Based Projects.

Response Level of Agreement

No Extent
Little Extent
Moderate Extent
Great Extent
Very Great Extent

APPENDIX 4: WORK PLAN AND TIME BUDGET

98
No. Date Activity

1. November, 2019 Choosing of the study title under the guidance

of my supervising lecturer.

2. December, 19th 2019 Formulated my specific objectives and

research questions.

3. January, 20th – May, 15th 2020 Project writing.

4. June, 21st – July, 7th 2020 Field work (Data collection).

5. July, 10th – August, 21st 2020 Data analysis and editing report writing.

6. September, 2nd – September, Finalize report, prepare and submit required

16th 2020 copies of report to the institution.

7. October, 28th 2020 Project defense before the Kenya Institute of

Management Senate

99
APPENDIX 5: CASH BUDGET

No Description Amount (Ksh)

1 Data Collection/Transport expenses 20,000.00

2 Data Analysis 15,000.00

3 Stationery and printing

1. 4 reams of Printing papers @ Ksh 530 2,120

2. 100 Pens @ Ksh 20 2,000

3. 350 envelops @ Ksh 10 3,500

4. Printing/Binding 15,000

4 Miscellaneous 3,500

5 TOTAL 61,120

100
THANK YOU.

101
102